Why Historians Date the Revelation to the Reign of Domitian

[shturt678s]

You are still refusing to admit one detail of what the oly Soirit was saying here.

yes, the Holy Spirit indeed said that just being Abraham's descendant does not make someone a child of God. But nowhere in this passage does hHe even hint at the idea that anyone who was not a physical descendant would inherit the promises referred to in verse 4. The examples given did not even hint at the idea that these promises applied to anyone who was not a physical descendant of Abraham. Without even one exception, that showed that the promises still belonged to Abraham's descendants, just not to all of them, but only those of his physical descendants that shared hos faith.

And later on, when The Holy Spirit began to quote scriptures about Israel's rejection, every scripture He quoted was one that very clearly said that they would be received again after a time.

You can rant and rave. You can carry on, and you can multiply verses. But you cannot get around these undeniable facts:

1 In verse 4, the Holy Spirit said the covenants and the promises still pertained to Paul's "kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites"

2. In verses 7-14, every example given to explain the meaning of "they are not all Israel, who are of Israel," was an example of the ones chosen for the blessing being a subset of the physical descendants of Abraham.

3 In verses 25 to 29, every scripture quoted that spoke of Israel's rejection also spoke of their future restoration.

A remnant of Israel, ie, the left over, will be saved.

Old Jack

 

[precepts]

There is not even one "fact" here to address. All of this is 100% pure interpretation. And by the way, it is a system of interpretation that I have not previously bumped up against in my fifty plus years of studying the subject.

Like I said talk is cheap. Dan 7:9 and Rev 4, God's throne being set in heaven isn't a fact? There're two different events? You're proving yourself to be false, and that's just the top of the list of the things you've selectively neglected when forming your circular knowledge conclusion of me not having factual dates and persons.

 

[Interplanner]

BW wrote:
every scripture He quoted was one that very clearly said that they would be received again after a time.

??? And Paul didn't say so because? You can't base everything on an interp of 11:26 which doesn't work very well and is based on English.

 

[Interplanner]

BW wrote:
But nowhere in this passage does hHe even hint at the idea that anyone who was not a physical descendant would inherit the promises referred to in verse 4.

This is wrong. 9:24. Acts 2:39, 3:25, 5:31, Acts 13's sermon, Eph 2-3, Gal 3-4, Heb 9-11. The promise is now repentance and forgiveness through God's Spirit at work. Unfortunately, there are people who don't think much of those things. Hebrews (!) says those believers in the past could not be blessed until the present generation because of what Messiah now brought.

But BW has his doctrine that once it is in print and in English in the OT, it will always be that way, no matter how the NT modifies or adapts it. So the question is: if the raising of "David's fallen tent" = the nations belief on the Gospel (Acts 15, using Amos 9), what are the 'promises' to Israel?

 

[ebedmelech]

You are still refusing to admit one detail of what the oly Soirit was saying here.

No, not refusing anything...except your skewed view of Israel.

yes, the Holy Spirit indeed said that just being Abraham's descendant does not make someone a child of God. But nowhere in this passage does hHe even hint at the idea that anyone who was not a physical descendant would inherit the promises referred to in verse 4. The examples given did not even hint at the idea that these promises applied to anyone who was not a physical descendant of Abraham. Without even one exception, that showed that the promises still belonged to Abraham's descendants, just not to all of them, but only those of his physical descendants that shared hos faith.

..."They are not all Israel who are descended from Israel..." That being true the promises don't matter because Christ has come. Once again Biblewriter before you get to Romans 9, the foundation is in Romans 4...who is the subject there? It's Abraham! So once again your "two peoples of God" idea fails!

And later on, when The Holy Spirit began to quote scriptures about Israel's rejection, every scripture He quoted was one that very clearly said that they would be received again after a time.

Who argues that? I know Israel will be grafted back in...what's the point?

