So Jesus Christ doesn't rule over all men?
I'm a partial preterist and will be glad to deal with your claims.
Every single saint of God in all ages have come to God through faith. That is why Abraham is referenced has having obtain everlasting life. Abraham was a Gentile when he received the circumcision of the heart. The lineage of Jesus Christ didn't begin with Abraham. It began with the faithfulness of Adam.
What promise does Israel have that isn't predicated upon Jesus Christ? The only everlasting heir of Abraham?
This was a problem has existed from the beginning. Where the law given on Sinah or the law written in the conscience of mankind from the beginning, same problem.
Rom 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
Rom 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another
What is the context of Gal. 6:16?
No Jesus Christ owns that land. Your own theology teaches that Jesus Christ shall rule and reign on this earth and possess that land. Your being hypocritical.You realize that the Galatians 3:16 passage is a reference to the Abrahamic Covenant
Do you realize the land was a central focus of the Abrahamic Covenant?
The land was promised to Abraham's descendants
Israel has the land, not the Church
RCM
No Jesus Christ owns that land. Your own theology teaches that Jesus Christ shall rule and reign on this earth and possess that land. Your being hypocritical.
In Genesis 15 God took Abraham to see the stars and declared to him the his offspring are a heavenly people. Innumerable. That is fulfilled in seed of Jesus Christ alone. Eternal. Everlasting
You allow your presupposition and bias to take precedence over God's written word
The Abrahamic Covenant also included the 'Land'
Genesis 12:7
7 The LORD appeared to Abram and said, "To your descendants I will give this land." So he built an altar there to the LORD who had appeared to him.
Genesis 13:14-15
14 The LORD said to Abram, after Lot had separated from him, "Now lift up your eyes and look from the place where you are, northward and southward and eastward and westward;
15 for all the land which you see, I will give it to you and to your descendants forever.
Genesis 35:12
12 "The land which I gave to Abraham and Isaac, I will give it to you, And I will give the land to your descendants after you."
Who has the Land? Who is in the Land now? Has God fulfilled Old Testament Biblical Prophecy?
If you do not respond with Biblical Scripture to support your argument, I will no longer respond to incompetence!
The context is literal ethnic physical descendants, not the son's of Abraham by Faith referenced in Galatians 3
Uhhh -- no. But I understand that many people, who like yourself, want to misuse the term Gentile. The misuse comes from the etymology of the word 'Gentile' when it went through the Latin translation. There were separate words that became 'Gentile' from the Latin. In Old Testament Hebrew there is no Gentile without a Jew. So before the first Jew came to be (Abraham) there were no Gentiles. I'll say that one more different way to make the point: Jews define the word translated into Gentile as "someone who is not a Jew." The original Hebrew term, ha goyim, means "the non-Jewish nations." The New Testament Greek used the word ethnikos, which means "the nations." The Latin used "Gentile" (gentilis, derived from gens) for both of these terms, and others.Abraham was a Gentile when he received the circumcision of the heart.
Spread a little sunshine every dayyes and notice what section on carm this forum is one lol- might as well be in the cult section where it belongs with the rest of the false teachings. Well its right below them close enough with the open theists, emergents, word of faith,new age all heresies.
good jib defending the truth BTW !!!
kudos
Let me say it another way. Abraham was uncircumcised and received the sign of circumcision as a witness to an inward change he received.Uhhh -- no. But I understand that many people, who like yourself, want to misuse the term Gentile. The misuse comes from the etymology of the word 'Gentile' when it went through the Latin translation. There were separate words that became 'Gentile' from the Latin. In Old Testament Hebrew there is no Gentile without a Jew. So before the first Jew came to be (Abraham) there were no Gentiles. I'll say that one more different way to make the point: Jews define the word translated into Gentile as "someone who is not a Jew." The original Hebrew term, ha goyim, means "the non-Jewish nations." The New Testament Greek used the word ethnikos, which means "the nations." The Latin used "Gentile" (gentilis, derived from gens) for both of these terms, and others.
The Hebrew word goy means nations. You'll find it throughout the Old Testament in Hebrew, such as in Gen 14:1 where Tidal is referenced as the "king of nations." It is not a proper term for naming a broad "type" of people, such as Gentiles. But it led to modern translations that simply do not mean what some would have them mean, such as Genesis 10:5 --
Genesis 10:5 (NKJV)From these the coastland peoples of the Gentiles were separated into their lands, everyone according to his language, according to their families, into their nations.
Note, though, that we have "peoples of the Gentiles" and at the tail end, "into their nations." Both "Gentiles" and "nations" is the Hebrew word goy. Perhaps it was thought redundant to use "nations" in both places. Regardless, the term "peoples of the Gentiles" (where peoples is added for clarity) should have simply been "peoples" or, more accurately, "nations." But these peoples in the coastland (sp. isles) were not to be considered "non-Jew." Rather, the use of the term "Gentile" is a modern (Latin Vulgate onward) translation of the term goy.
An interesting study would be to see what Young's Literal Translation would say:
Genesis 10:5 (YLT)By these have the isles of the nations been parted in their lands, each by his tongue, by their families, in their nations.
Oops. In fact, if you get away from the KJV and its offshoots, many modern translations return properly to "nations" or "peoples."
