Identifying the sign one has received the Spirit in the book of Acts

[jeremiah1five]

Your issue is with the New Covenant

No, it's with interpretation of the New Covenant that set it against what is written in the Old Covenant.
NO ONE - not even God Himself can contradict what He's said in the Old Testament with a different word in the New Testament.

Galatians 3:28–29 (KJV 1900) — 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Duh. Notice Saul is addressing Hebrews/Jews that were under the Law and kept, not Gentiles. No Gentile before Christ was an inheritor of the Abrahamic Covenant nor are they after Christ the inheritors of the Abrahamic Covenant BECAUSE there are NO GENTILES in the Abrahamic Covenant anywhere.

and refuse to accept the decision of God to make us joint heirs and one peoples in Christ.

Sow me in Genesis 12, 15, and 17 where Gentiles are mentioned or named in the Abrahamic Covenant as clearly as Abraham and his seed are named and mentioned.
YOU CAN'T.
Show me in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy where Gentiles are named or mentioned in the Mosaic Covenant as clearly as the children of Israel are named and mentioned as being in this covenant.
YOU CAN'T.
Show me in Jeremiah 31:31-34 where Gentiles are named or mentioned as being in the New Covenant as clearly as the House of Israel and Judah are named and mentioned as being in the New Covenant.
YOU CAN'T.
YOU CAN'T.
YOU CAN'T.
So, why do you lie and make Scripture oppose itself by your false teaching, a Gentile false teaching that or the New Covenant that opposes God's Eternal Word in the Old Covenant writings?
That's because you don't think nor believe God and in this disbelief call God a liar:

9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
1 Jn 5:9–10.

The witness of God is the Old Testament.
Any belief, interpretation of the New Covenant writings that sets such interpretation against what God has previously said in the Old Testament is a lie and the person that pushes the lie is a liar and no liar has eternal life in them.
What you are doing is loving the world and the things that are in the world, because if you love God and His Word of the Old Testament you wouldn't set New Covenant writings against God and what has already been written in the Law, Psalms, and the Prophets.

 

[TomL]

No, it's with interpretation of the New Covenant that set it against what is written in the Old Covenant.
NO ONE - not even God Himself can contradict what He's said in the Old Testament with a different word in the New Testament.

Um the New Testament has hermenuetical priority. So the old gets interpreted by the New


You reverse the practice of sound hermenuetics

Galatians 3:27–29 (KJV 1900) — 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Duh. Notice Saul is addressing Hebrews/Jews that were under the Law and kept, not Gentiles. No Gentile before Christ was an inheritor of the Abrahamic Covenant nor are they after Christ the inheritors of the Abrahamic Covenant BECAUSE there are NO GENTILES in the Abrahamic Covenant anywhere.

What part of

There is neither Jew nor Greek

and

And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Are you not able to understand?

Sow me in Genesis 12, 15, and 17 where Gentiles are mentioned or named in the Abrahamic Covenant as clearly as Abraham and his seed are named and mentioned.
YOU CAN'T.
Show me in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy where Gentiles are named or mentioned in the Mosaic Covenant as clearly as the children of Israel are named and mentioned as being in this covenant.
YOU CAN'T.
Show me in Jeremiah 31:31-34 where Gentiles are named or mentioned as being in the New Covenant as clearly as the House of Israel and Judah are named and mentioned as being in the New Covenant.
YOU CAN'T.
YOU CAN'T.
YOU CAN'T.
So, why do you lie and make Scripture oppose itself by your false teaching, a Gentile false teaching that or the New Covenant that opposes God's Eternal Word in the Old Covenant writings?
That's because you don't think nor believe God and in this disbelief call God a liar:

9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
1 Jn 5:9–10.

The witness of God is the Old Testament.
Any belief, interpretation of the New Covenant writings that sets such interpretation against what God has previously said in the Old Testament is a lie and the person that pushes the lie is a liar and no liar has eternal life in them.
What you are doing is loving the world and the things that are in the world, because if you love God and His Word of the Old Testament you wouldn't set New Covenant writings against God and what has already been written in the Law, Psalms, and the Prophets.

Nope what I am doing is going by the clearest most up to date revelation we have of/from God

That is what sound hermenuetics call for

We are not in the old covenant and it was broken

 

[synergy]

Duh. Notice Saul is addressing Hebrews/Jews that were under the Law and kept, not Gentiles. No Gentile before Christ was an inheritor of the Abrahamic Covenant nor are they after Christ the inheritors of the Abrahamic Covenant BECAUSE there are NO GENTILES in the Abrahamic Covenant anywhere.

