1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Was watchin' a documentary on Egypt the other day and they said it was comparable to viagra.
:idunno:
ECT Abraham before he believed
- Thread starter Interplanner
- Start date
Was watchin' a documentary on Egypt the other day and they said it was comparable to viagra.
:idunno:
rainee
New member
CR, I was not being condescending!
For pity's sake, you ask "what" and "how" for her when others who had heard the same reports were unimpressed? Im kinda like a 5 pointer, please don't ask me - try to tell me.
Hey Nick... I indeed make the statement, presumptuously. I've read this discussed by theologians to appreciate your post. I make this statement at face value, so to speak. Such is a skill set far over my head. Maybe it would be fair to say whoever wrote Hebrews 11 on faith, also wrote Romans? On the greater scale, was Hebrews a legitimate component of the inspired word of God? Was Romans?
With full appreciation for your mention Nick, faith was not the key point of Romans 9:6, 7, 8, as Interplanner proposes taking Romans 9:6 KJV out of context. Romans 9:6, 7, 8, 9, 10, explains Isaac was the promised seed through whom Messiah would arrive. Those verses corroborate Who we are to have faith in as I suggest, and not who have faith as Interplanner suggests while he questions the faith of Abraham as though Abraham was a Persian, and did not have faith in the God of the Hebrews at some earlier time. Such is a great diversion being Romans 9:6, 7, 8 subtly references Abraham’s non-Israelite descendants via Keturah. Well, that’s a subject avoided like the plague by those of her ancestry, and clearly Interplanner has been avoiding that discussion like the plague. If it crows like a rooster…
kayaker
Interplanner
Well-known member
Kayaker paddled:
questions the faith of Abraham as though Abraham was a Persian
Sir, this is idiotic. Luke was Gentile, Apollos was Greek and was "might in the Scriptures" and many Samaritans believed remember?
You don't even know what faith is, how it moves to other nations, how it is transcultural, so who are you to tell me that a Persian can't believe? If I was really interested in apologetics against the Persians, I would say Abraham was the best move God ever made, not because he is Persian, but because once more no race, gender, sect, class, tribe matters!!! We don't inherit it. We dont' get it because a father or ancestor wants us to have it, Jn 1:8. God just works and calls and even gives faith (response) as a gift, Eph 2:9.
questions the faith of Abraham as though Abraham was a Persian
Sir, this is idiotic. Luke was Gentile, Apollos was Greek and was "might in the Scriptures" and many Samaritans believed remember?
You don't even know what faith is, how it moves to other nations, how it is transcultural, so who are you to tell me that a Persian can't believe? If I was really interested in apologetics against the Persians, I would say Abraham was the best move God ever made, not because he is Persian, but because once more no race, gender, sect, class, tribe matters!!! We don't inherit it. We dont' get it because a father or ancestor wants us to have it, Jn 1:8. God just works and calls and even gives faith (response) as a gift, Eph 2:9.
Hello Kayaker
You have been such a wonderful poster to read since I started reading you lately, I hate to answer a question like this because I am a downer as Town Heretic may could tell you.
But here you go:
Maybe. Tamar might be more than what is shown us. One very important thing will be to the future testimony that The Lord came from Judah and Judah was not the line of priests. Remember?
This is the only possible problem I know of, if it is not then, maybe.
You can tell me not to rain if you would like!
I'm sincerely honored with your consideration of my fallible renderings. You indeed present a fair question, Rainee. The resolve I have is not so much that Judah was not a priest, it's that Judah's son Pharez was the daughter of an Israelite Priestess. Therefore, the priesthood moved through Tamar, and not Judah, to culminate in Pharez. So, it's of equal importance to realize that priesthood not only transitioned via males, but also females, and I submit Jesus' priesthood status arrived via Mary, the second Tamar. On those grounds supported in a gender neutral status, Judah was a suitable progenitor with a priestess, it's that the priesthood came through Tamar, and not Judah. I think there's more to be said for Judah's statement in Genesis 38:26 KJV than meets the eye, I beg your patience, momentarily.
