God Has Made No Covenant With Gentiles

Nothing you state shows the sacrificial law, the ceremonial law is still in effect
If you are going to obey the sacrificial law you will be subtracting from Christ one time sacrifice for all. You would not be pleasing God. If you continue to see ceremonial law as binding you run afoul of the New covenant scripture which state
You are understanding the letter of the Torah/Law when the Torah/Law is spiritual, and as such you haven't fully understood the spiritual aspect of the sacrifices God commands His people to perform. Here's an example of the spiritual aspect of the Torah/Law:

17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit:
A broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.
Psalms 51:17.

Now let's see if you can find the letter of the Law this corresponds to.
Psst...you will fail, and you will fail because like the Pharisees you, too, only understand the letter of the Law and not the spiritual.
Galatians 4:9–11 (KJV 1900) — 9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? 10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. 11 I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.
You are taking the spiritual aspect of these words and interpreting them from a letter of the Law perspective. This is why you haven't yet understood the passages you quote. Like Ephesians 4:9-11. Every carnal Christian sees it the way you do which should be of concern to you and what you see things, ;ike Scripture, with a carnal mind and understanding. And so these words apply to you:

18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: Eph 4:18.

Saul said in Romans 7, "the Law is spiritual, but I am carnal sold under sin." So, if with your carnal mind you are looking at the spiritual words of the passages you posted above (Eph. 4:9-11), then you're not going to understand what Saul is really saying. So, let me give you a clue. Beginning in Ephesians 4:1 and through to verse 20 Saul uses the word "Christ." In verse 21 he uses "Jesus." Do you know the significance of why he does this?
Romans 14:4-5 (KJV)
4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
that mitagates against your position. If even Jewish Christians are not required to observe the things mentioned above how can you refer to them as eternal
And you are completely in error regarding
conflating Satans with what transpires in the New heaven and earth
Revelation 21 (KJV 1900) — 1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. 2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. 4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. 5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.
this is after the release and the casting of Satan into the fire
By quoting Romans 14:4-5 you are placing yourself as the "weak brother" in relation to @koberstein who is the "strong brother" because of his knowledge and insights which you are saying you don't have. Just as the strong brother was persuaded through his knowledge, he could eat anything and your weak conscience limits you to eating herbs (milk) according to your, or should I say, the "weak brothers" weak conscience. But if you were to give yourself a chance, I think you can learn something (meat) from @koberstein. But it's up to you. Christians come on sites like this thinking they know the Doctrines of Christ and in their arrogance and pride are not like little children and humble to learn something new from someone else here. In other words, I can tell @koberstein is not a neophyte or babe in Christ but a mature believer because I judge what he posts, and I haven't yet found opportunity to contradict him by saying he is incorrect in a thing. We both may understand the use and purpose of God's Torah/Law in true, biblical Christianity and you don't, and instead of asking sincerely to be enlightened on this subject you post trying to contradict us both by rejecting God's Word and even try to use God's Word to prove our use of the Word of God as incorrect. This makes no sense at all. Case in point:

Think about this for a second: The things Jesus taught was more aligned with what the Pharisees taught and not what the Sadducees taught. Rabbi Jesus taught the resurrection from the dead, the existence of angels, and a few other things while the Sadducees rejected these things. If anything, Jesus would not have had any conflict with the Pharisees at all, but He did, and do you want to know why this was so even though they both taught and believed similarly on these subjects? It was because the Pharisees could only teach and believe the letter of the Torah/Law and Jesus taught the people the spirit of the Torah/Law. That was where most of their conflict lay. And it is the same with you. You see the Torah/Law with a carnal mind and understand it like the Pharisees did, with only a letter of the Law perspective. And I would even accuse other Gentile Christians of the same thing who reject the Word of God where the Torah/Law is concerned. These Christians cannot understand the spiritual aspect of God's Torah/Law and what they don't understand is only a skip and jump to rejecting outright what they don't understand. They are not humble to say, "I don't understand what you are saying, can you teach me?"
 
@jeremiah1five



False, blatantly false and the Seed is Christ as the Surety of His People, both jew and gentile Spiritually, not physically Gal 3:16,29

16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
So, you're saying Jesus was not a son of Abraham?
 