Here we go again with your inability to understand who the audience of Galatians is. The Galatians that Paul was writing to were 100% converted uncircumcised Gentiles. Not even one Jew present. Gal 5:2 and Gal 6:13 proves that. Paul is warning Gentiles against Judaizers like you. In your case, you are judaizing the Ethnic Cleansing of Gentiles.

2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing

13 For not even those who are circumcised keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may boast in your flesh.

That proves that the Church of Galatians did not have even one circumcised Jew. I have serious doubts if you ever read Galatians.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Um the New Testament has hermenuetical priority. So the old gets interpreted by the New

This is what "Reverse Hermeneutics" is:

Reverse hermeneutics is a concept that flips traditional hermeneutics on its head. Hermeneutics is the theory and methodology of interpretation, especially the interpretation of sacred texts, wisdom literature, and philosophical texts. Reverse hermeneutics, however, involves examining how the present shapes our understanding of the past or of texts.

In essence, reverse hermeneutics acknowledges that our present context, biases, and perspectives influence how we interpret historical texts or events. Instead of solely focusing on understanding a text or event within the context in which it was produced, reverse hermeneutics considers how contemporary beliefs, values, and cultural norms affect our interpretation of the past.

There are two methods presently used to interpret the United States Constitution by jurists and justices. One way is what liberals do and that is view the Constitution as a 'living document' in which the times we live in is prejudiced against it and interpreted based upon prevailing culture and societal people and events which as times and culture changes with each generation the Constitution is interpreted in order to address the times we live in, so that it depends on the times one lives in to interpret the Constitution to make it fit the present culture we live in. What can be legal today can be illegal in 50 years under a different and shifting culture.

The other way to interpret the Constitution is the 'Originalist' method. This focus is on the original intent of the Framers of the Constitution and the belief that we have certain unalienable rights given us by God. In general, "unalienable" is more commonly associated with the language used in the United States Declaration of Independence, where it states that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This term emphasizes the natural and inherent nature of these rights, suggesting they are beyond the reach of any government or authority to grant or revoke, or change.

As you can see your "Reverse Hermeneutics" is fluid and that the philosophy and politics of today's culture and societal behaviors of the people in this present generation may not be the same 50 years later for a different generation of citizens. So, the use of "Reverse Hermeneutics" will change with each succeeding generation of scholars and laypeople who study the bible. There really are no stable, genuine, enduring rules of bible interpretation because as society and culture changes so do the rules used to interpret the bible and one doctrine today which is based upon the moral or depraved whims of one generation of believers dictates how the bible is to be interpreted.

The Originalist method of interpreting the bible, or should I say, the normal hermeneutics employed today by scholars and believers towards bible interpretation is the same today as it was 50 years ago and will be 50, even 100 years into the future so that whatever interpretation is reached under clear, concise, stable rules of interpretation will be the same for each succeeding generation of believers and this leads to stability of doctrine in which to guide our lives.

An example or comparison of each method employed towards bible interpretation normalizes homosexuality in the bible as moral and good because homosexuality in today's culture and society is moral and good. Instead of the bible interpreting itself through line upon line and precept upon precept founded upon what God says is sin (such as homosexuality) it is the culture and society that defines what sin is and it is different for each generation growing up and studying the bible. Id society passes laws which legalizes abortion, homosexuality, prostitution, adultery, and fornication outside of marriage - even legalizing common-law marriages or same-sex marriages, then these mores are used to interpret the bible rather than the bible dictating to culture and society what is pleasing and unpleasing to God and what is sin so that under the uniformity of the bible, society conforms itself to bible definitions rather than the bible conforming itself to society or cultural definitions of the times and seasons.

In response to your comment above in which you state: "Um the New Testament has hermeneutical priority. So, the Old gets interpreted by the New," I say that your interpretation lacks any true basis for any interpretation since your conclusion that Gentiles are in the Hebrew Covenants when they become born-again and that the 'New interprets the Old' the problem you have to overcome - which will be impossible - is to have the New interpret what is said/written in the Old. Now, here's the problem:

The Abrahamic Covenant is between God and Abraham and also with his seed. God identifies Abram as a Hebrew and descendant of Eber (Gen. 10, 14), a people obedient and separated unto God. In this covenant God promises Abram the Hebrew and his seed (Hebrew descendants) land and other blessings. There is no mention of Gentiles being included in this covenant. It is the sign of circumcision that separates these two groups of people: the obedient and the disobedient. The Hebrew from the Gentile (or non-Hebrew.)

The Mosaic Covenant is between God and Abraham's seed, a people named the Children of Jacob/Israel and the only requirement for the Hebrew Children of Israel is obedience to God and His Laws that instruct and command their lives among themselves as well as leads and guides the Children of Israel in their relationship to their God. There are no Gentiles (non-Hebrews) in this covenant as it is a covenant that builds upon the Abrahamic Covenant of blessings God made with Abraham and his seed/descendants.

