ECT The 'sperma' not 'tekna' are Abraham's seed

[Cross Reference]

What doesn't add up. A is about 1st century Judea. B is about the 2nd coming. It was said to be possible right after A but also that a delay was allowed. There was. That adds to me.

\
Why not all through the whole OT?

 

[Interplanner]

Mt24A is not about all through the OT...

It sounds like you are asking that. Not it is not. Really, really work on your communication. Can you read someone your question before you write it?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Those who instigated Jesus' crucifixion were conceived via the flesh contrary to the will of God as mentioned in Deuteronomy and Ezra.

Paul was a physical descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and he persecuted the church. Despite this he was a child of God:

"The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God" (Ro.8:16).​

 

[Interplanner]

That Rom 8 child is what 'sperma' of ch 4 and 9 meant. Not the natural born children per se. Some were, like Paul and the 1st 3000 believers. That's why Paul always bridges the distinctions that are based in genes, ethnos, class, gender, culture, tribe, descendancy. Always. All a person needs to do is believe on the Gospel and they are 'sperma' not 'sarkos.'

 

[Tambora]

Sorry again about the title. It should have been:

Abraham's 'sperma' not 'sarkos' are the true children.

Read this again and let it sink in.

Romans 4 KJV
(16) Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed (sperma); not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,


You do see that "also", don't ya?
It's "in addition to", not "in place of".

 

[Cross Reference]

Mt24A is not about all through the OT...

It sounds like you are asking that. Not it is not. Really, really work on your communication. Can you read someone your question before you write it?

You lack understanding and, to you, I can't write well enough that maybe you might receive some. I'm sorry I am not that that good a writer.

 

[Interplanner]

Yes, Tambora, I see it.

But more important, I see the "us" in the last line, which is the same "us" as in 9:24. It is us who believe, no matter what gender, class, descendancy, tribe, race, sect. Sure, some have lineage to Abraham but it doesn't matter any more.

The us is not all "us Jews" if that's what you were thinking.

 

[kayaker]

Paul was a physical descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and he persecuted the church. Despite this he was a child of God:

"The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God" (Ro.8:16).​

Paul, a Benjamite Jew, along with many other "children of God", was misled by those circumcised, non-Israelite (John 8:33 KJV) children of the flesh (Romans 9:6, 7, 8) who instigated Jesus' crucifixion (John 8:28 KJV, John 8:37 KJV). I might suggest Paul would get life in prison in todays terms, so to speak... but, those circumcised, non-Israelite children of the flesh instigators were facing the death penalty (Matthew 23:33 KJV, Luke 3:2, 7, 8, 9). God utterly slew their two ancestral uncles (Genesis 38:7, 8, 9, 10)!

Those instigators were descendants of Abraham and Keturah via Judah and his Canaanitess wife (1Chronicles 2:3 KJV), daughter of the Canaanite Shuah (Genesis 38:2 KJV) who was the 'son' of Keturah (not a son of Abraham), wife of Abraham (Genesis 25:1, 2, 3, 4). Judah's union with his Canaanite wife was contrary to Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3, Ezra 9:1, 2, 7. Those surviving Shelanites (Genesis 38:26 KJV, Numbers 26:20 KJV) were Judah's children of the flesh in Romans 9:6, 7, 8. And, they plotted the crucifixion of Jesus, a descendant of Judah and his daughter-in-law Tamar, via their eldest twin son Pharez (Genesis 38:29, Matthew 1:1, 2, 3, Luke 3:31, 32, 33). But, it's a little more than a sibling rivalry sorta thing (Genesis 3:15 KJV).

Since Interplanner is apparently contemplating his answer to my question whether or not Isaac, Jacob, Judah (and his maternal brothers via Rachel), and John the Baptist were immaculately conceived, or miraculously conceived... take a shot at it, Jerry.

 

[Interplanner]

Kayaker is not addressing what Paul is saying in Rom 9. anyone who had faith could be a 'sperma' no matter race, class, education, gender, sect. Some 'sarkos' were; most were not. 'Sarkos' were the physical descendants of Abraham, and I think both Rom 9, 4 and Gal 4 allow for a supernatural conception of Isaac, to show that descendency is broken. And certainly to create a picture of being 'born from above' which those who have faith are. Isaac may be 'thought of' or 'called' Abraham's son but in fact was not. Cp Lk 3:23. "he was the son, so it was thought..."