@jeremiah1five
This is about Abrahams Spiritual Seed, not physical seed. Also I noticed you conveniently left out Vs 5 which shows that Gentiles are Included Gen 17:5-7

5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations[Gentiles] have I made thee.
Nations do not always mean Gentiles. Unless, of course, you want to say "non-Hebrews" are born to Hebrews.
Which is not true. Like begets like.
6 And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.

7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

So you know its Spiritual, thats the only way Abraham is a Father of Gentiles
Wow. You actually believe non-Hebrews can be born from Hebrews?
Also the Abrahamic Covenant is a offshoot of the everlasting Covenant, thats between the GodHead, mainly the Father and the Son before the world began. Gal 3:17

17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
I think your understanding of the text is in error. Gentiles do not come from the loins of Abraham. Non-Hebrews are not born from Hebrews.
A German man and a German woman will give birth to a German child.
But a German man and a German woman cannot give birth to a Japanese child.
Danger, Will Robinson!
This does not compute!
 
You are understanding the letter of the Torah/Law when the Torah/Law is spiritual, and as such you haven't fully understood the spiritual aspect of the sacrifices God commands His people to perform. Here's an example of the spiritual aspect of the Torah/Law:

17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit:
A broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.
Psalms 51:17.

Now let's see if you can find the letter of the Law this corresponds to.
Psst...you will fail, and you will fail because like the Pharisees you, too, only understand the letter of the Law and not the spiritual.

You are taking the spiritual aspect of these words and interpreting them from a letter of the Law perspective. This is why you haven't yet understood the passages you quote. Like Ephesians 4:9-11. Every carnal Christian sees it the way you do which should be of concern to you and what you see things, ;ike Scripture, with a carnal mind and understanding. And so these words apply to you:

18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: Eph 4:18.

Saul said in Romans 7, "the Law is spiritual, but I am carnal sold under sin." So, if with your carnal mind you are looking at the spiritual words of the passages you posted above (Eph. 4:9-11), then you're not going to understand what Saul is really saying. So, let me give you a clue. Beginning in Ephesians 4:1 and through to verse 20 Saul uses the word "Christ." In verse 21 he uses "Jesus." Do you know the significance of why he does this?

By quoting Romans 14:4-5 you are placing yourself as the "weak brother" in relation to @koberstein who is the "strong brother" because of his knowledge and insights which you are saying you don't have. Just as the strong brother was persuaded through his knowledge, he could eat anything and your weak conscience limits you to eating herbs (milk) according to your, or should I say, the "weak brothers" weak conscience. But if you were to give yourself a chance, I think you can learn something (meat) from @koberstein. But it's up to you. Christians come on sites like this thinking they know the Doctrines of Christ and in their arrogance and pride are not like little children and humble to learn something new from someone else here. In other words, I can tell @koberstein is not a neophyte or babe in Christ but a mature believer because I judge what he posts, and I haven't yet found opportunity to contradict him by saying he is incorrect in a thing. We both may understand the use and purpose of God's Torah/Law in true, biblical Christianity and you don't, and instead of asking sincerely to be enlightened on this subject you post trying to contradict us both by rejecting God's Word and even try to use God's Word to prove our use of the Word of God as incorrect. This makes no sense at all. Case in point:

Think about this for a second: The things Jesus taught was more aligned with what the Pharisees taught and not what the Sadducees taught. Rabbi Jesus taught the resurrection from the dead, the existence of angels, and a few other things while the Sadducees rejected these things. If anything, Jesus would not have had any conflict with the Pharisees at all, but He did, and do you want to know why this was so even though they both taught and believed similarly on these subjects? It was because the Pharisees could only teach and believe the letter of the Torah/Law and Jesus taught the people the spirit of the Torah/Law. That was where most of their conflict lay. And it is the same with you. You see the Torah/Law with a carnal mind and understand it like the Pharisees did, with only a letter of the Law perspective. And I would even accuse other Gentile Christians of the same thing who reject the Word of God where the Torah/Law is concerned. These Christians cannot understand the spiritual aspect of God's Torah/Law and what they don't understand is only a skip and jump to rejecting outright what they don't understand. They are not humble to say, "I don't understand what you are saying, can you teach me?"
Awesome! You are right on my brother.
Thanks for the excellent dissertation!
 