The New Covenant prophesied by Jeremiah (31:31-34) is between God and the House of Israel and Judah. In this covenant which builds upon the preceding two covenants is a covenant which specifies God's Torah Law being "put into their (Israel's) 'hearts'" and there is no requirement for faith on behalf of the House of Israel and Judah. It is a declaration and fulfillment of the Mosaic Covenant and prophecy God gave to Israel of twelve tribes. There are no Gentiles (non-Hebrews) in this covenant either.

Thus, if your "reverse hermeneutics" is to interpret the Old with the New you have a problem. Since there are NO GENTILES (non-Hebrews) in any of the Hebrew covenants then how are Gentiles interpreted INTO the covenants since there doesn't exist any Gentiles in the three Hebrew covenants you're trying to insert. You must now ADD to the bible an interpretation that is based upon something that doesn't exist. How do you come up with in saying Gentiles are in the three Hebrew covenants in your interpretation of using the New to interpret the Old when there are no clear mention or inclusion by God of Gentiles in the "Old" covenants? You're violating your "reverse hermeneutics" by adding Gentiles in the New Testament interpretation of the Old Testament when in the Old Testament there are NO GENTILES mentioned by God in these three covenants between God and the seed of Abraham?

You reverse the practice of sound hermenuetics

Galatians 3:27–29 (KJV 1900) — 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
What part of
There is neither Jew nor Greek
and
And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Are you not able to understand?

I understand what is clearly written by Saul to the Jewish Galatian Church, that he is writing to Jews and Jewish Christians when he mentions Abraham and the Mosaic Cocvenant:

23 But before faith came, we (JEWS) were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24 Wherefore the law was our (JEWS) schoolmaster to bring us (JEWS) unto Christ, that we (JEWS) might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we (JEWS) are no longer under a schoolmaster (the Law).
26 For ye (JEWS) are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27 For as many of you (JEWS) as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye (JEWS) are all one in Christ ("Anointing = spiritual) Jesus.
29 And if ye (JEWS) be Christ’s, then are ye (JEWS ARE) Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Gal. 3:22–29.

As you can see Saul is addressing Jews that became born-again. Their concern now as Christ-followers was how does being "in Christ" affect their relationship to the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants. Saul addresses their concern by bringing up the Law - which Jews were under - and at the end declaring that if they are Christ's (vs. 29) that they are still Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promises God gave to Abraham.
Nowhere have Gentiles ever been under the Law so this disqualifies them as being heirs to the Abraham Covenant.

Nope what I am doing is going by the clearest most up to date revelation we have of/from God
That is what sound hermenuetics call for
We are not in the old covenant and it was broken

Scripture can NEVER be broken as stated by Jesus (Jn. 10:35.) God's Word does not have an expiration date. God's Word is eternal, and He does not change His Word after it's been given:

11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth:
It shall not return unto me void,
But it shall accomplish that which I please,
And it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
Isaiah 55:11.

34 My covenant will I not break,
Nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.
Psalms 89:34.

So, you are wrong. NONE of God's covenants He made with Abraham and later with his seed the children/House of Israel and the House of Judah.
Your hermeneutics is seriously flawed. Your hermeneutics is what's BROKEN.
Bring your belief's into compliance to the Word of God and MAYBE God open your eyes and you come to the KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH.

Until then and until that day comes you and your hermeneutics is more an interpretation falling on 'itching ears.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Here we go again with your inability to understand who the audience of Galatians is. The Galatians that Paul was writing to were 100% converted uncircumcised Gentiles. Not even one Jew present. Gal 5:2 and Gal 6:13 proves that. Paul is warning Gentiles against Judaizers like you. In your case, you are judaizing the Ethnic Cleansing of Gentiles.

2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing

13 For not even those who are circumcised keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may boast in your flesh.

That proves that the Church of Galatians did not have even one circumcised Jew. I have serious doubts if you ever read Galatians.

The Galatian church was founded by Jewish Christians that were visiting Jerusalem for their Feast of Harvests, they became born-again and returned to their homes and synagogues in Gentile lands and after the split and following persecution of Jewish Christians by the Judaizers they began to gather in their homes.
Saul's Galatian letter is written to Jewish Christians, and he may write about Gentiles, the Galatian church was predominantly Jewish and populated by Jews who became born-again.




Bring your belioef's into compliance to the Word of God and maybe, just maybe you'll come to the knowledge of the TRUTH.
Until that day comes first stay away from Gentile commentaries which short-circuit your thinking and indoctrinate you into teachings that exclude the true, biblical Church known as the Jews.

