ECT Abraham before he believed

[kayaker]

So, let me ask you Interplanner...

Would any ole Joe's body have been an acceptable sacrifice to Almighty God?

Or, is that another one of those insignificant issues contrived by a blind wild hawg running solo? After all, the Lord refused to allow Abraham to sacrifice Isaac (Genesis 22:10, 11, 12). Abraham did send his servant back to where Abraham was from to find a wife for Isaac (Genesis 24:3, 4). So much for Abraham being a Persian as you suggest, right? That would make Isaac a Persian also, right? House of cards, right? In fact, Abraham told his trusted servant that if he cannot find a wife for Isaac where Abraham was from... then said servant was instructed to not bring Isaac back (Genesis 24:6 KJV). Wow! That's a pretty serious commitment, think? I don't think Abraham had any problem where he came from, at least from among his own people. So, what do you think Abraham believed before he believed, as your OP suggests? Rather presumptuous, think?

I suggest dusting the OT off a little before using the NT to interpret the OT. Although I sincerely appreciate your thinking outside the box, TOL is a great place to toss theories out. There are some sharp folk here, not including me, of course.

kayaker

 

[Interplanner]

He apparently did not believe that there was a way for people to be justified from their sins. But he was shown Christ. We don't have the details about that. But he received enough detail to know that it was Christ and that it would justify all mankind who believed, not just one group. I'm sure he was quite captured by this thought right after the collapse of Babel. He had just seen how humans try to create something that is only God's place to do so.

 

[Danoh]

He apparently did not believe that there was a way for people to be justified from their sins. But he was shown Christ. We don't have the details about that. But he received enough detail to know that it was Christ and that it would justify all mankind who believed, not just one group. I'm sure he was quite captured by this thought right after the collapse of Babel. He had just seen how humans try to create something that is only God's place to do so.

All of that is your fabrication out of your having understood the relevant passages, not through the passages, but through your books based reasoning.

You have yet to figure out what I mean by books based reasoning. That is how incapable of rendering actually any intended sense your kind of reasoning has left you.

 

[Danoh]

So, let me ask you Interplanner...

Would any ole Joe's body have been an acceptable sacrifice to Almighty God?

Or, is that another one of those insignificant issues contrived by a blind wild hawg running solo? After all, the Lord refused to allow Abraham to sacrifice Isaac (Genesis 22:10, 11, 12). Abraham did send his servant back to where Abraham was from to find a wife for Isaac (Genesis 24:3, 4). So much for Abraham being a Persian as you suggest, right? That would make Isaac a Persian also, right? House of cards, right? In fact, Abraham told his trusted servant that if he cannot find a wife for Isaac where Abraham was from... then said servant was instructed to not bring Isaac back (Genesis 24:6 KJV). Wow! That's a pretty serious commitment, think? I don't think Abraham had any problem where he came from, at least from among his own people. So, what do you think Abraham believed before he believed, as your OP suggests? Rather presumptuous, think?

I suggest dusting the OT off a little before using the NT to interpret the OT. Although I sincerely appreciate your thinking outside the box, TOL is a great place to toss theories out. There are some sharp folk here, not including me, of course.

kayaker

Interplanner and his lot have long since concluded that "the NT interprets the OT."

Never mind the fact that just about every time the Lord opens His mouth in Matthew thru John, He expects them to understand His Words to Israel through the OT.

Everywhere, its "what did Moses say, what did Moses command, He wrote of Me, well spake Isaiah..." and on... and on... and on..."

 

[Interplanner]

I do so because it is after the old, not before. And because Paul's comments are that the thing hidden in the old is now in Christ and God's decree and the Spirit made clear. Show me where Paul goes the other way around!

 

[Interplanner]

Interplanner and his lot have long since concluded that "the NT interprets the OT."

Never mind the fact that just about every time the Lord opens His mouth in Matthew thru John, He expects them to understand His Words to Israel through the OT.

Everywhere, its "what did Moses say, what did Moses command, He wrote of Me, well spake Isaiah..." and on... and on... and on..."

Danoh,
just stop calling Gal 3's declarations and Acts 13's "the books." If you take them in their plainest sense, it is what they are saying, Too bad for you and your books.

 

[Danoh]

I do so because it is after the old, not before. And because Paul's comments are that the thing hidden in the old is now in Christ and God's decree and the Spirit made clear. Show me where Paul goes the other way around!

You mean waste my time showing you - but here is one - Romans 11:25-29 - which relates what it does about the status of Romans 15:8-12 - at the same time it relates that Romans 15:13-21 are now the issue.

And sorry, but "hid in God... from ages and from generations" Eph. 3, does not constitute "the thing hidden in the old."

But as I said, I have just wasted my time where the reasoning you gained in books supposedly "about" the Bible, is concerned.

It is why you screwed up on the sense of 2 Corinthians 5's "Christ after the flesh" on that other thread - you applied your off-base manner of reasoning to it. That is exactly how commentaries writers approach attempting to arrive at the intended sense of many passages - your exact approach you "book worm," lol

 

[kayaker]

Interplanner and his lot have long since concluded that "the NT interprets the OT."

Never mind the fact that just about every time the Lord opens His mouth in Matthew thru John, He expects them to understand His Words to Israel through the OT.

Everywhere, its "what did Moses say, what did Moses command, He wrote of Me, well spake Isaiah..." and on... and on... and on..."

Indeed, Danoh. In simple terms, IP's got the cart before the horse, and he's in the cart tossing out pictures of himself. I've enjoyed the dialogue, but it's perfectly clear that IP's got sand in his knickers. I certainly surrender IP to his own devices, theologian in his own mind. He can't get over himself to even answer some pretty fundamental questions. I suppose those questions are just a little too down to earth for his confabulation.

kayaker

 

[Interplanner]

Haven't you ever read Mt 5. "You've heard it said, but I tell you..." That's how early the NT supercedes the OT. The OT is veiled. The veil is only removed in Christ. You can stare at it all day long, but if the Spirit is not your teacher about what is true in Christ, you will handle the OT wrong.

Sometimes there is some exceptional clarity in the Prophets. This is why conservative Judaism does not consider the Prophets divine. Apparently some light is coming through the Prophets that they find to be in conflict with Torah and so they don't believe the Prophets are divine. There is too much that supports the direction that the NT went rather than reinforcing the Law all over again.

There is a lot to learn from that "problem."

 

[kayaker]

Haven't you ever read Mt 5. "You've heard it said, but I tell you..." That's how early the NT supercedes the OT. The OT is veiled. The veil is only removed in Christ. You can stare at it all day long, but if the Spirit is not your teacher about what is true in Christ, you will handle the OT wrong.

Sometimes there is some exceptional clarity in the Prophets. This is why conservative Judaism does not consider the Prophets divine. Apparently some light is coming through the Prophets that they find to be in conflict with Torah and so they don't believe the Prophets are divine. There is too much that supports the direction that the NT went rather than reinforcing the Law all over again.

There is a lot to learn from that "problem."

The problem is you haven't answered quite a few OT questions. Therefore, the problem is obviously yours.

 

[Interplanner]

Sorry kayaker, but in 30 years of reading after a master's degree on the Jewish war as it relates to Luke-Acts, I never heard your theories before about some sub-group crucifying Christ. It is never mentioned by the apostles. Because God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself. Christ was a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of all mankind, if they believe.

That is exactly what Paul means by seeing Christ without the veil of Judaism, which I think you have in an distinct form perhaps, but the result is you don't know what 2 Cor 5 or rom 3 is about, so you haven't even started to spread the Christian message. Time to change your banner to what mattered to Paul. Time to take up your "issue" with Paul directly.