The 1000 year Millennium from the Bible

[EarlyActs]

It is difficult for you to understand that that is exactly what would have happened if the Jews had accepted the Messiah. You yourself speak of two programs. I am saying it was ALWAYS one program, where the Jews were ALWAYS intended to reject the Messiah. That would be because I am calvinistic. God determined everything.

What the verse I posted said is that the Jews are NOW NOT believing, that through the mercy the Gentiles received, the Jews may also obtain (future tense) mercy. It is all one program. Of course, if one believes that God was surprised that the Jews rejected Christ, then you can say that God threw together another program. I don't believe that, but you are more than free to believe that.

You are correct that the Gentiles were always meant to receive the Gospel, however, you are wrong in saying that they might not have if the Jews did not reject their Messiah. It isn't even something we should talk about, because, as I said, there is only one program, and there has only been one program. God did not have a program for if the Jews received the Messiah, and a program for if they rejected the Messiah. The program always had the Jews rejecting the Messiah. In Deuteronomy, God tells the Israelites through Moses the blessings for following God, and the curses for rejecting God. Then God told Moses to teach the Israelites a song about what WILL happen to them (curses) since they WILL reject God. God did not say that Israel might reject God. He was clear that they will reject Him. The only question one can ask is "when"?

Even though God knew that the Israelites would reject, He never stopped them from condemning themselves. How is that not evil? God let the Israelites destroy themselves. He knew it would happen, and did nothing to stop it. Why? God's position as creator. He can do whatever He wants. Who can judge Him? His created? Who can speak back at Him? Us? Even Paul said nope to that. Who are you, oh man, to speak back at your creator?

There is ONE program, the one God set up before the foundation of the world. The only reason to say more than one program is if one does not believe God is sovereign, or that God has not determined/does not determine what happens in His creation. And that is a whole other field of study.

Re 1st paragraph, Calvinism
Renounce all theology, it’s usually disjointed and “falsely called knowledge” 1 Tim 6.

The rejection that was not predetermined was the meta- or after-rejection when most of Israel did not work in his mission and did seek to revolt. The crucifixion clearly was ordained as shown in posts above: acts 2 and 3 say it was by the will of God.

acts and Paul never say that about the other , and the appeal to Israel goes down to the wire.

So your system is nonsense.

 

[EarlyActs]

It is difficult for you to understand that that is exactly what would have happened if the Jews had accepted the Messiah. You yourself speak of two programs. I am saying it was ALWAYS one program, where the Jews were ALWAYS intended to reject the Messiah. That would be because I am calvinistic. God determined everything.

What the verse I posted said is that the Jews are NOW NOT believing, that through the mercy the Gentiles received, the Jews may also obtain (future tense) mercy. It is all one program. Of course, if one believes that God was surprised that the Jews rejected Christ, then you can say that God threw together another program. I don't believe that, but you are more than free to believe that.

You are correct that the Gentiles were always meant to receive the Gospel, however, you are wrong in saying that they might not have if the Jews did not reject their Messiah. It isn't even something we should talk about, because, as I said, there is only one program, and there has only been one program. God did not have a program for if the Jews received the Messiah, and a program for if they rejected the Messiah. The program always had the Jews rejecting the Messiah. In Deuteronomy, God tells the Israelites through Moses the blessings for following God, and the curses for rejecting God. Then God told Moses to teach the Israelites a song about what WILL happen to them (curses) since they WILL reject God. God did not say that Israel might reject God. He was clear that they will reject Him. The only question one can ask is "when"?

Even though God knew that the Israelites would reject, He never stopped them from condemning themselves. How is that not evil? God let the Israelites destroy themselves. He knew it would happen, and did nothing to stop it. Why? God's position as creator. He can do whatever He wants. Who can judge Him? His created? Who can speak back at Him? Us? Even Paul said nope to that. Who are you, oh man, to speak back at your creator?

There is ONE program, the one God set up before the foundation of the world. The only reason to say more than one program is if one does not believe God is sovereign, or that God has not determined/does not determine what happens in His creation. And that is a whole other field of study.

Re the Gentiles might have not believed if the Jews had not…
I was referring to the fact that you said that.

