Steve_S Posted June 14, 2016 Group: Servant Followers: 25 Topic Count: 275 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 5,208 Content Per Day: 1.00 Reputation: 1,893 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/02/2010 Status: Offline Share Posted June 14, 2016 1 minute ago, Joline said: Why are you going to Genesis 17? Why can't you accept what is taught concerning Genesis 15 Steve? I am not confusing anything here, you are. The Rabbis did as well. And there are many today following after that crooked generations teachings. So much so that much of the Church cannot Even recognize the priesthood, in either the law of Moses, nor the Gospel. I am going to Genesis 17 because it is relevant. This thread is about the legitimacy of Israel, not about specific exegesis on Genesis 15. Genesis 17 is incredibly relevant to establishing Israel's legitimacy, because this is where the specific promise to the inheritance of Canaan was made, and in the same chapter it was delineated that it would be made through Isaac, and not Ishmael. In my post above I addressed both Genesis 15 and Genesis 17 above, because *both* are relevant, and delineated the differences between the two. Again, this thread is not about Genesis 15, it is about the legitimacy of Israel, and Genesis 17 is important to establishing that legitimacy. That is why I am going there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 20 minutes ago, Steve_S said: I am going to Genesis 17 because it is relevant. This thread is about the legitimacy of Israel, not about specific exegesis on Genesis 15. Genesis 17 is incredibly relevant to establishing Israel's legitimacy, because this is where the specific promise to the inheritance of Canaan was made, and in the same chapter it was delineated that it would be made through Isaac, and not Ishmael. In my post above I addressed both Genesis 15 and Genesis 17 above, because *both* are relevant, and delineated the differences between the two. Again, this thread is not about Genesis 15, it is about the legitimacy of Israel, and Genesis 17 is important to establishing that legitimacy. That is why I am going there. No Genesis 17 is not Israel's relevancy. Genesis 17 is the RELEVANCY of ALL NATIONS PROMISED TO ABRAHAM, IN THE ONE SEED. Don't you see what you are doing? You are ignoring the law itself to the point of refusing to HEAR THE LAW........... Gal 4:21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? 22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. 24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. The covenants are real Steve, the women serve as an allegory. It is not persons like myself which accept replacement theology. The Pharisees have already done that. And it seems you all are desiring to uphold those notions. When God covenants to give the eternal inheritance of the land (the Jerusalem which is above) he is made a father to many nations. He is not given any inheritance in the land covenant to the fourth GENERATION OF HIS SEED. It is not ETERNAL BUT TEMPORAL..... Ge 17:4 As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. {many…: Heb. multitude of nations } Ge 17:5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee. {Abraham: that is, Father of a great multitude } Ro 4:17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were. {before him: or, like unto him } Ro 4:18 Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be. Lu 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Patriot21 Posted June 14, 2016 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 28 Topic Count: 338 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 15,710 Content Per Day: 2.46 Reputation: 8,526 Days Won: 39 Joined: 10/25/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/27/1985 Share Posted June 14, 2016 6 hours ago, Joline said: Where are the new covenant teachings concerning these things Patriot? Abraham was given Heirs in Genesis 15..................And those heirs were the 4th generation of his seed......... The Sons of Jacob through his twelve sons 1. Isaac, 2, Jacob, 3 Joseph, and all the generation which died in Egypt Moses brought out the 4th Generation of Abraham's seed according to the promise of the covenant.............. the fathers knew they would be DEAD and buried by the time this covenant was fulfilled..........Hence Joseph told them to bring up his bones from Egypt........ Genesis 17 Circumcision is the covenant which gives Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob an inheritance of the land, and promises to be made a father of Many nations. Which land they all knew was inherited after their earthly lifetime............................. Deut 5:3 And Moses called all Israel, and said unto them, Hear, O Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your ears this day, that ye may learn them, and keep, and do them. {keep…: Heb. keep to do them } 2 The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. 