Preterist Theology Is Inconsistent And Unbiblical

RCM

Active member
RCM said:

Romans 15:12, "Again Isaiah says, "THERE SHALL COME THE ROOT of JESSE, AND HE WHO ARISES to rule over the GENTILES, IN HIM SHALL THE GENTILES hope."

So Jesus Christ doesn't rule over all men?

Go read the original post of this thread!

If you have objections, make sure you use Biblical Scripture to support your argument!


Acts 15:17-18
17 SO that the rest of MANKIND may seek the LORD, AND ALL the GENTILES WHO are called by MY NAME,'
18 SAYS the LORD, WHO MAKES these things known from long ago.

Verse 17 is a reference of Isaiah 11:10, which is also referenced in Luke 2:30-32 and Romans 15:12

Isaiah 11:10, "Then in that day The nations will resort to the root of Jesse, Who will stand as a signal for the peoples; And His resting place will be glorious."

Luke 2:30-32
30 For my eyes have seen Your salvation,
31 Which You have prepared in the presence of all peoples,
32 A LIGHT OF REVELATION to the GENTILES, And the glory of Your people Israel."

Romans 15:12, "Again Isaiah says, "THERE SHALL COME THE ROOT of JESSE, AND HE WHO ARISES to rule over the GENTILES, IN HIM SHALL THE GENTILES hope."



RCM
 

RCM

Active member
I'm a partial preterist and will be glad to deal with your claims.

Every single saint of God in all ages have come to God through faith. That is why Abraham is referenced has having obtain everlasting life. Abraham was a Gentile when he received the circumcision of the heart. The lineage of Jesus Christ didn't begin with Abraham. It began with the faithfulness of Adam.

You realize that the Galatians 3:16 passage is a reference to the Abrahamic Covenant

Do you realize the land was a central focus of the Abrahamic Covenant?

The land was promised to Abraham's descendants

Israel has the land, not the Church



RCM
 

RCM

Active member
This was a problem has existed from the beginning. Where the law given on Sinah or the law written in the conscience of mankind from the beginning, same problem.

Rom 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
Rom 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

Again, Paul is contrasting Gentiles and Jews in Romans 2

Paul states in verse 24 that the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of Jews who are hypocrites

Paul is saying that a true Jew is one like David, whose has a heart after God, salvation has always been by faith


Paul is not saying that if a Gentile has a heart after God, that he is a true Jew



RCM
 

RCM

Active member
What is the context of Gal. 6:16?

Paul is consistent in his theology

Paul states in,

Romans 11:1-5
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?
3 "Lord, THEY HAVE KILLED YOUR PROPHETS, THEY HAVE TORN down YOUR ALTARS, AND I ALONE am left, AND THEY ARE SEEKING my life."
4 But what is the divine response to him? "I HAVE KEPT for Myself SEVEN thousand men who HAVE NOT BOWED the knee to BAAL."
5 In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God's gracious choice.


In light of Paul's theology in Romans 11:1-5 and Romans 9:30-32,


Romans 9:30-32
30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith;
31 but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law.
32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone,


Keeping consistent with Paul's theology, the context of Galatians 6:16 is,


Galatians 6:12-16 (NASB)

8 For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.
9 Let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we will reap if we do not grow weary.
10 So then, while we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, and especially to those who are of the household of the faith.
12 Those who desire to make a good showing in the flesh try to compel you to be circumcised, simply so that they will not be persecuted for the cross of Christ.
13 For those who are circumcised do not even keep the Law themselves, but they desire to have you circumcised so that they may boast in your flesh.
14 But may it never be that I would boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.
15 For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. (Household of Faith, verse 10)
16 And those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them (Church), and upon the Israel of God (Remnant).



RCM
 
You realize that the Galatians 3:16 passage is a reference to the Abrahamic Covenant

Do you realize the land was a central focus of the Abrahamic Covenant?

The land was promised to Abraham's descendants

Israel has the land, not the Church



RCM
No Jesus Christ owns that land. Your own theology teaches that Jesus Christ shall rule and reign on this earth and possess that land. Your being hypocritical.