 

[Cross Reference]

Kayaker is not addressing what Paul is saying in Rom 9. anyone who had faith could be a 'sperma' no matter race, class, education, gender, sect. Some 'sarkos' were; most were not. 'Sarkos' were the physical descendants of Abraham, and I think both Rom 9, 4 and Gal 4 allow for a supernatural conception of Isaac, to show that descendency is broken. And certainly to create a picture of being 'born from above' which those who have faith are. Isaac may be 'thought of' or 'called' Abraham's son but in fact was not. Cp Lk 3:23. "he was the son, so it was thought..."

WHAT??!!

Wrong!! 1. Gal. 4 allows for nothing of the sort as you have portrayed things, to be etched in stone. This does not convey what you espouse: "But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now." Galatians 4:29 (KJV) There was no "supernatural conception"of Isaac as it was with Jesus but rather a supernatural "timing" purposed for him to be a type of persecuted Jesus, i.e., Flesh vs Spirit. Ergo, descendency was not broken. 2. Abraham's faith was of his flesh that produced two peoples.___His faith was not a gift of God but his salvation worked out in fear and trembling that proved him.

 

[Interplanner]

Abraham did have two lines, which are a picture (Gal 4'a analogy), but all three of those passages--Rom 4, 9 and Gal 4--may very well have this fact in mind: that when Isaac was conceived, none of the usual expressions for sex were used in the narrative: lay with his wife, knew his wife, slept with, went into, etc. Nor of Elizabeth and Zechariah, Lk 1:24. Luke was a doctor and chose an expression that does not indicate sex took place, and often means to have custody of something.

Thus: his body was as good as dead...and Sarah's was also...

it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded (logizo) as Abraham's offspring. Logizo = to count as, to account, to reckon, to impute, to credit for extrinsic reasons (the value is coming from outside or elsewhere or a third party).

His son by the slave woman was (concieved) in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was (concieved) as the result of a promise. (They were both 'born' normally; the question is how they were conceived.)

Why would any of these passages make these contrasts unless something totally drastically supernatural had occurred?

Why were Jesus' and John's conceptions parallel?

Maybe, because of 9:8, the conception thing doesn't matter; descendancy is broken anyway, which is the point. If you don't realize descendancy is broken as in Jn 1:8, you're in a totally different NT than I am. This is the basis for the NT exclaiming that race, gender, education, class, tribe, descendancy doesnt' matter anymore in Christ.

On a mission trip in Moldova (E. Europe) a few years ago, I found a document at the little national museum that refers to Isaac as produced directly by God. I asked the curator and she said yes, the assumption of that verb was that Isaac was created directly in the womb without sex, even in the Romanian language.

 

[Interplanner]

btw, what possible meaning is the expression above:
Abrahams faith was of his flesh that produced two peoples...? That is NOT what Paul is referring to when contrasting 'sperma' (seed) and 'sarkos' (ordinary children) in 9:8. Hagar's children are a picture of the Law, but many other people are stuck in the mire of religion that were never born of Hagar.

 

[Cross Reference]

Abraham did have two lines, which are a picture (Gal 4'a analogy), but all three of those passages--Rom 4, 9 and Gal 4--may very well have this fact in mind: that when Isaac was conceived, none of the usual expressions for sex were used in the narrative: lay with his wife, knew his wife, slept with, went into, etc. Nor of Elizabeth and Zechariah, Lk 1:24. Luke was a doctor and chose an expression that does not indicate sex took place, and often means to have custody of something.

Thus: his body was as good as dead...and Sarah's was also...

it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded (logizo) as Abraham's offspring. Logizo = to count as, to account, to reckon, to impute, to credit for extrinsic reasons (the value is coming from outside or elsewhere or a third party).

His son by the slave woman was (concieved) in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was (concieved) as the result of a promise. (They were both 'born' normally; the question is how they were conceived.)

Why would any of these passages make these contrasts unless something totally drastically supernatural had occurred?

Why were Jesus' and John's conceptions parallel?

Maybe, because of 9:8, the conception thing doesn't matter; descendancy is broken anyway, which is the point. If you don't realize descendancy is broken as in Jn 1:8, you're in a totally different NT than I am. This is the basis for the NT exclaiming that race, gender, education, class, tribe, descendancy doesnt' matter anymore in Christ.