3 The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day. 4 The LORD talked with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire, I do believe I quoted it in my initial post, but for clarification it was 2 Timothy 3:16. All scripture is God breathed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve_S Posted June 14, 2016 Group: Servant Followers: 25 Topic Count: 275 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 5,208 Content Per Day: 1.00 Reputation: 1,893 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/02/2010 Status: Offline Share Posted June 14, 2016 18 minutes ago, Joline said: No Genesis 17 is not Israel's relevancy. Genesis 17 is the RELEVANCY of ALL NATIONS PROMISED TO ABRAHAM, IN THE ONE SEED. Don't you see what you are doing? You are ignoring the law itself to the point of refusing to HEAR THE LAW........... Gal 4:21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? 22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. 24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. The covenants are real Steve, the women serve as an allegory. It is not persons like myself which accept replacement theology. The Pharisees have already done that. And it seems you all are desiring to uphold those notions. When God covenants to give the eternal inheritance of the land (the Jerusalem which is above) he is made a father to many nations. He is not given any inheritance in the land covenant to the fourth GENERATION OF HIS SEED. It is not ETERNAL BUT TEMPORAL..... Ge 17:4 As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. {many…: Heb. multitude of nations } Ge 17:5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee. {Abraham: that is, Father of a great multitude } Ro 4:17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were. {before him: or, like unto him } Ro 4:18 Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be. Lu 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. Firstly, continually accusing folks of being pharisees in a backdoor manner simply because they disagree with you simply has to stop. This is getting overly personal and it's not something we really want to see here. This is a note you should make for future discussions. Secondly, I think you're wrong. Genesis 17 specifically mentions the land of canaan as being a physical inheritance. You believe that the *land promise* is allegory, the bible does not say that anywhere and Galatians certainly does not say that with any specificity anyway. You are certainly allowed to believe it, however, I disagree, strongly, with that opinion. In Galatians paul is clearly using the relationship between Sarah, Hagar, Isaac, and Ishmael as symbolism of the relationship between the church and the Jews who have rejected Christ. An allegory rarely means that the events did not happen, only that they happened and had another meaning to them. I don't know why folks would think it is a necessity that in order for that relationship to be allegorical, that it is not also rooted in a literal occurrence. In this instance that liberal occurrence is historically documented many, many times throughout the scriptures, and that is the possession of the land by the physical descendants of Abraham through Isaac! At any rate it doesn't matter, because the allegory paul was alluding to here had *absolutely nothing* to do with the promise of the land of canaan as delineated in Genesis 17. For your theory on this to be true it would be necessary that Isaac and Ishmael were legendary figures who never even existed, fables, basically. This is obviously not the case. Genesis 17 addresses the land of canaan with open frankness that is unable to be ignored and then lo and behold, in Numbers we see the land borders of canaan get a definition, in Deuteronomy we see Moses being sent up on a mountain to view it before his death, and then in Joshua we see Israel actually pass over into it, as a nation, the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who was named Israel by the Most High. This is incontrovertible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 19 minutes ago, Steve_S said: Firstly, continually accusing folks of being pharisees in a backdoor manner simply because they disagree with you simply has to stop. This is getting overly personal and it's not something we really want to see here. This is a note you should make for future discussions. Secondly, I think you're wrong. Genesis 17 specifically mentions the land of canaan as being a physical inheritance. You believe that the *land promise* is allegory, the bible does not say that anywhere and Galatians certainly does not say that with any specificity anyway. You are certainly allowed to believe it, however, I disagree, strongly, with that opinion. In Galatians paul is clearly using the relationship between Sarah, Hagar, Isaac, and Ishmael as symbolism of the relationship between the church and the Jews who have rejected Christ. An allegory rarely means that the events did not happen, only that they happened and had another meaning to them. I don't know why folks would think it is a necessity that in order for that relationship to be allegorical, that it is not also rooted in a literal occurrence. In this instance that liberal occurrence is historically documented many, many times throughout the scriptures, and that is the possession of the land by the physical descendants of Abraham through Isaac! At any rate it doesn't matter, because the allegory paul was alluding to here had *absolutely nothing* to do with the promise of the land of canaan as delineated in Genesis 17. For your theory on this to be true it would be necessary that Isaac and Ishmael were legendary figures who never even existed, fables, basically. This is obviously not the case. Genesis 17 addresses the land of canaan with open frankness that is unable to be ignored and then lo and behold, in Numbers we see the land borders of canaan get a definition, in Deuteronomy we see Moses being sent up on a mountain to view it before his death, and then in Joshua we see Israel actually pass over into it, as a nation, the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who was named Israel by the Most High. This is incontrovertible. I told you the Pharisees held to the views some of you in here espouse. You think I am wrong about what exactly? An allegory? No no, Let me say it again........ The covenants are real......the women serve as an allegory unto them. I simply showed you the covenant in Genesis 15 does not give any land to Abraham, as Acts teaches as well as Hebrews. Being like a BEREAN.... But you refuse to discuss this covenant, because you are thinking like the Pharisees. The covenant given to the fourth generation of his seed is temporal as long as this world and this life exists. The covenant in genesis 17 is to all his seed (you must be born again) of promise in the one seed which like Isaac is Christ. So again, lets not confuse and confound things.... The covenants are real.....................It is the women which serve for an allegory................When you are willing to discuss the actual covenants there is plenty more to be understood from the new covenant teachings. But I doubt you will. But maybe though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve_S Posted June 14, 2016 Group: Servant Followers: 25 Topic Count: 275 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 5,208 Content Per Day: 1.00 Reputation: 1,893 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/02/2010 Status: Offline Share Posted June 14, 2016 9 minutes ago, Joline said: I told you the Pharisees held to the views some of you in here espouse. You think I am wrong about what exactly? An allegory? No no, Let me say it again........ The covenants are real......the women serve as an allegory unto them. I simply showed you the covenant in Genesis 15 does not give any land to Abraham, as Acts teaches as well as Hebrews. Being like a BEREAN.... But you refuse to discuss this covenant, because you are thinking like the Pharisees. The covenant given to the fourth generation of his seed is temporal as long as this world and this life exists. The covenant in genesis 17 is to all his seed (you must be born again) of promise in the one seed which like Isaac is Christ. So again, lets not confuse and confound things.... The covenants are real.....................It is the women which serve for an allegory................When you are willing to discuss the actual covenants there is plenty more to be understood from the new covenant teachings. But I doubt you will. But maybe though. The actual covenants are clearly delineated in the scriptures themselves. The covenant in Genesis 17 is to his Physical seed and involves the land of canaan specifically. That is where we disagree. Where i specifically think you are wrong is in your exegesis of Genesis 17. As for what I think you are wrong about, exactly, since you asked, it is that the land promise to canaan in that context is not to Abraham's physical descendants. Also, I see no reason to draw any comparisons to pharisees and other posters in discussions on things of this nature. That is a backdoor way of getting personal. It would be best if you left prognosticating about that sort of thing out of your posts. It serves actually no purpose regarding the discussion at hand. Have I once accused you of following false teachers or equated you with anything along the lines of a pharisee, even though I certainly think you are very much so wrong? I would have honestly probably banned you from the thread if you had made statements like this to someone else and had I not been participating in it. The main reason I haven't is because it is not offensive to me insofar as I have no right to get offended over anything, because Christ gave his life willingly to pay for my sins. However, I do have a duty to the members of this board, and part of that is to ensure that people don't associate others with things that clearly have a significant and incredibly negative meaning, like the word pharisee, because they are frustrated during a debate. I am, however, asking you not to do it anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 30 minutes ago, Steve_S said: The actual covenants are clearly delineated in the scriptures themselves. The covenant in Genesis 17 is to his Physical seed and involves the land of canaan specifically. That is where we disagree. Where i specifically think you are wrong is in your exegesis of Genesis 17. As for what I think you are wrong about, exactly, since you asked, it is that the land promise to canaan in that context is not to Abraham's physical descendants. Also, I see no reason to draw any comparisons to pharisees and other posters in discussions on things of this nature. That is a backdoor way of getting personal. It would be best if you left prognosticating about that sort of thing out of your posts. It serves actually no purpose regarding the discussion at hand. Have I once accused you of following false teachers or equated you with anything along