In Genesis 15 God took Abraham to see the stars and declared to him the his offspring are a heavenly people. Innumerable. That is fulfilled in seed of Jesus Christ alone. Eternal. Everlasting
 

RCM

Active member
No Jesus Christ owns that land. Your own theology teaches that Jesus Christ shall rule and reign on this earth and possess that land. Your being hypocritical.

You allow your presupposition and bias to take precedence over God's written word


The Abrahamic Covenant also included the 'Land'

Genesis 12:7
7 The LORD appeared to Abram and said, "To your descendants I will give this land." So he built an altar there to the LORD who had appeared to him.

Genesis 13:14-15
14 The LORD said to Abram, after Lot had separated from him, "Now lift up your eyes and look from the place where you are, northward and southward and eastward and westward;
15 for all the land which you see, I will give it to you and to your descendants forever.

Genesis 35:12
12 "The land which I gave to Abraham and Isaac, I will give it to you, And I will give the land to your descendants after you."



Who has the Land? Who is in the Land now? Has God fulfilled Old Testament Biblical Prophecy?



If you do not respond with Biblical Scripture to support your argument, I will no longer respond to incompetence!


You are free to believe anything you want, just don't call it Biblical or God's Truth



In Genesis 15 God took Abraham to see the stars and declared to him the his offspring are a heavenly people. Innumerable. That is fulfilled in seed of Jesus Christ alone. Eternal. Everlasting

You completely misrepresent the Biblical Text

It appears that you are unable to read in context and interpret the truth of what is being said


Genesis 15:2-6
2 Abram said, "O Lord GOD, what will You give me, since I am childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?"
3 And Abram said, "Since You have given no offspring to me, one born in my house is my heir."
4 Then behold, the word of the LORD came to him, saying, "This man will not be your heir; but one who will come forth from your own body, he shall be your heir."
5 And He took him outside and said, "Now look toward the heavens, and count the stars, if you are able to count them." And He said to him, "So shall your descendants be."
6 Then he believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.



The context is literal ethnic physical descendants, not the son's of Abraham by Faith referenced in Galatians 3


Again, if you do not respond with Biblical Scripture to support your argument, I will no longer respond to incompetence!


You are free to believe anything you want, just don't call it Biblical or God's Truth



RCM
 
You allow your presupposition and bias to take precedence over God's written word


The Abrahamic Covenant also included the 'Land'

Genesis 12:7
7 The LORD appeared to Abram and said, "To your descendants I will give this land." So he built an altar there to the LORD who had appeared to him.

Genesis 13:14-15
14 The LORD said to Abram, after Lot had separated from him, "Now lift up your eyes and look from the place where you are, northward and southward and eastward and westward;
15 for all the land which you see, I will give it to you and to your descendants forever.

1. Did you read that last word. "Forever"? Tell me, what happened when Israel decided "played the whore"?

Eze 16:28 Thou hast played the whore also with the Assyrians, because thou wast unsatiable; yea, thou hast played the harlot with them, and yet couldest not be satisfied.

Those verses only make literal "sense" when you apply to the seed (singular) Jesus Christ and His descendants.

Genesis 35:12
12 "The land which I gave to Abraham and Isaac, I will give it to you, And I will give the land to your descendants after you."



Who has the Land? Who is in the Land now? Has God fulfilled Old Testament Biblical Prophecy?

2. That Land is the property of the descendants of Jesus Christ. Do you reject the fact that Jesus Christ is the sole descendent of Jesus Christ with Eternal promises? Why are you rejecting Jesus Christ?


If you do not respond with Biblical Scripture to support your argument, I will no longer respond to incompetence!

Just like the people you complain against in other threads, you only recognize response that fit your false narrative. I have appealed to multiple Scriptures and Biblical teachings to reject your claims.

3. The Israel you claim have intermarried with Gentiles for thousands of years. The earthly bloodline of Abraham is spread out over countless Gentile nations. Tell me, how do I determine the physical descendants of Isaac?