You can rant and rave. You can carry on, and you can multiply verses. But you cannot get around these undeniable facts:

No one's "ranting and raving" Biblewriter, I realize where your idea comes from, and I realize it's flawed. People following this can see that you want to stay in Romans 9 because if take the whole of scripture...your view is untenable.

1 In verse 4, the Holy Spirit said the covenants and the promises still pertained to Paul's "kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites"

That right...which are fulfilled in Christ!

2. In verses 7-14, every example given to explain the meaning of "they are not all Israel, who are of Israel," was an example of the ones chosen for the blessing being a subset of the physical descendants of Abraham.

Once again the difference is between the flesh and the Spirit...(remember chapter 8?)... and God's sovereignty.

3 In verses 25 to 29, every scripture quoted that spoke of Israel's rejection also spoke of their future restoration.

That again is the failure to understand you have an apostle telling you how to apply it. Paul is making the point Gentiles are in too...which is how the "number of Israel becomes like the sand of the sea". When you look at the flesh all the time...you miss the Spirit.

Your premise is based on a fundamental flaw, the apostle is speaking Spiritually and you're "in the flesh"! If you're reading scripture, you get to Romans 8 before Romans 9. Romans 8 says we don't walk "according to the flesh", but "according to the Spirit". You'll do well to keep that in mind...and then you *might* understand the point!

 

[shturt678s]

No, not refusing anything...except your skewed view of Israel.

..."They are not all Israel who are descended from Israel..." That being true the promises don't matter because Christ has come. Once again Biblewriter before you get to Romans 9, the foundation is in Romans 4...who is the subject there? It's Abraham! So once again your "two peoples of God" idea fails!

Rom.4:17 Just so we understand Gen.17:5-8 meaning God's promises two things, one pertaining to "many nations," (the Gentiles) and one pertaining to "thy seed after thee in their generations" (Jews only).

Who argues that? I know Israel will be grafted back in...what's the point?

No one's "ranting and raving" Biblewriter, I realize where your idea comes from, and I realize it's flawed. People following this can see that you want to stay in Romans 9 because if take the whole of scripture...your view is untenable.

That right...which are fulfilled in Christ!

Once again the difference is between the flesh and the Spirit...(remember chapter 8?)... and God's sovereignty.

That again is the failure to understand you have an apostle telling you how to apply it. Paul is making the point Gentiles are in too...which is how the "number of Israel becomes like the sand of the sea". When you look at the flesh all the time...you miss the Spirit.

Your premise is based on a fundamental flaw, the apostle is speaking Spiritually and you're "in the flesh"! If you're reading scripture, you get to Romans 8 before Romans 9. Romans 8 says we don't walk "according to the flesh", but "according to the Spirit". You'll do well to keep that in mind...and then you *might* understand the point!

Old Jack

 

[ebedmelech]

Rom.4:17 Just so we understand Gen.17:5-8 meaning God's promises two things, one pertaining to "many nations," (the Gentiles) and one pertaining to "thy seed after thee in their generations" (Jews only).




Old Jack

That SEED is Christ Jack. It been given us in Galatians 3:15, 16.
15 Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is only a man’s covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it.
16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as referring to many, but rather to one, “And to your seed,” that is, Christ.

It's all there...

 

[Interplanner]

Probably the best OT prophetic passage to support what EbedM just said (ie, to support Gal 3:16) is "I will make you a covenant for the peoples." Ie, it is not about a covenant, or about direct dealings with ethnos--Israel or otherwise. It is about Christ, and all dealings are through Christ's Gospel anymore. So Rom 11's argument ends, all people have been bound over to sin (people's sin required the death of Christ), and all may recieve mercy through that same Gospel event. The 'playing field' is level. God is not dealing with people outside of it.

 

[Biblewriter]

Your premise is based on a fundamental flaw, the apostle is speaking Spiritually and you're "in the flesh"! If you're reading scripture, you get to Romans 8 before Romans 9. Romans 8 says we don't walk "according to the flesh", but "according to the Spirit". You'll do well to keep that in mind...and then you *might* understand the point!