Judah's Canaanite sons were NOT suitable progeny to be priests, or otherwise, particularly they were not suitable progenitors of Messiah. Judah breached covenant hooking up with a Canaanitess. Had Judah's sons been ancestrally intact Israelites, the whole picture would have been different. But, the priesthood status would still have been through Tamar being the daughter-in-law of Judah, prophesied progenitor of Messiah (Isaiah 65:9 KJV). What's good for the goose, is good for the gander, Rainee.
Tamar, being an Israelite Priestess as I suggest, was equally obligated to have an Israelite mate... Judah met that qualification, but his Canaanite sons did not. Therefore, in my opinion, Tamar was justified playing the harlot getting pregnant by Judah... particularly since he was widowed (Genesis 38:12 KJV), and there were no other eligible brothers for Tamar to procreate with (Genesis 38:11 KJV) according to Deuteronomy 25:5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. So, there's more to what Judah was saying in Genesis 38:26 about Tamar being more righteous than he.
Hope this helps... just renderings from an ole blind wild hawg,
kayaker
See, brother; this is a quality I like about you; you give credit where you see credit is due.
I guess you are "Partial" in this, lol.
:first:
It seems you have basic reading comprehension skills or greater, so it is not far over your head. You just have to believe what the author states.
Paul stated, without question, he received his good news from the risen Lord directly. It was not from Peter or the others.
For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Yet the author of Hebrews clearly states otherwise.
how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him
Paul didn't write the letter. The reason people want it to be so is to put people under the bondage of circumcision.
Romans (Paul) is talking about Israelites who rejected the messiah. So they do not belong to him. There is nothing complicated in it. There is also no "replacement" theology in it. The text is obvious.
Gentiles are saved through the fall of those who rejected him to make the jealous. Remember, the letter did not have chapter and verse, it was a letter. And Paul kept talking about Israel falling.
11 I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. 12 Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!
The connection is that they have the same foundation, the Lord Jesus Christ. It ends there. Trying to get Hebrews, 1 John, the four gospels, to line up with Paul and make them say the same thing is dumb. Because they don't. And then you end up like Traditio and his muslim thread where they quickly pointed out the falsehoods from the wolves.
Please forgive my being rather cryptic... You took John 8:34 KJV out of context, IP. As I already explained, that you evidently cannot perceive, Jesus was talking to those plotting His crucifixion in John 8:34 KJV, NOT His believers (John 8:30 KJV) who momentarily gained Jesus' attention during that dialogue. Reading John 8:12-8:47 brings this dual context into focus... if you can keep focused that many verses.
Jesus offered discipleship to His believers in John 8:31 KJV, John 8:32 KJV. THEN, those non-believing, non-Israelite detractors Jesus was talking to prior to John 8:30 KJV, regained Jesus' attention in John 8:33 KJV. John 8:34 floggers take this verse out of context and flog Jesus' believers, just as you and other similar Bible thumpers do. John 8:34 KJV is a favorite flogging verse used by accusers of the brethren believers, just as you do on a grand scale. Try reading John 8:12 through John 8:47, at least one time through, and see if you can capture the dual context where Jesus momentarily turned His attention to His believers between John 8:30 KJV, John 8:31 KJV, and John 8:32 KJV. The balance of that dialogue between John 8:12 and John 8:47 was between Jesus and those plotting His crucifixion. Certainly it's obvious Jesus' believers weren't party to His crucifixion, think?
Furthermore, you've YET to explain WHY God loved the Israelites (Deuteronomy 7:6, 7, 8, 9, 10), despite your head spinning about some land bridge. So, are you saying God didn't love the Israelites? That God just used the Israelites? That's not what I hear in Deuteronomy 7:6, 7, 8, 9, 10! God also used those He didn't love, btw. WHY did God LOVE the Israelites, Interplanner? Why is it so hard for you to acknowledge God LOVED THE ISRAELITES? Did God love the descendants of Abraham and Keturah? That's your problem... God didn't love them, they didn't even show up at Abraham's funeral (Genesis 25:9 KJV). And, you want to dilute the notion God loved the Israelites? Why is that, Interplanner? It is clearly documented GOD LOVED THE ISRAELITES!
You don't want to acknowledge that God loved the Israelites. You cannot answer the question whether or not Jesus could just as easily have been the progeny of one of Judah's virgin descendants. You cast shadows on the faith of Abraham being some Persian god worshipper. You take great pleasure casting shadows on Jesus' ancestry including your candid remarks about "colorful characters" in His ancestry... not to mention diluting Jesus being God's only begotten by introducing the notion Isaac was begotten of God.
Like I've said folks... if it crows like a rooster...
kayaker
Interplanner
Well-known member
Kayaker wrote:
Please forgive my being rather cryptic... You took John 8:34 KJV out of context, IP. As I already explained, that you evidently cannot perceive, Jesus was talking to those plotting His crucifixion in John 8:34 KJV, NOT His believers (John 8:30 KJV) who momentarily gained Jesus' attention during that dialogue. Reading John 8:12-8:47 brings this dual context into focus... if you can keep focused that many verses.
You have perfected the art of saying nothing. what a waste. Now you'rre not even spewing out the worthless genealogical crap that you've been slinging and slanging for two day.
Please forgive my being rather cryptic... You took John 8:34 KJV out of context, IP. As I already explained, that you evidently cannot perceive, Jesus was talking to those plotting His crucifixion in John 8:34 KJV, NOT His believers (John 8:30 KJV) who momentarily gained Jesus' attention during that dialogue. Reading John 8:12-8:47 brings this dual context into focus... if you can keep focused that many verses.
You have perfected the art of saying nothing. what a waste. Now you'rre not even spewing out the worthless genealogical crap that you've been slinging and slanging for two day.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Yes, he had a few lines just for those who had believed him, but he was back to dealing with opposition as early as 33. For all your blathering I still don't know who is flogging what or how you flogg a Bible verse. What a waste.
I said he did not love them for reasons inherent in them (that word does not have to do with inheritance). Yes, he did want them to be on his overall mission. At first there would be the destruction of the sinful nations, for all of that world to see. This is part of the background of Rom 3 about the wrath of God being limited (ie, why didn't God finish off many, many others?). And he did call Israel stiff-necked from the beginning. Dt 9.
They were carrying the 'picture' of the Seed who is Christ. The picture was the miracle of Isaac born of promise. Every person on earth who had faith was a descendent of Abraham.
For reasons not disclosed Abraham left the gods of the Persians and listened to God about going to that land in the west. Here may be one reason. Tohu wa-bohu in Gen 1:2 (formless and void about the earth before creation) has parallels in both Egyptian and Persian and Sanskrit scriptures. Genesis thus informs three cultures that the creator God who overcame tohu wa-bohu was the God of Israel who is actually the only true God of the world. This is found for ex. in Waltke's CREATION AND CHAOS or in Wakefield's GOD'S BATTLE WITH THE MONSTER, whole books unpacking tohu wa-bohu in the ancient near east. So once again there is a missionary purpose to the Scriptures.
that's because I believe God loves all mankind and wants all to come to faith. So the less cultural fuss there is the better, which is the way the Gospel is. We know he loved others because of the number of times Jesus mentioned sheep and others from other folds.
And, you expect folk here to agree with your rebuke of Abraham's unrelenting faith in the God of the Hebrews? You expect folk here to believe Jesus was the second begotten of God after Isaac? You expect folk here to trash the ancestry of Jesus without spot or blemish? Undoubtedly there are those who do. Meanwhile, you cannot even acknowledge God loved the Israelites, much less why.
I'm totally not understanding who you are talking about being wicked. Preserving names, repeating them if you're so patient, helps keep multiple posts on target in an open forum. Nonetheless, you don't have a problem discerning wickedness! Furthermore, including supporting Scriptural coordinates is key on supporting your positions. Were you talking about the wickedness of the Israelites and the Canaanites? I'll assume so, correct me if I misunderstood.
Firewalking: Circumventing pertinent questions that have a bearing on the subject: Could Jesus just as easily have been the progeny of a virgin descendant of Judah and his Canaanite wife? WHY did God love the Israelites clearly established in Deuteronomy 7:6, 7, 8, 9, 10?