the lines of a pharisee, even though I certainly think you are very much so wrong? I would have honestly probably banned you from the thread if you had made statements like this to someone else and had I not been participating in it. The main reason I haven't is because it is not offensive to me insofar as I have no right to get offended over anything, because Christ gave his life willingly to pay for my sins. However, I do have a duty to the members of this board, and part of that is to ensure that people don't associate others with things that clearly have a significant and incredibly negative meaning, like the word pharisee, because they are frustrated during a debate. I am, however, asking you not to do it anymore. Then ban me, I just would like my entire account deleted, if that be the case. I do not like the idea of forced membership........There have been much worse said about me by some of your (meaning this site in general) favorites in here...But I suppose that's ok for ya all. You certainly are not making sense to me however concerning the physical descent of Genesis 17. But you will not discuss Genesis 15 so, I don't know what to tell you. If you refuse, and force conversation which you wish to discuss, hey again you all are in charge here Mod away... have your own conversation..........You certainly are not willing to converse with me on the subject. Good day steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve_S Posted June 14, 2016 Group: Servant Followers: 25 Topic Count: 275 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 5,208 Content Per Day: 1.00 Reputation: 1,893 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/02/2010 Status: Offline Share Posted June 14, 2016 22 minutes ago, Joline said: Then ban me, I just would like my entire account deleted, if that be the case. I do not like the idea of forced membership........There have been much worse said about me by some of your (meaning this site in general) favorites in here...But I suppose that's ok for ya all. You certainly are not making sense to me however concerning the physical descent of Genesis 17. But you will not discuss Genesis 15 so, I don't know what to tell you. If you refuse, and force conversation which you wish to discuss, hey again you all are in charge here Mod away... have your own conversation..........You certainly are not willing to converse with me on the subject. Good day steve I'm not sure what you mean by "forced membership." Also, if someone personally attacks you, feel free to report it. We institute some new policies about a week and a half ago to mitigate the way the boards were going with regard to personal attacks. The crux of what I asked you above was simply not to equate folks you disagree with as pharisees. Also, I have been conversing with you on the subject for about three pages now. I have specifically addressed Genesis 15, it's just that I disagree with your exegesis. Discussing it does not mean at the end I will definitely agree with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 1 minute ago, Steve_S said: I'm not sure what you mean by "forced membership." Also, if someone personally attacks you, feel free to report it. We institute some new policies about a week and a half ago to mitigate the way the boards were going with regard to personal attacks. The crux of what I asked you above was simply not to equate folks you disagree with as pharisees. Also, I have been conversing with you on the subject for about three pages now. I have specifically addressed Genesis 15, it's just that I disagree with your exegesis. Discussing it does not mean at the end I will definitely agree with you. I have not seen any answers from you on genesis 15. I asked you specific questions and I quoted new testament scripture, you just pretty much ignored it and continued discussing Genesis 17. As for forced membership, I asked another of the Mods awhile back if a person leaving this site could have there membership deleted. The mod said no, not that they knew of. If I were to leave a site for any reason I would not wish to be named and COUNTED as a member. That simply helps to promote a site. Especially a site where it is unclear who is who, and what doctrinal position are prominent on a site. You gotta join to find that out. I just think it is a shame that say a Catholic would not be able to have their membership deleted entirely here. I am not Catholic, but some of the teachings and teachers I have seen here which appear to be allowed and supported do disturb me. That is all I mean by that. Why would I want to support a site like that? Nobody would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldSchool2 Posted June 14, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 7 Topic Count: 701 Topics Per Day: 0.13 Content Count: 7,511 Content Per Day: 1.35 Reputation: 1,759 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/16/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/18/1955 Author Share Posted June 14, 2016 18 hours ago, Joline said: That's the problem, I do not need to study the prophets. All we need as believers is to stand firm in the Gospel that has been preached, ONCE FOR ALL............................. It's harder to know where you're going if you don't know where you came from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts