Why Historians Date the Revelation to the Reign of Domitian

[Biblewriter]

That is a lie. You're latest excuse was unfulfilled OT verses as to why you want to ignore the facts to which I told you I could rightly interpret any.



Another lie. There's more evidence supporting the facts than your assumption of it having to be future just because of Rev 17:12's account of the ten kings.



Only according to you. You don't even have a fundamental argument for a future event that could be credible other than it must be future because nothings literal enough for you to comprehend.


Spare me the details.

BW,

I know where you got your "exact fulfillment" ideas, and it is not the NT. Not a chance. David's fallen tent raised up is the believers from the other nations of Acts 15 (Amos 9). That (Acts 15) is pure interpretation, not me.

Thank you, Precepts, for your frank admission that you are not even interested in the details of scripture. And you are entirely mistaken, Interplanner.

I concentrate on the details because Isaiah 34:16 says, "Search from the book of the LORD, and read: Not one of these shall fail; Not one shall lack her mate. For My mouth has commanded it, and His Spirit has gathered them." (Isaiah 34:16)


And because Jesus said "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled." (Matthew 5:18)

So Jesus explicitly said that in the word of God, not only was every word important, but even every part of a letter. For the jot and the tittle were the two smallest marks used to build the letters of the Hebrew alphabet.


And because Jesus also said "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.' "(Matthew 4:4, see also Luke 4:4) He quoted this from Deuteronomy 8:3.

We also read in Proverbs 30:5 that "Every word of God is pure."


And finally, in John 10:35 Jesus said that "the scriptures cannot be broken."


Thus it is obvious that the importance of every word in the Bible is a stream that flows throughout the word of God, and was distinctly repeated by Jesus.

 

[shturt678s]

To get the context, we have to go back to Romans 9:10.

Romans 9:10-16 teaches us that God’s promises to Israel are based upon his election, not upon their obedience.

God’s sovereignty in such matters is stressed again in the two verses that follow. “For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, ‘For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.’ Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.” (Romans 9:17-18) Here God declares that He not only has mercy on whoever He wills, He also hardens whoever He wills.

But this generates a potential problem. Men object to this doctrine because they imagine it would make God unfair. But God’s answer is not to explain why this is indeed fair. Instead, He simply says: “You will say to me then, ‘Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?’ But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why have you made me like this?’ Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?” (Romans 9:19-21) God therefore does not defend this course of action on the basis of its fairness, even though it is fair, but on the basis of his right as the creator to do as He pleases.

So He continues in Romans 9:22-24:

“What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?”

Again, the point God is making is that He can do as He pleases. And He pleases to call not the Jews only, but also the Gentiles. This right of God to do as He pleases, and to choose whomsoever He wants to choose, is now illustrated by quotations from the Old Testament. The first of these are from Hosea, and are given in Romans 9:25-26.

“As He says also in Hosea: ‘I will call them My people, who were not My people, And her beloved, who was not beloved.’ ‘And it shall come to pass in the place where it was said to them, ‘”You are not My people,”’ There they shall be called sons of the living God.’”

The first part of this, “I will call them My people, who were not My people, And her beloved, who was not beloved.” is a quotation from Hosea 2:23, Where we read, “Then I will sow her for Myself in the earth, And I will have mercy on her who had not obtained mercy; Then I will say to those who were not My people, ‘You are My people!’ And they shall say, ‘You are my God!’” The second part, “And it shall come to pass in the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not My people,’ There they shall be called sons of the living God.” is a quotation from Hosea 1:10, where we read, “Yet the number of the children of Israel Shall be as the sand of the sea, Which cannot be measured or numbered. And it shall come to pass In the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not My people,’ There it shall be said to them, ‘You are sons of the living God.’”

