Daniel & Revelation Reveal The Antichrist

[wordsower]

Biblestudent,

This is the missing link in your puzzle.

If you can see Israel you will understand the heart of God.

[BibleStudent]

Biblestudent,

This is the missing link in your puzzle.

If you can see Israel you will understand the heart of God.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wordsower,

I wasn't aware of any missing links in my puzzle. But it's clear that you and your similarly-minded friends are unwilling to abandon literalism to allow the NT prophets to tell you what the OT means.

One of your friends suggested that I study Romans 9-11. I have studied it at length, and have published that study in chapter 3 of I Want to be Left Behind. Paul's exposition in Romans is one of the strongest arguments against a future for genetic Jews that you can find. But of course, you will read 11:26ff without understanding why Paul quotes it. You apply it literally, thinking, contrary to scripture, that "Israel" has to mean "Jew."

Paul quotes the OT there as his conclusion. He has argued through the olive tree analogy that there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles in God's eyes. Only believers will be part of the tree. And when the last Gentile converts, the process ends. This process is how "all Israel will be saved." The Greek is explicit. But of course, you don't care what the Greek says.

When you are willing to begin at verse 16 and trace Paul's argument through, then there will be a reason to continue this discussion. Until then, I will stand by. You have your minds made up, and you will not let God's messengers in scripture change them.

BibleStudent

[sandy]

BibleStudent,

Are you referencing Ted Noel's book and/or are you Ted Noel?

[Guest Bro David™]

BibleStudent,

Are you referencing Ted Noel's book and/or are you Ted Noel?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was wondering that same thing.

Bible Student are you Ted Noel ?

A very In depth exposition is available on-line at the TTS for those Theo students.

[JesusisGod2]

When you are willing to begin at verse 16 and trace Paul's argument through, then there will be a reason to continue this discussion. Until then, I will stand by. You have your minds made up, and you will not let God's messengers in scripture change them.

BibleStudent

No Offence Biblestudent, but it sounds as if you are the one who has closed his mind to the teaching, could it be that you would have to admit your book is wrong? Specifically chapter 3? If so there is no disgrace in admitting wrong.

I know sometimes words in type can be interpreted as being written harshly, please understand that these words I am writting are not meant in a harsh manner.

It would be much better to confess error, than to lead astray the unsuspecting and unlearned. Knowing that teachers will incur a stricter judgement.

James 3:1

Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment.

And when the last Gentile converts, the process ends. This process is how "all Israel will be saved." The Greek is explicit. But of course, you don't care what the Greek says.

Where is this written?

Paul's exposition in Romans is one of the strongest arguments against a future for genetic Jews that you can find. But of course, you will read 11:26ff without understanding why Paul quotes it. You apply it literally, thinking, contrary to scripture, that "Israel" has to mean "Jew."

Actually I believe it is one of the strongest arguements for literal Israel and the Jew, chapter 11 of Romans in particular.

Romans 1 I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

2 God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel?

Notice what he goes on to say:

25 For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery--so that you will not be wise in your own estimation--that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in;

The key word here is until.

Now once the fullness of the time of the gentiles has come, God again turns to Israel

26 and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written,

"THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION,

HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB."

27 "THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM,

WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS."

Now we know he is speaking of literal Israel from the very next verse:

28a From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake,

Who are they? it is Israel of course.

Who are the your refered to here? Those who have the gospel, the church. Israel has become an enemies from the standpoint of the gospel, in other words salvation through Jesus Christ as oppossed to through the law.

28b but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers;

Again who is they? Is it not Israel?

Notice this is Gods choice to save Israel for the sake of the fathers, and in this we should rejoice, not try to eliminate or replace them.

29 for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

Again the emphasis is on Israel, God will not repent of the promise he made to Israel, they will be saved.

This is the prodical son story in reverse, the church now the one being jealous of God killing the fatted calf for His son Jacob.

30 For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience,

Again who is the you refered to here? Is it not the gentiles? The Church?

Who is reference Their disobedience directed at? Is it not Israel, literal Isreal?

31 so these also now have been disobedient, that because of the mercy shown to you they also may now be shown mercy.

Again who is the these and they being made referance to? Is it not again literal Israel?

Who is the you being made reference to here? Is it not the church? The gentiles?

33 Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways!

In Jesus

Kevin

[nebula]

He has argued through the olive tree analogy that there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles in God's eyes.

Romans 10:12,13 - 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; 13 for "WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED."

Compare with

Gal. 3:28 - There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

So, can I say they is no difference between male and female in God's eyes, too?

So then women can be pastors?

Why not? Is it not the same logic?

[other one]

I also want to mention that there is only one book in the entire Bible that mentions the word "antichrist,"  but neither Daniel nor Revelation is it. 