Now, of course, we could then partake in language gymnastics and say that before Abraham "became" a Jew, then all peoples (including Abraham) were not Jews, and therefore, by definition, they are Gentiles. But language gymnastics does not define what words mean in Hebrew to the original Jews.
I don't disagree in concept. We know this now that we have the New Covenant.Let me say it another way. Abraham was uncircumcised and received the sign of circumcision as a witness to an inward change he received.
That inward change has existed in all those of faith beginning with Adam.
I said the same things I said previously, just differently. Your previous issue with my comments seems to be a case of just arguing to be arguing.I don't disagree in concept. We know this now that we have the New Covenant.
The requirement of circumcision is in Gen 17, beginning v 10.
You said Abraham received a sign (in fact all males are to see this as a sign of the Covenant) to "an inward change." Show me where an inward change was explained/told to Abraham. Nothing inward is promised or spoken of. The sign in the flesh is a permanent reminder of the Covenant. Those without the sign, circumcision, will be cut off from the people. But nothing inward is promised to Abraham.
I point this out to show how our suppositions get inserted into our biblical understanding. Circumcision is a visible sign, not inward. That's in Gen 17.
Now look at Gen 15:6. Just before this verse God shows Abraham the stars. Verse 6, Abraham believes God. God credits it as righteousness to him. Ahh, inward stuff!! Nothing to do with a work (circumcision), but rather a belief (faith).
Words have meaning. Deflecting the meaning in one area can then have consequences in other areas of one uses the wrong meanings to support the other area.I said the same things I said previously, just differently. Your previous issue with my comments seems to be a case of just arguing to be arguing.
Redefining for your own purposes.Gentiles. Uncircumcised
Jews. Circumcised.
No, he wasn't.Abraham was a uncircumcised Gentile.
Though this did not come by the circumcision. He received the promise before the command for circumcision. I've shown that.Through faith, he received the promise.
Albeit Paul never called Abraham a Gentile.There is no Jew who doesn't experience this very same condition. It is the argument Paul made to those at Rome.
Words have meaning. Deflecting the meaning in one area can then have consequences in other areas of one uses the wrong meanings to support the other area.
Arguing just to argue? I've been known to do that ?. But not here. Words have meaning.
In Acts, there were those who wanted the Gentiles to be circumcised. Paul said no. Some were circumcised before Paul showed up. Did those Gentiles magically become Jews because of the circumcision? By your definition here they did.
Retread what I wrote about the etymology of the word.
No, he wasn't.
Though this did not come by the circumcision. He received the promise before the command for circumcision. I've shown that.
Albeit Paul never called Abraham a Gentile.
Yes.Yes. They do.
And your ad hom means less than nothing.You made a petty argument in response that means nothing.
No one said anything different to this comment.Abraham was uncircumcised when he expressed faith. There is no difference between Abraham and all the faithful of all ages. None.
I gave no additional meaning to circumcision.Circumcision was only a sign. You're extending beyond its meaning.
Why are you stuck on circumcision when we were talking about the word "Gentile"? Are you even following the conversation?Gal 5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.
Gal 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
You are using many words to try to sound intelligent. It's not working.It is meaningless deflection. That is all. Trying to use an uncertain etymology to make a Scriptural application is an empty argument made by many.
More ad homs that fall flat.You're wrong but it doesn't matter. Your claims doesn't add up to anything.
No he wasn't. See how easy that is? But the difference is that I proved my point, you simply throw mud. The best you came up with was that Abraham was uncircumcised -- but the word "Gentile" is not defined by circumcision. At all. Ever.Yes he was.
The written law did not exist in the day of Abraham -- otherwise, ok, sure.He wasn't circumcision the 8th day according to the law. He lived a large portion of his life as a sinner. Which is the same of everyone in the human race.
Yup. So why you tie Abraham's uncircumcised state to anything is beyond me.Exactly. A promise that came about because of His faith.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.It is ironic that you're make a Calvinist argument here and don't even realize it.
Matthew 5:45You are appealing to God blessing sinners with promises apart from salvation by faith.
Romans 9:14-15 (emphasis in original)You are preaching a chosen people apart from faith.
You should use all of scripture, and with an understanding of the audience. Paul is declaring to a Jewish sect who believed that circumcision is necessary for the Gentile that it is not the key point. Did you hear Paul? It is NOT the key point. Circumcision is meaningless.Rom 4:9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
Rom 4:10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
I do not cease in study. You should try understanding instead of presupposition. A little more exegesis and a lot less eisegesis.You should study more.
BTW, Romans 4:10 is not saying that faith was reckoned to Abraham while he was uncircumcised and BECAUSE he became circumcised. It was an argument to the Judaizers that circumcision is not the point. They wanted all Gentiles circumcised. Paul said it doesn't matter. It never did. Even with Abraham circumcision was NOT the point.Rom 4:9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
Rom 4:10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
You should study more.
2. That Land is the property of the descendants of Jesus Christ. Do you reject the fact that Jesus Christ is the sole descendent of Jesus Christ with Eternal promises? Why are you rejecting Jesus Christ?
BTW, Romans 4:10 is not saying that faith was reckoned to Abraham while he was uncircumcised and BECAUSE he became circumcised. It was an argument to the Judaizers that circumcision is not the point. They wanted all Gentiles circumcised. Paul said it doesn't matter. It never did. Even with Abraham circumcision was NOT the point.