Romans 11 and the current so-called Jewish State of Israel

reply to post by jmdewey60


Um, cause jesus was a fake that had not brother. To many other writings out side the bible suggest the same.

God wanted to see If you followed life or death. Hence pauls of saul of tarsus number 3972.(strong concordance)

Even God suggests this in the very number issued to paul by Mr. James Strong in 1890. A preacher and proffesor of literature. Why would he label paul with a number that is again shows his true colors.

3972
2793

When the 39 books are of the OT and 27 of the NT. one is correct and the other backwards. See God is working even in 1890 publication of strongs concordance.

And why not jesus? was he really rightousness in the flesh?

2424 + 4242 = 6666.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Know them well.

reply to post by pthena

Here is a hypothetical story:

Paul taught for the very first time in all of scripture that Israel's national blindness wouldn't be lifted until "the fullness of the Gentiles be come in." Building upon Christ's deceleration when He pronounced spiritual blindness on them that it wouldn't be forever.

reply to post by jmdewey60

Could you fill us in on what steps of logic got you to this position?

Jews think Christians worship a false idol Jesus. If He didn't intend to redeem them to Christ, there would be no need to make them "jealous" of Christians. Again, no need to make a group of people jealous you have no plans to redeem.

Occam's razor.

reply to post by pthena

The 1970s were very formative years as far as that's when "fringe" Christian teachings became mainstreamed, partially through the funding and influence of Israeli and Jewish sources.

"Rapimir" the Latin word we get "rapture" from appears in the 4th century Latin Vulgate. The problem with why it was not taught for over 1,500 years was the allegorization approach to Eschatology invented by Origen and accepted by Augustine as the official position of the Catholic church. And the common man didn't have the Bible in their common language to read it and realize the RCC was nutjob crazy.

reply to post by pthena

Which for some strange reason coincides nicely with dominant neo-dispensationalism.

And also what Jesus said. Don't forget that. When He said "man shall not live by bread alone, but by every "WORD" that proceeds out of the mouth of God", the Greek word used for "word" is RHEMA, not LOGOS. He also promised the Holy Spirit to "teach us in ALL TRUTH". He reveals to us through the Spirit by the Rhema Word (calm still voice) grounded in the Logos Word (scripture).

We live by the Spirit, not by the flesh. And all His sheep hear His voice. Let's start with Jesus and end with Jesus shall we?

reply to post by pthena

Let me supply the laugh track for that

"cemetary, seminary"

Yeah, you like that? The apostles didn't need seminary, they were baptized with the Holy Ghost and went to work. Jesus turned a whore into an evangelist with one revelation and one spoken conversation. I can't stand seminaries, they indoctrinate people to a particular theology or denomination and are only for people who chose that profession from the flesh and aren't called and ordained to be a pastor.

They are cemeteries. Indoctrinating people instead of just letting them operate in their gift and calling from God by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by SuckerMe

 

Read ACTS carefully and judge for yourself.

How do you know if the writer of James was the same James talked about in Acts as being in the committee meeting in Jerusalem that Paul supposedly attended?
There were at least two James', one the brother of John, and the other, the brother of Our Lord.

Same James. The author of the Book of James was Christ's brother, and he was the pastor of the church at Jerusalem. John's brother didn't write an epistle.

reply to post by pthena

The purpose of this thread is to challenge the current use that Christians make of a few verses in Romans as if it were some support for the current political phenomenon commonly called the Jewish State of Israel.

Hold on there tiger, you made that assumption. There is MUCH MORE to gather that doctrine from than Romans 11.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

reply to post by jmdewey60
Could you fill us in on what steps of logic got you to this position?

Jews think Christians worship a false idol Jesus. If He didn't intend to redeem them to Christ, there would be no need to make them "jealous" of Christians. Again, no need to make a group of people jealous you have no plans to redeem.

Occam's razor.

Occam's razor refers to selecting the most likely among competing hypotheses by going with the fewest assumptions and thereby the simplest explanation.

The least assumptions would be to go with what Paul wrote himself.

Romans 11:13 Since then as I am an apostle to Gentiles, I glorify my ministry; 14 if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh, and may save some of them.

That Paul was doing the provoking to jealousy through his own ministry. And plenty of Jews did join.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

From your magnum opus arguement:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
You scramble the texts around, assign random values, then end up stating the exact opposite of what the verse says.

"For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all." ~ Romans 11:32

"Them all" = Israel, from verse 25.

"Upon all" = Israel, all of Israel will be saved:

"For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in." ~ Romans 11:25

I guess that's KJV you're using. The "all" in verse 32 is Gentiles and Israel. As many translations have it, "all mankind".

Vs 25 says "partial", from that you come up with all?

So basically, you can't make a rational case as to why a current geographically located political entity should have the moral or legal right to displace the inhabitants of Palestine, based upon Paul.