4. Why are you rejecting your own people? Gentiles carry the bloodline of Isaac and Jacob.


The context is literal ethnic physical descendants, not the son's of Abraham by Faith referenced in Galatians 3

No. That is a false narrative that dispensationalists fabricated.

Gal 6:16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

You are free to believe anything you want, just don't call it Biblical or God's Truth
 
Last edited:

BlessedAnomaly

Well-known member
Abraham was a Gentile when he received the circumcision of the heart.
Uhhh -- no. But I understand that many people, who like yourself, want to misuse the term Gentile. The misuse comes from the etymology of the word 'Gentile' when it went through the Latin translation. There were separate words that became 'Gentile' from the Latin. In Old Testament Hebrew there is no Gentile without a Jew. So before the first Jew came to be (Abraham) there were no Gentiles. I'll say that one more different way to make the point: Jews define the word translated into Gentile as "someone who is not a Jew." The original Hebrew term, ha goyim, means "the non-Jewish nations." The New Testament Greek used the word ethnikos, which means "the nations." The Latin used "Gentile" (gentilis, derived from gens) for both of these terms, and others.

The Hebrew word goy means nations. You'll find it throughout the Old Testament in Hebrew, such as in Gen 14:1 where Tidal is referenced as the "king of nations." It is not a proper term for naming a broad "type" of people, such as Gentiles. But it led to modern translations that simply do not mean what some would have them mean, such as Genesis 10:5 --

Genesis 10:5 (NKJV)
From these the coastland peoples of the Gentiles were separated into their lands, everyone according to his language, according to their families, into their nations.​

Note, though, that we have "peoples of the Gentiles" and at the tail end, "into their nations." Both "Gentiles" and "nations" is the Hebrew word goy. Perhaps it was thought redundant to use "nations" in both places. Regardless, the term "peoples of the Gentiles" (where peoples is added for clarity) should have simply been "peoples" or, more accurately, "nations." But these peoples in the coastland (sp. isles) were not to be considered "non-Jew." Rather, the use of the term "Gentile" is a modern (Latin Vulgate onward) translation of the term goy.

An interesting study would be to see what Young's Literal Translation would say:

Genesis 10:5 (YLT)
By these have the isles of the nations been parted in their lands, each by his tongue, by their families, in their nations.​

Oops. In fact, if you get away from the KJV and its offshoots, many modern translations return properly to "nations" or "peoples."

Now, of course, we could then partake in language gymnastics and say that before Abraham "became" a Jew, then all peoples (including Abraham) were not Jews, and therefore, by definition, they are Gentiles. But language gymnastics does not define what words mean in Hebrew to the original Jews.
 
Last edited:

SovereignGrace

Well-known member
yes and notice what section on carm this forum is one lol- might as well be in the cult section where it belongs with the rest of the false teachings. Well its right below them close enough with the open theists, emergents, word of faith,new age all heresies.

good jib defending the truth BTW !!!

kudos
Spread a little sunshine every day
Spread a little sunshine every way
Help someone along life's way
Spread a little sunshine every day
 
Uhhh -- no. But I understand that many people, who like yourself, want to misuse the term Gentile. The misuse comes from the etymology of the word 'Gentile' when it went through the Latin translation. There were separate words that became 'Gentile' from the Latin. In Old Testament Hebrew there is no Gentile without a Jew. So before the first Jew came to be (Abraham) there were no Gentiles. I'll say that one more different way to make the point: Jews define the word translated into Gentile as "someone who is not a Jew." The original Hebrew term, ha goyim, means "the non-Jewish nations." The New Testament Greek used the word ethnikos, which means "the nations." The Latin used "Gentile" (gentilis, derived from gens) for both of these terms, and others.