In both of these places, some might imagine that these passages refer to the church. But a close examination shows that this is cannot even possibly be their meaning. Looking at the last passage first, for it was first in the Order God gave them in Hosea, verses 1-9 of Hosea 1 detail God’s rejection of “the house of Israel.” (verse 8) Then we read the wonderful promise that, even though they were rejected, “it shall come to pass In the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not My people,’ There it shall be said to them, ‘You are sons of the living God.’” This blessing, “You are sons of the living God,” was not to be said to someone else, but “it shall be said to them.” The very ones to whom God had said, “Lo-ruhamah” (not pitied) and “Lo-ammi” (not my people,) would be told, “You are sons of the living God.” But they would not only be told this, but they would be told this in the very place where they had been so cursed. This is concluded in the first verse of chapter 2. (We must remember that the chapter and verse divisions in our Bibles were added by man, there were no such divisions in the scriptures when God first gave them. And in some places the divisions actually break up what God was saying.) So God concluded this portion of his holy word by saying, “Say to your brethren, ‘My people,’ And to your sisters, ‘Mercy is shown.’” (Hosea 2:1) To whom were these words to be said? To the church? No. They were to be said “to your brethren.” and “to your sisters.” Whose “brethren” and “sisters” were to be told “My people,” and “Mercy is shown.”? The very ones to whom it was said “Lo-ruhamah” and “Lo-ammi.” These were unquestionably the sinning “house of Israel.” No scripture anywhere even suggests the idea that either the church or its individual members are the “brethren” and “sisters” of the “house of Israel.”

We find the same thing again in the next portion of Hosea, where God first pronounces his divorce and judgment of guilty Israel; (Hosea 2:2-13) but then, just as in the first chapter, He continues by promising their eventual restoration. (Hosea 2:14-23) Even as He had just pronounced his divorce and judgment, He now promises his betrothal and blessing of the children of that same guilty nation which He had divorced. For even as He had said in verse 2, “Bring charges against your mother, bring charges; For she is not My wife, nor am I her Husband,” He now repeatedly tells them, “I will betroth you to Me,” (verses 19 and 20) and says “you will call Me ‘My Husband.’” (verse 16) God had called the one He had divorced, “your mother,” but He now calls the ones He will marry, “you.” This, then, is the context of verse 23, where we read, “Then I will sow her for Myself in the earth, And I will have mercy on her who had not obtained mercy; Then I will say to those who were not My people, ‘You are My people!’ And they shall say, ‘You are my God!’”

Job well done to here, ie, not that I'm anybody.

We have taken this detailed look at Hosea 1 and 2 to clearly understand that the two passages from Hosea which the Holy Spirit quoted in Romans 9:25-26 are most certainly not about replacing the physical nation of Israel with a different people, but about a future restoration of that same nation which had previously been rejected for her sin.

Hos.1:10 refers to the promise given to Abraham: "The number of the children of Irael (spiritual Israel) shall be as the sand of the sea,..." Rom.9:25, etc. God's mercy with a remnant of the physical Israel that become the spiritual Israel becoming vessels of mercy.

Old Jack's view

 

[Biblewriter]

BW,
I got the idea that it was the land because all you have is the visions of Ezekiel. You never grasp the NT theology. That's why you don't know what Heb 11 is about, and how it is saying that the land never was the thing promised anyway. That's why you never comment clearly on Gal 3 or Eph 2-3. Not once.

I stress Ezekiel because the promises are stated there in more explicit language than in other places. But all I have is the Bible, not Ezekiel.

I have not had the time to address the cavils about Galatians 3 and Ephesians 2-3, for I do have a life outside of Christian forums.

The answers to your ideas about them are just as plain and simple as the answers to your ideas about Romans 9-11. But I have not bothered, for I already know you will simply dismiss them out of hand without really considering them, just as you did with my answers to your ideas about Romans 9-11.

 

[Interplanner]

BW wrote:
Romans 9:10-16 teaches us that God’s promises to Israel are based upon his election, not upon their obedience.

True, but there are two ways you can go once you realize that. The direction Paul went was to say that Israel could not obligate God to them. That's why 10:4 is about Christ, not Israel, fulfilling the old covenant, and is contrasted to the previous 2 verses. It is also why he quotes Job 41 at the end of ch 11. As we know from John's gospel, that tack had already been tried by Judaism ("We have Abraham as our father..." etc). What else could be addressed here than the belief in Judaism, and in what BW is saying that the election is inexorably connected to the ethnos, which is not what Paul believes.

