ECT Abraham before he believed

[1Mind1Spirit]

What do you think I missed 1mind? Some couples like that stop having sex... Once again bringing us back to Paul's NT belief that the conceptions were disimilar.

On the intuitive level, when Sarah laughs about "having this pleasure (of a baby) in my old age" it is reaonsable, in this context, to think that she had given up on the pleasure of sex, maybe years before, in her saying: "Now that I'm worn out..." (18:12).

You have missed that Abraham was having sex after you tried to say he wasn't.

I only mentioned him kicking Sarah to the curb because that is the only straw left for you to grasp after yer other surmisings were squashed.

So why would Abraham stop lying with Sarah, his first love, she was beautiful even in old age?


So come on, why would he?

Before you answer, remember she was a holy woman who would never completely cutoff her Lord Abraham from the use of her body.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

yep the most difficult part of eschatology is to believe that God said in Isaiah 46:10 KJV that in the beginning he gave both the beginning and the end. So if one is reasoning through the end of these days they first should see the prophecy of the "generation(S) of the heaven(S)and of the earth...",

Yep.

He declared the end from the beginning.

Sinless sinners in paradise.

 

[Interplanner]

1mind,
I'm saying that because she sounds like they've stopped, and because Gal 4 says the conceptions were not done the same way. The pleasure she mentions in 18:12 is not sexual. it is that of having a child. That is what "I'm worn out" means in graphic translation.

The breaking of descendency does not hinge on this. It breaks because there was not a pregnancy due to Abraham's fertility. There had to be a miracle of a regenerated womb; there might also have been a direct implantation by God.

Thus Isaac is a picture for the future. There were indeed others born to Abraham and they are not his descendants--in the picture. There has to be intervention from above, and ultimately that is Christ the Seed, "If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Gal 3:29.

 

[Interplanner]

Whitestone,
yes all those things are the beginning. The purpose, destiny of Israel was to produce Christ and his Gospel, tragic though it was for the moment. Acts 13:32+.

 

[whitestone]

Whitestone,
yes all those things are the beginning. The purpose, destiny of Israel was to produce Christ and his Gospel, tragic though it was for the moment. Acts 13:32+.

your meaning this about what I ask about the third heaven,paradise ect.?

 

[Interplanner]

The beginning (paradise) clarifies what the end (purpose) of Israel was.

 

[whitestone]

The beginning (paradise) clarifies what the end (purpose) of Israel was.

So in the beginning on the 6th day an man is formed (Genesis 1:27 KJV) ,and then he is not left in the earth where he is formed but instead he is put in another place (Genesis 2:8 KJV) but the woman,,what day was she brought forth and where on earth or in the third heaven? compare this to 1 Corinthians 15:45 KJV ...

 

[Interplanner]

You just moved into an area way more detailed than the general beginning and end. I have no opinion about it?

 

[whitestone]

You just moved into an area way more detailed than the general beginning and end. I have no opinion about it?

I understand,,, 1 Corinthians 15:23-26 KJV ,,,,I will say no more,,,

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

1mind,
I'm saying that because she sounds like they've stopped, and because Gal 4 says the conceptions were not done the same way. The pleasure she mentions in 18:12 is not sexual. it is that of having a child. That is what "I'm worn out" means in graphic translation.

The breaking of descendency does not hinge on this. It breaks because there was not a pregnancy due to Abraham's fertility. There had to be a miracle of a regenerated womb; there might also have been a direct implantation by God.

Gobbldy gook???

Thus Isaac is a picture for the future. There were indeed others born to Abraham and they are not his descendants--in the picture. There has to be intervention from above, and ultimately that is Christ the Seed, "If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Gal 3:29.

According to the promise.

Not two actual Christ's.

 

[Interplanner]

I don't know anything about two Christs, so that's gobbledegook to me.

The down-and-dirty meaning of "I'm worn out..." in Gen 18:12 is "we've stopped having intercourse." What's confusing about that? So...that's a reason why the pleasure she mentioned was not the usual, but just having a child, raising a child. "A woman forgets the pain of a birth for the joy that a child has come into the world."

Putting two and two together (what Paul said about conception), there is this possible side to the miracle, besides the regenerated womb.

 

[Interplanner]

Someone complained yesterday that the descendency could not be broken, no matter what I showed. I don't see where descendency matters in Paul, when I read Rom 9:8. But let's say Abraham did fertilize Sarah's egg, not our Creator. Then Abraham's descendancy still cannot take credit for Isaac who was born of a promise of a miracle of intervention by the Creator.

Paul is building this picture so that his countrymen will not be dependent on descendency which counts for nothing; Phil 3.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Someone complained yesterday that the descendency could not be broken, no matter what I showed. I don't see where descendency matters in Paul, when I read Rom 9:8. But let's say Abraham did fertilize Sarah's egg, not our Creator. Then Abraham's descendancy still cannot take credit for Isaac who was born of a promise of a miracle of intervention by the Creator.

Paul is building this picture so that his countrymen will not be dependent on descendency which counts for nothing; Phil 3.

I'm not a Dispy.

My concern is with the actual events and how they leave no room for yer illogical fantasizing.

 

[Interplanner]

Researching and finding out that "I'm worn out..." is not 'illogical' or 'fantasizing.' many Hebrew texts are way too graphic for the West. When Moses was about to die, the NIV says he still had his strength. The literal is he could still ejaculate.

