God's Truth
New member
Romans 11:32 For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.
ECT Abraham before he believed
- Thread starter Interplanner
- Start date
What location?
I beg to differ that it does not matter anymore. We wouldn't be talking about it if it did not matter. The scriptures speak of Abraham being a Hebrew, and the scriptures are for our instruction.
What you are choosing is false over true.
Of course.
True.
God's Truth
New member
What am I choosing that is false over true?
Do you believe that Abraham was an Israelite? Your question contested that he was not.
Paul had it going on! Can you be more explicit who you think wrote Hebrews? Or, was Hebrews written by Paul and such inconsistency scrubbed into Hebrews to elevate the agreed alleged necessity of circumcision? Who do you think was particularly motivated to elevate the status of circumcision? I certainly think Jesus’ disciples were a little short on truth early in their ministries (ancestral truth, most specifically) considering Acts 4:13, 20.
Unlike the majority of Christians even today, Paul understood the Gentiles were descendants of Noah’s son Japheth (Genesis 9:27 KJV, Genesis 10:2, 3, 4, Genesis 10:5 KJV, first mention). While appreciating that Japheth, ‘father’ of the Gentiles, boldly rebuked son-mother incest (Genesis 9:22 KJV, Deuteronomy 18:8 KJV, Deuteronomy 20:11 KJV, Leviticus 22:30 KJV, Leviticus 27:20 KJV) by entering Noah’s tent backwards and covered (Genesis 9:23 KJV), Paul’s OT familiarity was further corroborated in his report of and to the Corinthians in 1Corinthians 5:1 KJV. Paul knew the Gentiles were descendants of Japheth, son of Noah. And, Paul understood what went down in Noah’s tent that inspired Noah’s sanction of Japhethite/Gentile procreation with the Shemite/Semites in Genesis 9:27 KJV. AND, said incest inspired Noah to geographically isolate the Canaanites (descendants of Ham and Canaan) in the land of Canaan away from the Japhethite/Gentiles and Shemite/Semites. Such insight corroborates Paul’s glowing mention of the uncircumcised Gentile descendants of Japheth:
Romans 2:14-24, KJV: “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: 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
16) In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
17) Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God, 18) And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law; 19) And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness, 20) An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law. 21) Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? 22) Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? 23) Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God? 24) For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.
25) For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. 26) Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? 27) And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? 28) For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 29) But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.”
16) In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel. 17) Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God, 18) And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law; 19) And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness, 20) An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law. 21) Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? 22) Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? 23) Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God? 24) For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.
25) For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. 26) Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? 27) And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? 28) For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 29) But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.”
Who do you think was motivated to establish the bondage of circumcision? Abraham was instructed to circumcise “he that is born in thy house…” (Genesis 17:13 KJV). That was before Keturah and her sons, btw (Genesis 25:1, 2, 3, 4). Do you think Genesis 17:14 KJV had any bearing on this discussion up until the arrival of Jesus? Those non-believing Israelites and non-Israelite impostors (John 8:33 KJV) who didn’t accept Jesus as Messiah (John 8:13 KJV, John 8:19 KJV, John 8:25 KJV) remained under the covenant of circumcision, but the Gentiles did not fall into the category of “he that is born in thy house…” requiring circumcision.
Paul made it clear in my mind that circumcision does not elevate one’s status toward salvation, and Gentile descendants of Japheth particularly exemplified Paul’s position. Moreover, the alleged salvation aspect of circumcision was replaced by the elevated notion of salvation via water baptism. Alleged salvation via water baptism, also known as ‘baptismal spiritual regeneration,’ is practiced by Catholics, LDS/Mormans, Church of Christ, etc. Therefore, whoever conspired to elevate circumcision to a condition of salvation (clearly NOT Paul), I suggest the same conspired to elevate water baptism to a condition of salvation, speaking of ‘replacement theology.’ Namely, the Catholics… members of Peter’s alleged one historic church established at Pentecost where Peter denied the Holy Spirit three times, btw.
Peter denied the Holy Spirit when he wasn’t standing and speaking the Pentecostal Gospel in Acts 2:14 KJV. He preached another gospel beginning Acts 2:22 KJV. And, Peter was addressing those mockers (Acts 2:13 KJV) who refused to accept the Pentecostal Gospel. Although the Gentiles were present among the Israelites at Pentecost, those mockers were not all Israelite Jews.