What Paul believes pivots on Christ, not Israel as an ethnos. That is why in the one, official, authoritative, un-pressured sermon in Acts 13, the promises to David are explained to have been shifted to Christ, and that's not Paul--its a quote of Isaiah. It resets the promise scheme to where it was: based on the Seed, not on the race. It is easy to see why the race was confused with the Seed (both linguistically and as a tendency of human nature), but it was never intended.

Paul never shows us a new covenant promise to Israel that is direct to them; and the new covenant era is now here in place of the previous. It is through Christ. So it is never direct election nor their obedience. (Yes, the OT passages on the new covenant have the land imagery in them for effect, which is never perpetuated in the NT). Indeed, the NT references to the land as such make it clear that the land was not the promise anyway, Heb. 11. Christ is the one elected, and Christ's obedience wins the day. The proof of this is the arrival and work of the Spirit of God (Gal 3:2; Acts 2:33).

Look closely at Acts 2:33. The Spirit arrived because of the ascension and enthronement of Christ. It is the form of 'making enemies into a footstool' that we are supposed to understand (v34s connective "For..." and on through v36).

The mission of the Gospel is immediately mentioned to those who respond to the Spirit, v39. So in about 5 lines here we have the totality of what the NT, the Gospel, the Spirit, the enthronement, and the mission is about, and all futurism does or has done is to make an industry out of confusing what is there.

 

[Interplanner]

That's really lame, BW to dismiss attention to Gal 3 because you know you have spent hours making sure people believe Ezekiels vision "explicitly, and specifically, and exactly" as you want them to be understood, without any NT shaping. There are no NT interps of them. That's why you 'hang out' there.

 

[Interplanner]

I know what you say about Rom 9-11 very well. what I don't know is why you never speak to 9:26 "us" and why you don't relate it together contextually with what was said earlier. And to "us" "remnant" and "elect" in the same. and why you don't find the connection to ch 15's on the nations. And on ch 16. You have lots of words, but it should be pretty brief and clear when connecting to these other places.

 

[Biblewriter]

I know what you say about Rom 9-11 very well. what I don't know is why you never speak to 9:26 "us" and why you don't relate it together contextually with what was said earlier. And to "us" "remnant" and "elect" in the same. and why you don't find the connection to ch 15's on the nations. And on ch 16. You have lots of words, but it should be pretty brief and clear when connecting to these other places.

You want to pick put a few words here and there and imagine that this is the context. But when the actual content is demonstrated, you simply deny it.

 

[shturt678s]

Rom.9:25, 26 The passages appropriated from Hosea show how God's word was fulfilled even in the case of the 10 Israelite tribes; the fact that they became Gentile makes the fulfillment only more striking.

Old Jack

 

[ebedmelech]

To get the context, we have to go back to Romans 9:10.

Romans 9:10-16 teaches us that God’s promises to Israel are based upon his election, not upon their obedience.

This would be wrong right off the bat. What Paul is teaching here has to do with explaining God choosing Isaac over Ishmael and Jacob over Esau this is basically a side bar explanation of those choices.

It has NOTHING to do with the promises to Israel Biblewriter you're sticking that in there. Paul hasn't said a word about "the promises" since Romans 9:4.

Paul is dealing with one promise! That promise he quoted "Through Isaac shall your descendants be named". That's all...you add things the apostle isn't even addressing at this point!

God’s sovereignty in such matters is stressed again in the two verses that follow. “For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, ‘For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.’ Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.” (Romans 9:17-18) Here God declares that He not only has mercy on whoever He wills, He also hardens whoever He wills.

But this generates a potential problem. Men object to this doctrine because they imagine it would make God unfair. But God’s answer is not to explain why this is indeed fair. Instead, He simply says: “You will say to me then, ‘Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?’ But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why have you made me like this?’ Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?” (Romans 9:19-21) God therefore does not defend this course of action on the basis of its fairness, even though it is fair, but on the basis of his right as the creator to do as He pleases.

In general this is correct...however, once again this discussion is generated because of God making the choice of Jacob over Esau. The apostle is pointing out God's sovereign right to do so.

So He continues in Romans 9:22-24:

“What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?”

