1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
I see yer still wavin' that tattered ole flag around that I done shot fulla holes. :chuckle:
ECT Abraham before he believed
- Thread starter Interplanner
- Start date
I see yer still wavin' that tattered ole flag around that I done shot fulla holes. :chuckle:
Cross Reference
New member
Abraham was chosen of God because he believed God and it was counted unto him as righteousness. His righteousness is why God chose him. That is also why Abraham is considered the father of faith to all who believed God by him; his testimony; his life. Faith in God, that by the testing of it, brings the Faith of God by which we are to exist in Him;to know Him.. See John 17:3, cf Gal 2:20 (KJV only). Abraham shows us that.
Jesus was NOT a descendant of Judah and his Canaanite wife, your cohorts were. That’s the crux of the problem. And, they had no more respect for Jesus' ancestry than you do (John 8:13, 19, 25).
God utterly smote Judah's two eldest Canaanite sons Er, and Onan (Genesis 38:6, 7, 8, 9, 10) for hooking up with an Israelite Priestess (Leviticus 21:9 KJV, Genesis 38:24 KJV). Jesus is a descendant of Judah and his Israelite Priestess daughter-in-law Tamar, contrary to Leviticus 18:15 KJV, Leviticus 20:12 KJV, Leviticus 21:7 KJV, Leviticus 21:9 KJV, Leviticus 21:13 KJV, Leviticus 21:14 KJV. Who wrote the Law?
Who changed the Law? Your Shelanite cohorts did justifying the covenant of marriage between Judhah and his Canaanite wife, and between Abraham and Keturah. Your cohorts overruled Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3, Ezra 9:1, 2, 7 with the covenant of marriage. Those Laws corroborated Abraham's infamous quest for a wife for Isaac (Genesis 24:3 KJV) continued by Isaac's dire quest for a wife for Jacob (Genesis 27:46 KJV, Genesis 28:1, 2, 3). But, those are just Sunday school stories, right?
Jesus is a descendant of David and Bathsheba... but, not via their first offspring who was a son conceived out of wedlock, and died at the hand of the Lord (2Samuel 12:14 KJV).
Moses, not in the lineage of Jesus, snuffed a dude, never set foot in the Promised Land, and wrote the Law. Any questions?
Jesus’ ancestry is intact being absent those marital “great trespasses”: Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3, Deuteronomy 23:3; Ezra 9:1, 2, 7 corroborating Abraham’s infamous quest for a wife for Isaac (Genesis 23:23 KJV), and Isaac’s dire quest for a wife for Jacob (Genesis 27:46 KJV, Genesis 28:1, 2, 3).
Only ONE was perfect, Interplanner. Jesus came from a long line of sinners beginning with Adam and Eve. So, what else is new? Nonetheless, His ancestry remained intact, all 77-fold inclusive generations (Genesis 4:24 KJV, Luke 3:38 KJV-Luke 3:23 KJV). And, you and your cohorts endlessly take great pleasure tarnishing the ancestry, the ‘name’ of Jesus… that’s been going on since the beginning of Genesis… speaking of endless genealogies.
kayaker
Cross Reference
New member
Good word. Well put. :thumb:
LOL! You dun shot your self in the foot! But you did get one good shot in as I recall, and I did give you full credit for that one. You ever figure out the title "Canaanite" was a geographical title? Sounds like an ethnic title, doesn't it? Let me copy paste, take a shot at it:
You might ask yourself why Moses redundantly excluded explicit descendants of Canaan (Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3) being the “Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites,.. and the Jebusites” as illustrated in Genesis 10:15, 16, 17, 18. Why did Moses redundantly use the title “Canaanites” alongside those named descendants of Canaan? That wasn’t the only time, btw. Please consider Exodus 23:28 KJV, Exodus 33:2 KJV, Exodus 34:11 KJV. Consider Joshua 11:3 KJV. Why the redundancy?
The title “Canaanite” was geographical including descendants of Ham and his wife alongside those illustrated descendants of Canaan. The bottom line is Judah’s Canaanitess wife (1Chronicles 2:3 KJV), daughter of the Canaanite Shuah (Genesis 38:2 KJV), was a descendant of Ham and his wife. Therefore, Abraham’s wife Keturah was a “Canaanite” descendant of Ham and his wife. Since Ham was a descendant of Noah and his wife… that begs the question: Who was Ham’s wife, grandmother of Nimrod, king of Babel (Genesis 10:6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)?
The title “Canaanite” was geographical including descendants of Ham and his wife alongside those illustrated descendants of Canaan. The bottom line is Judah’s Canaanitess wife (1Chronicles 2:3 KJV), daughter of the Canaanite Shuah (Genesis 38:2 KJV), was a descendant of Ham and his wife. Therefore, Abraham’s wife Keturah was a “Canaanite” descendant of Ham and his wife. Since Ham was a descendant of Noah and his wife… that begs the question: Who was Ham’s wife, grandmother of Nimrod, king of Babel (Genesis 10:6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)?
The bottom line: ancestral titles can also become geographical titles when a land is named after an ancestor. I am a Virginian because I moved to and live in Virginia, but that doesn't mean I'm related to Mr. or Mrs. Virginia.
Genesis 36:35 KJV Midian was smitten in the field of Moab, but that didn't make Midian a Moabite. There are numerous similar cases.
Numbers 22:1 KJV The Israelites camped in the plains of Moab, but that didn't make them Moabites. They had a paternal title, Israelites.
In fact, I don't recall that females were given paternal titles other than being the daughter of _______. Take a look at Numbers 25:1 KJV where the female descendants of Moab were identified as the "daughters of Moab." Ruth was never referred to as a "daughter of Moab," only as a Moabitess. Consequently, it stand to some reason a female, as Ruth in this case, would be given a geographical title since her paternal patriarch was never explicitly identified. So, I gotta respectable hole in my flag... you've got one in your foot :cheers:
kayaker, Shelanite hunter at large, LOL!
rainee
New member
Sir, Judah was not an adulterer his wife was dead. He was something else that was wrong in the eyes of The Lord, right?
And she was not a hooker she was posing as one. She would have been his daughter in law, but The Lord took one husband then another - so she was at that time free. Yes?
rainee
New member
Kayaker, you are killing me.
The line of The Lord was to have Godly Women...
Righteous Ones, or should I say Just? For the Just shall live by faith, as it was written.
You can't go around saying things when He was/ is trying to show Israel what real godly righteousness looked like. Ok?
The line of The Lord was to have Godly Women...
Righteous Ones, or should I say Just? For the Just shall live by faith, as it was written.
You can't go around saying things when He was/ is trying to show Israel what real godly righteousness looked like. Ok?
Well thanks, CR! I think you do a really fine job with your writing, btw... You get your point across whether or not we agree, which is occasional, respectfully. But, I do love shaking the bushes, rooting around for them acorns. Those floggers like Interplanner, who take John 8:34 KJV out of context, have no limits on who they won't accuse, even Abraham being Persian and not previously believing in the God of the Hebrews. Rather remarkable phenomenon, an interesting profile, and not particularly uncommon... including my biological brother, btw!
kayaker
Interplanner
Well-known member
I'm not sure that I gather your post correctly, Rainee. I'm here to testify that Tamar was as much a hero as any man taking the risks she took. And Tamar gets far less credit than Rahab, respectfully. Tamar taking the risk she took continued the lineage that produced our Messiah being Judah was the prophesied progenitor of Messiah (Isaiah 65:9 KJV). Had Tamar not taken that risk playing the harlot... well, I'm afraid to say what would have happened.
But, do realize I recognize Tamar's spiritual bravery being THE most key example of who Ezra was talking about some 1,400 years later in Ezra 9:8 KJV. Ezra saw Tamar's bravery being that remnant at that moment in time, that moment she trusted God, to bring Pharez into this world, the descendant of Judah found in the lineage of Jesus. How utterly remarkable, and what a testimony Tamar is to trusting and having faith in God... as she sits in the background in most Sunday School classes. I personally think Tamar is a vastly unsung heroine.
That being said... I'm not clear trying to understand your patience criticism.
kayaker
Interplanner
Well-known member
God never does this. He never loves or chooses people because they are righteous.
To impute something is to supply from a third party source; it is not in the person in question. It means to credit/transfer/reckon; the true value imputed came from somewhere else.