Can you show a single place in Paul where he values a geographically located group of people as Israel? Wouldn't it be better to conclude that Paul cared about Jews, Gentiles, Israelites, wise, foolish, as people that he wanted to win for Christ, and didn't give a rap about geography, or "holy cities"?

reply to post by pthena


I understand the plea from the OP. However for some others, in order to get there other question have arose. There can be no distinction that the book of romans set an example for a new Israel. The writers of the NT (paul) had more access to other prophecy writings than we have today. Since the last destruction of the temple many prophecy writings where lost. Needlesstosay what we do have we can compare to. And see that paul took every verse he could in the OT and made it his own. A faith based which will not pass for the covenant of God. What makes the Bible so unique in structure is just that though. We must take what we know is good. That which is really evil. And see the good in it since God says, Amos 5:14 Seek good, and not evil, that ye may live: and so the LORD, the God of hosts, shall be with you, as ye have spoken. (KJV)

Only a few ways we can make this distinction is seeking knowledge, doing good, knowing the evil.

Here is wisdom:

Sirach 4:16- If a man commit himself unto her, he shall inherit her; and his generation shall hold her in possession. (KJA) For at the first she will walk with him by crooked ways, and bring fear and dread upon him, and torment him with her discipline, until she may trust his soul, and try him by her laws. (KJA) Then will she return the straight way unto him, and comfort him, and shew him her secrets. (KJA) But if he go wrong, she will forsake him, and give him over to his own ruin. (KJA)

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Paul taught for the very first time in all of scripture that Israel's national blindness wouldn't be lifted until "the fullness of the Gentiles be come in." Building upon Christ's deceleration when He pronounced spiritual blindness on them that it wouldn't be forever.

What does the timing of Paul's teaching have to do with anything?
Paul is arguing against a "national" hardness. Well, not that he uses a term "national", since that is something you are injecting into Romans, apparently indicating the root agenda that drives your interpretation. I believe that Paul is not addressing people of a particular national identity, but a religious group who had no qualms against proselytizing gentiles, as long as they subjected themselves fully to the commandments laid upon then by the religious leaders.
Paul uses the example of Elijah who was informed by The Lord that He had preserved several thousand men who did not worship Baal. So he is arguing that despite appearances, there were plenty of "Israelites" who did accept Jesus.
You keep using the King James word here "blindness" (for pōrōsis) I am guessing so you can combine it with "spiritual" and then create a new concept to interject into the mix of concepts being discussed in this verse already.
There is nowhere in the Bible that you find the two words (Spiritual and Blindness) together like this, so it is a way people picture it in their minds to try to grasp an understanding. The point I am getting at is that you are throwing in something that does not belong in order to mislead people as to what is being described in this verse. The word is better translated as hardness. It comes from a Greek word for callous. The general thought being conveyed is a state of being toughened. Paul says, 'as it is written', where one of the verses being partially quoted comes from Deuteronomy, which says that God had not yet given them understanding. So to me, it is not putting out the idea that God is causing some state of inability to understand to come upon them. If you go on and look at the next line, in verse 7, it says that Israel as a whole did not find what they were looking for but some did, and "The rest were hardened". The verb here is passive, meaning they were just hardened, as in they were already like that. It is not the active form of the verb where they are being made hardened.
In verse 25, when it says, "A partial hardening", the word for hardening is not a verb but a noun. What follows, "has happened to Israel", uses the same word, gegonen, that is found in verse 5,

So in the same way at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace.

Paul is possibly using that as a device to play the two things against each other. The "remnant", and the "hardened". If you see it as that, then there is just things being a certain way. "Hardened" being the natural way the people were, and it may not be anything like a spell being cast on them, but the lack of a special drawing, or something to that effect. The condition of being hardened could be a sort of inertia that resisted changing their minds from what they were set on. Paul seems to be referring to this concept by saying Israel that was diligently seeking did not find. They were diligently seeking something in particular, so were adverse to "finding" something which did not fit the description of what they thought they "should" find.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Jews think Christians worship a false idol Jesus. If He didn't intend to redeem them to Christ, there would be no need to make them "jealous" of Christians. Again, no need to make a group of people jealous you have no plans to redeem.

You are pulling this thing, redeemed, from somewhere else since Paul does not bring it up.
Apparently this concept is integral to the bigger scheme of this philosophy you have adopted. I am forced to ascertain that what you are doing is forcing your all-or-nothing approach, where you have practically zero Jewish converts (which defies the historical evidence), then going to an en mass conversion, which Paul never spells out. That this "redemption" is a one time event.
This is the work of the spirit of Darby, whether you want to admit it or not. He apparently hated Christianity and found willing backers who wanted to redeem Israel themselves and found such a philosophy a useful thing.

reply to post by SuckerMe

book of romans set an example for a new Israel.

At least a systematic argument for a new understanding of righteousness of God apart from Torah, for all, Jew,Greek, Barbarian, no distinction.

And see that paul took every verse he could in the OT and made it his own.

He quoted selectively just like anybody else.

A faith based which will not pass for the covenant of God.