This reminds me of someone that's trying to catch a bird with a fishing pole.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've caught a bird with a fly rod a time or two. It is not impossible you know....

[Guest shiloh357]

One of your friends suggested that I study Romans 9-11. I have studied it at length, and have published that study in chapter 3 of I Want to be Left Behind. Paul's exposition in Romans is one of the strongest arguments against a future for genetic Jews that you can find. But of course, you will read 11:26ff without understanding why Paul quotes it. You apply it literally, thinking, contrary to scripture, that "Israel" has to mean "Jew."

Paul quotes the OT there as his conclusion. He has argued through the olive tree analogy that there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles in God's eyes. Only believers will be part of the tree. And when the last Gentile converts, the process ends. This process is how "all Israel will be saved." The Greek is explicit. But of course, you don't care what the Greek says.

When you are willing to begin at verse 16 and trace Paul's argument through, then there will be a reason to continue this discussion. Until then, I will stand by. You have your minds made up, and you will not let God's messengers in scripture change them.

Biblestudent, the problem with your treatment of Romans 11, is that you are trying to use that chapter to prove something that was not at all part of the line of thought Paul was using.

Paul was not trying to address the future of natural Israel

The theme of Romans is "Justification by Faith." In the 1st Century it was a mystery to some Jewish believers how a Gentile could be saved and still remain a Gentile. They actually had a debate on that subject in Acts chapter 15. Today, the debate has been stood on its head. Now the big mystery is how Jews can be saved and still be allowed to remain kosher and so forth.

The book of Romans, in the first eight chapters, deals with how Gentiles are saved. Romans 11 MUST be examined within the context of the chapters preceding. Romans 9-11 are actually the subject matter of the book. Paul wrote Romans to make clear the points made in 9-11.

The first eight chapters of Romans is really leading up to the points Paul is wanting to make in Romans 9-11. Romans 1:1-5:11 deals with the blood of Jesus and our forgives from sins. Romans 5:12-8:39 deals with the work of the cross and our deliverance from the power/stronghold of sin.

Paul, having shown how God made possible the salvation of the Gentiles by faith, now begins to show his Gentile brothers and sisters in Romans 9 and 10, the importance of seeking the salvation of the Jewish people, his people. Paul even goes so far as to say that he would be willing to be cut off of salvation himself if it would save his people.

Paul's point, in Romans 9-11, is being Jewish in and of itself, offers no hope where salvation is concerned. He has demonstrated previously in chapters 1-8, that all men are shut up under sin, and that no one, including the Jews, can find salvation apart from the Messiah. Paul's concern is for the salvation of his people. That is what he is addressing. He is not trying to redefine "Israel" by teaching that Israel has been replaced by the Church. That is not the line of thought anywhere in Romans. Paul is telling the Gentile believers that they owe it to the Jewish people, and indeed to all Israel to share the gospel with them, because it was through Israel that the Messiah has come. He emphasizes in verse 15, that if the rejection of the of the Messiah by the Jewish people has been such a blessing to the Gentiles, how much more so will the world be blessed when physical Israel recognizes and accepts their Messiah?

Yes, there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles where access to salvation is concerned. We all stand on even ground before the cross, we come to Christ the same way, and we are all saved by grace through faith. The plan of salvation in no way negates God future plans for Israel.

Furthermore, In Romans 11:28, Paul shows that Israel (the Jewish people) became enemies of gospel for the sake of the Gentiles, but for the sake of the election they remain beloved. Because they remain beloved, God's calling on natural Israel is irrevocable according to 11:29.

Replacement theology is nothing but religious bigotry and a blatant prostitution of the Scriptures. It is a grave heresy that must be repudiated. It formed the theological justification for hatred of Jews down through the centuries. Replacement theology is not new. It has its roots in the anti-Semitism of the early Church Fathers. Replacement theology is a cancer in the church. It perpetuates an 1700 year long legacy of hatred and has no place in the heart and minds of those who call themselves Christians.

[JesusisGod2]

Replacement theology is a cancer in the church. It perpetuates an 1700 year long legacy of hatred and has no place in the heart and minds of those who call themselves Christians.

Amen

[wordsower]

Shiloh,

Great post!

I can't add much of anything to your knowledge, but I did want to ask.........

When Paul states that his desire is that all Israel be saved, how in the world can anyone translate that to mean the Church? How silly does that sound? He'd give his life to save the saved Church?

I can't see how this is even an issue, but I see that the RCC has taught it for years and look at the errors there.........still electing "priests" to hear confessions, to lead the people, to act as a mediator, replacing the work of Christ.

Replacement theology puts an ugly cloud over the convenants, confusing old and new and trying to join the two, it causes so many doctrinal errors and, you're right, it's a cancer.