The Genesis narrative is not as clear as Paul's commentary on it in Gal 3, which is that the Gospel was preached beforehand to him, and that the Seed was Christ. It can't be another Gospel, not in the mouth of Paul (Gal 1), and not when it specifically says beforehand (as though we would be surprised to hear this so far back). It was an encounter in which the LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS, Melchizedek, was met.
Abraham believed God would lead at the same time, but being lead to a distant land is not the Gospel; the Gospel is about the need for righteousness. And imputed righteousness doesn't help a wandering tribe find its way or provide children, so a conversation or exchange took place that is not detailed in the narrative. Imputed righteousness does, however, open up a channel to gain a multitude of descendents in the same faith, which Abraham did, and of which Isaac was a picture only. He was the picture of God providing when human effort is pointless.
Otherwise we have to throw out Rom 4 and Gal 3.
"If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." 3:29
Interplanner
Well-known member
Deuteronomy 9:4
After the Lord your God has driven them out before you, do not say to yourself, “The Lord has brought me here to take possession of this land because of my righteousness.” No, it is on account of the wickedness of these nations that the Lord is going to drive them out before you.
Deuteronomy 9:5
It is not because of your righteousness or your integrity that you are going in to take possession of their land; but on account of the wickedness of these nations, the Lord your God will drive them out before you, to accomplish what he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Deuteronomy 9:6
Understand, then, that it is not because of your righteousness that the Lord your God is giving you this good land to possess, for you are a stiff-necked people.
Likewise see 7:7.
After the Lord your God has driven them out before you, do not say to yourself, “The Lord has brought me here to take possession of this land because of my righteousness.” No, it is on account of the wickedness of these nations that the Lord is going to drive them out before you.
Deuteronomy 9:5
It is not because of your righteousness or your integrity that you are going in to take possession of their land; but on account of the wickedness of these nations, the Lord your God will drive them out before you, to accomplish what he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Deuteronomy 9:6
Understand, then, that it is not because of your righteousness that the Lord your God is giving you this good land to possess, for you are a stiff-necked people.
Likewise see 7:7.
Perhaps IP can succinctly explain why God loved the Israelites in Deuteronomy 7:8 KJV, while IP fire dances around his notion ancestry and descendency was of no significance in the OT.
Could Jesus just as easily have been the progeny of any ole virgin, including a virgin Canaanite descendant of Judah and his Canaanite wife?
Interplanner speak with forked tongue. Interplanner, a John 8:34 KJV flogger knows righteousness from wickedness (Genesis 3:4 KJV, Genesis 3:5 KJV). Innerplanter's supporting documentation Deuteronomy 7:7 KJV is not even applicable to his argument. God loved the ISRAELITES: Deuteronomy 7:6, 7, 8, 9. Only a few verses prior God laid it out about the Canaanites & Co. in Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3, 4, 5 with particular emphasis on Deuteronomy 7:3 KJV.
So, spit it out Interplanter: Was Judah's son Shelah an Israelite? (Genesis 38:2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 26, Numbers 26:20 KJV). Did God love Shelah? Or, did God just tolerate Shelah as long as he kept his nose clean? Could Jesus just as easily have been a descendant of Shelah?
chief blind wild hawg,
Interplanner
Well-known member
He did things with Israel to bring Christ into human existence. He did not do things for them because they were many or because they were righteous. btw, this sets up what Rom 5 says about grace and love.
Enjoy your obsession with Shelah or what'shername.
Enjoy your obsession with Shelah or what'shername.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Before Abraham believed, he was one of the sinners all over the planet still dazed from the confusion of the arrogant city's demise. He was an unbeliever. No other particulars matter. When the Gospel, which can unite any people with any other people (as a side effect) was preached to him, he believed; he saw Christ's day and believed. It is that faith that creates a variation on his own descendents, the children of faith.
"IF you belong to Christ, you are Abraham's seed, and heirs of the promise."
"IF you belong to Christ, you are Abraham's seed, and heirs of the promise."
rainee
New member
Wow, thank you for that detailed response!
