So you believe that Paul forfeited his right to the promise by becoming Christian? Do you also believe that Christ forfeited his right to the promise by rejecting the Pharisees?
Oh, I see, so you have decided to step away from your Lev 26 argument and state that the promise can be inherited without repentance? Or do you need more time to get your story straight?
Are you claiming that every occupant of the land was there by virtue of the promises? Or do you concede that some people may be there outside of the effect of the promise?
Whoops, there you go changing your story again within the same post.
Is repentance required? The question is rhetorical at this point because you are willing to say either without an ounce of accountability in the things you say.
As of Rom 9:13 Paul is speaking to Gentiles in the audience, yes.
There is a breakdown of unsaved Israel as well. You'll notice in Romans 11:23 there is a conditional salvation for Jews when Paul states "... if they do not continue in unbelief."
There are Jews that are in a bad state and eventually receive God's mercy, and other Jews that are in a bad state and will not receive salvation. IF. It's Conditional. Get it?
"Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham." - Gal 3:6-7 KJV
In the post crucifixion world, those of faith are Christian not antiChrist Jews.
Saul wasn't of the faith until he became Paul. I'm not saying we should give up on the Saul's of the world, but we shouldn't expect that everyone would be a Saul.
It's not as though God's promises are in vain: not all of Israel are Israel. Not all that call themselves Jews are Jews. <- That's Biblical, if you reject that your beliefs aren't.
I agree with this. But Biblically we need to understand that there is no guarantee for any particular percentage of people there to attain salvation.
I hope the best for every nation, and it was promised in Revelation that there will be those saved from every nation. There are good people everywhere.
I'm not claiming that all 0AD Gentiles became Israel. But it should be observed that just like Timothy had mixed ancestry, it is easily the fact that many people have mixed ancestry, especially considering historic diaspora. Yes, we can look at gene clustering, but the moment that door opened for free intermarriage between all nations that joined Christianity, it's hard to tell the dividing line between different groups, especially if we consider the fact that even a drop of Judean blood makes you a descendant of Abraham.
There are literally people that don't realize the true scope of their ancestry. And with promiscuity over the ages, even a well written family tree might not be 100% accurate. It's likely part of the reason that Talmudic Jews count ancestry matrilineally, to remove doubt despite the fact that counting through "seed" was patrilineal. If we consider the fact that since 2000 years ago, at 4 generations per century, everyone has 2^80 ancestors (with some level of inbreeding) which equals 1.2 heptillion (1.2 E24) ancestors relative to the beginnings of Christianity. And if even one of those ancestors was a Jew turned Christian like Timothy's mother, there may not be a written history of it, but that person would be related to Abraham through Judah's bloodline. That would show up as a blip of nothing statistically on a gene analysis, but it wouldn't change the fact that the person truly has that bloodline.
You can't just say that the Church isn't Israel firstly because 1) denying the ancestry of random people is hateful and obtuse. 2) At the time of New Jerusalem, there is no nation of Israel. 3) If a man and wife become one, and Christ is Israel, what does that make the Church and the Bridegroom, Christ?
On one hand, to my question "Do you agree that the promises have continuity through Christians?" you stated "NO!" And yet here you are in this quote inferring that Jews that became Christians still have the promises. Those are contradictory premises. Either there is continuity or there isn't. It can't be both.
Consider these points:
1) Did Timothy qualify for the promises?
2) Did hypothetical Christian descendants of Timothy qualify for the promises?
I'm beating a dead horse here. You know you screwed up. I doubt you will acknowledge that. It doesn't take a genius to realize that you literally made two completely opposite points in the same post. Unless you are willing to reevaluate your comments and demonstrate some accountability, the only tactic left at your disposal is attacking character, and if that's the case, I have nothing more to say to you, as you will have been just another deceitful doubleminded Dispensationalist.
1