Again, the point God is making is that He can do as He pleases. And He pleases to call not the Jews only, but also the Gentiles. This right of God to do as He pleases, and to choose whomsoever He wants to choose, is now illustrated by quotations from the Old Testament. The first of these are from Hosea, and are given in Romans 9:25-26.

“As He says also in Hosea: ‘I will call them My people, who were not My people, And her beloved, who was not beloved.’ ‘And it shall come to pass in the place where it was said to them, ‘”You are not My people,”’ There they shall be called sons of the living God.’”

The first part of this, “I will call them My people, who were not My people, And her beloved, who was not beloved.” is a quotation from Hosea 2:23, Where we read, “Then I will sow her for Myself in the earth, And I will have mercy on her who had not obtained mercy; Then I will say to those who were not My people, ‘You are My people!’ And they shall say, ‘You are my God!’” The second part, “And it shall come to pass in the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not My people,’ There they shall be called sons of the living God.” is a quotation from Hosea 1:10, where we read, “Yet the number of the children of Israel Shall be as the sand of the sea, Which cannot be measured or numbered. And it shall come to pass In the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not My people,’ There it shall be said to them, ‘You are sons of the living God.’”

In both of these places, some might imagine that these passages refer to the church. But a close examination shows that this is cannot even possibly be their meaning. Looking at the last passage first, for it was first in the Order God gave them in Hosea, verses 1-9 of Hosea 1 detail God’s rejection of “the house of Israel.” (verse 8) Then we read the wonderful promise that, even though they were rejected, “it shall come to pass In the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not My people,’ There it shall be said to them, ‘You are sons of the living God.’” This blessing, “You are sons of the living God,” was not to be said to someone else, but “it shall be said to them.” The very ones to whom God had said, “Lo-ruhamah” (not pitied) and “Lo-ammi” (not my people,) would be told, “You are sons of the living God.” But they would not only be told this, but they would be told this in the very place where they had been so cursed. This is concluded in the first verse of chapter 2. (We must remember that the chapter and verse divisions in our Bibles were added by man, there were no such divisions in the scriptures when God first gave them. And in some places the divisions actually break up what God was saying.) So God concluded this portion of his holy word by saying, “Say to your brethren, ‘My people,’ And to your sisters, ‘Mercy is shown.’” (Hosea 2:1) To whom were these words to be said? To the church? No. They were to be said “to your brethren.” and “to your sisters.” Whose “brethren” and “sisters” were to be told “My people,” and “Mercy is shown.”? The very ones to whom it was said “Lo-ruhamah” and “Lo-ammi.” These were unquestionably the sinning “house of Israel.” No scripture anywhere even suggests the idea that either the church or its individual members are the “brethren” and “sisters” of the “house of Israel.”

We find the same thing again in the next portion of Hosea, where God first pronounces his divorce and judgment of guilty Israel; (Hosea 2:2-13) but then, just as in the first chapter, He continues by promising their eventual restoration. (Hosea 2:14-23) Even as He had just pronounced his divorce and judgment, He now promises his betrothal and blessing of the children of that same guilty nation which He had divorced. For even as He had said in verse 2, “Bring charges against your mother, bring charges; For she is not My wife, nor am I her Husband,” He now repeatedly tells them, “I will betroth you to Me,” (verses 19 and 20) and says “you will call Me ‘My Husband.’” (verse 16) God had called the one He had divorced, “your mother,” but He now calls the ones He will marry, “you.” This, then, is the context of verse 23, where we read, “Then I will sow her for Myself in the earth, And I will have mercy on her who had not obtained mercy; Then I will say to those who were not My people, ‘You are My people!’ And they shall say, ‘You are my God!’”

We have taken this detailed look at Hosea 1 and 2 to clearly understand that the two passages from Hosea which the Holy Spirit quoted in Romans 9:25-26 are most certainly not about replacing the physical nation of Israel with a different people, but about a future restoration of that same nation which had previously been rejected for her sin.

That was a long winded!

It's very simple what the apostle is saying. God was fed up with the consistent disobedience of Israel in Hosea and He put them away.

The rest is right there in the passage he quotes! It's not hard Biblewriter...it speaks to what was to happen;

*Those who were not God's people (Gentiles) ARE His people. How hard is that?

