The Land God promised Abraham

[atpollard]

Your inability to answer has been noted.

Unwillingness is not inability.

 

[Ligurian]

Tear the gospel of Luke out of your Bible if it pleases you to do so. I will keep it among my 66 inspired books.

Post #36:
If the Bible canon was always inspired, then why did it change?

The Canon of the New Testament, Metzger

The Canon of the New Testament

Yes, I do have more questions... you'll answer Post #36 this time?

Nope.
Life is short.
Later.

Your inability to answer has been noted.

Unwillingness is not inability.

Then maybe someone else is willing AND able to answer this question:

If the Bible canon was always inspired, then why did it change?

The Canon of the New Testament, Metzger
The Canon of the New Testament

 

[ralliann]

Hi in now way do the apostles teach that the promises to national Israel are void.

The covenant of circumcision in the foreskin of the flesh is not void either. The uncircumcision has no promise of inheritance in their land. It isn't the Sinai covenant that they inherited the land, but the covenant of circumcision from their fathers.
**National righteousness
De 6:25 And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the LORD our God, as he hath commanded us.

**God's righteousness, not their righteousness as a nation.
De 9:4 Speak not thou in thine heart, after that the LORD thy God hath cast them out from before thee, saying, For my righteousness the LORD hath brought me in to possess this land: but for the wickedness of these nations the LORD doth drive them out from before thee.
5 Not for thy righteousness, or for the uprightness of thine heart, dost thou go to possess their land: but for the wickedness of these nations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee, and that he may perform the word which the LORD sware unto thy fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
6 Understand therefore, that the LORD thy God giveth thee not this good land to possess it for thy righteousness; for thou art a stiffnecked people.

 

[DaveM]

Joshua 23:14
“And now I am about to go the way of all the earth, and you know in your hearts and souls, all of you, that not one word has failed of all the good things that the Lord your God promised concerning you. All have come to pass for you; not one of them has failed.

Joshua 21:43
Thus the LORD gave to Israel all the land that he swore to give to their fathers. And they took possession of it, and they settled there.

 

[Guojing]

Joshua 23:14
“And now I am about to go the way of all the earth, and you know in your hearts and souls, all of you, that not one word has failed of all the good things that the Lord your God promised concerning you. All have come to pass for you; not one of them has failed.

Joshua 21:43
Thus the LORD gave to Israel all the land that he swore to give to their fathers. And they took possession of it, and they settled there.

The land promise was "forever".

 

[Mark Quayle]

Hi in now way do the apostles teach that the promises to national Israel are void. That is an interpretation that has been leveled upon them by men and has been a long established flaw in the thinking of the church. The passages in Isaiah and psalm 22 and the like modern Jews use your interpretative rules to annul those as being literal. If you take the whole set as literal they are not in contradiction and set a before and after picture with a specific timeline. The laws of compound probability work and many have calculated the odds of Jesus performing exactly the things about him such as being born in Bethlehem called from Egypt being a Nazareen, ridden in a foal of donkey being betrayed for 30 pieces of silver with that money going to the house of the potter. Now we can see from just a few of those that the odds of all those being one guy are astronomical.

now if Daniels 70th week is future then when Daniel wrote it Israel lay in ruins with no temple and Daniel predicts that the Messiah will come 483 years from the order to rebuild and Jerusalem and its walls. Well 483 years later Jesus did ride in the foal of donkey to shouts of Hosanna. Daniels noted that the messiah would be cut off and not for himself and the people of the prince who shall come will put an end to the sacrifice in the middle of the week and they would destroy the temple and the sanctuary. Well Daniel was right Jesus was cut off and not for himself and indeed the city and sanctuary were destroyed so if the prince to come is speaking of the anti christ the compound probability would have the middle of the week stopping of the sacrifice be in a 3rd temple. Now we saw Israel scattered into all the nations for almost 1800 years and now they are back and the plans for a 3rd temple are real and it is a building for all faiths like the pope uniting the worlds religions the 3rd temple is setting up just as futurist would hold it. Daniels 70 weeks has 6 accomplishment listed for Daniels people and holy city. Now Daniel confessed the sins of his people national Israel in the beginning of this chapter and the holy city is Jerusalem. In your view everlasting righteousness was being destroyed in 70 ad. In my view this is accomplished as the 2nd coming and Jerusalem is exalted as the city of righteousness and the nations will be gathered to it. Daniels people are now saved and delivered by Jesus just as Luke 1 said. The very fact the 3rd temple is prepared for flies in the face of your concussion that it is not future.
This is like the ark almost finished and people not realizing that the flood was about to come.

To whom are you responding, here?

 

[Mark Quayle]

For the record, you are entitled to believe that Paul was NOT the author of Hebrews … with my blessings. I just thought it was a good question to ask and discuss.

Does "confirmed to us by those who heard him" sound like the author got it second hand?

Apart from that, I agree with you.

Maybe I missed something, easy for me to do, but I still don't get the relevance of the question.

But to add my 2 cents-worth, my Dad, who probably knew the Greek better than just about any modern day scholar, though not as well the Hebrew, also agreed it could be Paul, but probably was not, though it seemed to him that whoever it was probably had studied Paul, if not had spent a lot of time with Paul. Too much of it sounds like Paul, and too little of it too!