 

[synergy]

The Galatian church was founded by Jewish Christians that were visiting Jerusalem for their Feast of Harvests, they became born-again and returned to their homes and synagogues in Gentile lands and after the split and following persecution of Jewish Christians by the Judaizers they began to gather in their homes.
Saul's Galatian letter is written to Jewish Christians, and he may write about Gentiles, the Galatian church was predominantly Jewish and populated by Jews who became born-again.


View attachment 690

Bring your belioef's into compliance to the Word of God and maybe, just maybe you'll come to the knowledge of the TRUTH.
Until that day comes first stay away from Gentile commentaries which short-circuit your thinking and indoctrinate you into teachings that exclude the true, biblical Church known as the Jews.

Since when are Jews uncircumcised? Paul in Galatians is clearly talking to uncircumcised people.

2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing

13 For not even those who are circumcised keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may boast in your flesh.

Nevertheless, the important thing here is that there is no Jew or Greek when it comes to the Gospel. Read Gal 3:28-29.

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Since when are Jews uncircumcised? Paul in Galatians is clearly talking to uncircumcised people.

2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing

13 For not even those who are circumcised keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may boast in your flesh.

Nevertheless, the important thing here is that there is no Jew or Greek when it comes to the Gospel. Read Gal 3:28-29.

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Good Lord are you that illiterate?

23 But before faith came, we (JEWS) were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24 Wherefore the law was our (JEWS) schoolmaster to bring us (Jews) unto Christ, that we (JEWS) might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we (JEWS) are no longer under a schoolmaster.
26 For ye (JEWS) are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27 For as many of you (JEWS) as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye (JEWS) are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if ye (JEWS) be Christ’s, then are ye (STILL JEWS AND) Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Gal. 3:22–29.

Gentiles were NEVER under the Law. Therefore, they were NEVER heirs of the Abrahamic Covenant.
Saul wrote to the Jewish Christians in the Galatian region and said these words to them because they were concerned about their standing in the Abrahamic Covenant now that they were born-again and "Christ-followers. Pay attention to the pronouns and the personal pronouns.
And learn to read.
Good Lord!

 

[synergy]

Good Lord are you that illiterate?

23 But before faith came, we (JEWS) were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24 Wherefore the law was our (JEWS) schoolmaster to bring us (Jews) unto Christ, that we (JEWS) might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we (JEWS) are no longer under a schoolmaster.
26 For ye (JEWS) are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27 For as many of you (JEWS) as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye (JEWS) are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if ye (JEWS) be Christ’s, then are ye (STILL JEWS AND) Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Gal. 3:22–29.

Gentiles were NEVER under the Law. Therefore, they were NEVER heirs of the Abrahamic Covenant.
Saul wrote to the Jewish Christians in the Galatian region and said these words to them because they were concerned about their standing in the Abrahamic Covenant now that they were born-again and "Christ-followers. Pay attention to the pronouns and the personal pronouns.
And learn to read.
Good Lord!

First of all, I'm not into your infantile game of throwing verses against verses hoping that your presuppositions overwhelm what the Bible actually says.

Second of all, you're clearly embarrassed by the fact that your favorite Apostle, Paul, is clearly addressing uncircumcised people in Galatians. To disprove that you need to prove that there are uncircumcised Jews. Go ahead and do that....

Most important of all, your Judaizing Ethnic Cleansing Supremacy is appauled by the fact that there is no Jew or Greek when it comes to the Gospel. Read Gal 3:28-29.

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

 

[TomL]

This is what "Reverse Hermeneutics" is:

Reverse hermeneutics is a concept that flips traditional hermeneutics on its head. Hermeneutics is the theory and methodology of interpretation, especially the interpretation of sacred texts, wisdom literature, and philosophical texts. Reverse hermeneutics, however, involves examining how the present shapes our understanding of the past or of texts.

In essence, reverse hermeneutics acknowledges that our present context, biases, and perspectives influence how we interpret historical texts or events. Instead of solely focusing on understanding a text or event within the context in which it was produced, reverse hermeneutics considers how contemporary beliefs, values, and cultural norms affect our interpretation of the past.

There are two methods presently used to interpret the United States Constitution by jurists and justices. One way is what liberals do and that is view the Constitution as a 'living document' in which the times we live in is prejudiced against it and interpreted based upon prevailing culture and societal people and events which as times and culture changes with each generation the Constitution is interpreted in order to address the times we live in, so that it depends on the times one lives in to interpret the Constitution to make it fit the present culture we live in. What can be legal today can be illegal in 50 years under a different and shifting culture.

The other way to interpret the Constitution is the 'Originalist' method. This focus is on the original intent of the Framers of the Constitution and the belief that we have certain unalienable rights given us by God. In general, "unalienable" is more commonly associated with the language used in the United States Declaration of Independence, where it states that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This term emphasizes the natural and inherent nature of these rights, suggesting they are beyond the reach of any government or authority to grant or revoke, or change.