But the subject in this chapter is explicitly said to be Paul's "kinsmen according to the flesh." there is no way to escape this.

What you do not want to understand is that the scriptures tell us that in a coming day, Abraham's physical seed and his spiritual seed will be the same group, the restored nation of Israel, all of them living in true faith in their ancient homeland.

 

[Biblewriter]

BW wrote:
But nowhere in this passage does hHe even hint at the idea that anyone who was not a physical descendant would inherit the promises referred to in verse 4.

This is wrong. 9:24. Acts 2:39, 3:25, 5:31, Acts 13's sermon, Eph 2-3, Gal 3-4, Heb 9-11. The promise is now repentance and forgiveness through God's Spirit at work. Unfortunately, there are people who don't think much of those things. Hebrews (!) says those believers in the past could not be blessed until the present generation because of what Messiah now brought.

But BW has his doctrine that once it is in print and in English in the OT, it will always be that way, no matter how the NT modifies or adapts it. So the question is: if the raising of "David's fallen tent" = the nations belief on the Gospel (Acts 15, using Amos 9), what are the 'promises' to Israel?

If you could show even one place where the New Testament modifies or adapts the promise that Israel would be restored to her ancient homeland, it would be different. But you simply cannot, for there is nothing in the entire New Testament that even hints at that idea.

So you are attributing more authority to your interpretations of the meanings of a few New Testament passages that to the explicit statements of a great many more Old Testament passages.

The error of this concept is highlighted by the fact that not even one of the New Testament passages you like to cite actually say what you claim they mean. They only say things you interpret to mean that.

 

[shturt678s]

That SEED is Christ Jack. It been given us in Galatians 3:15, 16.
15 Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is only a man’s covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it.
16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as referring to many, but rather to one, “And to your seed,” that is, Christ.

It's all there...

Gal.3:17 Paul considers the collective singular, "seed," in the light of Gen.22:18 and of the other promises made to Abraham.

The collective "seed" is collective is because it focuses in Christ. In all the spiritual seed of Abraham (collective) there appears "Christ," the individual.

Old Jack's opinion

 

[ebedmelech]

But the subject in this chapter is explicitly said to be Paul's "kinsmen according to the flesh." there is no way to escape this.

What you do not want to understand is that the scriptures tell us that in a coming day, Abraham's physical seed and his spiritual seed will be the same group, the restored nation of Israel, all of them living in true faith in their ancient homeland.

Here again your "cherry picking" is exposed Biblewriter! Paul NOT ONE TIME speaks of land...so why are you? You're once again departing from what his point is! Let's examine Romans 9:1-5 verse by verse:

Verse 1
1 I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit,
Paul is speaking the truth in Christ...from his conscience IN THE HOLY SPIRIT

Verse 2
2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart.
Pretty simple...Paul is grieving over something.

Verse 3
3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh,
Paul wishes he could be "accursed" and separated from Christ for his people. However, what is the reason he says "according to the flesh"?

You would like to make this an issue of "physical Israel" but the real point is we know Paul has received Christ. He is an apostle that is commissioned to go to the Gentiles, and in doing so, we know from the book of Acts that since His conversion, Jews have been trying to kill him, and persecute him for one reason...He no longer walks according to the Old Covenant, he walks in the New Covenant. He also is converting Jews as well as Gentiles, and the hate him for it...but Paul's heart is heavy over them, because they are his kinsmen.

Verse 4
4 who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises,
Now we get the point of Paul's grief...his people who are ISRAELITES!!! Paul follows this up so we understand this is about the "Sinaitic Covenant", which is given in Exodus 19-24 where Israel affirms they will do all that God commanded! Moses sprinkles them with blood after that.

Verse 5
5 whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.
This affirms also the apostle's conclusion...CHRIST IS DESCENDED THROUGH Israel "ACCORDING TO THE FLESH".

