ECT Abraham before he believed

[kayaker]

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.

You use an NIV, that's a major contributor to your ignorance. Galatians 4:23 KJV... really simple to a blind wild hawg: Abraham sired them both, but only Isaac was the promised seed OF ABRAHAM, btw. Paul said Abraham had TWO SONS in the very prior verse: Galatians 4:22 KJV. Paul did NOT say Isaac was God's direct progeny, and Ishmael was Abraham's progeny. What is your incentive to extrapolate more out of that simple understanding other than to cast shadows on the faith of Abraham?

Where's the Christian message before Christ came onto the scene? That's the part you don't get. Jesus was the fulfillment of Abraham's faith. The NT began with "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham" (Matthew 1:1 KJV). But, generations means nothing to you, speaking of endless genealogies. The last I checked, 4,300 years of human history, manifest in the divine arrival generation of Jesus, "seventy and sevenfold" inclusive generations from God (Genesis 4:24 KJV, Luke 3:38 KJV-Luke 3:23 KJV), was not infinity. You do know what infinity is, right? Endless? Look that word up and see if infinity ends with 77.

So, you can take your accusation of my ignorance of infinity back to that curator of some museum in Turkey. You've not even answered your own question: Was Isaac God's direct progeny, or was Isaac Abraham's progeny? You just shift from foot to foot stirring up dust, and fluffing your feathers. Please forgive me that I'm totally underwhelmed with your majestic missionary status, and alleged academics in theology. You're the one who got 'missionized' in Turkey.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

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?

Paul is differentiating between the works of the flesh and the works of the Spirit.

Nothing to do with the conception of the children.

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 told you what I was concerned with.

That's the fact that after you say Abraham couldn't perform He had several children.

Those by Keturah putting any doubt offered by you to rest.

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.

You may or may not have heard the name Keturah,I'm unconvinced you have ever given her a thought.

As for yer upshot, it has been shot down, dead, and is stinkin'.:dead:

 

[Nick M]

What about Abraham after circumcision? And his seed, like Moses. Smooth sailing?

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

What about Abraham after circumcision? And his seed, like Moses. Smooth sailing?

Ole Moses was kinda like Interplanner.

He wants two Christs like when Moses struck the rock twice.

Lol, who knows, by golly our local Shelanite hunter just mighta found hisself one!!!

 

[Interplanner]

Paul is differentiating between the works of the flesh and the works of the Spirit.

Nothing to do with the conception of the children.




I told you what I was concerned with.

That's the fact that after you say Abraham couldn't perform He had several children.

Those by Keturah putting any doubt offered by you to rest.




You may or may not have heard the name Keturah,I'm unconvinced you have ever given her a thought.

As for yer upshot, it has been shot down, dead, and is stinkin'.:dead:

I won't be paying attention to you on 18:12's expression unless you quote a commentary. I believe the one I read that in was Rabbi Cassuto.

You are not understanding about Keturah. It doesn't matter. What matters is how the NT uses the narrative, ie, Paul in Rom 4, 9 and Gal 3. Of course you have the option not to go by Paul, which is what I think you stand for right now, but my understanding is that is what NT Christians do.

It is a huge mistake to use the OT apart from NT interps.

 

[Interplanner]

Paul is differentiating between the works of the flesh and the works of the Spirit.

Nothing to do with the conception of the children.


What good is the narrative then, if Paul had that fact wrong?



I told you what I was concerned with.

That's the fact that after you say Abraham couldn't perform He had several children.

Those by Keturah putting any doubt offered by you to rest.




You may or may not have heard the name Keturah,I'm unconvinced you have ever given her a thought.

As for yer upshot, it has been shot down, dead, and is stinkin'.:dead:

 

[Interplanner]

I don't get the quoting steps, here but I meant to ask about the conceptions (about your last comment on the conceptions)

What good is the narrative of Paul if the fact is wrong?

I'm not denying you the idea that flesh and Spirit are contrasted, but a consistent picture is used in Rom 4, 9 and here, and Isaac's conception was not ordinary, as a matter of the narrative.