As you can see your "Reverse Hermeneutics" is fluid and that the philosophy and politics of today's culture and societal behaviors of the people in this present generation may not be the same 50 years later for a different generation of citizens. So, the use of "Reverse Hermeneutics" will change with each succeeding generation of scholars and laypeople who study the bible. There really are no stable, genuine, enduring rules of bible interpretation because as society and culture changes so do the rules used to interpret the bible and one doctrine today which is based upon the moral or depraved whims of one generation of believers dictates how the bible is to be interpreted.

The Originalist method of interpreting the bible, or should I say, the normal hermeneutics employed today by scholars and believers towards bible interpretation is the same today as it was 50 years ago and will be 50, even 100 years into the future so that whatever interpretation is reached under clear, concise, stable rules of interpretation will be the same for each succeeding generation of believers and this leads to stability of doctrine in which to guide our lives.

An example or comparison of each method employed towards bible interpretation normalizes homosexuality in the bible as moral and good because homosexuality in today's culture and society is moral and good. Instead of the bible interpreting itself through line upon line and precept upon precept founded upon what God says is sin (such as homosexuality) it is the culture and society that defines what sin is and it is different for each generation growing up and studying the bible. Id society passes laws which legalizes abortion, homosexuality, prostitution, adultery, and fornication outside of marriage - even legalizing common-law marriages or same-sex marriages, then these mores are used to interpret the bible rather than the bible dictating to culture and society what is pleasing and unpleasing to God and what is sin so that under the uniformity of the bible, society conforms itself to bible definitions rather than the bible conforming itself to society or cultural definitions of the times and seasons.

In response to your comment above in which you state: "Um the New Testament has hermeneutical priority. So, the Old gets interpreted by the New," I say that your interpretation lacks any true basis for any interpretation since your conclusion that Gentiles are in the Hebrew Covenants when they become born-again and that the 'New interprets the Old' the problem you have to overcome - which will be impossible - is to have the New interpret what is said/written in the Old. Now, here's the problem:

The Abrahamic Covenant is between God and Abraham and also with his seed. God identifies Abram as a Hebrew and descendant of Eber (Gen. 10, 14), a people obedient and separated unto God. In this covenant God promises Abram the Hebrew and his seed (Hebrew descendants) land and other blessings. There is no mention of Gentiles being included in this covenant. It is the sign of circumcision that separates these two groups of people: the obedient and the disobedient. The Hebrew from the Gentile (or non-Hebrew.)

The Mosaic Covenant is between God and Abraham's seed, a people named the Children of Jacob/Israel and the only requirement for the Hebrew Children of Israel is obedience to God and His Laws that instruct and command their lives among themselves as well as leads and guides the Children of Israel in their relationship to their God. There are no Gentiles (non-Hebrews) in this covenant as it is a covenant that builds upon the Abrahamic Covenant of blessings God made with Abraham and his seed/descendants.

The New Covenant prophesied by Jeremiah (31:31-34) is between God and the House of Israel and Judah. In this covenant which builds upon the preceding two covenants is a covenant which specifies God's Torah Law being "put into their (Israel's) 'hearts'" and there is no requirement for faith on behalf of the House of Israel and Judah. It is a declaration and fulfillment of the Mosaic Covenant and prophecy God gave to Israel of twelve tribes. There are no Gentiles (non-Hebrews) in this covenant either.

Thus, if your "reverse hermeneutics" is to interpret the Old with the New you have a problem. Since there are NO GENTILES (non-Hebrews) in any of the Hebrew covenants then how are Gentiles interpreted INTO the covenants since there doesn't exist any Gentiles in the three Hebrew covenants you're trying to insert. You must now ADD to the bible an interpretation that is based upon something that doesn't exist. How do you come up with in saying Gentiles are in the three Hebrew covenants in your interpretation of using the New to interpret the Old when there are no clear mention or inclusion by God of Gentiles in the "Old" covenants? You're violating your "reverse hermeneutics" by adding Gentiles in the New Testament interpretation of the Old Testament when in the Old Testament there are NO GENTILES mentioned by God in these three covenants between God and the seed of Abraham?

I understand what is clearly written by Saul to the Jewish Galatian Church, that he is writing to Jews and Jewish Christians when he mentions Abraham and the Mosaic Cocvenant:

23 But before faith came, we (JEWS) were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24 Wherefore the law was our (JEWS) schoolmaster to bring us (JEWS) unto Christ, that we (JEWS) might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we (JEWS) are no longer under a schoolmaster (the Law).
26 For ye (JEWS) are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27 For as many of you (JEWS) as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye (JEWS) are all one in Christ ("Anointing = spiritual) Jesus.
29 And if ye (JEWS) be Christ’s, then are ye (JEWS ARE) Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Gal. 3:22–29.