This is where you miss the entire point Biblewriter! The summation of this whole thing surrounds CHRIST coming into the world as redeemer...the Redeemer that Israel, on the whole doesn't receive (except the remnant).

The apostle is now going to go forward from here and changes this to a Spiritual matter and he does that on the basis of summation in verse 5 that Christ is the result of the "covenants, the giving of the Law, the temple, and the promises". It is on that basis he wants us to understand that "it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants,"

They are not all Israel because reject Christ who is the SEED of Abraham!

You flat miss the whole point! Every time you go in a direction the apostle is not going because it will make your view worthless.

This is why you don't want to speak to Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, or even Hebrews. The will TORPEDO you whole theology!

The restoration of Israel is that of them coming to Christ...that's what it's about Biblewriter. You have missed that it's about, which is Christ and all who will come to Him!

What a shame!

 

[shturt678s]

Here again your "cherry picking" is exposed Biblewriter! Paul NOT ONE TIME speaks of land...so why are you? You're once again departing from what his point is! Let's examine Romans 9:1-5 verse by verse:

Verse 1
1 I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit,
Paul is speaking the truth in Christ...from his conscience IN THE HOLY SPIRIT

Verse 2
2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart.
Pretty simple...Paul is grieving over something.

Verse 3
3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh,
Paul wishes he could be "accursed" and separated from Christ for his people. However, what is the reason he says "according to the flesh"?

You would like to make this an issue of "physical Israel" but the real point is we know Paul has received Christ. He is an apostle that is commissioned to go to the Gentiles, and in doing so, we know from the book of Acts that since His conversion, Jews have been trying to kill him, and persecute him for one reason...He no longer walks according to the Old Covenant, he walks in the New Covenant. He also is converting Jews as well as Gentiles, and the hate him for it...but Paul's heart is heavy over them, because they are his kinsmen.

Verse 4
4 who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises,
Now we get the point of Paul's grief...his people who are ISRAELITES!!! Paul follows this up so we understand this is about the "Sinaitic Covenant", which is given in Exodus 19-24 where Israel affirms they will do all that God commanded! Moses sprinkles them with blood after that.

Verse 5
5 whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.
This affirms also the apostle's conclusion...CHRIST IS DESCENDED THROUGH Israel "ACCORDING TO THE FLESH".

This is where you miss the entire point Biblewriter! The summation of this whole thing surrounds CHRIST coming into the world as redeemer...the Redeemer that Israel, on the whole doesn't receive (except the remnant).

The apostle is now going to go forward from here and changes this to a Spiritual matter and he does that on the basis of summation in verse 5 that Christ is the result of the "covenants, the giving of the Law, the temple, and the promises". It is on that basis he wants us to understand that "it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants,"

They are not all Israel because reject Christ who is the SEED of Abraham!

You flat miss the whole point! Every time you go in a direction the apostle is not going because it will make your view worthless.

This is why you don't want to speak to Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, or even Hebrews. The will TORPEDO you whole theology!

The restoration of Israel is that of them coming to Christ...that's what it's about Biblewriter. You have missed that it's about, which is Christ and all who will come to Him!

What a shame!

Rom.9:4, "Israelites" was the theocratic covenant name, ie, had adoption or the sonship. We need to look at this a little more, together in light of vs.6-13 being the vital point that from the very beginning all was Promise.

Old Jack

 

[ebedmelech]

Gal.3:17 Paul considers the collective singular, "seed," in the light of Gen.22:18 and of the other promises made to Abraham.

The collective "seed" is collective is because it focuses in Christ. In all the spiritual seed of Abraham (collective) there appears "Christ," the individual.

Old Jack's opinion

No Jack that's not the case at all. "According to the flesh", it is about physical descendants...true enough. However, Paul is interpreting what the promise is in Galatians 3:15, 16! He has made the point "THE SEED IS CHRIST" and it is through Him all the nations of the earth will be blessed.