Haha, I would have loved watching a panel discussion with the writer of Hebrews, and Paul and James as the panel, fielding questions from the audience.

 

[ralliann]

The land promise was "forever".

To Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in Christ Jesus yes, an eternal inheritance.
Promise to fourth generation of his seed..........
Acts 7:5 And he gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on: yet he promised that he would give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child.
6 And God spake on this wise, That his seed should sojourn in a strange land; and that they should bring them into bondage, and entreat them evil four hundred years.
7 And the nation to whom they shall be in bondage will I judge, said God: and after that shall they come forth, and serve me in this place.

Hebrews: Strangers and pilgrims on the earth........
Heb 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. {in faith: Gr. according to faith }


There is no eternal inheritance in Genesis 15.

 

[Guojing]

To Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in Christ Jesus yes, an eternal inheritance.
Promise to fourth generation of his seed..........
Acts 7:5 And he gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on: yet he promised that he would give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child.
6 And God spake on this wise, That his seed should sojourn in a strange land; and that they should bring them into bondage, and entreat them evil four hundred years.
7 And the nation to whom they shall be in bondage will I judge, said God: and after that shall they come forth, and serve me in this place.

Hebrews: Strangers and pilgrims on the earth........
Heb 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. {in faith: Gr. according to faith }


There is no eternal inheritance in Genesis 15.

So, my point to him was the scripture from Joshua he used, could not have been the fulfillment of that promise. I

srael lost that land later.

 

[Clare73]

So, my point to him was the scripture from Joshua he used, could not have been the fulfillment of that promise. Israel lost that land later.Jo

Then you are denying the clear word of God in Jos 21:43, Jos 23:14 for the sake of your own theology.

Heb 11:3-16 explains the meaning and fulfillment of the "everlasting possession" (Ge 17:8, 48:4) as being in heavenly land, not earthly land.
The promise of an "everlasting possession" was fulfilled. . .in the heavenly land.

 

[Guojing]

Then you are denying the clear word of God in Jos 21:43, 23:14 for the sake of your own theology.

Heb 11:3-16 explains the meaning and fulfillment of the "everlasting possession" (Ge 17:8, 48:4) as being in heavenly land, not earthly land.
The promise of an "everlasting possession" was fulfilled. . .in the heavenly land.

How can a possession be everlasting if Israel lost it later?

Of course, you can simply believe the land promise was actually "heavenly land". In that case you are making a tautological point.

 

[Clare73]

How can a possession be everlasting if Israel lost it later?

Because the promise of an "everlasting possession" was a promise of spiritual land, not earthly land (Heb 11:13-16).

Of course, you can simply believe the land promise was actually "heavenly land". In that case you are making a tautological point.

 

[ralliann]

Because the promise of an "everlasting possession" was a promise of spiritual land, not earthly land (Heb 11:13-16).

What is missing in the conversation is the promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob themselves. It is a kingdom and land they themselves possess.
Mt 8:11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
These conversations are only focused on Israel as an earthly worldly nation. The promise was to the fathers themselves. There is no eternal inheritance apart from them.

 

[ralliann]

How can a possession be everlasting if Israel lost it later?

Of course, you can simply believe the land promise was actually "heavenly land". In that case you are making a tautological point.

What land does Abraham, Isaac and Jacob themselves possess forever? The nation of Israel does not "replace" them, nor does Israel inherit it apart from them..

 

[Mark Quayle]

Then maybe someone else is willing AND able to answer this question:

If the Bible canon was always inspired, then why did it change?

The Canon of the New Testament, Metzger
The Canon of the New Testament

You yourself said it has changed. Then either it was added to or subtracted from. One or the other was not "inspired" in its entirety. Who said that what was considered Canon in the entirely of each of its various forms was inspired?

 

[Guojing]

What land does Abraham, Isaac and Jacob themselves possess forever? The nation of Israel does not "replace" them, nor does Israel inherit it apart from them..

To Israel, this implies that God will resurrect the 3 of them, which will happen after the Tribulation.

Together, Israel and them will inherit that land promise forever after that (Matthew 5:5).

 

[ralliann]

To Israel, this implies that God will resurrect the 3 of them, which will happen after the Tribulation.

Together, Israel and them will inherit that land promise forever after that (Matthew 5:5).

This is not what Paul teaches. Paul teaches that Abraham was uncircumcised, so that he would be a father to all nations.

 

[Guojing]

This is not what Paul teaches. Paul teaches that Abraham was uncircumcised, so that he would be a father to all nations.

In the first place, I did not claim Paul taught that.

Yes, Abram was a pagan when God spoke to him Genesis 17, that he would be a father to many nations. That has nothing to do with my point that you are replying to.

 

[ralliann]

In the first place, I did not claim Paul taught that.

Yes, Abram was a pagan when God spoke to him Genesis 17, that he would be a father to many nations. That has nothing to do with my point that you are replying to.

If Paul did not teach it, why are you? Abraham was faithful, and was a Noachide. Paul teaches Abraham believed God while in uncircumcision, that he might be a father to the uncircumcision.

 

[Guojing]

If Paul did not teach it, why are you? Abraham was faithful, and was a Noachide. Paul teaches Abraham believed God while in uncircumcision, that he might be a father to the uncircumcision.

We are talking about Israel are we not?

Paul only started writing scripture after Christ ascension, but Israel existed way back in Exodus.