Truth is I hadn't done enough reading on this thread and jumped to a conclusion - a wrong one in two ways! I'm sorry I was wrong in what I said about you, and glad it prompted you to write such an edifying post in return! Thank you
rainee
New member
Blushing
Interplanner
Well-known member
Kayaker stroked:
Interplanner, a John 8:34 KJV flogger knows righteousness from wickedness (Genesis 3:4 KJV, Genesis 3:5 KJV). Innerplanter's supporting documentation Deuteronomy 7:7 KJV is not even applicable to his argument. God loved the ISRAELITES: Deuteronomy 7:6, 7, 8, 9.
This borders on the insane. I don't know what a flogger of a verse is. I quoted it in its normal sense twice.
God did not love the Israelites for intrinsic reasons!!! He loved in spite of what they were. They were stubborn, strong-necked rascals, as all of ch 8 says, and 7-8 might as well be a unit, since it is the topic of why ANY of this was happening to them.
He wanted a people in the landbridge of 3 continents so that when the right time came for the Gospel it would burst on the scene at Pentecost. It went from Spain to India to Ethiopia in one generation.
He had to knock out the Canaanites first for their wickedness.
Interplanner, a John 8:34 KJV flogger knows righteousness from wickedness (Genesis 3:4 KJV, Genesis 3:5 KJV). Innerplanter's supporting documentation Deuteronomy 7:7 KJV is not even applicable to his argument. God loved the ISRAELITES: Deuteronomy 7:6, 7, 8, 9.
This borders on the insane. I don't know what a flogger of a verse is. I quoted it in its normal sense twice.
God did not love the Israelites for intrinsic reasons!!! He loved in spite of what they were. They were stubborn, strong-necked rascals, as all of ch 8 says, and 7-8 might as well be a unit, since it is the topic of why ANY of this was happening to them.
He wanted a people in the landbridge of 3 continents so that when the right time came for the Gospel it would burst on the scene at Pentecost. It went from Spain to India to Ethiopia in one generation.
He had to knock out the Canaanites first for their wickedness.
Did God do things with Israel like telling them no hanky panky with those Canaanites in Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3? You've made it perfectly clear David was among the "colorful characters" in Jesus' ancestry. Why did God choose for Jesus to be a descendant of Judah and his daughter-in-law Tamar, instead of Judah and his legal Canaanite wife? Weren't the Israelites just as bad as the Canaanites & Co. as you allude to?
You're fire walking again... Why did God love the Israelites, and not the Canaanites & Co.? Why did God DO THINGS for the Israelites, and not the Canaanites & Co. BEFORE Romans 5 and the first advent? Weren't the Israelites, like David in particular, a pretty wicked bunch, too?
Enjoy circumventing the truth about those circumcised, anti-Semite, non-Israelite (John 8:33 KJV, Romans 9:6, 7, 8), Shelanite non-Jews (Revelation 2:9, 3:9) who plotted Jesus' crucifixion (John 8:28, 37), a true SEMITE descendant of Judah and Tamar. A blind wild hawg comes along, rooting around for acorns, and roots up a can of worms you and your cohorts just can't put a lid on...
Wow, thank you for that detailed response!
Truth is I hadn't done enough reading on this thread and jumped to a conclusion - a wrong one in two ways! I'm sorry I was wrong in what I said about you, and glad it prompted you to write such an edifying post in return! Thank you
You're more than welcome, Rainee... Thanks for courageously bringing this to the forefront. In fact, I take the position Tamar was an Israelite Priestess. That's quite an honor to a deserving heroine. Please consider this verse in Leviticus:
Leviticus 21:18 KJV "And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire."
There is no place in scripture, to my knowledge, where anyone played the whore except Tamar back in Genesis 38:24 KJV. Therefore, I conclude whoever wrote Leviticus, Moses presumably, wrote that law with specific reference to Tamar. Consequently, Tamar was an Israelite Priestess. Furthermore, Tamar, being the wife to Judah's sons, would have been the daughter of one of Judah's brothers. I suggest Tamar was the daughter of Levi, since Leviticus 21:18 KJV speaks of the daughter of a priest. Additionally, it would have been through Tamar that the priesthood entered into the lineage of Jesus.
Just food for thought...
kayaker
EDIT PS: More than the second Eve... Mary was the second Tamar, btw.