As you suggest Nick, folk were illegitimately held to the bondage of circumcision. Folk today are illegitimately held to the bondage of water baptism. The Gentile descendants of Japheth were not circumcised; and, they were arrogantly rebuked by the “Jews” that were not all Hebrews or Israelites, btw (Revelation 2:9, 3:9, Romans 9:6, 7, 8). Those alleged Jews who held circumcision in such high regard were the circumcised descendants of Abraham via his wife, Keturah. They were “the children of Keturah” (Genesis 25:1, 2, 3, 4), but they were not sons of Abraham (John 8:33 KJV, John 8:37 KJV, John 8:39 KJV)… and, circumcision didn’t make them Hebrews or Israelites. Can you grasp their motivation to elevate circumcision?
Jesus wasn’t sent to the ‘found’ sheep of the house of Israel. Jesus was sent to the ‘lost’ sheep of the house of Israel. Who didn’t “belong to him” in the first place? Judah’s Canaanite/Shelanite descendants didn’t belong to Jesus. Who were the lost sheep of the house of Israel? Each of Jacob-Israel’s sons’ descendants had a clearly identified patriarch except for the descendants of Judah. There are Benjamites, and Levites… but, there are no ‘Judahites’. Judah’s progeny via his daughter-in-law Tamar, the Pharzites and Zarhites (Genesis 38:29, 10), were fatherless (Genesis 38:26 KJV). Those descendants of Judah and Tamar were illegitimate being Judah’s and Tamar’s union was contrary to Leviticus 18:15 KJV, Leviticus 20:12 KJV, Leviticus 21:9, 13, 14… Jesus, being a descendant of Judah (Isaiah 65:9 KJV) and Tamar via their eldest twin son Pharez (Matthew 1:1, 2, 3, Luke 3:31, 32, 33)… Jesus’ existence ‘legitimized’ Judah’s fatherless tribe, the lost sheep. And, Jesus’ existence sorta ‘de-legitimized’ (being politically correct) Judah’s Shelanite descendants via his Canaanite wife. So, they plotted Jesus’ crucifixion.
Judah’s Pharzite and Zarhite descendants via Tamar were the lost sheep of the house of Israel, predominately. They were lost because Judah’s other descendants via his Canaanitess wife (1Chronicles 2:3), ‘legitimized’ themselves via marriage (Genesis 38:1, 2, John 8:41 KJV), and they held those laws of Leviticus over the heads of those Pharzites and Zarhites just like they did Jesus (a Pharzite Jew) in John 8:13 KJV, John 8:19 KJV, John 8:25 KJV, John 8:41 KJV. Furthermore, those Shelanites (Genesis 25:2, 4, 38:2, 26; Numbers 26:20 KJV; John 8:33 KJV, John 8:37 KJV, John 8:39 KJV) were the ones who also ‘legitimized’ themselves with the law of circumcision (Genesis 17:13 KJV) while rebuking the Gentile descendants of Japheth not subject to Genesis 17:13 KJV.
The covenant of marriage (Genesis 25:1) didn’t make Abraham’s seed via his Canaanite wife Keturah, ancestrally authentic Hebrew children of Abraham (Genesis 25:4 KJV, Luke 3:2, 7, 8, 9; John 8:39 KJV, Romans 9:7 KJV). Likewise, the covenant of marriage (Genesis 38:1, 2) didn’t make Judah’s Shelanite descendants via his Canaanite wife (Keturah’s granddaughter) ancestrally authentic Israelites or Jews (Luke 3:2, 7, 8, 9; John 8:33 KJV, John 8:37 KJV, John 8:39 KJV; Romans 9:6 KJV; Revelation 2:9, 3:9). Abraham’s marriage to Keturah, and Judah’s marriage to his Canaanite wife (Keturah’s granddaughter) were contrary to Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3 corroborated by Ezra 9:1, 2, 7. Noah drew a line in the sand separating the Canaanites from the Gentiles/Shemites being the land of Canaan. Abraham’s infamous quest for a wife for Isaac corroborates Noah’s delineation (Genesis 24:3 KJV). Even Isaac’s and Rebekah’s dire quest for a wife for Jacob corroborates Noah’s delineation, and Abraham’s faith (Genesis 27:46 KJV, Genesis 28:1, 2, 3, 4).
