Your ID explains your bias. It is that bias that is leading you to your false interpretation in that verse. And that clearly makes it obvious that whatever you "contribute" in this regard will not be well thought out.
Romans 11 and the real Replacement Theology
- Thread starter Zao is life
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Your bias has caused you to falsely assert the above. God does not see someone in Christ as a Jew. Nor does He see someone in Christ as a Gentile. He sees only Christ.
At last. Thank you for backing up what you say with scripture. Finally. I thought you may know what you are talking about regarding the word "fullness", and finally you start actually backing it up with scripture.
Now can you explain to us what you understand by the word "fullness" so that the cup you're handing us does not remain half empty please?
In all it's fullness, I mean.
Lie! I'm a Bible believing Christian. Why would I want to be a Jew? lol
The Israel wannabees love lying!
Because you're not happy with being grafted into Israel as a Gentile. So you obviously wanna be a believing Jew then, because if you are not part of Israel, then you are not part of God's elect, a.k.a Israel.
God's will is for the fullness of Israel, i.e ALL Israel to be saved, but half the Gentiles don't want to be part of God's one and only elect nation, a.k.a Israel
.I'm totally happy with being a Bible believing Christian.
Do you know what will happen to "all liars"?
No Scripture? Of course you don't! You are cursing yourself! Moses said so!God's will is for the fullness of Israel, i.e ALL Israel to be saved, but half the Gentiles don't want to be part of God's one and only elect nation, a.k.a Israel
Yet either you really don't know the Bible you believe in, or you believe only the Tanach. You've made it obvious over and over that you either don't know the New Testament, or you don't believe it.
I'm no liar. And that accusation is such a Hamas tricks type accusation used against the Jews, that I only laugh inwardly at your subtly sly false accusations whenever you call me a liar.
No Scripture? lol You don't have any.
God bless Israel! Is that a "Hamas trick"? You don't even know where Jesus will return!!!
Prove what you allege! Prove from the Word of God that a parable is not always given to show the spiritual Kingdom of God has come using things that are familiar. I've given Scripture to prove what I allege, I shall patiently await the Scripture you think may prove the parable of the fig tree showing life is proof of the second coming of Christ as you allege, and nothing to do with the spiritual Kingdom of God that Christ ushered in.
Perhaps you cannot accept the fig tree PARABLE is used in the same manner every other parable of Jesus is used, because it would upset a doctrine you wish to cling to???
LOL. You write a concise commentary of the whole New Testament including subjects that no one else had mentioned.
Honestly now, it's not fair to expect people to read your whole commentary of the New Testament. The millennium, Revelation 10:6, the binding of Satan etc was not even remotely the topic brought up by anyone else.
I don't want to have to ignore all your posts just because when I have to try and sift out what was on topic here or in your discussion with another poster, it's a bit much. It would be much nicer if you try and sift out all the stuff that isn't on topic to what you and someone else were discussing, before you post.
But okay if you don't want to, then don't blame me for not reading everything you said if what I say to you makes it obvious I never read your entire post
Really, you don't have to read or reply to EVERY post! If you object to long posts why read them and then have the audacity to complain about there length? All the doctrines of Scripture are related, because the Word of God is a cohesive whole. It doesn't bother me in the least to be ignored. And to make a point I don't usually make lengthy replies, but in my discussion with TS it could not be helped because it was a continuation of another discussion we were having. His replies were lengthy, and so they required a lengthy reply. Like I said, no one asked for your opinion. Opinions are typically welcomed, but only those that can be biblically supported are helpful.
Timtofly
Well-Known Member
I agree that Paul is making a distinction between those no longer Israel and those who remained faithful and redeemed. Remnant is the same thing as remained.
The verse in question though makes a distinction between the new birth and those of Israel who are a remnant. Paul was both. You are not both. You are the "of God" part because you are grafted into Christ, not into Israel.
Paul was both the Israel of God, and one who followed as a new creation. Perhaps even a branch cut off, but grafted back in, on the road to Damascus.
No one is born a natural branch today. There is no Israel of God, until the fulness of the Gentiles is realized, at the Second Coming.
No one can be a natural branch for the very reason that circumcision does not matter. It is a new creation, the second birth, the circumcision of the heart.
Even as an Israel of God, physical circumcision never mattered either, but the circumcision of the heart. The new creation refers to those now in Christ, and especially since the Cross.
Prior to the first coming, being of Israel was a physical experience. The second birth was foreign to them. They were natural branches, until they were not. Those who were never circumcised of the heart did not remain, but were accursed.
Timtofly
Well-Known Member
There is no "Israel of the flesh". That would be those of Jacob born over the last 3500 years. The remnant of Jacob is the Israel of God. The church did exist in the OT in Christ as those who were circumcised of the heart, who remained faithful. The church was always in Christ, not solely in Israel. Israel are those of God who make up the living remnant. Until the Cross, they waited as souls in Abraham's bosom. After the Cross they have enjoyed Paradise physically and that heavenly temple, serving God day and night for 1993 years.
Timtofly
Well-Known Member
Sounds like Adam before Eve. Sounds like the angels who do not procreate. You may have a point?Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
So then, I guess you are neither male nor female.
Timtofly
Well-Known Member
If they were all grafted in, then none of them will have to chop their head off in the future. There should be no 42 months given to Satan, because all the Gentiles have been accounted for, and none left behind.
Otherwise in your chronology, the last ones grafted in where beheaded, and not raptured. Because those after the full number all need the mark of the beast to continue to physically live on the earth.
The full amount means no one receives the mark, because it is unnecessary and redundant. There is no one left to remove after the full amount.
A remnant is still a remnant in all seasons. The beheaded are the remnant in Satan's 42 months.
Timtofly
Well-Known Member
And you think all are of Israel? How literal do you take symbolism?
You claim Gentiles are of Israel, by adding of God. Not even in the text. The term "children of God" can be found in chapter 9.
Again, pulling from Galatians 6 is not going to help your case.
"And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God."
The Israel of God are the OT redeemed, the natural branches under the economy of the Law, who remained faithful to God by faith. The Israel of God is not those grafted in. Those grafted in are the new creation, in Christ. The second birth that requires no physical identifiers as listed: circumcision, ethnicity, gender, nor social status.
Timtofly
Well-Known Member
Says the one who denies:
"that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in."
How long of a story do you need? Your username is getting more ironic by the day.
So you think that Jesus just got angry at a fig tree because it was not yet time for there to be natural fruit from natural branches? Do you think Jesus already knew there would be no fruit, or did He forget what day of the year it was? No spiritual discernment that Jerusalem and His people as a whole were going to be blinded in part, until the fulness of the Gentiles comes in? What about the entire OT economy drying up and withering away, no more to return ever? The OT was about to stop providing fruit permanently.
Besides, Jesus cursing the fig tree was not a parable nor a story. It was an event with spiritual prophetic application. And the parable of all the trees blooming was also a spiritual prophetic announcement.
Similar threads