The quote is specific to Genesis 22:18 ONLY...after Abraham was about to offer up Isaac in obedience to God:
18 In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.”

This is what the apostle is quoting and it is NOT collective! This is the significance of why the apostle choose that verse over the other verses where he promised to bless Abraham's "descendants"....

This is truly Paul's insight in the scriptures...simply POINT ON AMAZING!

 

[Biblewriter]

Here again your "cherry picking" is exposed Biblewriter! Paul NOT ONE TIME speaks of land...so why are you? You're once again departing from what his point is! Let's examine Romans 9:1-5 verse by verse:

Verse 1
1 I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit,
Paul is speaking the truth in Christ...from his conscience IN THE HOLY SPIRIT

Verse 2
2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart.
Pretty simple...Paul is grieving over something.

Verse 3
3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh,
Paul wishes he could be "accursed" and separated from Christ for his people. However, what is the reason he says "according to the flesh"?

You would like to make this an issue of "physical Israel" but the real point is we know Paul has received Christ. He is an apostle that is commissioned to go to the Gentiles, and in doing so, we know from the book of Acts that since His conversion, Jews have been trying to kill him, and persecute him for one reason...He no longer walks according to the Old Covenant, he walks in the New Covenant. He also is converting Jews as well as Gentiles, and the hate him for it...but Paul's heart is heavy over them, because they are his kinsmen.

Verse 4
4 who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises,
Now we get the point of Paul's grief...his people who are ISRAELITES!!! Paul follows this up so we understand this is about the "Sinaitic Covenant", which is given in Exodus 19-24 where Israel affirms they will do all that God commanded! Moses sprinkles them with blood after that.

Verse 5
5 whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.
This affirms also the apostle's conclusion...CHRIST IS DESCENDED THROUGH Israel "ACCORDING TO THE FLESH".

This is where you miss the entire point Biblewriter! The summation of this whole thing surrounds CHRIST coming into the world as redeemer...the Redeemer that Israel, on the whole doesn't receive (except the remnant).

The apostle is now going to go forward from here and changes this to a Spiritual matter and he does that on the basis of summation in verse 5 that Christ is the result of the "covenants, the giving of the Law, the temple, and the promises". It is on that basis he wants us to understand that "it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants,"

They are not all Israel because reject Christ who is the SEED of Abraham!

You flat miss the whole point! Every time you go in a direction the apostle is not going because it will make your view worthless.

This is why you don't want to speak to Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, or even Hebrews. The will TORPEDO you whole theology!

The restoration of Israel is that of them coming to Christ...that's what it's about Biblewriter. You have missed that it's about, which is Christ and all who will come to Him!

What a shame!

And I see what you are doing as exactly the same as what you think I am doing. You claim that this is all about a "spiritual Israel" that is not even mentioned in scripture.

 

[shturt678s]

No Jack that's not the case at all. "According to the flesh", it is about physical descendants...true enough. However, Paul is interpreting what the promise is in Galatians 3:15, 16! He has made the point "THE SEED IS CHRIST" and it is through Him all the nations of the earth will be blessed.

The quote is specific to Genesis 22:18 ONLY...after Abraham was about to offer up Isaac in obedience to God:
18 In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.”

This is what the apostle is quoting and it is NOT collective! This is the significance of why the apostle choose that verse over the other verses where he promised to bless Abraham's "descendants"....

This is truly Paul's insight in the scriptures...simply POINT ON AMAZING!

Let's dial in Gal.3:16 first to set down a premise to work off of, "Now to Abraham were spoken the promise and to his Seed." In these testamentary promises two beneficiaries are named: Abraham - his Seed. One is placed first in the sentence, the other last, both are thus strongly grammatically emphasized, ie, the ol' basic hyperbaton routine.

Since Paul specifies that "his Seed" refers to Christ, comment so often neglects Abraham and expands on this Seed, ie, sound familiar ebed? iow let's not neglect Abraham, ie, he is not named as a mere individual, as one of many beneficiaries of the testament. Whatever promises God spoke to others as Isaac, Jacob, and the patriarchs were entirely Abraham's, ie, how we doing so far?

