• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why Abraham?

Ebionite

Well-Known Member
Exactly. And the parties who enter the 'contract' walk between the split carcasses.
Gen 15, : 9-20.
No, the contract starts in verse 18.

In the same day YHWH 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:
Gen 15:18
 

Ebionite

Well-Known Member
I merely stated that you probably don't agree with the commentary opinion that they were one and the same.
There's a real bias against descendants other that Israel, and the text mentions concubines (plural), so the opinion that they were one and the same is probably wrong.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
There's a real bias against descendants other that Israel, and the text mentions concubines (plural), so the opinion that they were one and the same is probably wrong.
What is it with you and this biblical bias? Are you watching out for the biblical "little guy"? Justice for the minor character? :)
 

sooda

Veteran Member
No, the contract starts in verse 18.

In the same day YHWH 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:
Gen 15:18

This is not about the Nile. Its about the Wadi el Arish.
 

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
Exactly. And the parties who enter the 'contract' walk between the split carcasses. Scripture has it that only 'the Angel of the Lord', representing God, walked through.
Gen 15, : 9-20.

You are correct. The fufillment of the Abrahamic Covenant was based on God alone. The promises given would be kept. These include the Land, the Nation, and the Blessing. (Gen. 12:1-2)

The land would be Palestine, the Nation would be Israel, the Blessing would be salvation for all. This covenant is still active. The failure of Israel under the Mosaic Covenant did not affect the Abrahamic Covenant.

Good-Ole-Rebel
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
The land would be Palestine, the Nation would be Israel, the Blessing would be salvation for all. This covenant is still active. The failure of Israel under the Mosaic Covenant did not affect the Abrahamic Covenant.

And the reason for the Church belief that Jews are 'saved' within their own covenant which has not been revoked.
 

Ebionite

Well-Known Member
And the reason for the Church belief that Jews are 'saved' within their own covenant which has not been revoked.
The people of the covenant of circumcision are the descendants of Jacob. Presuming that Ashkenazi Jews are so named because they're descendants of Ashkenaz, then they're not part of the covenant.
 

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
And the reason for the Church belief that Jews are 'saved' within their own covenant which has not been revoked.

I'm not sure which covenant you are talking about that has not been revoked. The Mosaic or Abrahamic?

Jews are saved today, just as Gentiles are saved today. Faith in Christ. The New Covenant is new in comparison to the old which was the Mosaic Covenant. Not in comparison to the Abrahamic.

Good-Ole-Rebel
 

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.
Revelation 2:9

That is the difference between the believing and the non-believing Jews. (Rom. 9:6) "...For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel"

This doesn't make the believing Gentiles Israelites. God is drawing distinction between the true Jew and the false Jew. Both physically are Jews. But God only counts the believing Jew as a true Jew.

Good-Ole-Rebel
 

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
There's no basis for that from the verse.

Seems pretty clear. They are not all Israel who are of Israel. Just because one is born a Jew physically doesn't make him a Jew in Gods sight.

Not only from Jacob (Israel), but also from Abraham. Just because one is physically born of Abraham and Jacob, doesn't make them a Jew in Gods eyes. (Rom. 9:7) "Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called."

Good-Ole-Rebel
 

Ebionite

Well-Known Member
Seems pretty clear. They are not all Israel who are of Israel.
No, the verse says nothing about Israel. Pauline doctrine is in conflict with the book of Revelation because the only reference to Paul in the book is as a false apostle and the target audience of the book rejected Paul.
 

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
No, the verse says nothing about Israel. Pauline doctrine is in conflict with the book of Revelation because the only reference to Paul in the book is as a false apostle and the target audience of the book rejected Paul.

I just gave you the verses. It speaks of Israel. If you deny that, there isn't much else to argue over.

Concerning Paul, he is not a false apostle. That is a whole other subject. If you want to negate Paul's writings, you need to explain what your Bible looks like.

Good-Ole-Rebel
 
Top