You're not only a fire walker, you're a time jumper. Those who instigated Jesus' crucifixion (John 8:28 KJV, John 8:27 KJV) were circumcised, non-Israelite (John 8:33 KJV), anti-Semite descendants of Abraham (John 8:37 KJV) via Judah directly (Isaiah 65:9 KJV), and via Judah's Canaanitess wife (1Chronicles 2:3, Genesis 38:2 KJV, Romans 9:6, 7, 8; Revelation 2:9, 3:9). Judah's Canaanitess wife was the daughter of the Canaanite Shuah, 'son' of Keturah (Genesis 25:1, 2, 3, 4), wife of Abraham. Judah's father-in-law Shuah was "Abraham's seed" (John 8:33 KJV, John 8:37 KJV). Judah's Canaanite father-in-law Shuah just wasn't one of "Abraham's children" (Genesis 25:4 KJV, Luke 3:2, 7, 8, 9; John 8:39 KJV, Romans 9:6, 7, 8; Revelation 2:9, 3:9). So, what are you doing in the 4th decade of the 1st century, besides fire walking and time jumping?
So, God loved those Israelites for the purpose they served, correct? Sounds genealogically correct to me, all 77-fold generations prophesied in Genesis 4:24 KJV found between Luke 3:38 KJV and Luke 3:23 KJV. But, those Israelites were just as wicked as the Canaanites if I gather your notion, correctly? Yet, God used others besides the Israelites, right? Does Rahab the Canaanite have any bearing on that notion? God loved the Israelites. Rahab the Canaanite was spared utter destruction having faith in the God of the Israelites, the God of Isaac, the God of Abraham. That didn't make Rahab an Israelite, btw.
Understand the OT, it sheds a lot of light on the NT.
kayaker
When did Abraham believe?
Interplanner
Well-known member
When he left Haran.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Kayaker:
And, you expect folk here to agree with your rebuke of Abraham's unrelenting faith in the God of the Hebrews?
What on earth is this about? How do you rebuke a dead person?
And, you expect folk here to agree with your rebuke of Abraham's unrelenting faith in the God of the Hebrews?
What on earth is this about? How do you rebuke a dead person?
Cross Reference
New member
Ok. I stand corrected and can relate to your "wonderment" since I get accused of being so myself. Sorry.
But that is what makes us unique, doesn't it? We don't know what God can only know about ourselves.
Because of the foreknowledge of God, we can only say God foreknew what would bring about faith in Rahab that when the messengers came to her house she was prepared receive their message that consummated it. As for her whoredom in the afterwards, we can only conjecture. In any event, we know the outcome to know this: God only chooses righteous people to do His bidding. -- I believe you wrote that as well.
Its tough to do but, I forgive you.
Ok. But sometimes that can come across as condescending as well. Continue asking, be patient with me when I answer or "tell" __ if I can.
:thumb: ???
Last edited:
Cross Reference
New member
What, in your Hebrew quote should change anyone's mind who believe Paul wrote the book?
Interplanner
Well-known member
I doubt if he did. It just has too peculiar of a style and vocab, moreso than a scribe could do while listening to it. Maybe Apollos.
rainee
New member
Ah, CR,
A gracious post, thank you.
That is a very interesting thing to mull over. Maybe somethings do come into our lives so we can know ourselves and grow or change or become more so from His point of view?
I will accept that from you but I'm a woman, I could always say more
Sir! No!
Isn't she the Mom of Boaz who married Ruth?
See you later
...
A gracious post, thank you.
That is a very interesting thing to mull over. Maybe somethings do come into our lives so we can know ourselves and grow or change or become more so from His point of view?
I will accept that from you but I'm a woman, I could always say more
What??
Sir! No!
Isn't she the Mom of Boaz who married Ruth?
I gotta go for nowwe can only conjecture. In any event, we know the outcome to know this: God only chooses righteous people to do His bidding. -- I believe you wrote that as well.
See you later
...
Cross Reference
New member
Yes but, do you or I know anymore than that about her?Ah, CR,
A gracious post, thank you.
That is a very interesting thing to mull over. Maybe somethings do come into our lives so we can know ourselves and grow or change or become more so from His point of view?
I will accept that from you but I'm a woman, I could always say more
What??
Sir! No!
Isn't she the Mom of Boaz who married Ruth?
...
Lol, the very man God promised and then began a very distinct people through - the nation Israel.
Yeah, ok, bright boy.
Or as John W might say; take a seat...
...til we believe you have something to say outside of your "I read all these cool books by men, and now I know the Bible..."