He was the heir. All others only share in his inheritance, correct? Simply pointing on they inherit only as spiritual "sons of Abraham" (v.7). Now we're working together.

One more simple point: God named two heirs. These were, indeed, as I said before, two individual persons, for the second heir is called "his Seed."

Old Jack's opinion

 

[ebedmelech]

Let's dial in Gal.3:16 first to set down a premise to work off of, "Now to Abraham were spoken the promise and to his Seed." In these testamentary promises two beneficiaries are named: Abraham - his Seed. One is placed first in the sentence, the other last, both are thus strongly grammatically emphasized, ie, the ol' basic hyperbaton routine.

Since Paul specifies that "his Seed" refers to Christ, comment so often neglects Abraham and expands on this Seed, ie, sound familiar ebed? iow let's not neglect Abraham, ie, he is not named as a mere individual, as one of many beneficiaries of the testament. Whatever promises God spoke to others as Isaac, Jacob, and the patriarchs were entirely Abraham's, ie, how we doing so far?

He was the heir. All others only share in his inheritance, correct? Simply pointing on they inherit only as spiritual "sons of Abraham" (v.7). Now we're working together.

One more simple point: God named two heirs. These were, indeed, as I said before, two individual persons, for the second heir is called "his Seed."

Old Jack's opinion

Now Jack. Once more all you have to do is look at Genesis 22:15 this passage is referring to CHRIST ALONE:
18 In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.”

There is no need to go into interpretive, grammatical constructs, because the apostle has broken it down already in Galatians 3:16:
16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as referring to many, but rather to one, “And to your seed,” that is, Christ.

Paul has taken care of what you want to do...he emphasizes that it is referring to ONE PERSON...CHRIST.

We can know this also by the event in which God said this to Abraham. He was was about to sacrifice Isaac his ONLY son by Sarah in obedience to God!

God then makes the statement of Genesis 22:18 to sacrifice HIS ONLY SON.

You cannot escape what this means Jack. It refers to Christ alone. It is in Christ all nations are blessed...it's ALL INCLUSIVE...Gentiles and Jews...ALL MEANS ALL!!!

Paul already broke it down Jack...no need to do it again...

 

[ebedmelech]

And I see what you are doing as exactly the same as what you think I am doing. You claim that this is all about a "spiritual Israel" that is not even mentioned in scripture.

The difference is I'm following Paul in the scriptures. You're following your theology. There's a "walking in flesh" and a "walking in Spirit"...you need to get in the Spirit of the passage.

Pride is a terrible thing to overcome.

 

[Biblewriter]

The difference is I'm following Paul in the scriptures. You're following your theology. There's a "walking in flesh" and a "walking in Spirit"...you need to get in the Spirit of the passage.

Pride is a terrible thing to overcome.

Indeed it is. But the real pride is attributing more authority to your interpretation of the meaning of one scripture that to the explicit statement of another.

You continue to flatly refuse to admit that what you are talking about is an interpretation of what the scriptures mean and what I am talking about is what they say.

I have had enough of this childishness. Signing off for now.

 

[Interplanner]

Maybe this will help. When I used to read Acts 3:25 "with your fathers" I used to think that Peter meant to validate all the land and nation promises all over. But the link word was 'bless.' He meant to bring a message that blessed anyone, whether Jew or Gentile, and used the Genesis text, then explained the text afterward. The blessing was to be turned away from wicked ways.

I think I used to think that because I had so many OT passages bouncing around in my head, not what the apostles were actually saying. So I kept looking for ways that I understood OT passages would filter through when I wasn't supposed to be. Was Peter really offering a golden age right then? But he wasn't.

It's sort of like Abraham going through with offering Isaac, but when he gets there, an animal was used. This announced a profound change for Canaanite culture!