You are understanding the letter of the Torah/Law when the Torah/Law is spiritual, and as such you haven't fully understood the spiritual aspect of the sacrifices God commands His people to perform. Here's an example of the spiritual aspect of the Torah/Law:

17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit:
A broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.
Psalms 51:17.

Now let's see if you can find the letter of the Law this corresponds to.
Psst...you will fail, and you will fail because like the Pharisees you, too, only understand the letter of the Law and not the spiritual.

You are taking the spiritual aspect of these words and interpreting them from a letter of the Law perspective. This is why you haven't yet understood the passages you quote. Like Ephesians 4:9-11. Every carnal Christian sees it the way you do which should be of concern to you and what you see things, ;ike Scripture, with a carnal mind and understanding. And so these words apply to you:

18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: Eph 4:18.

Saul said in Romans 7, "the Law is spiritual, but I am carnal sold under sin." So, if with your carnal mind you are looking at the spiritual words of the passages you posted above (Eph. 4:9-11), then you're not going to understand what Saul is really saying. So, let me give you a clue. Beginning in Ephesians 4:1 and through to verse 20 Saul uses the word "Christ." In verse 21 he uses "Jesus." Do you know the significance of why he does this?

By quoting Romans 14:4-5 you are placing yourself as the "weak brother" in relation to @koberstein who is the "strong brother" because of his knowledge and insights which you are saying you don't have. Just as the strong brother was persuaded through his knowledge, he could eat anything and your weak conscience limits you to eating herbs (milk) according to your, or should I say, the "weak brothers" weak conscience. But if you were to give yourself a chance, I think you can learn something (meat) from @koberstein. But it's up to you. Christians come on sites like this thinking they know the Doctrines of Christ and in their arrogance and pride are not like little children and humble to learn something new from someone else here. In other words, I can tell @koberstein is not a neophyte or babe in Christ but a mature believer because I judge what he posts, and I haven't yet found opportunity to contradict him by saying he is incorrect in a thing. We both may understand the use and purpose of God's Torah/Law in true, biblical Christianity and you don't, and instead of asking sincerely to be enlightened on this subject you post trying to contradict us both by rejecting God's Word and even try to use God's Word to prove our use of the Word of God as incorrect. This makes no sense at all. Case in point:

Think about this for a second: The things Jesus taught was more aligned with what the Pharisees taught and not what the Sadducees taught. Rabbi Jesus taught the resurrection from the dead, the existence of angels, and a few other things while the Sadducees rejected these things. If anything, Jesus would not have had any conflict with the Pharisees at all, but He did, and do you want to know why this was so even though they both taught and believed similarly on these subjects? It was because the Pharisees could only teach and believe the letter of the Torah/Law and Jesus taught the people the spirit of the Torah/Law. That was where most of their conflict lay. And it is the same with you. You see the Torah/Law with a carnal mind and understand it like the Pharisees did, with only a letter of the Law perspective. And I would even accuse other Gentile Christians of the same thing who reject the Word of God where the Torah/Law is concerned. These Christians cannot understand the spiritual aspect of God's Torah/Law and what they don't understand is only a skip and jump to rejecting outright what they don't understand. They are not humble to say, "I don't understand what you are saying, can you teach me?"
Are you going to affirm the old covenant sacrificial and ceremonial law is no longer in effect

BTW your strong brother weak brother claim is the reverse of the reality. The weak brother would be following the old covenant, the strong brother would know that prohibition no longer needs to be followed under the New covenant.
 
Are you going to affirm the old covenant sacrificial and ceremonial law is no longer in effect

BTW your strong brother weak brother claim is the reverse of the reality. The weak brother would be following the old covenant, the strong brother would know that prohibition no longer needs to be followed under the New covenant.
There is no strong or weak brother we are all brothers in Yeshua our Messiah. You still hung up on physical sacrifices? I thought I explained that to you in an earlier reply.
Maybe it takes awhile for you to grasp the truth of reality.
 