Peter makes it very clear also in 1 Peter 2:10
10 for you once were not a people, but now you are the people of God; you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

Romans 9 is making the case for "Spiritual descendants" of Abraham Biblewriter...and you simply cannot or will not see it.

 

[Biblewriter]

This would be wrong right off the bat. What Paul is teaching here has to do with explaining God choosing Isaac over Ishmael and Jacob over Esau this is basically a side bar explanation of those choices.

It has NOTHING to do with the promises to Israel Biblewriter you're sticking that in there. Paul hasn't said a word about "the promises" since Romans 9:4.

Thank you for admitting that this section opens with the promise. We are making some headway after all. Even a blind elephant finds a peanut once in a while!

 

[Biblewriter]

It's very simple what the apostle is saying. God was fed up with the consistent disobedience of Israel in Hosea and He put them away.

The rest is right there in the passage he quotes! It's not hard Biblewriter...it speaks to what was to happen;

*Those who were not God's people (Gentiles) ARE His people. How hard is that?

Peter makes it very clear also in 1 Peter 2:10
10 for you once were not a people, but now you are the people of God; you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

Romans 9 is making the case for "Spiritual descendants" of Abraham Biblewriter...and you simply cannot or will not see it.

And you are simply refusing to admit that every scripture the Holy Spirit quoted in this section was very explicit about the fact that Israel's rejection would only be temporary. But whether you admit it or not. It is a fact.

 

[Biblewriter]

Rom.9:25, 26 The passages appropriated from Hosea show how God's word was fulfilled even in the case of the 10 Israelite tribes; the fact that they became Gentile makes the fulfillment only more striking.

Old Jack

How do you come up with the notion that the ten tribes "became gentile"?

The fact that they are lost among the gentiles does not make them gentiles. They are still what they are, whether we know where they are or not.

 

[shturt678s]

How do you come up with the notion that the ten tribes "became gentile"?

The fact that they are lost among the gentiles does not make them gentiles. They are still what they are, whether we know where they are or not.

Hosea prophesied concerning the northern kingdom, called Israel of course, whose judgment culminated in the deportation of abut 200,000 into Assyria in about 722 B.C.; these are the lost 10 tribes who never returned, Isaiah prophesied regarding the power of Assyria which would leave a remnant to the southern kingdom, called Juda. I always like revisiting this area.

Old Jack

btw they show the obduracy of the Jews, God's wrath and power and punishment, His longsuffering when He did not at once send them to destruction, and etc.

 

[ebedmelech]

And you are simply refusing to admit that every scripture the Holy Spirit quoted in this section was very explicit about the fact that Israel's rejection would only be temporary. But whether you admit it or not. It is a fact.

No Biblewriter. There's no refusal at all on my part of what the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write.

What's really going on here is is this: You are interpreting the apostle's writings from your "two people of God" theological approach. It is not foreign to me at all because I was taught that too as a young Christian. However I can distinctly remember that even as I was taught this, I questioned it based on what I was reading and what the pastor was teaching. Being a young Christian I accepted what I was taught, but I equally read the scriptures as God commands us all to do, and I arrived at what I hold to be the proper teaching.

Romans 9 is pointing out there are "Spiritual descendants" of Abraham being counted as His descendants, as opposed to "fleshly descendants" of Abraham who ARE NOT counted as descendants.

Your departure from the apostles very argument is easily seen because you detour from his point of:

*They are not all Israel who are descended from Israel.

*Being Abraham's descendants DOES NOT make one a child of God.

Paul is very consistent about this as our Lord was also, This very issue came up when Jesus was in debate with the Jews in John 8:31-58. This is *almost* a parallel of what Paul is saying in Romans 9. To make this point, I will leave out the narratives and verses...and let Jesus and the Pharisees talk as recorded in scripture:

Jesus: If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”

Jews: We are Abraham’s descendants and have never yet been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, ‘You will become free’?

Jesus: “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever. So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed. I know that you are Abraham’s descendants; yet you seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in you. I speak the things which I have seen with My Father; therefore you also do the things which you heard from your father.”

Jews “Abraham is our father.”