The Hebrew word goy means nations. You'll find it throughout the Old Testament in Hebrew, such as in Gen 14:1 where Tidal is referenced as the "king of nations." It is not a proper term for naming a broad "type" of people, such as Gentiles. But it led to modern translations that simply do not mean what some would have them mean, such as Genesis 10:5 --

Genesis 10:5 (NKJV)
From these the coastland peoples of the Gentiles were separated into their lands, everyone according to his language, according to their families, into their nations.​

Note, though, that we have "peoples of the Gentiles" and at the tail end, "into their nations." Both "Gentiles" and "nations" is the Hebrew word goy. Perhaps it was thought redundant to use "nations" in both places. Regardless, the term "peoples of the Gentiles" (where peoples is added for clarity) should have simply been "peoples" or, more accurately, "nations." But these peoples in the coastland (sp. isles) were not to be considered "non-Jew." Rather, the use of the term "Gentile" is a modern (Latin Vulgate onward) translation of the term goy.

An interesting study would be to see what Young's Literal Translation would say:

Genesis 10:5 (YLT)
By these have the isles of the nations been parted in their lands, each by his tongue, by their families, in their nations.​

Oops. In fact, if you get away from the KJV and its offshoots, many modern translations return properly to "nations" or "peoples."

Now, of course, we could then partake in language gymnastics and say that before Abraham "became" a Jew, then all peoples (including Abraham) were not Jews, and therefore, by definition, they are Gentiles. But language gymnastics does not define what words mean in Hebrew to the original Jews.
Let me say it another way. Abraham was uncircumcised and received the sign of circumcision as a witness to an inward change he received.

That inward change has existed in all those of faith beginning with Adam.
 

BlessedAnomaly

Well-known member
Let me say it another way. Abraham was uncircumcised and received the sign of circumcision as a witness to an inward change he received.

That inward change has existed in all those of faith beginning with Adam.
I don't disagree in concept. We know this now that we have the New Covenant.

The requirement of circumcision is in Gen 17, beginning v 10.

You said Abraham received a sign (in fact all males are to see this as a sign of the Covenant) to "an inward change." Show me where an inward change was explained/told to Abraham. Nothing inward is promised or spoken of. The sign in the flesh is a permanent reminder of the Covenant. Those without the sign, circumcision, will be cut off from the people. But nothing inward is promised to Abraham.

I point this out to show how our suppositions get inserted into our biblical understanding. Circumcision is a visible sign, not inward. That's in Gen 17.

Now look at Gen 15:6. Just before this verse God shows Abraham the stars. Verse 6, Abraham believes God. God credits it as righteousness to him. Ahh, inward stuff!! Nothing to do with a work (circumcision), but rather a belief (faith).
 
I don't disagree in concept. We know this now that we have the New Covenant.

The requirement of circumcision is in Gen 17, beginning v 10.

You said Abraham received a sign (in fact all males are to see this as a sign of the Covenant) to "an inward change." Show me where an inward change was explained/told to Abraham. Nothing inward is promised or spoken of. The sign in the flesh is a permanent reminder of the Covenant. Those without the sign, circumcision, will be cut off from the people. But nothing inward is promised to Abraham.

I point this out to show how our suppositions get inserted into our biblical understanding. Circumcision is a visible sign, not inward. That's in Gen 17.

Now look at Gen 15:6. Just before this verse God shows Abraham the stars. Verse 6, Abraham believes God. God credits it as righteousness to him. Ahh, inward stuff!! Nothing to do with a work (circumcision), but rather a belief (faith).
I said the same things I said previously, just differently. Your previous issue with my comments seems to be a case of just arguing to be arguing.

Gentiles. Uncircumcised
Jews. Circumcised.

Abraham was a uncircumcised Gentile. Through faith, he received the promise. There is no Jew who doesn't experience this very same condition. It is the argument Paul made to those at Rome.
 

BlessedAnomaly

Well-known member
I said the same things I said previously, just differently. Your previous issue with my comments seems to be a case of just arguing to be arguing.
Words have meaning. Deflecting the meaning in one area can then have consequences in other areas of one uses the wrong meanings to support the other area.

Arguing just to argue? I've been known to do that 😏. But not here. Words have meaning.

Gentiles. Uncircumcised
Jews. Circumcised.
Redefining for your own purposes.