There is no strong or weak brother we are all brothers in Yeshua our Messiah. You still hung up on physical sacrifices? I thought I explained that to you in an earlier reply.
Maybe it takes awhile for you to grasp the truth of reality.
Tell that to Jeremiah1five. He was the one who made reference to it

when responding to

Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. 5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. 6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. 7 For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.

The Holy Bible: King James Version (Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version.; Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Ro 14:4–7.
 
Are you going to affirm the old covenant sacrificial and ceremonial law is no longer in effect
Nope.


BTW your strong brother weak brother claim is the reverse of the reality. The weak brother would be following the old covenant, the strong brother would know that prohibition no longer needs to be followed under the New covenant.
Obedience to God's Torah affects the Christian and the body of Christ on many levels just as disobedience to God's Torah affects the Christian and the body of Christ on many levels. When the Christian obeys God's Torah, he exerts strength in Christ and such individual along with those who also obey God's Torah in the body of Christ are able to "turn the world upside down" just as the first century disciples "turned their world upside down." The opposite is also true. When there are Christians who obey God's Torah and there are those that do not obey God's Torah then the house is divided, and it cannot and will not stand. Those that obey God's Torah are clear-eyed and those that do not obey God's Torah are deceived and deluded and blind thinking they are in the will of God, and they are not.

Christ came and among other things He fulfilled the Torah. Fulfilled does not mean end. Fulfill does not mean "abolish" or "obsolete." First thing to understand and accept is that Jesus kept kosher. He was obedient to every Torah precept He set down in the desert at the time of the Tabernacle. While on the planet He taught Israel of twelve tribes the Torah. That should be your first clue. Why teach the Torah if in a few weeks and months He was to end or abolish it? Why teach the spiritual aspect of Torah to a people that when the Holy Spirit of Promise arrives and converts the people into spiritual beings, they will not have opportunity to obey the spirit of the Torah through the Holy Spirit if the Torah was to be ended when the Holy Spirit arrived?

There was a man that came to Jesus asking how he could inherit eternal life. Jesus does two things in answering him. First, Jesus directs the man to the Torah. Second, Jesus instructs the man to obey the Torah. Why do that if in a matter of weeks He was going to end the Torah? That would make Jesus insincere and deceptive towards the man to do something that would end when the Holy Spirit arrived and in this NO ONE would be able to inherit eternal life because the thing Jesus said would give him eternal life is ended?

25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.
Lk 10:25–28.

Jesus instructs the man to "love the LORD thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind," and then ties that love to obeying His commands:

15 If ye love me, keep my commandments. Jn 14:15.

Christ gave the Torah commandments to the children of Israel, came and taught the Torah to the children of Israel, and also assigns obedience to the Torah commandments as evidence of loving Him. It is fair and right that disobedience to His Torah commandments evidences the opposite of love and show a person hates the Lord. What else did Jesus say on the subject of Torah commandments?

10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love. Jn 15:9–10.

What Jesus is saying is that to be a Christ follower means to obey the Torah which is what He did when He came like a chain of command. Jesus obeyed the Torah and He commands His disciples and followers to obey the Torah. By doing this a Christ follower shows His love for Jesus as Jesus' obedience shows His love for His Father. This obey-love formula is throughout Scripture. Why wouldn't a professed Christian obey and love the LORD after they become born-again?

21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. Jn 14:20–21.

If a professed Christian is not obeying the Torah, then Christ does not manifest Himself to that person, which means WHO is that professed Christian now being led by in their new life? The flesh? The vanity of the mind?
Yes, these things, and more. Throughout Scripture God assigns obedience to His Torah as proof of love for God. Disobedience proves hatred for God and His Torah commandments.

6 But if ye shall at all turn from following me, ye or your children, and will not keep my commandments and my statutes which I have set before you, but go and serve other gods, and worship them:
7 Then will I cut off Israel out of the land which I have given them; and this house, which I have hallowed for my name, will I cast out of my sight; and Israel shall be a proverb and a byword among all people:
1 Ki 9:5–7.

In other words when one does not obey God's Torah commandments like "thou shall have no other gods before me" other people will see it and will call or see that person as a fake Christian and the power behind that person through obedience and love of God ceases to exist and people see the fakeness of that so-called Christian and weakness, if not, outright rebellion against God is that Christians' legacy. Even unbelievers know that love of God is tied to obedience to God.