 

[Interplanner]

What I'm saying is no different than the point Paul makes about circumcision; he had faith before that and that is what defines him. Descendency does not. Neither does what ancestry he had. It is the act of faith that defines, says God.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

I don't get the quoting steps, here but I meant to ask about the conceptions (about your last comment on the conceptions)

What good is the narrative of Paul if the fact is wrong?

I'm not denying you the idea that flesh and Spirit are contrasted, but a consistent picture is used in Rom 4, 9 and here, and Isaac's conception was not ordinary, as a matter of the narrative.

The only thing unordinary was that Sarah was post menopasal, coupled with the fact that she had been barren all during normal child bearing years.

Them's the facts jack.

 

[God's Truth]

I won't be paying attention to you on 18:12's expression unless you quote a commentary. I believe the one I read that in was Rabbi Cassuto.

You are not understanding about Keturah. It doesn't matter. What matters is how the NT uses the narrative, ie, Paul in Rom 4, 9 and Gal 3. Of course you have the option not to go by Paul, which is what I think you stand for right now, but my understanding is that is what NT Christians do.

It is a huge mistake to use the OT apart from NT interps.

Who cares about all your Rabbis?

 

[kayaker]

What I'm saying is no different than the point Paul makes about circumcision; he had faith before that and that is what defines him. Descendency does not. Neither does what ancestry he had. It is the act of faith that defines, says God.

Jesus said He heard something from God that even Abraham didn't hear (John 8:40 KJV). Then, Abraham was indeed acting on faith. I don't suppose you know specifically and succinctly that which Jesus heard from God that Abraham didn't hear? That's not an obvious question to you because the NIV translation distorts the notion: John 8:40 NIV v. John 8:40 KJV. So, you really don't know how Abraham acted on faith from that perspective.

You suggest ancestry was insignificant to Abraham while utterly discounting Abraham's infamous quest for a wife for Isaac. I get the impression Abraham understood his ancestry perfectly clearly (Genesis 24:3 KJV). Where was Isaac's wife to be taken from? Does Genesis 24:4 KJV offer a clue, there? Sure, ancestry was of dire importance to Abraham, while you suggest he was Persian. Isaac's wife Rebekah, from among Abraham's kin, was suicidal concerning Jacob's choice of mates (Genesis 27:46 KJV). Isaac followed Abraham's example instructing Jacob in his pursuit of a wife (Genesis 28:1 KJV). Where did Isaac instruct Jacob to find a wife? Does Genesis 28:2 KJV offer a clue? What would be Jacob's reward for taking a wife from among his mother's people? Consider Genesis 28:3 KJV. Where was Jacob's mother from? Rebekah was from among Abraham's kindred (Genesis 24:3 KJV).

And, you say Abraham's ancestry and descendancy was of no significance? Ancestry was important to Abraham, and it was to God, Moses, and Ezra (Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3; Ezra 9:1, 2, 7). In fact, take a listen to Ezra 9:8 KJV and see if that rings a bell that tolls for you.

 

[Interplanner]

Kayak wrote:
So, you really don't know how Abraham acted on faith from that perspective.

What a stupid thing to say when there are several paragraphs by Paul explaining how Abraham had faith.

Once again, someone has climbed onboard the i.net, loaded with a head of steam based on 2-3 fav verses. They seem to have no idea what else is in the NT.

 

[Interplanner]

Who cares about all your Rabbis?

Because the original material was not written in English, not written when English was spoken and not not written by people who would ever speak English.

When Moses was near death, the English says his strength was undiminished. The Hebrew is actually about his reproductive system. Likewise here. Sarah is actually speaking about their interest in sex.

Every clue from people who have years of research should be considered. Cassuto helped topple the JEDP theory that 4-5 other people, not Moses, wrote torah.

 

[Interplanner]

Jesus said He heard something from God that even Abraham didn't hear (John 8:40 KJV). Then, Abraham was indeed acting on faith. I don't suppose you know specifically and succinctly that which Jesus heard from God that Abraham didn't hear? That's not an obvious question to you because the NIV translation distorts the notion: John 8:40 NIV v. John 8:40 KJV. So, you really don't know how Abraham acted on faith from that perspective.