As you can see Saul is addressing Jews that became born-again. Their concern now as Christ-followers was how does being "in Christ" affect their relationship to the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants. Saul addresses their concern by bringing up the Law - which Jews were under - and at the end declaring that if they are Christ's (vs. 29) that they are still Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promises God gave to Abraham.
Nowhere have Gentiles ever been under the Law so this disqualifies them as being heirs to the Abraham Covenant.

Scripture can NEVER be broken as stated by Jesus (Jn. 10:35.) God's Word does not have an expiration date. God's Word is eternal, and He does not change His Word after it's been given:

11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth:
It shall not return unto me void,
But it shall accomplish that which I please,
And it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
Isaiah 55:11.

34 My covenant will I not break,
Nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.
Psalms 89:34.

So, you are wrong. NONE of God's covenants He made with Abraham and later with his seed the children/House of Israel and the House of Judah.
Your hermeneutics is seriously flawed. Your hermeneutics is what's BROKEN.
Bring your belief's into compliance to the Word of God and MAYBE God open your eyes and you come to the KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH.

Until then and until that day comes you and your hermeneutics is more an interpretation falling on 'itching ears.

You do not know proper hermenuetics

Proper hermenuetics gives the New Testament priority over the old

you just ignore it

You ignore the current covenant for the sake of the old , obsolete covenant which was broken and was but a partial revelation.

Galatians 3:27–29 (KJV 1900) — 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

What part of
There is neither Jew nor Greek

and
And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Are you not able to understand?

 

[7xLightray]

If that's what you're saying Saul is saying and neither of you can show when the covenants were made in the OT Gentiles in any of the three covenants then by your interpretation but without Scriptural support you make Saul and anyone in the NT who you've interpreted as including Gentiles in any of the three Hebrew Covenants as BREAKING Scripture and as such Saul, Peter, anyone who contradicts the Old Testament should be rejected - even Jesus Christ.
But none of these individuals have broken Scripture because they don't say after the fact and after the covenants have been closed for thousands of years that Gentiles are in any of the three Hebrew Covenants. It's only your Gentile misinterpretation that is in error.
Jesus, Saul, NO ONE has authority nor the Almighty power to contradict the Old Testament with a New Testament interpretation that includes Gentiles in any of the three Hebrew Covenants.
Show me in Genesis 12, 15, and 17 where Gentiles are mentioned or included in the Abrahamic Covenant as clearly as Abraham and his seed are clearly named and mentioned and being in the Abrahamic Covenant.
YOU CAN'T.
Show me in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, or Deuteronomy where Gentiles are mentioned as being in the Mosaic Covenant as clearly as the children of Israel are mentioned as being in this covenant with God.
YOU CAN'T.
Show me in Jeremiah 31:31-34 where Gentiles are named or mentioned as being in the New Covenant as clearly as the House of Israel and Judah are named and mentioned as bveing in the New Covenant.
YOU CAN'T.
YOU CAN'T.
YOU CAN'T.
And NO ONE in the New Testament has the authority or the almighty power to change the covenants after they have been closed for thousands of years to include Gentiles in any of the Hebrew Covenants. Once God's Word goes out it doesn't come back void but will accomplish all it is sent to do. And to contradict what Word went before is NOT one of its missions.

I am one that can "clear up a lot of Gentile heresy," but first as to: "Show me in Genesis..15..where Gentiles are mentioned or included in the Abrahamic Covenant..YOU CAN'T." They may not, but I can.

Which Gentiles were saved in Abraham's terrifying dark dream (Gen. 15)? After Joseph was hated, sold, handed over to the Egyptians, falsely accused, put in prison with two criminals, then raised to the throne, which Gentiles did Joseph save? Do you understand these things?

May require another thread to finish this, though.

 

[jeremiah1five]

First of all, I'm not into your infantile game of throwing verses against verses hoping that your presuppositions overwhelm what the Bible actually says.

Second of all, you're clearly embarrassed by the fact that your favorite Apostle, Paul, is clearly addressing uncircumcised people in Galatians. To disprove that you need to prove that there are uncircumcised Jews. Go ahead and do that....

Most important of all, your Judaizing Ethnic Cleansing Supremacy is appauled by the fact that there is no Jew or Greek when it comes to the Gospel. Read Gal 3:28-29.

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Galatians 3:28-29 must be taken in context to whom Saul is referring and he is referring to Jewish Christians that were concerned about their standing in the Abrahamic Covenant now that they were following Christ and Saul says so.
One thing you should respect is that there were no Gentiles that were under the Law/Schoolmaster, and that they were definitely NOT inheritors of the promises. If you can't figure that out, then your Constantinian Gentile indoctrination is complete.
You are blind, blind, blind.

