There is nothing that you have shown that shows that Isaac was not conceived in the normal way even though it was a miracle of God.
Your posts concerning this topic should be removed and taken to the unorthodox forum.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
There is nothing that you have shown that shows that Isaac was not conceived in the normal way even though it was a miracle of God....if that is the claim. Interesting parallel to Rom 9 in your point abou lying (has the word of God failed?) and 3:3 because the answer there is not genetic. It is by faith as anyone can see by the end of the chapter. Except BW. Paul was only referring to those Jews who had faith all through his treatment. That's why there is still hope held out that some will believe; there is no blanket endorsement of the genetics past or future.
"His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way, but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise." Gal 4:23. It is typically not normal for menopausal women to concieve. (and "born" here means concieved)
It is not genetic in Gal 3 either, as each concluding line of each paragraph and the whole letter and ministry and situation of that church show.
Spend your time as you like. It does not matter to me.I won't be spending any time on your anti-statements, but if you do have an explanation why the Gentile believers are called sons of Abraham that is positive (does not consist of statements against me or those who believe it), I'd be interested in seeing that. I'm referring to the several statements in rom 9-11 and Gal 3-4 and Eph 2-3.
I am always positive.Thanks for putting it positively. Is that also how Paul defines the sons/seed/children of Abraham from the beginning?
How could Judaism mistake Gal. 3:17?From the beginning of the Abraham accounts that he is talking about, which is what would matter to Judaism, because they did or did not mistake things at that point (Gal 3:17).
Israel, either the natural or the spiritual, is always genetic.Is the Israel at the end of ch 9 genetic?
Is the Israel at the end of ch 9 genetic?
And where in any of the 4 OT quotes does it say that Israel is not genetic?Obviously not, as the end of Rom 9 is about the nations who believe, in 4 OT quotes. You can make your declaration but you can't provide reasons.
He did not leave genetic behind in Rom 9. Gentiles have no blood of Abraham in their bodies but they do have a spiritual relationship to Abraham in that both groups are eligible for salvation by faith. A Jew is still a Jew and a Gentile is still a Gentile.it is referring to the "us" or "elect" or "the remnant." That is both and is not dependent on genetic, but back earlier in 9 he left genetic behind when he said that it is those who have faith who are Abraham's children and "those who have faith", as we know, can be anyone on earth regardless of genetics or class or gender or income!
The covenant promises that God made to Israel are for Israel and not for the body of Christ. Your replacement theology is bogus. There has always been a separate program for Israel except for our present age of grace which is for both Jew and Gentile and even now God has hardened Israel as a nation until the fullness of the Gentiles come in.He left genetic behind, not because it does not continue on on its own down through time, but because that is not where the promises go! The promises go to those who have faith, no matter their background. And there is no separate program for those who are physical descendants. There never was. That is the overarching message of Rom 4, 9, Gal 3, Eph 2-3, Acts 13's sermon.
Justification by christ was the promise to Abraham; thus he obtained imputed righteousness. That is the continuity Paul is establishing to solve the issue at Galatia, and elsewhere.
Look at the Jews of northern Europe in the late 1800s wanting to be back in Israel. They said, raised in Judaism, that it was their heritage to be there. Fine! But it is not the NT and the NT is not trying to be Judaism and NT Christianity at the same time! (I may be wrong but I seem to recall a bit of conflict, yes?). Ergo: 2P2P is mistaken; it is not the reality of the NT. It is what Dispensationalism thinks is true.
I am positive that there is absolutely nothing in Eph 2-3, Gal 3, Rom 4 and Act's 13 that says that the body of Christ is now entitled to the covenant promises that God made to Israel. God ain't through with Israel yet. Israel's history has not been fulfilled. There is more to come unless of course you do not believe scriptureEph 2-3, Gal 3, Rom 4, Act 13's sermon all contradict your opening statement. It never was separate. That is clearly the tone of Paul all through, which makes a unified church now, rooted in Israel's history coming to fulfillment (Acts 13's sermon).
You seriously need to quote exact scripture, but not isolated ones, like the one about the 'gospel of a son and descendancy.' It was about imputed righteousness, which he also knew of by exchaning with M-Z (Z = righteousness).
It is interesting, though, to exchange with you and find out how hardened 2P2P can become. My professional opinion is that you have succeeded in redefining everything that would conflict with 2P2P. Not to be truthful, but to keep 2P2P going.
Eph 2-3, Gal 3, Rom 4, Act 13's sermon all contradict your opening statement.
Rather than make an anti-statement (which I can already hear coming!), give me your interp of Eph 2B-3A.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?