 

[kayaker]

Someone complained yesterday that the descendency could not be broken, no matter what I showed. I don't see where descendency matters in Paul, when I read Rom 9:8. But let's say Abraham did fertilize Sarah's egg, not our Creator. Then Abraham's descendancy still cannot take credit for Isaac who was born of a promise of a miracle of intervention by the Creator.

Paul is building this picture so that his countrymen will not be dependent on descendency which counts for nothing; Phil 3.

Unless you're suggesting Abraham could gestate a child... the miracle had to be through Sarah's womb being opened as was Isaac's wife's Rebekah's womb opened (Genesis 25:21 KJV), as Jacob's wife's Leah's (Genesis 29:31 KJV) and his wife's Rachel's womb (Genesis 30:2 KJV, Genesis 30:17 KJV). Sounds pretty miraculous, that is... unless you're suggesting Abraham had a problem being absent a womb.

The descendency meant EVERYTHING culminating the arrival of Jesus. But, that's clearly a non-issue to you.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Researching and finding out that "I'm worn out..." is not 'illogical' or 'fantasizing.' many Hebrew texts are way too graphic for the West. When Moses was about to die, the NIV says he still had his strength. The literal is he could still ejaculate.

Yep, so could Abraham.

Kayaker was right in the other thread that you were blindsided by keturah.

I doubt that before he or I mentioned her you even had a clue of her existence.

You said Abraham couldn't perform.


Yet we have Ishmael first.

Then Isaac, then children by Keturah.

Purdy good for a guy with E.D. dontcha think?

Course even if he had E.D. he could always stop a caravan and buy sum blue lotus flowers comin' outta Egypt.

So unless ole Abe got sick of Sarah and kicked her to the curb, yer outta legs to stand on.

And I'm a doubtin' he done that, cause we know Abe believed God, bein' the father of our faith an all.

 

[Interplanner]

So why does Paul contrast the conceptions and call one of them the ordinary way? What does that make the other? Where are the expressions that they actually did that usually are abundant in OT narrative?

Anyway, if you are trying to preserve descendancy, it is broken because Isaac was only a picture. Descendency is broken by Gal 3:29. If you belong to Christ, you are Abraham's seed and heirs to the promise. It couldn't be more overturned than that. The picture phase was complete.

I was aware of Keturah, but even more aware of the gritty meaning of Sarah in 18:12 about their fertility; the upshot is they had stopped.

 

[kayaker]

...what was Abraham before he believed?

Rather presumptuous question, think? Abram was a Hebrew, raised a Hebrew, and believed in the God of the Hebrews.

INTERPLANNER: As far as I know he was Persian.

And, you suggest Abram believed in the God of the Persians, then? Is that what you're saying? Aren't you casting shadows upon Abraham, contradicting what 1Mind1Spirit brings forth:

1MIND1SPIRIT: ...cause we know Abe believed God, bein' the father of our faith an all.

INTERPLANNER: ...further proof to me that once a person has faith as Paul explained, the race, class, descendency, gender etc no longer matters. Abraham's 'seed' refers to those who have faith. His children ('sarkos') may or may not have faith and thus may or may not be his 'seed.'

Abraham's faith was in the God of the Hebrews, Shemite descendants of Shem (Genesis 10:21 KJV). Those detractors instigating Jesus' crucifixion proclaimed Abraham as their father (John 8:33 KJV). But, that didn't make them Israelites (Romans 9:6, 7, 8). And, you'd rather circumvent the "weightier matters of the law" (Matthew 23:23 KJV) that rebuke Judah's relationship with a Canaanitess wife (1Chronicles 2:3 KJV) (Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, Ezra 9:1, 2, 7), and cast shadows on Abraham's relationship with Sarah. Why is that? You'd rather cast shadows on Abraham's relationship with Sarah, than conclude Abraham's wife Keturah was a Canaanitess, as was Judah's wife a Canaanitess, granddaughter of Keturah.

You seem to be a Biblically astute fellow, Interplanner. MS in theology or divinity, right? I simply find it most incongruent that you've been blindsided by Keturah, as 1Mind1Spirit and I are aware. I'm just a blind wild hawg rootin' 'round for acorns, and you've taken a serious dusting off on these two threads of yours. For some reason I get the distinct impression you're intentionally redirecting attention away from Keturah and Judah's wife. It's a credibility thing. But, you've got an MS, right? Maybe in Talmudic Judaism?

Talmudic Judaism teaches that after Ham had sex with Noah's wife (Genesis 9:22 KJV, Leviticus 18:8 KJV), then Ham sodomized and castrated Noah. Haven't you essentially castrated Abraham? Such a striking analogy, there.

kayaker

 

[Interplanner]

I use the NT interp of the OT. If Paul doesn't make anything out of Keturah, and does make something out of the non-ordinary conception, then I go with that. I don't go with you with your excessive familiarity with every OT genealogical corner you can think of and with your ignorance or unwillingness to comment on Gal 4:23.

many people avoid what Paul says about the OT. You do it your way.

Last I checked the Christian message was the NT and how it quotes the OT.

And, one more time, what matters is the conclusions of 3:29 about who is an inheritor with Abraham. It is in Christ. I guess then, that you are not, because you say nothing of it, seem to know nothing of it and nothing in that verse seems to register anywhere in what you say.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

And, one more time, what matters is the conclusions of 3:29 about who is an inheritor with Abraham. It is in Christ. I guess then, that you are not, because you say nothing of it, seem to know nothing of it and nothing in that verse seems to register anywhere in what you say.

If that's what matters to you, why make up lies about Abraham?