2 Cor 3:2 You are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read by all men; 3 being revealed that you are a letter of Christ, served by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tablets of stone, but in tablets that are hearts of flesh. 4 Such confidence we have through Christ toward God; 5 not that we are sufficient of ourselves, to account anything as from ourselves; but our sufficiency is from God; 6 who also made us sufficient as servants of a new covenant; not of the letter, but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. 7 But if the service of death, written engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the children of Israel could not look steadfastly on the face of Moses for the glory of his face; which was passing away: 8 won’t service of the Spirit be with much more glory? 9 For if the service of condemnation has glory, the service of righteousness exceeds much more in glory. 10 For most certainly that which has been made glorious has not been made glorious in this respect, by reason of the glory that surpasses. 11 For if that which passes away was with glory, much more that which remains is in glory.

Paul's idea of new covenant isn't that it is a book, but a confidence toward God through Christ.

I don't think that could ever pass muster as some contract offered directly from a god to a group of people. It seems much like what he says a letter written on the heart, but the letter itself is of people's care for one another. Which sounds quite close to what Gospel of John has

Jn 13:34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, just like I have loved you; that you also love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.

Jesus is a hidden man. We don't see him any more than we see God. Though some have seen the man once or twice. What we see is other people. That's who we can care for. Whether we have confidence or not, it shouldn't matter in the end. It's what we show. If there is a last day, a judgment then perhaps:

Romans 2:14 (for when Gentiles who don’t have the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience testifying with them, and their thoughts among themselves accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men, according to my Good News, by Jesus Christ.

I don't have confidence in the mechanism (death of Christ) for reconciliation. My God doesn't need reconciliation. People need that toward one another. The hidden man, the hidden God, they can do what they want about people's actions, judgment or whatever.

Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

reply to post by jmdewey60
Could you fill us in on what steps of logic got you to this position?

Jews think Christians worship a false idol Jesus. If He didn't intend to redeem them to Christ, there would be no need to make them "jealous" of Christians. Again, no need to make a group of people jealous you have no plans to redeem.

Occam's razor.

Occam's razor refers to selecting the most likely among competing hypotheses by going with the fewest assumptions and thereby the simplest explanation.

The least assumptions would be to go with what Paul wrote himself.

Romans 11:13 Since then as I am an apostle to Gentiles, I glorify my ministry; 14 if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh, and may save some of them.

That Paul was doing the provoking to jealousy through his own ministry. And plenty of Jews did join.

We're not talking about Paul provoking them to jealousy in the present, but God doing it in the future later in the chapter. Use a thimble-full of contextual theology, terrible hermeneutics.

reply to post by pthena

Vs 25 says "partial", from that you come up with all?

I acknowkledged spiritual blindness on the nation wasn't total, (Messianic Jews).

Come on now, read.

reply to post by jmdewey60

You are pulling this thing, redeemed, from somewhere else since Paul does not bring it up.

Quit the semantics. That's what this op is trying to determine, the future redemption to Christ of the Jews, or the non-redemption of them to Christ. Why can't you just be thrilled that the land will be divided, and 2/3 will be massacred in the coming tribulation? You can jump for joy for that can't you? Just keep praying in earnest "thy will be done, in Earth as it is in heaven."

Gee whiz dude, you should be thrilled for the coming time of Jacob's trouble.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

We're not talking about Paul provoking them to jealousy in the present, but God doing it in the future later in the chapter.

Yes, we are talking about the ministry of Paul provoking them to jealousy in his time. If you follow Paul's example, maybe you should do the same, today, and tommorrow.

I acknowkledged spiritual blindness on the nation wasn't total,

What nation? Messianic Jews? Here's your Messianic Jews!

Ours is the last generation of the era of sin and evil and the first of the Messianic Era. Indeed, for the first time in history, there is a growing consensus of leading rabbis willing to name the man most suited to be the Messiah, and they are agreeing that he is the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson. The Rebbe is the spiritual leader of our generation, having boldly stirred up controversy over vital issues in which other leaders have remained tragically silent or have even caved in to the growing forces of darkness. He has upheld the Law perfectly and has worked mightily to strengthen the observance of the Law by Jews, as well as the observance of the Noachide Law by gentiles. Through his teaching of chasidus (Jewish mystical teachings, preserved from Moses and Mount Sinai), he has taught the world that G-d is One, the Infinite Who renews creation at every moment. The Rebbe is a direct descendant of King David and has received a true prophecy from G-d that we who are alive in this generation shall be the first in history to see the coming of the true messiah. Many Jews are eagerly anticipating the Rebbe's resurrection from the grave, ready to re-establish the Sanhedrin and anoint the king.
www.noahide.com...

Why can't you just be thrilled that the land will be divided, and 2/3 will be massacred in the coming tribulation?

That already happened, and it's going on today Christians were told to watch, did you miss it? It's called the Nakba. You can look it up.

Here: Watch this video: The lives of Palestinian Christians

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Quit the semantics.

You probably really mean something like, "stop acting like words are relevant".
You seen to have this view of the purpose of the Bible as being this book to read words from as a way to conjure spirits that will give you secret messages about things to come.
That is just sorcery.

As for this "redeemed" concept:
Were they "redeemed" in 1949 by having a Jewish state proclaimed?
You seem to act like that was what was going on.
If so, then their "redemption" has nothing to do with accepting Jesus, since thay have had 63 years to do so, and haven't yet.
Do you then believe in two separate "redemptions"?