23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me. Jn 14:22–24.

2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
1 Jn 5:1–3.

2 Keep my commandments, and live; and my law as the apple of thine eye. Prov. 7:2.

But Christians on their own in ignorance hate God, disobey His commandments from the Torah and in this disobedience pluck out their own eyes and walk around blind. They see nothing. And as Jesus said, when the blind lead the blind they both fall into the ditch.
 
Tell that to Jeremiah1five. He was the one who made reference to it

when responding to

Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. 5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. 6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. 7 For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.

The Holy Bible: King James Version (Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version.; Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Ro 14:4–7.
Again, showing yourself the weak brother.
 
So, you're saying Jesus was not a son of Abraham?
Yes He was and David Matt 1:1-2

The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

Yet He was never in their loins physically. Like levi was in Abrahams loins Heb 7:8-10

8 And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.

9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.

10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

Jesus was born of Mary who was a physical descendant, but She was a Virgin, Jesus never had a Physical Father, you do understand that dont you ? Joseph was more like a step father Do you believe Jesus had a physical biological father ?
 
Yes He was and David Matt 1:1-2
The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
Yet He was never in their loins physically. Like levi was in Abrahams loins Heb 7:8-10
You contradict yourself.
You agree Jesus the man was a son of Abraham and then you say He was 'never in [Abraham's] loins.'
Which is it?
Or explain what you mean.
8 And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.
9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.
10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

Jesus was born of Mary who was a physical descendant, but She was a Virgin, Jesus never had a Physical Father, you do understand that dont you ? Joseph was more like a step father Do you believe Jesus had a physical biological father ?
No, I agree Joseph was His stepfather. God was His [Jesus'] Father.
But you say it here...Jesus was born of Mary. Mary herself was a daughter of Abraham and in his loins (seed.)
How can Jesus not be of the seed of Abraham (loins)?
Unless you're going to say Jesus the Christ's flesh was created at the time of His conception when the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary? Because this would play into the theology of the JW's that Jesus was created and is 'less' than God (Arianism.)
The human aspect of Jesus would have to, no, MUST come from the loins (seed) of Abraham or He is not human thus destroying the Doctrine of the Hypostatic Union.
 
You contradict yourself.
You agree Jesus the man was a son of Abraham and then you say He was 'never in [Abraham's] loins.'
Which is it?
Or explain what you mean.

No, I agree Joseph was His stepfather. God was His [Jesus'] Father.
But you say it here...Jesus was born of Mary. Mary herself was a daughter of Abraham and in his loins (seed.)
How can Jesus not be of the seed of Abraham (loins)?
Unless you're going to say Jesus the Christ's flesh was created at the time of His conception when the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary? Because this would play into the theology of the JW's that Jesus was created and is 'less' than God (Arianism.)
The human aspect of Jesus would have to, no, MUST come from the loins (seed) of Abraham or He is not human thus destroying the Doctrine of the Hypostatic Union.
No I dont contradict myself. Jesus was never in the Loins of any man, Going all the way back to Adam Lk 3:23-38

23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,

25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,

26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,

27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,

28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,

29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,

30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,

31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,

32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,

33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,

34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,

35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,

36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,

37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,

38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Jesus wasnt a Natural Son of Abraham or David
 
You contradict yourself.
You agree Jesus the man was a son of Abraham and then you say He was 'never in [Abraham's] loins.'
Which is it?
Or explain what you mean.

No, I agree Joseph was His stepfather. God was His [Jesus'] Father.
But you say it here...Jesus was born of Mary. Mary herself was a daughter of Abraham and in his loins (seed.)
How can Jesus not be of the seed of Abraham (loins)?
Unless you're going to say Jesus the Christ's flesh was created at the time of His conception when the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary? Because this would play into the theology of the JW's that Jesus was created and is 'less' than God (Arianism.)
The human aspect of Jesus would have to, no, MUST come from the loins (seed) of Abraham or He is not human thus destroying the Doctrine of the Hypostatic Union.
You are very unlearned. Jesus was born of a virgin woman who was a jew Isa 7:14

14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Jesus didnt have a Physical biological father
 
@jeremiah1five



It means it there. Gal 3:8

8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
Not necessarily true.