Re: The rejection vs the after rejection:
We cannot have an appeal to Israel in early Acts that is fake. There was no preventing the crucifixion. But their failure to be missionaries of the message was their real choice. They were warned in ch 3 that they would utterly ruin their nation and inheritance. In ch 4, that if they did not honor the Son , they would be dashed to pieces. Those are blunt , honest warnings, like the letter to the Hebrews , which were enacted in that generation.

 

[EarlyActs]

To explain more in depth, I understand the purpose of Paul's writing in Romans 11 to be dealing with pride in the Gentiles. Paul explaisn the situation in more than one way. For one, he says that by the disobedience of the Jews, the Gentiles became obedient, that through the mercy shown to the Gentiles, the now non-believing Jews may obtain mercy. Then you have the olive tree. For the olive tree, the Jews are said to be natural branches of the cultivated olive tree, while the Gentiles are foreign branches from wild vines. What is one thing Paul is clear about? The Jews are ALWAYS natural branches to the tree, while the Genitiles are ALWAYS foreign branches. The Gentiles never become natural branches.

I truly believe that Paul's purpose in writing that portion is to call the Gentiles to humility, and that they should not haughtily exalt themselves above the Jews. They are only "guests". They are foreign branches. Paul says would it not be more natural to remove the foreign branch, and reattach the natural branch to its olive tree? The olive tree and natural branches go all the way back into the old testament. It is Israel, the Jews, the natural branches, the chosen people of God. We, as Gentiles, have no standing before that. It is by God's mercy that any were grafted into the tree after natural branches were removed for unbelief. Paul brings it full circle to his whole statement on the rejection of the Messiah. Room was made in the tree for the foreign branches, for the Gentiles, due to the rejection of the Messiah by the Jews. Due to... unbelief. So, one must be humble when approaching God, and one must always consider one's place. One can be removed as easily as one was grafted in, and one of the natural branches is more easily reattached then a foreign branch. (And it is more natural to NOT attach a foreign branch, but attach the natural branch to its tree.)

In the church, Jews and Gentiles are one, however, we must not forget how we came to be in the church. It was not by anything we have done. We must not forget that Israel will always be the chosen people of God, going back to the Old Testament. We must not forget that it is by God's mercy that we are counted with them, though we are not one of them. That we are considered equal with them, while not being them. We must never forget our position, and as such, become proud and haughty, and exalt ourselves above the Jews. (As Gentiles). There is A LOT to consider when dealing with this topic. Such as the extreme amount of hatred/envy towards the Jews throughout the history of the church. Luther hated the Jews almost as much as he hated the pope. This hatred was not without reason, however, it is something that Paul's words stand to condemn. The Jews are only our enemy for the sake of the gospel. That is it. The Catholic church took that to a whole new level out of hate. That hate came from how the Jews treated the Christians in the first and second centuries. All the Jews had to do was claim that Christianity was a branch of Judaism, and there would have been no persecution of the Christians because of the Jews. There would be other reasons, but not the Jews. However, the Jews refused to claim Christianity as part of Judaism, and thus set Rome against the Christians. Judaism was the only religion that Rome allowed to be freely practiced outside of Rome's official religious beliefs. So some/many Christians had an axe to grind with the Jews.

Your belief about foreign branches is completely wrong. He says the only branches that stand are those of faith.

That’s what I mean that 2 programs has captured you more than you think. He does not identify one race-nation as a better one. Are you unaware that most unbelief is most articulated by Jews first, for ex, Marx affect on culture? What is ‘natural’ ?

I have been around grafting for years and it works fine. The foreign branches function well, there is no disadvantage.

 

[EarlyActs]

To explain more in depth, I understand the purpose of Paul's writing in Romans 11 to be dealing with pride in the Gentiles. Paul explaisn the situation in more than one way. For one, he says that by the disobedience of the Jews, the Gentiles became obedient, that through the mercy shown to the Gentiles, the now non-believing Jews may obtain mercy. Then you have the olive tree. For the olive tree, the Jews are said to be natural branches of the cultivated olive tree, while the Gentiles are foreign branches from wild vines. What is one thing Paul is clear about? The Jews are ALWAYS natural branches to the tree, while the Genitiles are ALWAYS foreign branches. The Gentiles never become natural branches.

