This is true. But many insist the broken off unbelieving Jews are Israel. When they are in fact gentiles who call themselves Jews and Israel.
ROMANS 11 WHO IS THE WILD OLIVE TREE?
- Thread starter Doug
- 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!
1stCenturyLady
Well-Known Member
I understand what you guys mean, but what Paul was warning the Gentiles was to not be haughty regarding the Jews (the heresy of replacement theology), because if God cut off the natural branches, He could cut them off too if they didn't endure to the end and went back to living in sin, which also puts to rest the heresy of OSAS. He is also saying, that if a Jew repented, because he had once belonged to the natural tree, how much easier it would be for him if he repented to be grafted back into the tree he was in originally.
How come no one seems to get the meaning of Romans 11? Are they already infected by replacement theology?
For the record, I do not ascribe to replacement theology and I do agree with your assessment of Rom 11
1stCenturyLady
Well-Known Member
Paul seems to be talking about the relationship between Jews and Gentiles. If Jews find faith, or even if they don't, Gentiles who have entered into blessing in Christ have nothing to be proud about.
Hello
Just wanted to share this with you in regard to KJV
Look at the differences I came across in these verses:
KJV Mark 1:14 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,
NIV Mark 1:14 After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God.
In the NIV the kingdom is omitted.... the NIV does not identify the specificity of the gospel being about the kingdom.
CoreIssue
Well-Known Member
The Catholics added's words and verses to the Bible to make it match their doctrines.
I researched these issues. The NIV does not remove such from the Bible. Those things were never in the oldest manuscripts.
So you have to explain why they were never seen prior to the TR, in example. Which was written by a Catholic priest.
They didn't preach the kingdom. They preached the gospel.
In Catholicism Catholicism is the Kingdom.
Compare with other translations.
Mark 1:14 After the arrest of John, Jesus went into Galilee and proclaimed the gospel of God.
Hi
You mentioned in one of your posts about Easter being used instead of Passover. That is a controversial thing....Technically in Acts 12:4 Passover was past....it was the days of unleavened bread......however there was some old testament passages that combined it all as Passover. I have read that there is no real way to translate this word in English and Tyndale translated it as Easter. Easter was also a Roman Pagan holiday so it would be correct to use Easter.
Also you defended using cultivated olive tree instead of good olive tree...in your defense if you look at Strong's, he used cultivated tree as a nuanced word for good tree. I don't know whether or not it would be the best.
I am not well versed in the translation area, nor do I intend to debate it....all I know is that verses are missing or altered in other versions. Old manuscripts may not be the best.
CoreIssue
Well-Known Member
The days of unleavened bread are part of Passover. They are 100% Jewish, not Easter.
Romans and others celebrated Ishtar, not Easter.
But even if you want to go that direction it makes it a pagan holiday adopted by Catholicism and redesignated the resurrection of Christ. Never biblical.
It doesn't matter what the Romans celebrated, this was the Jewish Passover.
So how can you claim the older manuscripts that do not agree with the KJV are incorrect when written 1500 years after the Apostles?
Similar threads