Jesus: “If you are Abraham’s children, do the deeds of Abraham. But as it is, you are seeking to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God; this Abraham did not do. You are doing the deeds of your father.”

Jews: “We were not born of fornication; we have one Father: God.”

Jesus: “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me. Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word. You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me. Which one of you convicts Me of sin? If I speak truth, why do you not believe Me? He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.”

Jews: “Do we not say rightly that You are a Samaritan and have a demon?”

Jesus: “I do not have a demon; but I honor My Father, and you dishonor Me. But I do not seek My glory; there is One who seeks and judges. Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he will never see death.”

Jews: “Now we know that You have a demon. Abraham died, and the prophets also; and You say, ‘If anyone keeps My word, he will never taste of death.’ Surely You are not greater than our father Abraham, who died? The prophets died too; whom do You make Yourself out to be?”

Jesus: “If I glorify Myself, My glory is nothing; it is My Father who glorifies Me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God’; and you have not come to know Him, but I know Him; and if I say that I do not know Him, I will be a liar like you, but I do know Him and keep His word. Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.”

Jews: “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?”

Jesus: “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.”

Jesus is making the very point Paul is making as He speaks to these Jews. He tells them he knows they are descendants of Abraham, and yet He also tells them they are not Abraham's children or they would do as Abraham did, which, is believe God.

This is the entire point of Romans 9 Biblewriter! Paul is teaching being descendants of Abraham doesn't make on a child of God. What makes one a descendant of Abraham is having the faith of Abraham and therefore, doing the deeds of Abraham.

THAT IS THE ARGUMENT of Romans 9 and the apostle sums it up nicely in Romans 9:30-33:
30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith;
31 but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law.
32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone,
33 just as it is written, “Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, And he who believes in Him will not be disappointed.”

Even the apostle's summation shows that your explanation, is foreign to what his point is.

So it is not me refusing anything the Holy Spirit has recorded by Paul...it is Biblewriter trying to hold to the fleshly descendants of Abraham in his discussion of the passage, when the passage is about Spiritual descendants of Abraham!

You have missed the point of the passage Biblewriter!

 

[Interplanner]

BW, where do you get the temporary part in any of them? I don't know anywhere that's addressed at all in 9-11. It is all about the definitive thing (faith) when using the category seed of Abraham (which is through Christ anyway, not direct/genetic).

 

[precepts]

Thank you, Precepts, for your frank admission that you are not even interested in the details of scripture. And you are entirely mistaken, Interplanner.

I concentrate on the details because Isaiah 34:16 says, "Search from the book of the LORD, and read: Not one of these shall fail; Not one shall lack her mate. For My mouth has commanded it, and His Spirit has gathered them." (Isaiah 34:16)


And because Jesus said "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled." (Matthew 5:18)

So Jesus explicitly said that in the word of God, not only was every word important, but even every part of a letter. For the jot and the tittle were the two smallest marks used to build the letters of the Hebrew alphabet.


And because Jesus also said "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.' "(Matthew 4:4, see also Luke 4:4) He quoted this from Deuteronomy 8:3.

We also read in Proverbs 30:5 that "Every word of God is pure."


And finally, in John 10:35 Jesus said that "the scriptures cannot be broken."


Thus it is obvious that the importance of every word in the Bible is a stream that flows throughout the word of God, and was distinctly repeated by Jesus.

Talk is cheap. You still haven't address these facts:

What your "selective" amnesia keeps ignoring:
(1)Dan 7:9's setting up of God's throne is Rev 4.
(2)Dan 7:8-27 is Rev 4-19, two accounts of Christ possessing his kingdom.
(3)The 11th horn thrown into the lake of fire is not a kingdom but a man.
(4)Dan 7:17-18 states in the days of these 4 kings of the 4 kingdoms will the saints possess the kingdom.
(5)Who is the 4th king of the 4th Kingdom?
(6)The saints possess the kingdom during the reign of the 4th king/kingdom, not during a partion of 10 kings.
(

 

[Interplanner]

BW, I have no idea what the "entirely mistaken" claim about me refers to. Btw, I don't find you entirely mistaken. I'm just refering to a few items that are. One of them, right now, is the temporary set-aside doctrine you just claimed was in Rom 9-11. there is a bit chance of this in 11:26, if misunderstood, but I don't know of anything else in 9-11 that speaks to that.