I truly believe that Paul's purpose in writing that portion is to call the Gentiles to humility, and that they should not haughtily exalt themselves above the Jews. They are only "guests". They are foreign branches. Paul says would it not be more natural to remove the foreign branch, and reattach the natural branch to its olive tree? The olive tree and natural branches go all the way back into the old testament. It is Israel, the Jews, the natural branches, the chosen people of God. We, as Gentiles, have no standing before that. It is by God's mercy that any were grafted into the tree after natural branches were removed for unbelief. Paul brings it full circle to his whole statement on the rejection of the Messiah. Room was made in the tree for the foreign branches, for the Gentiles, due to the rejection of the Messiah by the Jews. Due to... unbelief. So, one must be humble when approaching God, and one must always consider one's place. One can be removed as easily as one was grafted in, and one of the natural branches is more easily reattached then a foreign branch. (And it is more natural to NOT attach a foreign branch, but attach the natural branch to its tree.)

In the church, Jews and Gentiles are one, however, we must not forget how we came to be in the church. It was not by anything we have done. We must not forget that Israel will always be the chosen people of God, going back to the Old Testament. We must not forget that it is by God's mercy that we are counted with them, though we are not one of them. That we are considered equal with them, while not being them. We must never forget our position, and as such, become proud and haughty, and exalt ourselves above the Jews. (As Gentiles). There is A LOT to consider when dealing with this topic. Such as the extreme amount of hatred/envy towards the Jews throughout the history of the church. Luther hated the Jews almost as much as he hated the pope. This hatred was not without reason, however, it is something that Paul's words stand to condemn. The Jews are only our enemy for the sake of the gospel. That is it. The Catholic church took that to a whole new level out of hate. That hate came from how the Jews treated the Christians in the first and second centuries. All the Jews had to do was claim that Christianity was a branch of Judaism, and there would have been no persecution of the Christians because of the Jews. There would be other reasons, but not the Jews. However, the Jews refused to claim Christianity as part of Judaism, and thus set Rome against the Christians. Judaism was the only religion that Rome allowed to be freely practiced outside of Rome's official religious beliefs. So some/many Christians had an axe to grind with the Jews.

Te the chosen people
It does not refer to a race-nation. Jn 1 and 3 etc are clear. Not of descent nor of flesh nor a husbands will. Jn 3’s born ‘anothen’ was declared bc the physical birth was no matter, no use. 1 P 2 says the expression ‘a chosen people’ was for believers, the royal priest line that started in Acts 2 when the enthronement’s power was a priestly garment clothing the believer who declares the message.

The Catholics should have listened better to Peter!

Early Luther hoped the Jews would become evangelists like Rom 11 did.

How are you coming in Acts 13 and 26?

 

[EarlyActs]

To explain more in depth, I understand the purpose of Paul's writing in Romans 11 to be dealing with pride in the Gentiles. Paul explaisn the situation in more than one way. For one, he says that by the disobedience of the Jews, the Gentiles became obedient, that through the mercy shown to the Gentiles, the now non-believing Jews may obtain mercy. Then you have the olive tree. For the olive tree, the Jews are said to be natural branches of the cultivated olive tree, while the Gentiles are foreign branches from wild vines. What is one thing Paul is clear about? The Jews are ALWAYS natural branches to the tree, while the Genitiles are ALWAYS foreign branches. The Gentiles never become natural branches.

I truly believe that Paul's purpose in writing that portion is to call the Gentiles to humility, and that they should not haughtily exalt themselves above the Jews. They are only "guests". They are foreign branches. Paul says would it not be more natural to remove the foreign branch, and reattach the natural branch to its olive tree? The olive tree and natural branches go all the way back into the old testament. It is Israel, the Jews, the natural branches, the chosen people of God. We, as Gentiles, have no standing before that. It is by God's mercy that any were grafted into the tree after natural branches were removed for unbelief. Paul brings it full circle to his whole statement on the rejection of the Messiah. Room was made in the tree for the foreign branches, for the Gentiles, due to the rejection of the Messiah by the Jews. Due to... unbelief. So, one must be humble when approaching God, and one must always consider one's place. One can be removed as easily as one was grafted in, and one of the natural branches is more easily reattached then a foreign branch. (And it is more natural to NOT attach a foreign branch, but attach the natural branch to its tree.)

In the church, Jews and Gentiles are one, however, we must not forget how we came to be in the church. It was not by anything we have done. We must not forget that Israel will always be the chosen people of God, going back to the Old Testament. We must not forget that it is by God's mercy that we are counted with them, though we are not one of them. That we are considered equal with them, while not being them. We must never forget our position, and as such, become proud and haughty, and exalt ourselves above the Jews. (As Gentiles). There is A LOT to consider when dealing with this topic. Such as the extreme amount of hatred/envy towards the Jews throughout the history of the church. Luther hated the Jews almost as much as he hated the pope. This hatred was not without reason, however, it is something that Paul's words stand to condemn. The Jews are only our enemy for the sake of the gospel. That is it. The Catholic church took that to a whole new level out of hate. That hate came from how the Jews treated the Christians in the first and second centuries. All the Jews had to do was claim that Christianity was a branch of Judaism, and there would have been no persecution of the Christians because of the Jews. There would be other reasons, but not the Jews. However, the Jews refused to claim Christianity as part of Judaism, and thus set Rome against the Christians. Judaism was the only religion that Rome allowed to be freely practiced outside of Rome's official religious beliefs. So some/many Christians had an axe to grind with the Jews.

Re your top paragraph again:
If it helps Jews to see Gentiles believe, where is the result? It had little effect that I know of. Neither on temple staff or civic rulers in Acts 26 nor the common working person of the time. No one listened to the decree of God of Rom16. No one believed the enthronement was Davidic. Most people still don’t.

 

[EarlyActs]

Be sure to send the citation where ‘leistes’ was a petty thief.

 

[TMSO]

Re 1st paragraph, Calvinism
Renounce all theology, it’s usually disjointed and “falsely called knowledge” 1 Tim 6.

The rejection that was not predetermined was the meta- or after-rejection when most of Israel did not work in his mission and did seek to revolt. The crucifixion clearly was ordained as shown in posts above: acts 2 and 3 say it was by the will of God.

acts and Paul never say that about the other , and the appeal to Israel goes down to the wire.

So your system is nonsense.

Can you tell me exactly how God looked when He was surprised by Israel's action? When they did something that even He didn't expect? Please explain how God didn't know something.Did you bother reading Deuteronomy? God Himself pleaded, but then said He already knew they would reject. The only way to understand how that works is to truly understand God's nature, and who He is completely divorced from any human traits or characteristics. God is not like the greek gods who were plagued by human emotions and traits.

"16 And the Lord said to Moses: “Behold, you will [b]rest with your fathers; and this people will rise and play the harlot with the gods of the foreigners of the land, where they go to be among them, and they will forsake Me and break My covenant which I have made with them. 17 Then My anger shall be aroused against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide My face from them, and they shall be [c]devoured. And many evils and troubles shall befall them, so that they will say in that day, ‘Have not these evils come upon us because our God is not among us?’ 18 And I will surely hide My face in that day because of all the evil which they have done, in that they have turned to other gods."

"19 “Now therefore, write down this song for yourselves, and teach it to the children of Israel; put it in their mouths, that this song may be a witness for Me against the children of Israel. 20 When I have brought them to the land flowing with milk and honey, of which I swore to their fathers, and they have eaten and filled themselves and grown fat, then they will turn to other gods and serve them; and they will provoke Me and break My covenant. 21 Then it shall be, when many evils and troubles have come upon them, that this song will testify against them as a witness; for it will not be forgotten in the mouths of their descendants, for I know the inclination of their behavior today, even before I have brought them to the land of which I swore to give them.”"

Again, please explain to me how God is not omnipotent, not omniscient, and not omnipresent. And, most of all, how God is not sovereign. I really want to know why you think that.

 

[TMSO]

Re the Gentiles might have not believed if the Jews had not…
I was referring to the fact that you said that.

Re: The rejection vs the after rejection:
We cannot have an appeal to Israel in early Acts that is fake.

Ah, I see. You are falling for that fallacy. The appeal exists even if God never intended for Israel to accept it. Believing that that makes it fake again shows a lack of belief that God is sovereign, and can do as He pleases. It shows a works based salvation, and not a salvation by grace and mercy from God, which Paul is clear to state is the case in Romans 11.

There was no preventing the crucifixion.

No, no there wasn't.

But their failure to be missionaries of the message was their real choice.

Because it is a works based salvation. I understood that the first time you mentioned it. I still don't believe that. The disciples did not fail to be missionaries, by the way.