You suggest ancestry was insignificant to Abraham while utterly discounting Abraham's infamous quest for a wife for Isaac. I get the impression Abraham understood his ancestry perfectly clearly (Genesis 24:3 KJV). Where was Isaac's wife to be taken from? Does Genesis 24:4 KJV offer a clue, there? Sure, ancestry was of dire importance to Abraham, while you suggest he was Persian. Isaac's wife Rebekah, from among Abraham's kin, was suicidal concerning Jacob's choice of mates (Genesis 27:46 KJV). Isaac followed Abraham's example instructing Jacob in his pursuit of a wife (Genesis 28:1 KJV). Where did Isaac instruct Jacob to find a wife? Does Genesis 28:2 KJV offer a clue? What would be Jacob's reward for taking a wife from among his mother's people? Consider Genesis 28:3 KJV. Where was Jacob's mother from? Rebekah was from among Abraham's kindred (Genesis 24:3 KJV).

And, you say Abraham's ancestry and descendancy was of no significance? Ancestry was important to Abraham, and it was to God, Moses, and Ezra (Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3; Ezra 9:1, 2, 7). In fact, take a listen to Ezra 9:8 KJV and see if that rings a bell that tolls for you.

I guess you don't know the story of Ruth...check the last couple verses about the connection to David.

I also thought about your "ultimate" question about which particular virgin bore Christ. Funny how that never matters in Paul in Gal 4, the one time he mentioned what kind of birth Christ had. Which means that the kind of birth doesn't factor very much, let alone all your genealogical particulars.

 

[kayaker]

Kayak wrote:
So, you really don't know how Abraham acted on faith from that perspective.

What a stupid thing to say when there are several paragraphs by Paul explaining how Abraham had faith.

Once again, someone has climbed onboard the i.net, loaded with a head of steam based on 2-3 fav verses. They seem to have no idea what else is in the NT.

Several paragraphs by Paul explaining how Abraham had faith, huh? Paul spent the entire chapter 11 of Hebrews talking about faith. I know Jesus wasn't talking to His believers (John 8:10 KJV) in John 8:34 KJV during that dialogue. John 8:34 KJV is the typical verse taken out of context by all y'all Bible thumpers: John 8:34 KJV in one hand, and a flagrum in the other:

John 8:34 KJV... that's your favorite, guilt laden Bible verse. You ought to treat your self better. Jesus offered discipleship (John 8:31 KJV, John 8:32 KJV) to His believers (John 8:30 KJV). He was talking to your cohorts in John 8:34 KJV. Listen to Paul in Hebrews:

Hebrews 12:1, 2, KJV "Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, 2) Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God."

kayaker

 

[kayaker]

I guess you don't know the story of Ruth...check the last couple verses about the connection to David.

I don't suppose you remember the story of Solomon and his Moabite hotties? And, Boaz got off scot-free, right? Your god's not very consistent. Where did God ever rescind Deuteronomy 23:3 KJV? I suppose you and your 'Jewish' rabbi cohorts did, right (Revelation 2:9, 3:9)? Since you castrated Abraham, like your rabbi cohorts castrated Noah... reckon Noah and Abraham were excommunicated from the congregation of the Lord (Deuteronomy 23:1 KJV)?

I also thought about your "ultimate" question about which particular virgin bore Christ. Funny how that never matters in Paul in Gal 4, the one time he mentioned what kind of birth Christ had. Which means that the kind of birth doesn't factor very much, let alone all your genealogical particulars.

See, you fit such a typical profile, not at all unfamiliar to me, btw. You one-verse John 8:34 KJV floggers take Paul's words, like neither Jew nor Gentile, bond nor free... and try to apply that out of context theology to the OT. JESUS HADN'T ARRIVED THEN! Don't you remember... Jesus' birth was just like everyone else's: 270 day gestation and a vaginal delivery. YOU are the one whose brought doubt into God's Son being immaculately conceived. YOU are the one who diluted the immaculate conception of Jesus by introducing the notion Isaac was an immaculately conceived and begotten of God. Even, John the Baptist's conception! But, you headed for the hills when is came to Jacob's conception, and Judah's conception... clearly sexual events. Isaac's, Jacob's, and Judah's mothers were all barren. And, that's not a new concept:

Genesis 20:18 KJV "For the LORD had fast closed up all the wombs of the house of Abimelech, because of Sarah Abraham's wife."