In Acts, there were those who wanted the Gentiles to be circumcised. Paul said no. Some were circumcised before Paul showed up. Did those Gentiles magically become Jews because of the circumcision? By your definition here they did.

Retread what I wrote about the etymology of the word.

Abraham was a uncircumcised Gentile.
No, he wasn't.

Through faith, he received the promise.
Though this did not come by the circumcision. He received the promise before the command for circumcision. I've shown that.

There is no Jew who doesn't experience this very same condition. It is the argument Paul made to those at Rome.
Albeit Paul never called Abraham a Gentile.
 
Words have meaning. Deflecting the meaning in one area can then have consequences in other areas of one uses the wrong meanings to support the other area.

Arguing just to argue? I've been known to do that 😏. But not here. Words have meaning.

Yes. They do. You made a petty argument in response that means nothing. Abraham was uncircumcised when he expressed faith. There is no difference between Abraham and all the faithful of all ages. None.

In Acts, there were those who wanted the Gentiles to be circumcised. Paul said no. Some were circumcised before Paul showed up. Did those Gentiles magically become Jews because of the circumcision? By your definition here they did.

Circumcision was only a sign. You're extending beyond its meaning.

Gal 5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

Gal 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.

Retread what I wrote about the etymology of the word.

It is meaningless deflection. That is all. Trying to use an uncertain etymology to make a Scriptural application is an empty argument made by many. You're wrong but it doesn't matter. Your claims doesn't add up to anything.

No, he wasn't.

Yes he was. He wasn't circumcision the 8th day according to the law. He lived a large portion of his life as a sinner. Which is the same of everyone in the human race.

Though this did not come by the circumcision. He received the promise before the command for circumcision. I've shown that.

Exactly. A promise that came about because of His faith.

It is ironic that you're make a Calvinist argument here and don't even realize it. You are appealing to God blessing sinners with promises apart from salvation by faith. You are preaching a chosen people apart from faith.

Albeit Paul never called Abraham a Gentile.

Rom 4:9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
Rom 4:10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.

You should study more.
 
Last edited:

BlessedAnomaly

Well-known member
Yes. They do.
Yes.
You made a petty argument in response that means nothing.
And your ad hom means less than nothing.

Abraham was uncircumcised when he expressed faith. There is no difference between Abraham and all the faithful of all ages. None.
No one said anything different to this comment.

Circumcision was only a sign. You're extending beyond its meaning.
I gave no additional meaning to circumcision.

Gal 5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

Gal 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
Why are you stuck on circumcision when we were talking about the word "Gentile"? Are you even following the conversation?

It is meaningless deflection. That is all. Trying to use an uncertain etymology to make a Scriptural application is an empty argument made by many.
You are using many words to try to sound intelligent. It's not working.

The etymology of the word "Gentile" is quite solid, I assure you.

You're wrong but it doesn't matter. Your claims doesn't add up to anything.
More ad homs that fall flat.

Yes he was.
No he wasn't. See how easy that is? But the difference is that I proved my point, you simply throw mud. The best you came up with was that Abraham was uncircumcised -- but the word "Gentile" is not defined by circumcision. At all. Ever.

He wasn't circumcision the 8th day according to the law. He lived a large portion of his life as a sinner. Which is the same of everyone in the human race.
The written law did not exist in the day of Abraham -- otherwise, ok, sure.

Exactly. A promise that came about because of His faith.
Yup. So why you tie Abraham's uncircumcised state to anything is beyond me.

It is ironic that you're make a Calvinist argument here and don't even realize it.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

You are appealing to God blessing sinners with promises apart from salvation by faith.
Matthew 5:45
so that you may be like your Father in heaven, since he causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

You are preaching a chosen people apart from faith.
Romans 9:14-15 (emphasis in original)
What shall we say then? Is there injustice with God? Absolutely not! 15 For he says to Moses: “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

Rom 4:9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
Rom 4:10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
You should use all of scripture, and with an understanding of the audience. Paul is declaring to a Jewish sect who believed that circumcision is necessary for the Gentile that it is not the key point. Did you hear Paul? It is NOT the key point. Circumcision is meaningless.