They were warned in ch 3 that they would utterly ruin their nation and inheritance. In ch 4, that if they did not honor the Son , they would be dashed to pieces. Those are blunt , honest warnings, like the letter to the Hebrews , which were enacted in that generation.

Yes, and God never intended for them to respond to those warnings, just as He not only didn't expect them to respond to the warnings/curses in Deuteronomy, He blatantly told them they would not. He constantly told them that they woudl fail Him, and would refuse to respond to warnings or to the chastisement of God. This was nothing new, except, apparently to you. Are you saying that what God told the Israelites in Deuteronomy somehow were not blunt, honest warnings? What you are presenting fails to take into account the context of scripture, and throws out the Old Testament, and its testimony. For even though God says that they will reject Him, and He would respond in kind, in Jeremiah He clearly states that He will never reject them. He would not cast them away. And Paul repeats that in Romans. Has God rejected them? May it never be, Paul says.

 

[TMSO]

Your belief about foreign branches is completely wrong. He says the only branches that stand are those of faith.

I take it you didn't actually go back and read the passage? "11 I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their [b]fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. 12 Now if their [c]fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!"

Right here it states that their fall serves a purpose. You are claiming that it does not. That God never planned that. Paul is clear that it was planned/determined, and that it served/serves a purpose.

"19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.” 20 Well said.
Well said indeed. Paul tells the Gentiles that they are correct. They understand.

Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith.
I see a difference already, but it is simply because we are talking about two groups of people, of whom even James, the leader of the church, expressed the difference. And Peter fought for that as James bulldog. Who are they to tell the Gentiles they have to bear the yolk that the Jews bear, when that isn't for them. (The yoke of the law, and the Old Covenant.) What does James tell them? If they flee from immorality and do not eat meat sacrificed to idols, it will be well for them. That's all. They would not put a burden on the Gentiels that not even the Jews could bear.

Do not be haughty, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either.
This seems pretty clear. I believe I said that Paul was telling the Gentiles not to be haughty. Why? If God didn't spare the natural branches, He may not spare them either. (Them being foreign brances. I would believe that one would see Paul's intent, without him having to waste ink to write it.)

22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, [e]goodness, if you continue in His goodness.
Even here, Paul is still showing the separation between the Jews and the Gentiles. The Jews, on who serverity fell, but on the Gentiles, goodness, if they continue in it. [The whole, do not be haughty, but fear.]

Otherwise you also will be cut off.
If the Gentiles cease in His goodness, they will be cut off.

23 And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.
If the Jews do not continue in unbelief, God can and will graft them back in.

24 For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?"
And here is what I told you, that you say above is completely wrong, as stated by Paul. He stresses at the end their own olive tree.

How much more, by the way? Why would Paul use those words if they don't convey meaning?

That’s what I mean that 2 programs has captured you more than you think. He does not identify one race-nation as a better one. Are you unaware that most unbelief is most articulated by Jews first, for ex, Marx affect on culture? What is ‘natural’ ?

I have been around grafting for years and it works fine. The foreign branches function well, there is no disadvantage.

So, teach God what it is all about. Apparently, through Paul, you find God's knowledge and explanation deficient. I didn't say there is disadvantage. I said that that tree goes back into the Old Testament. It doesn't change, as the Jews remain natural branches, and the Gentiles remain foreign branches. If you fail to understand what that means, and think that I am speaking of some disadvantage, you need to read the whole Bible again, and dump that "Replacement Theology" false teaching.

 

[TMSO]

Te the chosen people
It does not refer to a race-nation. Jn 1 and 3 etc are clear. Not of descent nor of flesh nor a husbands will. Jn 3’s born ‘anothen’ was declared bc the physical birth was no matter, no use. 1 P 2 says the expression ‘a chosen people’ was for believers, the royal priest line that started in Acts 2 when the enthronement’s power was a priestly garment clothing the believer who declares the message.

The Catholics should have listened better to Peter!

Early Luther hoped the Jews would become evangelists like Rom 11 did.

I take it you never read what Luther had to say about the Jews.

How are you coming in Acts 13 and 26?

I have read it, and it is in harmony with my beliefs. If you say not, then that again proves you don't know anything about what I believe, though you are telling me what I believe.

 

[EarlyActs]

Can you tell me exactly how God looked when He was surprised by Israel's action? When they did something that even He didn't expect? Please explain how God didn't know something.Did you bother reading Deuteronomy? God Himself pleaded, but then said He already knew they would reject. The only way to understand how that works is to truly understand God's nature, and who He is completely divorced from any human traits or characteristics. God is not like the greek gods who were plagued by human emotions and traits.

"16 And the Lord said to Moses: “Behold, you will [b]rest with your fathers; and this people will rise and play the harlot with the gods of the foreigners of the land, where they go to be among them, and they will forsake Me and break My covenant which I have made with them. 17 Then My anger shall be aroused against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide My face from them, and they shall be [c]devoured. And many evils and troubles shall befall them, so that they will say in that day, ‘Have not these evils come upon us because our God is not among us?’ 18 And I will surely hide My face in that day because of all the evil which they have done, in that they have turned to other gods."

"19 “Now therefore, write down this song for yourselves, and teach it to the children of Israel; put it in their mouths, that this song may be a witness for Me against the children of Israel. 20 When I have brought them to the land flowing with milk and honey, of which I swore to their fathers, and they have eaten and filled themselves and grown fat, then they will turn to other gods and serve them; and they will provoke Me and break My covenant. 21 Then it shall be, when many evils and troubles have come upon them, that this song will testify against them as a witness; for it will not be forgotten in the mouths of their descendants, for I know the inclination of their behavior today, even before I have brought them to the land of which I swore to give them.”"

Again, please explain to me how God is not omnipotent, not omniscient, and not omnipresent. And, most of all, how God is not sovereign. I really want to know why you think that.

Re how God looked
???
If the warning in Acts 3 is fake then what is the point of anything the NT says? They had the potential to be the missionaries God intended through repentance.

You risk mocking all the actual drama of the NT as an unnecessary farce. It’s all in THE COVENANT WAR. Do you expect me to give it away a chapter at a time here? M. SANFORD, at Amazon.

 

[EarlyActs]

Ah, I see. You are falling for that fallacy. The appeal exists even if God never intended for Israel to accept it. Believing that that makes it fake again shows a lack of belief that God is sovereign, and can do as He pleases. It shows a works based salvation, and not a salvation by grace and mercy from God, which Paul is clear to state is the case in Romans 11.

No, no there wasn't.

Because it is a works based salvation. I understood that the first time you mentioned it. I still don't believe that. The disciples did not fail to be missionaries, by the way.

Yes, and God never intended for them to respond to those warnings, just as He not only didn't expect them to respond to the warnings/curses in Deuteronomy, He blatantly told them they would not. He constantly told them that they woudl fail Him, and would refuse to respond to warnings or to the chastisement of God. This was nothing new, except, apparently to you. Are you saying that what God told the Israelites in Deuteronomy somehow were not blunt, honest warnings? What you are presenting fails to take into account the context of scripture, and throws out the Old Testament, and its testimony. For even though God says that they will reject Him, and He would respond in kind, in Jeremiah He clearly states that He will never reject them. He would not cast them away. And Paul repeats that in Romans. Has God rejected them? May it never be, Paul says.

Re the appeal exists even if God never intended…

This is junk, this is irrational. The warning of Acts 3, the prodding of Israel to be missionaries in Rom 10, 11, is utterly serious. How dare you think of such a fake God—to never intend those things He said. and then say that is Biblical.

 

[EarlyActs]

Ah, I see. You are falling for that fallacy. The appeal exists even if God never intended for Israel to accept it. Believing that that makes it fake again shows a lack of belief that God is sovereign, and can do as He pleases. It shows a works based salvation, and not a salvation by grace and mercy from God, which Paul is clear to state is the case in Romans 11.

No, no there wasn't.

Because it is a works based salvation. I understood that the first time you mentioned it. I still don't believe that. The disciples did not fail to be missionaries, by the way.

Yes, and God never intended for them to respond to those warnings, just as He not only didn't expect them to respond to the warnings/curses in Deuteronomy, He blatantly told them they would not. He constantly told them that they woudl fail Him, and would refuse to respond to warnings or to the chastisement of God. This was nothing new, except, apparently to you. Are you saying that what God told the Israelites in Deuteronomy somehow were not blunt, honest warnings? What you are presenting fails to take into account the context of scripture, and throws out the Old Testament, and its testimony. For even though God says that they will reject Him, and He would respond in kind, in Jeremiah He clearly states that He will never reject them. He would not cast them away. And Paul repeats that in Romans. Has God rejected them? May it never be, Paul says.

Please one idea/thesis per post. It is so confusing to follow. Final request

Re works based salvation.
???
They were not sought to be missionaries to put God in debt to them, but as the way to honor God for the gift of salvation. You have reversed cause and effect.

I must seriously consider stopping contact with you until you read The Covenant War.

 

[EarlyActs]

Ah, I see. You are falling for that fallacy. The appeal exists even if God never intended for Israel to accept it. Believing that that makes it fake again shows a lack of belief that God is sovereign, and can do as He pleases. It shows a works based salvation, and not a salvation by grace and mercy from God, which Paul is clear to state is the case in Romans 11.

No, no there wasn't.

Because it is a works based salvation. I understood that the first time you mentioned it. I still don't believe that. The disciples did not fail to be missionaries, by the way.

Yes, and God never intended for them to respond to those warnings, just as He not only didn't expect them to respond to the warnings/curses in Deuteronomy, He blatantly told them they would not. He constantly told them that they woudl fail Him, and would refuse to respond to warnings or to the chastisement of God. This was nothing new, except, apparently to you. Are you saying that what God told the Israelites in Deuteronomy somehow were not blunt, honest warnings? What you are presenting fails to take into account the context of scripture, and throws out the Old Testament, and its testimony. For even though God says that they will reject Him, and He would respond in kind, in Jeremiah He clearly states that He will never reject them. He would not cast them away. And Paul repeats that in Romans. Has God rejected them? May it never be, Paul says.

Re the disciples did not fail to be missionaries

Well, duh. The question was the bulk of the nation. If you knew Acts 26 , you would see Paul GENUINELY NOT FAKE appealing to Israel to be what he is except his chains.

 

[EarlyActs]

Acts 13s talk by Paul says the resurrection is Davidic and fulfills all the promises to the fathers. You do not.

It further gives the destiny and mission of Israel as being lights to the nations. You do not or you think that is “works salvation.”

 

[EarlyActs]

If you check Roman’s 2 , you could say it is one program with two parts, but certainly has no future part for Israel. Not with ‘for the Jew first, and then for the Gentile’ being the chorus.

That would match Rom 11’s being in the historic sense.

Or Paul has amnesia.

 

[EarlyActs]

I take it you never read what Luther had to say about the Jews.

I have read it, and it is in harmony with my beliefs. If you say not, then that again proves you don't know anything about what I believe, though you are telling me what I believe.

Re the chosen people
What Luther said or not dies not change what 1P2 says is the chosen people, the NT officially handling the ancient text.

Like T Paine, there is early vs Late Luther. There are early treatments of the question and they are welcomed as evangelists.

Later, His fav daughter died at the neglect of a Jewish doctor (notice that he trusted one), and he himself had internal organs that were malfunctioning and he wrote crazy material, yes.

 

[Mr GLee]

To explain more in depth, I understand the purpose of Paul's writing in Romans 11 to be dealing with pride in the Gentiles. Paul explaisn the situation in more than one way. For one, he says that by the disobedience of the Jews, the Gentiles became obedient, that through the mercy shown to the Gentiles, the now non-believing Jews may obtain mercy. Then you have the olive tree. For the olive tree, the Jews are said to be natural branches of the cultivated olive tree, while the Gentiles are foreign branches from wild vines. What is one thing Paul is clear about? The Jews are ALWAYS natural branches to the tree, while the Genitiles are ALWAYS foreign branches. The Gentiles never become natural branches.

All Israel is not born again Israel . Which one is the natural branch and whose root is . . . as it is writen the foundation of Christs faith . or the root is the temporal things the flesh of dying mankind called oral traditions

Same pride as the pride of the Jew it would seem under the father of lies. The god of lust, the god of this dark world . .a false lying power.

The Bible God's living word teaches the lust of the flesh and lust of the eyes are the two building blocks of selfish pride.

As in for example from Genesis "eat the forbidden fruit look at my beauty and live forever. Surely you will not die . Why believe in a Holy Father as God the Lord not seen as the infallible teaching master,? Just lust after my beauty and live forever

1 John 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

We are also informed we are not of the dying flesh of mankind which includes Jewish flesh . Jesus said of his own flesh it profits for nothing, zero .

What did profit was the unseen, invisible work of the Holy Father His words are Spirit and spirit life, given as a labor of His eternal love . He pours out little on us. . the golden measure of faith . He as Chief calls us "little faith". He is the storeroom of that power as it is written

Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Marvel not but rather believe. . . . trust our unseen Holy Father. Dying mankind must be born again of the Spirit of Christ.
marveling is wondering . Believing is exercising the will of another. Remember it is Almighty God who works in those born again to both reveal his will as truth and empower dying mankind to do it to his good pleasure. Yoked with him the daily burdens as bread are made lighter, with a future living hope beyond the grave (what the eyes see the temporal )

 

[Mr GLee]

Was Adam a Jew . . or born again Able the first listed apostle sent with prophecy and first martyr a Jew ?

What constitutes a Jew, one born naturally after dying flesh or a inward Jew not seen by man Born again of the Spirit of Christ . Romans 2:27-

Roman 2:29King James Version27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.( Not seen)

It would seem God calls Christians Jews. Christian the new name the father named His bride the church . The meaning hid from the world, As a parable the understanding of the parable to those born again is revealed

Salvation has nothing to do with the dying flesh of any nation

Why do you think certain kinds of Jews were not part of born again Jews? DNA? No birth records

Revelation 2:9I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not,but are the synagogue of Satan.

Revelation 3:9Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

How far back can we go before a certain families disappeared forever many nation did not survive time . it only took one generation Abraham signified the father of all the nation Abram's Father was a Amorite and Mother a Hittite they became the enemies of the Jews just like the rest of the soundings pagan nations (out of sight out of mind.) Or I am from Missouri

Jesus said of his own dying flesh it profits for nothing (God is not a man). . dying mankind
Jesus' genealogy listed in the Bible ended with the birth of Jesus the Son of man. it served it purpose . Jesus The first born again son of God the first of many sons of God . . Christians

 

[TMSO]

Re how God looked
???
If the warning in Acts 3 is fake then what is the point of anything the NT says? They had the potential to be the missionaries God intended through repentance.

I take you back to Deuteronomy, where God told Moses all the blessings that Israel would receive for accepting and following Him, and then told Him all the curses for not accepting and following Him. He then had Moses write down a song about what WILL happen to Israel because they aren't going to accept, and will absolutely reject Him. So were all the blessings a farce? Were they fake?

Consider driving. You are in your car and you come to an intersection. God has determined that you will absolutely turn left. So, if you look right do you see 1. a brick wall 2. A sign that says "God forbids you to go this way" 3. Or a normal turn that remains the scenic route? Why does God determining anything have to change the way that life unfolds? The potential ALWAYS remains, however, the potential will never be realized because the outcome has already been determined. That right turn still doesn't turn into a brick wall, a sign that says God forbids this turn, or any other blocking instance. Why? God doesn't mess around with the system of life. He works through it. Unless a miracle is happening, or a direct act of God, everything works according to the system, according to His determination. Yes it is difficult to understand. No, it doesn't cause it to disappear or change. God is not a construct of our mind, so things don't change because we don't understand.

You risk mocking all the actual drama of the NT as an unnecessary farce.

Is that a way of saying that God doesn't know what is going on, and that I must not rock the boat by saying God does know? God can know the exact Date Time Group of Jesus return, but He couldn't know if Israel was going to reject or not? Is it not understood that the second coming of Jesus is directly influenced by what is happening on Earth? Did God change His plan when it became obvious that the Jews were going to reject, and had to change what He had planned/known from before the foundation of the world? I mean, scripture even says the book of life with everyone's name in it is from the foundation of the world. Again, if you read Romans 11, the drama is drama, and it has a Disney ending. His elect of Israel are saved. There is no sad ending where God destroys those that Paul said that God has not rejected. God is ever faithful to His promises, and His word.

It’s all in THE COVENANT WAR. Do you expect me to give it away a chapter at a time here? M. SANFORD, at Amazon.

I may look at it, however, all Paul ever said about the Jews (Nation of Israel) and the Gentiles is that they (the Jews) are our enemies for the sake of the gospel. That is it. Paul tells us in Ephesians that Jesus put to death the emnity that existed between the Jews and the Gentiles in His body. That emnity is gone. The only thing that stands between the Jews and the Gentiles is... the gospel. That is all. If there were more to it, then Paul would not say that all are equal in the church.