4 As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.
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.
6 And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.
Gen. 17:4–6.

15 And God said unto Abraham, As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be.
16 And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her. Gen. 17:15–16.

Before this covenant both men and women were known as Adamites. They were not called "human" they were not called "mankind." It was this covenant and the command of circumcision which divided and separated Abram the Hebrew and his seed from 'non-Hebrew-ites.' But the non-Hebrews (those not from the seed or loins of Abraham) were not called "Gentile." This is obvious because non-Hebrews (Gentiles) do not come "out of thee" (Abraham) or "be of her" (Sarai.) From this point forward any children of Abraham and Sarai would naturally be Hebrew - traced back to the obedient and separated family of Salah (Gen. 11:12) who to commemorate the "crossing over" the Jordan to be separate from the rest of the disobedient Adamites who stayed together when God commanded them to separate (fill the earth) by naming his son "Eber" which means "crossing over" and which word closely aligns with the word "Hebrew."

If two Germans (man/woman) had a child, the child would not be non-German. It would be offspring "after their kind." It would be a German child.

The word "nations" is "gôy." It means [from Strong's] rarely (shortened) goy, go’-ee; apparently from the same root as [#1465] (gevah) (in the sense of massing); a foreign nation; hence a Gentile; also (figurative) a troop of animals, or a flight of locusts:

The term cannot mean "Gentile" as a "non-Hebrew" (Jew wasn't coined until much later.) So, here we have a people separated unto God, a people in obedience to God as much as possible not having Scripture, and no wonder, no one can read, and I venture to guess neither write. Abraham had at least two recorded sons: Ishmael and Isaac. Both "come out of thee" (Abraham) and "of her" (Sarai.) Both Abraham's seed and from his loins. Both circumcised. Both Hebrew. Ishmael had twelve sons and Isaac had two sons: Esau and Jacob. In the process of time God extends the Abrahamic Covenant to Isaac, and at the appointed time to Jacob whom God changed his name to Israel. These family stories are extremely interesting, and I will just move forward. Ishmael and his sons eventually went their way, and Isaac and his son and grandsons went another way. Once Ishmael understood the Promises went through Isaac's direction there was a split and Ishmael and his sons and their children stopped circumcising their males. Circumcision was a 'covenant' performance, and it was performed by the seed to whom the Promises were given as inheritance. The word "goy" meant "massing" as in offspring and that's what each divergent family line did. Depending on the context it can mean "non-Hebrew/Jew" or a word describing a mass of people -Hebrew or non-Hebrew.

8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. Gal. 3: 8.

I was prepared to see this "heathen" which is the Greek word "ethnos" to be Gentile, but Abraham is mentioned and since these are nations and kings that would "come out of thee" (Abraham) it can only refer to his seed that the descendants of Ishmael and Esau derive. And Ishmael having twelve sons as did Jacob later on, Ishmael and Esau - at least - can only be the people from which nations and kings were born into it disqualifies any Roman, Scythian, or Greek, etc. people. There were no "non-Hebrew" born to Abraham. But there were covenant and non-covenant. The word is also in this verse "ethnos" translated "nations."
 
You are very unlearned. Jesus was born of a virgin woman who was a jew Isa 7:14

14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Jesus didnt have a Physical biological father
I'm sure you misread me.
As I said I say again, I agree Jesus didn't have a biological father.
But He still was 'in the loins' (seed) of Abraham. The human Jesus.
And as such He is very biologically human.
 
Yes He was and David Matt 1:1-2

The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

Yet He was never in their loins physically. Like levi was in Abrahams loins Heb 7:8-10

8 And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.

9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.

10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

Jesus was born of Mary who was a physical descendant, but She was a Virgin, Jesus never had a Physical Father, you do understand that dont you ? Joseph was more like a step father Do you believe Jesus had a physical biological father ?
Let me take a guess here...you believe Melchisedec was a type of Christ or an actual Christological apparition of the Christ?
 