 

[jeremiah1five]

You do not know proper hermenuetics

Proper hermenuetics gives the New Testament priority over the old

you just ignore it

You ignore the current covenant for the sake of the old , obsolete covenant which was broken and was but a partial revelation.

Galatians 3:27–29 (KJV 1900) — 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

What part of
There is neither Jew nor Greek

and
And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Are you not able to understand?

The only hermeneutics in my life is Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and a King James Version of the bible.
I don't pay too much heed to men's rules as to how to study the bible. I am not bound by their interpretation rules when I have the Holy Spirit of Truth.
But you go ahead. I am a man of God, and you are a man of men.

 

[jeremiah1five]

I am one that can "clear up a lot of Gentile heresy," but first as to: "Show me in Genesis..15..where Gentiles are mentioned or included in the Abrahamic Covenant..YOU CAN'T." They may not, but I can.

Which Gentiles were saved in Abraham's terrifying dark dream (Gen. 15)? After Joseph was hated, sold, handed over to the Egyptians, falsely accused, put in prison with two criminals, then raised to the throne, which Gentiles did Joseph save? Do you understand these things?

May require another thread to finish this, though.

That has nothing to do with the Covenant God made with Abraham and his seed in Genesis 17 when He made the covenant. Once a period was put at the end of God's words to Abraham the covenant was closed.

 

[7xLightray]

Did not say it had anything to do with Gen. 17, or not. What Gen. 15 does have to do with is "The times of the Gentiles"; but maybe you choose not to receive and understand these things.

1 Pet 1:11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.
1 Pet 1:12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you..
Joseph is a prophecy of the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow; and in that is the times of the Gentiles.

 

[TomL]

The only hermeneutics in my life is Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and a King James Version of the bible.
I don't pay too much heed to men's rules as to how to study the bible. I am not bound by their interpretation rules when I have the Holy Spirit of Truth.
But you go ahead. I am a man of God, and you are a man of men.

Gentile dislike seems to be giving that a run for the money

That prevents you from being a man of God you could be and makes you someone who allows his biases and poor hermenuetics to color his beliefs

 

[jeremiah1five]

Did not say it had anything to do with Gen. 17, or not. What Gen. 15 does have to do with is "The times of the Gentiles"; but maybe you choose not to receive and understand these things.

1 Pet 1:11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.
1 Pet 1:12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you..
Joseph is a prophecy of the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow; and in that is the times of the Gentiles.

There is such a thing as being too spiritually minded to be of any earthly-good and you're it!

18 In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:
19 The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites,
20 And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims, 21 And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites. Genesis 15:17–21.

This is what it will look like when Christ returns to sit on the throne of David in Jerusalem, in Israel.



The Jews will one day finally inherit and occupy the land Promised them of God and the best part will be something that had never happened with them on earth before Christ arrived: there will be no Gentiles living among them. Nothing but twelve tribes enjoying their retirement with their Messiah, Redeemer, and King.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Gentile dislike seems to be giving that a run for the money

That prevents you from being a man of God you could be and makes you someone who allows his biases and poor hermenuetics to color his beliefs

 

[7xLightray]

There is such a thing as being too spiritually minded to be of any earthly-good and you're it!

18 In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:
19 The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites,
20 And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims, 21 And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites. Genesis 15:17–21.

This is what it will look like when Christ returns to sit on the throne of David in Jerusalem, in Israel.

View attachment 695

The Jews will one day finally inherit and occupy the land Promised them of God and the best part will be something that had never happened with them on earth before Christ arrived: there will be no Gentiles living among them. Nothing but twelve tribes enjoying their retirement with their Messiah, Redeemer, and King.

Are you saying Joseph is not a prophecy of the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow?

There is also such a thing as being insincere, and manipulative; I have yet to meet this God fearing Christian teacher of doctrine, but many are sick, and in need of a doctor.

Do you not understand Hosea 12 in that it explains how to understand the O.T.; "spoken by the prophets," "visions," "and used similitudes [allegory], by the ministry of the prophets," This is also how Paul interprets the O.T. Do you receive Paul's writings? Gal. 4:24 Which things are an allegory [similitudes]: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

How does what you say negate what I said, anyway? It doesn't. Christ is returning to restore again the kingdom to Israel, but was Joseph ruling in Canaan, or Egypt, when he was raised to the throne with him who put him there? Egypt, then they were to return to Canaan.

Are you still saying Joseph is not a prophecy of the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow?

 

[jeremiah1five]

Are you saying Joseph is not a prophecy of the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow?