But, opening wombs is too hard for the Lord (Genesis 18:14 KJV) that you have to come along and confabulate the immaculate conception of Isaac? Then you clearly have the POWUH to immaculately afford yourself your own salvation.

kayaker

 

[Interplanner]

kayker wrote:
and try to apply that out of context theology to the OT. JESUS HADN'T ARRIVED THEN!

That's just the point. It is not being applied to the OT. You're the one confused about what goes where and why. The New Covenant has come and God has seen fit to make certain changes. And to have the apostle Paul interp the OT for us, so we are not piddling around in it on our own.

 

[kayaker]

kayker wrote:
and try to apply that out of context theology to the OT. JESUS HADN'T ARRIVED THEN!

That's just the point. It is not being applied to the OT. You're the one confused about what goes where and why. The New Covenant has come and God has seen fit to make certain changes. And to have the apostle Paul interp the OT for us, so we are not piddling around in it on our own.

So where did God ever say Judah hooking up with a Canaanitess wife was okay contrary to Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3, Ezra 9:1, 2, 7? God didn't. Your alleged 'Jewish' cohorts did saying the covenant of marriage between Judah and his wife, even between Abraham and his wife Keturah, overruled Deuteronomy 7:3 KJV. Consequently, Jesus was a descendant of the the fornicated progeny of Judah and his daughter-in-law, Tamar (John 8:41 KJV).

Where was Deuteronomy 23:3 KJV ever rescinded? It never was. You take a geographical title and condemn Ruth, so you can now 'save' her (Ruth was 'converted' to Judaism in the Talmud, btw) and whitewash Jesus. You saved Jesus! Who needs Jesus when you've got the POWUH?

YOU are the one who questioned Abraham's belief suggesting he was a Persian worshipping some other god (Genesis 31:53 KJV). You are a persistent accuser of the brethren.

YOU are the one who says ancestry and descendency are of no significance trashing the pristine ancestry of Jesus without spot or blemish. YOU take the same position as those non-Israelite anti-Semites who sought Jesus' crucifixion: John 8:13 KJV, John 8:19 KJV, John 8:25 KJV.

Were ancestry and descendancy significant to Abraham (Genesis 24:3 KJV), God and Moses (Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3), and Ezra 9:1, 2, 7). Neither Jesus, nor Paul EVER rescinded the Law.

Did Paul say ancestry and descendancy was insignificant in the OT? No, YOU did. Where did Paul say the ancestry of Jesus was of no significance? He didn't, YOU did... by default not answering the simple question:

Could Jesus just as easily have been the progeny of any ole virgin, including a virgin descendant of Judah and his Canaanitess wife?

YOU rebuked the ancestry of Abraham! You take great pleasure casting shadows in the 'name', the ancestry of Jesus with your "colorful characters." YOU cast a shadow on the conception of Jesus by alleging Isaac was the first immaculate conception, even John the Baptist.

So take a quick glance in the mirror:

1John 4:3 KJV "And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world."

The last I heard, if it walks like a rooster, looks like a rooster, and crows like a rooster... it's a Shelanite. Those circumcised alleged Jews infiltrated the Israelite Jewish synagogue, and they infiltrate Christianity. And, you expect me to think you've 'put on Christ'? You've denied His authenticity from multiple angles. What did Jesus tell your cohorts who were plotting his FLESH crucifixion as you vicariously do? John 8:24 KJV.

 

[Interplanner]

kayak wrote:
So where did God ever say Judah hooking up with a Canaanitess wife was okay contrary to Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3, Ezra 9:1, 2, 7? God didn't.

...not only that, but Jesus was descended from an adulterer and murderer. The cheap 10 cent novel kind, too.

I'm not the one trying to find the unblemished descendency.

 

[Interplanner]

One other reason not to totally doubt other direct conceptions (not immaculate) from God is that there are also a few people he has taken directly to his presence, apart from death. There are always some interesting exceptions to God and his work out there.