In comparison, the covenant of circumcision (Genesis 17:13 KJV) didn’t make ancestrally authentic Hebrew children out of Abraham’s seed via Keturah (Romans 9:7 KJV). And, the covenant of circumcision (Genesis 17:13 KJV) didn’t make Judah’s Shelanite descendants via his Canaanitess wife, Israelites (Romans 9:6 KJV). That’s really simple with a little OT ancestral fluency that Paul most certainly had!
Providing Scriptural coordinates is really easy on TOL, Nick. Who are ‘they stumbled’? Are they authentic Israelite Jews? Or, are they impostors Jews (Revelation 2:9, 3:9), the Shelanite descendants of Judah and his Canaanite wife? There are fewer than a handful of TOL members who understand this distinction. For aforementioned reasons on this post, the Gentiles are ancestrally authenticated being descendants of Japheth. Yet, few on TOL have grasped this distinction. Noah admonished the Gentiles in Genesis 9:27, 10:2, 3, 4, Genesis 10:5 KJV. Paul understood this, and Noah’s affection for the Gentile descendants of Japheth was a few thousand years before Jesus arrived on the scene to level the ancestral playing field, but not before.
kayaker
Last edited:
You pose an interesting question about Rahab, CR. If you'll note the distinction between this ancestress of Jesus between the NIV and the KJV:
Matthew 1:5 KJV uses the title, "RaChab"
Matthew 1:5 NIV uses the title, "RaHab"
Those names are as different as Rachel, and Raquel. They are two different females to my finding. Appreciating your mention of timelines... I've found one timeline that puts Rahab around the age of 60 when Salmon showed up on the scene. The Greek Septuagint uses the title "Rahab" referring to the Canaanitess in Joshua/OT, and maintains this same title in Hebrews 11:31 KJV, and in James 2:25 KJV. Also, the Septuagint uses the title "RaChab" in Matthew 1:5 KJV as does the KJV. This offers insight that RaHab the harlot was not a maternal ancestress of Jesus, but a different woman, RaChab, was the wife of Salmon.
Do you have any further input considering your mention of timelines either corroborating, or refuting the notion Rahab the harlot was in Jesus' ancestry?
kayaker
Surely you can refute my foundation, the meat of my position, on grounds other than your choice of my extra comments... There are 783,137 words in the KJV authorized version. So, the Holy Spirit is said to 'teach us all things, and bring all things to our remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you' (John 14:26 KJV). I seemed to miss the part where the Holy Spirit is supposed to read all things. Do you suggest one simply hands the Book to someone with 783,137 words in it, and walk off?
And, it doesn't stir your curiosity in the least to decipher who Tamar was, then? Then, please let me ask you:
Could Jesus just as easily have been the progeny of any ole virgin, like a virgin descendant of Judah (Isaiah 65:9 KJV) and his Canaanitess wife (1Chronicles 2:3 KJV)?
But, who Tamar was is of no significance, then? I've at least tried to establish Tamar's personhood, while you turn a blind eye speaking of unsteady foundations. So, answer the question, Tambora. Jesus was prophesied by Isaiah to be a descendant of Judah. Judah sired children via two women. Maybe an easier question for you: Why wasn't Jesus a descendant of Judah and his Canaanitess wife?
kayaker
Interplanner
Well-known member
So this whole time you were just trying to clear up that name confusion?
Huh? Maybe if you'd try some writing lessons from CR, you'd be more clear, lol! Speaking of names, there's more to Jesus' name than five letters. How about 77-fold inclusive generations in Jesus' 'name' prophesied in Genesis 4:24 KJV as illustrated in Luke 3:38 KJV with God is generation #1, Adam generations #2, Seth #3... who's the 77th name? But, in your 40 years and Masters in some kind of theology, you never connected those dots? If ancestry is insignificant to you, then why is it so difficult to answer the question:
Could Messiah just as easily have been the descendant of any ole virgin, particularly a virgin descendant of Judah (Isaiah 65:9 KJV) and his Canaanitess wife (1Chronicles 2:3, Genesis 38:1, 2)?