I am saying it doesn't apply. You bring up "Times of the Gentiles" in Genesis 15, but Gentiles did not come into existence until Genesis 17 with circumcision, which circumcision and covenant brought about a division between peoples. Before circumcision and covenant all people were Adamites. The covenant between God and Abraham and his seed with the sign of circumcision brought into existence Gentiles or non-Hebrew, people that were not in covenant and were not circumcised. I don't see how Joseph applies.

There is also such a thing as being insincere, and manipulative; I have yet to meet this God fearing Christian teacher of doctrine, but many are sick, and in need of a doctor.

Christians are known for killing their wounded.
Get a rope!

Do you not understand Hosea 12 in that it explains how to understand the O.T.; "spoken by the prophets," "visions," "and used similitudes [allegory], by the ministry of the prophets," This is also how Paul interprets the O.T. Do you receive Paul's writings? Gal. 4:24 Which things are an allegory [similitudes]: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

There is no "allegory" where biblical understanding is concerned. That Greek method of interpretation was developed long after the Old Testament writings were written. And although we later learn the Law (Torah) is spiritual (Rom. 7:14), spiritual understanding of God's Word, written or spoken, would not find expression until Jesus Christ who taught the spiritual aspect of God's Word (OT). This was the basis of the religious leaders misunderstanding Jesus' words and teaching. They could only understand the letter of the Law and Jesus taught the spirit of the Law to a people void of the Spirit. The Spirit did not arrive until the day of the Feast of Harvest in which three thousand Israelites were born-again and saved and natural Olive tree Israel became spiritual Olive tree Israel. So, although the Torah/Law and the writings of the OT were spiritual in nature it was not known until the Holy Spirit brought the spiritual aspect into existence when His manifestation upon the Jews came into existence. Thus, without the Holy Spirit God's words - written and spoken - could only be understood from "letter" of the Law standpoint and perspective.

How does what you say negate what I said, anyway? It doesn't.

Joseph has nothing to do with what I said.

Christ is returning to restore again the kingdom to Israel, but was Joseph ruling in Canaan, or Egypt, when he was raised to the throne with him who put him there? Egypt, then they were to return to Canaan.

Joseph was in Egypt.

Are you still saying Joseph is not a prophecy of the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow?

No.

 

[7xLightray]

I am saying it doesn't apply. You bring up "Times of the Gentiles" in Genesis 15, but Gentiles did not come into existence until Genesis 17 with circumcision, which circumcision and covenant brought about a division between peoples. Before circumcision and covenant all people were Adamites. The covenant between God and Abraham and his seed with the sign of circumcision brought into existence Gentiles or non-Hebrew, people that were not in covenant and were not circumcised. I don't see how Joseph applies.

Christians are known for killing their wounded.
Get a rope!

There is no "allegory" where biblical understanding is concerned. That Greek method of interpretation was developed long after the Old Testament writings were written. And although we later learn the Law (Torah) is spiritual (Rom. 7:14), spiritual understanding of God's Word, written or spoken, would not find expression until Jesus Christ who taught the spiritual aspect of God's Word (OT). This was the basis of the religious leaders misunderstanding Jesus' words and teaching. They could only understand the letter of the Law and Jesus taught the spirit of the Law to a people void of the Spirit. The Spirit did not arrive until the day of the Feast of Harvest in which three thousand Israelites were born-again and saved and natural Olive tree Israel became spiritual Olive tree Israel. So, although the Torah/Law and the writings of the OT were spiritual in nature it was not known until the Holy Spirit brought the spiritual aspect into existence when His manifestation upon the Jews came into existence. Thus, without the Holy Spirit God's words - written and spoken - could only be understood from "letter" of the Law standpoint and perspective.

Joseph has nothing to do with what I said.

Joseph was in Egypt.


No.

Sorry, had to leave town for three days.

Prophecy is very much about things that don't exist yet. Look into it, don't take my word for it.

Gentiles did not exist yet, then what are the Egyptians? They ain't descendants of Abraham. They must be another nation.

So, if Joseph is a prophecy about Christ in His day (which, the son of man did not exist yet as a man. So are you saying then, it therefore cannot be a prophecy about Christ, because the man Jesus did not exist yet?), which after being handed over to the Egyptians and raised to the throne, saved the Egyptians who listened to Joseph, then who are the Egyptians? Are they Gentiles, one of the other nations? Who does Egypt represent here? Rome! All citizens of the Roman Nation! They don't represent the nation of Israel, though it would come to include all Israel, by going into that nation.

You will need this big picture, if you want the foundation to the end from the beginning "Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done", Genesis, Revelation.

We have God's word (not yours) which teaches us the proper methods of interpreting the O.T. "used similitudes ["allegory"; do you except Paul's writings?], by the ministry of the prophets". And, we are talking prophecy, not the spirit of the Law.