All he is saying is that it never was the genetic ethnos. Nor is it of Gentiles either. It is people who believe the Gospel. They believe the Redeemer came to Zion to take away the debt of sins.

 

[Biblewriter]

Talk is cheap. You still haven't address these facts:

What your "selective" amnesia keeps ignoring:
(1)Dan 7:9's setting up of God's throne is Rev 4.
(2)Dan 7:8-27 is Rev 4-19, two accounts of Christ possessing his kingdom.
(3)The 11th horn thrown into the lake of fire is not a kingdom but a man.
(4)Dan 7:17-18 states in the days of these 4 kings of the 4 kingdoms will the saints possess the kingdom.
(5)Who is the 4th king of the 4th Kingdom?
(6)The saints possess the kingdom during the reign of the 4th king/kingdom, not during a partion of 10 kings.
(

There is not even one "fact" here to address. All of this is 100% pure interpretation. And by the way, it is a system of interpretation that I have not previously bumped up against in my fifty plus years of studying the subject.

 

[Biblewriter]

BW, I have no idea what the "entirely mistaken" claim about me refers to. Btw, I don't find you entirely mistaken. I'm just refering to a few items that are.

I had to go back and find where I said that. I was speaking of your ideas about my ideas.

One of them, right now, is the temporary set-aside doctrine you just claimed was in Rom 9-11. there is a bit chance of this in 11:26, if misunderstood, but I don't know of anything else in 9-11 that speaks to that.

All he is saying is that it never was the genetic ethnos. Nor is it of Gentiles either. It is people who believe the Gospel. They believe the Redeemer came to Zion to take away the debt of sins.

BW, where do you get the temporary part in any of them? I don't know anywhere that's addressed at all in 9-11. It is all about the definitive thing (faith) when using the category seed of Abraham (which is through Christ anyway, not direct/genetic).

My point was, and remains, was that every scripture that the Holy Spirit quoted in this section spoke of Israel (or Judah) being rejected, but each of them said it would be only for a time. Every one of them also spoke of their being received after the time of rejection had ended. There was not even a single exception to this.

 

[Biblewriter]

No Biblewriter. There's no refusal at all on my part of what the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write.

What's really going on here is is this: You are interpreting the apostle's writings from your "two people of God" theological approach. It is not foreign to me at all because I was taught that too as a young Christian. However I can distinctly remember that even as I was taught this, I questioned it based on what I was reading and what the pastor was teaching. Being a young Christian I accepted what I was taught, but I equally read the scriptures as God commands us all to do, and I arrived at what I hold to be the proper teaching.

Romans 9 is pointing out there are "Spiritual descendants" of Abraham being counted as His descendants, as opposed to "fleshly descendants" of Abraham who ARE NOT counted as descendants.

Your departure from the apostles very argument is easily seen because you detour from his point of:

*They are not all Israel who are descended from Israel.

*Being Abraham's descendants DOES NOT make one a child of God.

You are still refusing to admit one detail of what the oly Soirit was saying here.

yes, the Holy Spirit indeed said that just being Abraham's descendant does not make someone a child of God. But nowhere in this passage does hHe even hint at the idea that anyone who was not a physical descendant would inherit the promises referred to in verse 4. The examples given did not even hint at the idea that these promises applied to anyone who was not a physical descendant of Abraham. Without even one exception, that showed that the promises still belonged to Abraham's descendants, just not to all of them, but only those of his physical descendants that shared hos faith.

And later on, when The Holy Spirit began to quote scriptures about Israel's rejection, every scripture He quoted was one that very clearly said that they would be received again after a time.

You can rant and rave. You can carry on, and you can multiply verses. But you cannot get around these undeniable facts:

1 In verse 4, the Holy Spirit said the covenants and the promises still pertained to Paul's "kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites"

2. In verses 7-14, every example given to explain the meaning of "they are not all Israel, who are of Israel," was an example of the ones chosen for the blessing being a subset of the physical descendants of Abraham.

3 In verses 25 to 29, every scripture quoted that spoke of Israel's rejection also spoke of their future restoration.