4311
Comments (323)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
1
Hardcouer 1 point ago +1 / -0

Sure, I could waste my time watching a video that probably also tapdances around an obvious and completely inarguable verse.

1
nile1 1 point ago +1 / -0

I already gave you my interpretation of 11:7 but you didn't address it. I'll try provide it more clearly this time:

"What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for (Because this is Israel in-name-only refer 9:6, not elect, not God's people); but the election hath obtained it (Because they are God's people, true Israel)."

1
Hardcouer 1 point ago +1 / -0

Right, excellent.

Do we agree that the Israel references in 10:19 and 10:21 and 11:3 also refer to Jews?

1
nile1 1 point ago +1 / -0

We probably don't agree on the Gospel, I'd rather go there than to go in circles again addressing your Zionist theology.

1
Hardcouer 1 point ago +1 / -0

I have zero complaints about that exegesis of v7. If we stick to tight exegetical analysis, we won't go in circles.

It's a simple question: the last two Israel references in Rom 10, and in 11:2: those are referring to Jews, right?

And if my theology is so bad, especially as it pertains to Jews, shouldn't you be pleased to have almost three whole chapters about the Jews to show me where I'm in error?

Here's the bit that loads of evangelicals point to to say that God still has a plan for the Jews, and you want to leave it rather than demonstrating our error from text or context? Because I'm pretty confident I can demonstrate yours.