No I dont contradict myself. Jesus was never in the Loins of any man, Going all the way back to Adam Lk 3:23-38



Jesus wasnt a Natural Son of Abraham or David
Now, let's be clear hindsight.
Jesus is the Man, the human, biological substance of human. This substance comes from Mary who was a descendant of Abraham. She was Hebrew. She married Joseph but Joseph is not Jesus' biological father.
Christ (Gr. "Anointing") is the Deity substance of God. He is the Second Person of the Trinity.
As I understand it, the Holy Spirit took the human egg of Mary and through a miracle joined God and human substance, which substance can biologically through Mary come to the/her patriarch Abraham. In other words Jesus the Man was a 'natural' and biological son of Abraham.
It can be no other way of Jesus cannot be called human.

I am beginning to think you are saying that the human substance of His hypostatic Union was created by God, separate from humanity in the natural course of birth-descendancy, in which case this leads to the Arian heresy.
 
Not necessarily true.

4 As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.
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.
6 And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.
Gen. 17:4–6.

15 And God said unto Abraham, As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be.
16 And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her. Gen. 17:15–16.

Before this covenant both men and women were known as Adamites. They were not called "human" they were not called "mankind." It was this covenant and the command of circumcision which divided and separated Abram the Hebrew and his seed from 'non-Hebrew-ites.' But the non-Hebrews (those not from the seed or loins of Abraham) were not called "Gentile." This is obvious because non-Hebrews (Gentiles) do not come "out of thee" (Abraham) or "be of her" (Sarai.) From this point forward any children of Abraham and Sarai would naturally be Hebrew - traced back to the obedient and separated family of Salah (Gen. 11:12) who to commemorate the "crossing over" the Jordan to be separate from the rest of the disobedient Adamites who stayed together when God commanded them to separate (fill the earth) by naming his son "Eber" which means "crossing over" and which word closely aligns with the word "Hebrew."

If two Germans (man/woman) had a child, the child would not be non-German. It would be offspring "after their kind." It would be a German child.

The word "nations" is "gôy." It means [from Strong's] rarely (shortened) goy, go’-ee; apparently from the same root as [#1465] (gevah) (in the sense of massing); a foreign nation; hence a Gentile; also (figurative) a troop of animals, or a flight of locusts:

The term cannot mean "Gentile" as a "non-Hebrew" (Jew wasn't coined until much later.) So, here we have a people separated unto God, a people in obedience to God as much as possible not having Scripture, and no wonder, no one can read, and I venture to guess neither write. Abraham had at least two recorded sons: Ishmael and Isaac. Both "come out of thee" (Abraham) and "of her" (Sarai.) Both Abraham's seed and from his loins. Both circumcised. Both Hebrew. Ishmael had twelve sons and Isaac had two sons: Esau and Jacob. In the process of time God extends the Abrahamic Covenant to Isaac, and at the appointed time to Jacob whom God changed his name to Israel. These family stories are extremely interesting, and I will just move forward. Ishmael and his sons eventually went their way, and Isaac and his son and grandsons went another way. Once Ishmael understood the Promises went through Isaac's direction there was a split and Ishmael and his sons and their children stopped circumcising their males. Circumcision was a 'covenant' performance, and it was performed by the seed to whom the Promises were given as inheritance. The word "goy" meant "massing" as in offspring and that's what each divergent family line did. Depending on the context it can mean "non-Hebrew/Jew" or a word describing a mass of people -Hebrew or non-Hebrew.

8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. Gal. 3: 8.

I was prepared to see this "heathen" which is the Greek word "ethnos" to be Gentile, but Abraham is mentioned and since these are nations and kings that would "come out of thee" (Abraham) it can only refer to his seed that the descendants of Ishmael and Esau derive. And Ishmael having twelve sons as did Jacob later on, Ishmael and Esau - at least - can only be the people from which nations and kings were born into it disqualifies any Roman, Scythian, or Greek, etc. people. There were no "non-Hebrew" born to Abraham. But there were covenant and non-covenant. The word is also in this verse "ethnos" translated "nations."
Yes it is True. Gentiles is meant in Gal 3:8

8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

confirmed here Rom 3:30

30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision[Gentiles] through faith.

This destroys your argument !
 
Back
Top Bottom