On a mission trip in Moldova (E. Europe) a few years ago, I found a document at the little national museum that refers to Isaac as produced directly by God. I asked the curator and she said yes, the assumption of that verb was that Isaac was created directly in the womb without sex, even in the Romanian language.

This is impossible. I am done with it all.

To all who are religious about using the so-called original languages as put forth in the "scholarly" modern translations, be aware that this is what happens when caught up in the snare of it all that leads away from the simplicity of knowing Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

 

[Interplanner]

Knowing Christ and him crucified is the most essential thing; it is the one Gospel. It is not going to solve questions about how doctors in the 1st century referred to pregnancy from sex vs 'acts of God.'

And, you will still need to work out 'sperma' vs 'sarkos' as far as Abraham's children go in Rom 9:8. Anyone on earth can be a 'sperma' of Abraham the man of faith. Only some of his 'sarkos' are 'sperma.'

 

[Cross Reference]

Knowing Christ and him crucified is the most essential thing; it is the one Gospel. It is not going to solve questions about how doctors in the 1st century referred to pregnancy from sex vs 'acts of God.'

And, you will still need to work out 'sperma' vs 'sarkos' as far as Abraham's children go in Rom 9:8. Anyone on earth can be a 'sperma' of Abraham the man of faith. Only some of his 'sarkos' are 'sperma.'

Keep writing. Keep making my point.

 

[Interplanner]

It is not your point. You are dismissive. I'm saying it is quite important.

In case your curious (I'm not sure) here are some terms for sexual activity:

to resume normal marital relations, I Cor 7:5. palin epi to auto ete (to become one or intimate again).

to use your vessel properly, I Th 3:4. to heautou skeuos ktasthai en hagiasmo kai time

Those are a couple positive references to sex. Luke traveled with Paul, so we can assume Paul consulted for word choice.

All we find in the Elizabeth narrative is that she is carrying.

Sarah's and Elizabeth's wombs were dead, menopausal. So if you need to say that something is broken, but not say descendency is broken then at least say that normal procreation was broken. God had to make 1-2 miracles in each case.

Descendency is broken in the numerous places where Paul says it no longer matters in the Gospel.

 

[Interplanner]

I forgot the most common verb for normal sex was 'koite' in which it is actually just referring to the marriage bed. Heb 13. None of these three are used about the ancient narrative of Sarah nor about Elizabeth.

Even if you don't think the descendency is broken, you still have the question: what was Abraham the moment before he had faith? he was persian.

 

[kayaker]

Kayaker is not addressing what Paul is saying in Rom 9. anyone who had faith could be a 'sperma' no matter race, class, education, gender, sect. Some 'sarkos' were; most were not. 'Sarkos' were the physical descendants of Abraham, and I think both Rom 9, 4 and Gal 4 allow for a supernatural conception of Isaac, to show that descendency is broken. And certainly to create a picture of being 'born from above' which those who have faith are. Isaac may be 'thought of' or 'called' Abraham's son but in fact was not. Cp Lk 3:23. "he was the son, so it was thought..."

Well, it's late... long work day. But, a moment to maybe shore up a position here. Abraham was clearly fertile downloading Keutrah's six sons after Sarah died (Genesis 25:1, 2, 3, 4), and that was before viagra. Sarah was clearly post menopausal (Genesis 18:11 KJV). The Lord said Sarah would have a son (Genesis 18:10, 14, KJV). Earlier the Lord told Abraham his heir Isaac (Genesis 25:5 KJV) "shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir" (Genesis 15:4 KJV) [edited correction from Genesis 14:4 KJV].

You might argue Sarah was a surrogate egg recipient from the Lord, but Abraham was most definitely the father. You might even argue Sarah received an in vitro fertilized egg implant, but Abraham was definitely the sperm donor...

The 'descendancy' issue you bring forth ended with the arrival of Jesus... the end generation, the second Adam, son of God. Jesus' arrival generation was prophesied by Lamech in Genesis 4:24 KJV, "seventy and sevenfold." Count 'em up with God is generation #1, Adam generation #2, Seth #3, and so forth beginning in Luke 3:38 KJV. Therefore, the 'descendancy' issue you bring forth ended with the prophesied arrival generation of Jesus, immaculately conceived, the only begotten of God.

kayaker

 

[Interplanner]

Yes, I would have to put 15:4 on the list of places mentioning normal sex, which is short.