So same chapter, just a few lines earlier to establish context:

Romans 4:2-5 (emphasis in original)​
2 For if Abraham was declared righteous] by works, he has something to boast about—but not before God. 3 For what does the scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” 4 Now to the one who works, his pay is not credited due to grace but due to obligation. 5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in the one who declares the ungodly righteous, his faith is credited as righteousness.​

But you want to make circumcision the thing that gained righteousness (even after agreeing above that Abraham was imputed righteousness before any circumcision). Circumcision is not a thing for faith and righteousness.

Galatians 5:3-6 (this time the emphasis is mine)​
And I testify again to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4 You who are trying to be declared righteous by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace! 5 For through the Spirit, by faith, we wait expectantly for the hope of righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision carries any weight—the only thing that matters is faith working through love.

You should study more.
I do not cease in study. You should try understanding instead of presupposition. A little more exegesis and a lot less eisegesis.
 

BlessedAnomaly

Well-known member
Rom 4:9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
Rom 4:10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.

You should study more.
BTW, Romans 4:10 is not saying that faith was reckoned to Abraham while he was uncircumcised and BECAUSE he became circumcised. It was an argument to the Judaizers that circumcision is not the point. They wanted all Gentiles circumcised. Paul said it doesn't matter. It never did. Even with Abraham circumcision was NOT the point.
 

RCM

Active member
2. That Land is the property of the descendants of Jesus Christ. Do you reject the fact that Jesus Christ is the sole descendent of Jesus Christ with Eternal promises? Why are you rejecting Jesus Christ?

The Abrahamic Covenant also included the 'Land'

Genesis 12:7
7 The LORD appeared to Abram and said, "To your descendants I will give this land." So he built an altar there to the LORD who had appeared to him.

Genesis 13:14-15
14 The LORD said to Abram, after Lot had separated from him, "Now lift up your eyes and look from the place where you are, northward and southward and eastward and westward;
15 for all the land which you see, I will give it to you and to your descendants forever.

Genesis 35:12
12 "The land which I gave to Abraham and Isaac, I will give it to you, And I will give the land to your descendants after you."


You want to know how to interpret Genesis and to whom the land belongs? Look at Deuteronomy 1:8,


Deuteronomy 1:8
8 'See, I have placed the land before you; go in and possess the land which the LORD swore to give to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to them and their descendants after them.'


To whom did God give the Land? Who is in the Land now? Has God fulfilled Old Testament Biblical Prophecy?


Every day you wake up, Israel is in the Land, God has brought them back

  • Amos 9:11-15 The LORD will restore Israel to its former glory, and they will never be uprooted again
  • Micah 4:1-5 The LORD’s future reign on earth in Jerusalem
  • Micah 4:6-13 The LORD will gather Israel and restore the kingdom
  • Zechariah 2:1-13 The LORD is going to going to call the exiles home to live with him in Israel
  • Zechariah 6:9-15 The LORD will rule as king and priest in the rebuilt temple
  • Zechariah 8:1-23 The LORD of Heaven’s Armies will return to Mount Zion and live in Jerusalem to bless the remnant of Israel
  • Zechariah 9:9-17 The LORD of Heaven’s Armies will destroy all the weapons used in battle and bring peace to the nations
  • Zechariah 10:1-12 The LORD will restore his people
  • Zechariah 12:1-14 The LORD will defend his people and give victory to Jerusalem
  • Zechariah 14:1-21 The LORD will rule the whole earth from Jerusalem

RCM
 
BTW, Romans 4:10 is not saying that faith was reckoned to Abraham while he was uncircumcised and BECAUSE he became circumcised. It was an argument to the Judaizers that circumcision is not the point. They wanted all Gentiles circumcised. Paul said it doesn't matter. It never did. Even with Abraham circumcision was NOT the point.

You're so stuck in your own argument that you don't realize that you're agreeing with what I said.

I agree. It never mattered. The only thing mattered was the circumcision of the heart that defines all those of faith in Jesus Christ.
 
Top