So, if ancestry and descendency is of no significance, then Isaiah 65:9 KJV is some kind of joke, then? And, you seem to think those 77-fold generations were somehow broken with Isaac's miracle conception? I seemed to miss the part where Isaac was the "supposed" son of Abraham as we find Jesus being referred to in Luke 3:23 KJV. I hear no breach in ancestry or descendency between Abraham and David in Matthew 1:17 KJV. Adam was a formed son of God, Jesus was the begotten Son of God. Isaac was the begotten son of Abraham (Genesis 25:19 KJV), albeit a miraculous conception. So, where do you gather the notion descendency was broken in the first place? You're rather presumptuous, don't you think? You rather presumptuously stated Abraham didn't previously believe, don't you think?
There you pull a time warp. Paul was taking about ancestry and descendancy being INsignificant AFTER Jesus arrived, not before: WHEN WE PUT ON CHRIST WE BECOME HEIRS. And, you're trying to make Isaac a begotten Son of God? You're suggesting when OT folk PUT ON ISAAC THEY BECOME HEIRS? Are you sure you aren't Jewish? Abraham "rejoiced to see (Jesus') day: and he saw it, and was glad" (John 8:56 KJV). When Abraham set forth to sacrifice Isaac, didn't Abraham find a ram caught in a thicket (Genesis 22:13 KJV)? Where do you suppose was Abraham's greatest act of faith? I tend to think Abraham's infamous quest for a wife for Isaac exemplified Abraham's faith (Genesis 24:1, 2, 3, 4), among other places.
Faith in who, IP? Faith in Abraham? Faith in Isaac? Maybe faith in the GOD of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Acts 7:32 KJV). Abraham's 'seed' via Hagar was a son of Abraham (Genesis 25:9 KJV, Galatians 4:22 KJV). Abraham's 'seed' via Sarah was a son of Abraham. Abraham's 'seed' via Keturah were "the children of Keturah" (Genesis 25:4 KJV). They didn't show up at Abraham's funeral (Genesis 25:9 KJV), and received neither inheritance, nor gifts from Abraham.
Keturah's son Shuah (v.2 Genesis 25:1, 2, 3, 4) was the Canaanite father-in-law of Judah (Genesis 38:2 KJV) who was the prophesied progenitor of Messiah (Isaiah 65:9 KJV). Judah's Canaanitess wife (1Chronicles 2:3) was the mother of Shelah (Genesis 38:6, 7, 8, 9, 10) who survived to procreate (Genesis 38:11 KJV, Genesis 38:26 KJV). The Shelanites (Numbers 26:20 KJV) were "Abraham's seed" (John 8:33 KJV, John 8:37 KJV, Luke 3:2, 7, 8, 9), they just weren't "Abraham's children" (John 8:39 KJV) because they were "the children of Keturah" (Genesis 25:4 KJV).
So, the bottom line is the Canaanite/Shelanite alleged 'Jewish' descendants of Judah (prophesied progenitor of Messiah, Isaiah 65:9 KJV) and his Canaanitess wife plotted the crucifixion of Jesus. Jesus was a Semite/Pharzite Jewish descendant of Judah and his daughter-in-law Tamar (Matthew 1:1, 2, 3) via their eldest twin son Pharez (Genesis 38:29 KJV, Luke 3:33 KJV). Does that help you understand Revelation 2:9, 3:9? Well, maybe this genealogy thing is a bit over your skill set, or under your radar. Possibly a subject you'd rather leave under the family rug?
But, I really don't think those Shelanites cared much about Abraham... I mean their grandfather Shuah never even went to Abraham's funeral. I give far more credit to Ishmael, 'father' of Islam, than I do those Shelanites. At least Islam has a chance to consider Jesus as Messiah. But, those Shelanites... nah.
Do you think those Shelanites had faith in Abraham, IP? Jesus didn't (John 8:37 KJV, John 8:39 KJV). But, they were Abraham's seed. So, you can play around with new words, speaking of confusion, and cast shadows on the conception of the only begotten Son of God, but you just cannot answer that recurring question, can you, IP?
Could Messiah just as easily have been the descendant of any ole virgin, particularly a virgin descendant of Judah (Isaiah 65:9 KJV) and his Canaanitess wife (1Chronicles 2:3, Genesis 38:1, 2)?
kayaker
Interplanner
Well-known member
Kayaker wrote:
Huh? Maybe if you'd try some writing lessons from CR, you'd be more clear, lol!
What was the last name issue you discussed? Do you ever reread posts above so you know what the drift of the discussion is?
Huh? Maybe if you'd try some writing lessons from CR, you'd be more clear, lol!
What was the last name issue you discussed? Do you ever reread posts above so you know what the drift of the discussion is?
Interplanner
Well-known member
Kayaker,
here is how a NT Christian sounds when they are done with this topic:
If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise. Gal 3:29
Yes, Paul made quite a distinction in Rom 9 between 'spermas' and 'sarkos'--two kinds of 'teknas.' He kept the distinction that is in the Gal 3 verse above.
here is how a NT Christian sounds when they are done with this topic:
If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise. Gal 3:29
Yes, Paul made quite a distinction in Rom 9 between 'spermas' and 'sarkos'--two kinds of 'teknas.' He kept the distinction that is in the Gal 3 verse above.
There you go time warping again. Was Isaac a Christian? Was Jacob a Christian? Were the 12 patriarchs Christians? Obviously not. So... what happened? Oh... that's right, Jesus came along, and Abraham rejoiced to see his day. But, if you can confabulate Isaac to be the first begotten of God, then I suppose you can finagle your bogus theory to exalt yourself. Didn't Genesis 25:19 KJV sorta blow your theory out of the water suggesting Isaac was a begotten of God? Try Acts 7:8 KJV, then. Or, are you going to back off, now? Isaac's conception was nor more special than Jacob's and Esau's, Judah's, or John the Baptist's.
So, Paul's discussion in Romans 9 had literally nothing to do with who had faith. That was a literal discussion about the literal descendants of Abraham. Paul even continues discussing Esau, if you can maintain context. Did Esau have faith in Jesus? Was Esau a Christian?
Romans 9:6, 7, 8, 9, 10, KJV "Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: 7Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 8That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. 9For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son. 10And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;"
You simply refuse to connect the Keturah dot. Do I sense a hidden agenda? Were Abraham's progeny via Keturah the sons of Abraham? Not according to Moses. Abraham's progeny via Keturah were "the children of Keturah" (Genesis 25:1, 2, 3, 5). They didn't show up at Abraham's funeral (Genesis 25:9 KJV), and waited with baited breath to crucify the prophesied One (Acts 7:51, 52). Stephen, talking to those Shelanites, was repeating Jesus from when He was spilling the beans on those Shelanties in Matthew 23:
Matthew 23:29-35, KJV "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, 30And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. 31Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. 32Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. 33Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
34Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: 35That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel..."
34Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: 35That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel..."
Who killed Abel, IP? Got it? Now can you connect the dot with John 8:44 KJV? And, the fact you refuse to answer the repetitive question lends considerable insight into your motive and agenda:
Could Messiah just as easily have been the descendant of any ole virgin, particularly a virgin descendant of Judah (Isaiah 65:9 KJV) and his Canaanitess wife (1Chronicles 2:3, Genesis 38:1, 2)?
No wonder you don't want to consider the literal ancestral/descendency aspects of Romans 9:6. Your entire theology crumbles at the thought. In all your 40 years of study, and your Masters in some kind of theology... that question really has you stumped, doesn't it? So much for your resolve, IP. Get back in the bleachers, and quit playing drum majorette in the half-time. We're already in the fourth quarter.
kayaker
Interplanner
Well-known member
Kayak wrote:
So, Paul's discussion in Romans 9 had literally nothing to do with who had faith. That was a literal discussion about the literal descendants of Abraham.
Sorry Kayak, not a chance of this. You don't know what he's solving and you don't know his conclusions. You know yours. He's solving the question of why only a few Israelites believe (btw, that's faith). The answer is that the original promise never was about the race or 'sarkos.' Instead it is about the 'spermas.' These offspring have faith. That's why Gentiles are part of it in v24 and why four quotes of the OT show that, and why he has the conclusions he does at the end of 9 and 10.
He started this question in 3:3. It's like asking: why don't the Jews "automatically" believe? (btw, that believe thing? That's faith).
You have a 'grip' of sorts on the veiled OT, but you have no idea what Paul is saying.
So, Paul's discussion in Romans 9 had literally nothing to do with who had faith. That was a literal discussion about the literal descendants of Abraham.
Sorry Kayak, not a chance of this. You don't know what he's solving and you don't know his conclusions. You know yours. He's solving the question of why only a few Israelites believe (btw, that's faith). The answer is that the original promise never was about the race or 'sarkos.' Instead it is about the 'spermas.' These offspring have faith. That's why Gentiles are part of it in v24 and why four quotes of the OT show that, and why he has the conclusions he does at the end of 9 and 10.
He started this question in 3:3. It's like asking: why don't the Jews "automatically" believe? (btw, that believe thing? That's faith).
You have a 'grip' of sorts on the veiled OT, but you have no idea what Paul is saying.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Yes, Isaac, and anyone else so declared by the NT as a Christian (Heb 11) was a Christian. They saw Christ's day and rejoiced. Before Abraham was, He is. The Scriptures announced the Gospel in advance to Abraham. And even before that, because it foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith (btw, that's believing, faith).
Please analyze the cause and effect there carefully: we know the Gospel was announced to Abraham because the Scriptures (not me, Paul, or you) foresaw the coming justification of the Gentiles from their sins. That is what Abraham was seeing ahead of time.
Please analyze the cause and effect there carefully: we know the Gospel was announced to Abraham because the Scriptures (not me, Paul, or you) foresaw the coming justification of the Gentiles from their sins. That is what Abraham was seeing ahead of time.
You clearly don't know a lost sheep of Israel from shinola (Revelation 2:9, 3:9 KJV). You've got egg on your face not realizing those who instigated Jesus' crucifixion, some of your ancestors/teachers, were not Israelites (John 8:33 KJV). The original promise was fulfilled with the arrival of Jesus, which you dilute trying to make Isaac the first begotten son of God. That's why you cannot answer the revolving question:
Could Messiah just as easily have been the descendant of any ole virgin, particularly a virgin descendant of Judah (Isaiah 65:9 KJV) and his Canaanitess wife (1Chronicles 2:3, Genesis 38:1, 2)?
So, you say salvation existed prior to Jesus' arrival then? You're saying you have the power and authority to retroactively afford salvation to those in the OT? That's God's job. You've not solved the question "why only a few Israelites (like you know what one is!) believe (btw, that's faith)". That's why you cannot answer the revolving question... Jesus wasn't just some 'sperma' the moment conception by any ole virgin. You trash Jesus being the SECOND or more begotten of God on some bogus 'tekna'cality if I may be so 'sarka'sctic. You don't even know the lost sheep of the house of Israel were predominately the Pharzite and Zarhite descendants of Judah, prophesied progenitor of Messiah (Isaiah 65:9 KJV), much less why they didn't believe. You can't even imagine the Shelanite descendants of Judah had a rather serious bone to pick with Jesus since Jesus was a descendant Judah via Pharez. But, you know what faith in Jesus is, right? You can't even answer the revolving question, but you have faith in Jesus, right? You know who Jesus is, right? Some random 'sperma' the moment conception by any ole virgin?
Do you intentionally just leave coordinates hanging on purpose? Or, have you not figured out yet how to embrace the TOL reftagger? Like I said, you don't know a lost sheep from shinola. You use the title, "Jews"... was Judah's son Shelah an Israelite? Can you answer that question? Was Judah's son Shelah an ancestrally intact Jew? Were Abraham's progeny via Keturah, Hebrews? Can you answer that question?
With all due appreciation, my grip on the OT leaves you in the dust. Paul understood the OT. Until you do... you can only speculate what Paul was talking about. And, your speculation affords you your own salvation.
Was Judah's father-in-law Shuah (Genesis 38:1, 2), a son of Abraham's wife Keturah (Genesis 25:1, 2, 3, 4), an ancestrally intact Hebrew? Why, or why not? (Romans 9:7 KJV "Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.")
Was Judah's son Shelah, and Israelite? Why, or why not? (Romans 9:6 KJV "Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:")
Was Judah's son Shelah, an ancestrally intact Jew? Why, or why not? (Revelation 2:9 KJV "I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan." Revelation 3:9 KJV "Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.")
But, you think Paul was talking about faith in Romans 9:6, 7, 8? Paul was talking about the promised seed culminating in Jesus in whom we have faith, while you go overboard trashing out Jesus NOT being the ONLY begotten of God. You can't answer the above bolded questions any more than you can answer the revolving question:
Could Messiah just as easily have been the descendant of any ole virgin, particularly a virgin descendant of Judah (Isaiah 65:9 KJV) and his Canaanitess wife (1Chronicles 2:3, Genesis 38:1, 2)?
And, you expect me to think for a split second you know what Paul was talking about? You don't know what Moses was talking about (Genesis 25:1, 2, 3, 4). You don't know what John the Baptist was talking about (Luke 3:2, 7, 8, 9). You don't know what Jesus was talking about in John 8:37 KJV, John 8:39 KJV, Matthew 23:35 KJV, John 8:44 KJV, Revelation 2:9, 3:9... but you expect me to have faith in you that YOU know what Paul was talking about?
You really are full of yourself, aren't you?
kayaker
Interplanner
Well-known member
You sound just like those who instigated Jesus' crucifixion after He proclaimed Himself the light of the world in John 8:12 KJV. Listen to your ancestors/teachers:
John 8:13 KJV
John 8:19 KJV
John 8:25 KJV
They thought Jesus' paternity issue was His own garbage, too!
But, you never provided documentation that Abraham ever even spoke the name, Gentile. You're distraction is your own self-prescribed salvation paradigm.
You don't know a lost sheep of Israel from shinola. Does the title, Israelite, embrace some genetic/ancestral notion, being God's chosen in Deuteronomy 7:6, 7, 8, 9, 10? Moses told those ISRAELITES no hanky panky with the Canaanites: Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3. Were God and Moses racists? Was Noah a racist separating the Canaanites from the Gentiles/Shemites? Was Abraham a racist according to his infamous quest for a wife for Isaac EXCLUDING Canaanites? Was Isaac a racist EXCLUDING Canaanites from Jacob's choice of wives? Was Ezra a racist perceiving Israelite-Canaanite marriages as a "great trespass" some 1,400 years later? You don't know one Jew from the next, such as Israelite Jews, from Ashkenazi Jews, from Sephardic Jews... but, you've toured that area meeting some curator in a museum in Turkey. You're either not telling the truth, or you've got sand in your eyes. I think you've got sand in your knickers.
WHY DIDN'T THE LOST SHEEP HAVE FAITH? They just didn't? Seriously? Jesus healed the deaf, blind, those with heritable hemophilia, leprosy, palsies, raised the dead, walked on water, turned water into wine, fed the multitudes. But... nah... just another magician, right? The Shelanite alleged JEWS convinced the Israelite Jews, predominately Pharzite and Zarhite Jews (Numbers 26:20 KJV), they were all born of fornication. Jesus couldn't be the Messiah because He TOO was born of fornication being a descendant of Judah and his daughter-in-law, Tamar. Listen to your predecessors:
John 8:41 KJV.
You just didn't have faith before, right? Those lost sheep were lost because they didn't have faith, they didn't believe because they had reasons, reasons just like yours: Jesus' paternity is garbage. The lost sheep of Israel knew WHY they didn't have faith. And, you circumvent that revolving question for the same reason. And, you think you're the chosen one who dictates who has faith and who does not? Who gets salvation and who doesn't? On what grounds does one not have faith? Every poster on this ECT forum has faith, right? Then, what's your argument? That Jesus' paternity is garbage, and Isaac was the first begotten of God? Jesus was yesterday's newspaper? I venture to say every poster on ECT has more faith than you.
Faith in who, IP? Isaac? You and your twisted theology? Or, some 'sperma' the moment conception in some random virgin that could have been any ole virgin, even a Canaanite one? Got any Script that says Jesus' ancestry is of no significance? I do, and they instigated the crucifixion a true Semite/Pharzite Jew. Matthew began the NT with Jesus' generations from Abraham. Luke carried Jesus' generations from God forward for 77 inclusive generations (Genesis 4:24 KJV; Luke 3:38-23). But, you think Jesus' paternity is garbage. Your argument resonates with those who instigated Jesus' crucifixion. You're not even on board with who Jesus is, His name, His ancestry, and you're retroactively affording salvation to OT characters BEFORE Jesus arrived? Well, sure... that's exactly what Jesus' detractors were doing! Who needs Jesus when there are exalted theologians as yourself proposing Isaac was the first begotten of God? Are you sure you aren't Jewish, btw?
Could Messiah just as easily have been the descendant of any ole virgin, particularly a virgin descendant of Judah (Isaiah 65:9 KJV) and his Canaanitess wife (1Chronicles 2:3, Genesis 38:1, 2)?
kayaker