My descendancy issue is actually interrupted because of what Abraham was the moment before faith--an ancient near east Persian.

I'm asking these questions about Isaac because of Gal 4:23 which contrasts conceptions. (Obviously the birth was normal but Paul meant conception). the Rom 4 and 9 passages are weaker than Gal 4:23 but similar.

 

[kayaker]

Yes, I would have to put 15:4 on the list of places mentioning normal sex, which is short.

Abraham's Y chromosome wasn't short, either. So, you're proposing Jesus wasn't the only begotten Son of God, then? Isaac was begotten of God via immaculate conception, then? Some group sends you on a mission trip, and you come back deluded with the notion Isaac was begotten of God. I took a mission trip to Genesis 15:4 KJV and returned with the same notion I got the first time: Isaac was the seed of Abraham (Genesis 21:12 KJV), even Ishmael was a seed of Abraham (Genesis 21:13 KJV). Meanwhile, Moses said Abraham's progeny via Keturah were "the children of Keturah" (Genesis 25:1, 2, 3, 4), that you make utterly no mention of. That's interesting.

Paul said Abraham had two sons, Isaac and Ishmael, in Galatians 4:22 KJV, corroborated in Genesis 25:9 KJV among other places. But, I seemed to miss Paul's mention of Keturah's Canaanite son Shuah (Genesis 25:2 KJV), father-in-law of Judah (Genesis 38:2 KJV), prophesied progenitor of Messiah (Isaiah 65:9 KJV). I suppose it matters not that those non-Israelite, Canaanite/Shelanite descendants (Numbers 26:20 KJV) of Abraham (John 8:33 KJV) via Judah and his Canaanitess wife (1Chronicles 2:3 KJV) instigated Jesus' crucifixion (John 8:28 KJV, John 8:37 KJV). But, you since you don't know who instigated Jesus' crucifixion, then Paul's subtle mention in Romans 9:6, 7, 8 falls on your deaf ears (Matthew 13:15 KJV) leaving you in the category of Matthew 13:12 KJV.

The real crux of the issue that you proffer is Jesus wasn't the only begotten of God, then. The Jesus I follow was indeed the only begotten of God.

My descendancy issue is actually interrupted because of what Abraham was the moment before faith--an ancient near east Persian.

And all this time I thought Abraham was a Hebrew descendant of Eber (aka Heber) found in Luke 3:34 KJV, Luke 3:35 KJV, who was a descendant of Sem/Shem (luke 3:36 KJV), who was "the father of all the children of Eber..." (Genesis 10:21 KJV). Maybe Abraham lived in Persia, but Abraham was an ancestral Hebrew. That is... unless you're furthering your endeavor to tarnish the ancestry of Jesus, the 'name' of Jesus.

I'm asking these questions about Isaac because of Gal 4:23 which contrasts conceptions. (Obviously the birth was normal but Paul meant conception). the Rom 4 and 9 passages are weaker than Gal 4:23 but similar.

All births were normal, even Jesus' birth was a normal 270 day gestation and vaginal delivery. Conception was what it was all about. Paul said nothing contrary to Moses in Galatians or Romans, you are. You didn't have a clue those non-Israelites (John 8:33 KJV) seeking Jesus' crucifixion (John 8:28, John 8:37 KJV) were descendants of Judah and his Canaanite wife, while Jesus was a descendant of Judah and his Israelite Priestess daughter-in-law, Tamar. Therefore, you are clueless who Paul was referring to in Romans 9:6 KJV, Romans 9:7 KJV, Romans 9:8 KJV. Furthermore, you are clueless that Paul was utterly precise saying Abraham had two sons, Isaac and Ishmael... Abraham's progeny via Keturah were Keturah's children (Genesis 25:4 KJV). Jesus affirmed this in John 8:37 KJV, and John 8:39 KJV.

And, you want to refute Jesus' being the only immaculate conception? Paul didn't contradict Jesus or Moses. You contradict Paul trying to dilute out Genesis 15:4 KJV. Might try tossing that NIV you're using, it's left you more than a little short.

kayaker