Search results

Yeah. A Muslim is a follower is Islam. Most Muslims are Arabs. But “Muslim“ is not a race. Islam is not compatible with Christ.

It was with people of promise not people with the same DNA.

Primogeniture! I don’t usually pull that word out on public forums. :giggle:I love your insight!

I wanted to add more to this. God never made Abraham swear to uphold anything. God directed Abraham and Abraham obeyed. By this, Abraham is a type of Jesus: doing what his father is doing. So, within the covenant, Abraham is a third party beneficiary. Abe is not held to account to keep any...

I always understood that as the same promise but upgraded. 1st, the small parcel of land but then, the whole earth.

He actually made a covenant with Himself (“When God made a promise to Abraham, since he had no one greater by whom to swear, he swore by himself”) and gave the promises to Abraham and his Seed.

Absolutely. I will get back with you after my travels. Blessings.

By definition they would know everyone personally. On a public forum that is not possible. In lieu of that, additional moderators could help eliminate the name calling and slandering by giving warnings and taking note of people who just want to be divisive. "As for a person who stirs up...

And yet they never received the promise EVEN of the physical land. They could never keep the Law perfectly so they became a slave instead. A slave can never inherit the estate of the Lord. Hence, they are currently like Ishmael in relation to Abraham. That's what Paul explains in Galatians.

There is probably a better place to discuss the Israel Hamas war.

Some might say "But what about blessing or cursing Abraham? If we don't support natural Israel we will be cursed." A lot of preachers turn that around and say a curse will befall anyone who doesn't support Israel. Paul actually directly addressed this in Galatians: Christ has redeemed us from...

You must take the whole quote: There was never a promise to physical Israel through Abraham. (This is a repost since I messed up the format of the original one.)

Do you ever wonder who the "priests" are referenced at Sinai before the law was given? You cannot have a priest without a covenant. So what covenant was in place when they were brought up to Sinai? However, the law was intended to be temporary until the Seed (who is Christ) appeared. But, since...

How do you mean?

No he wasn't. He references “former ignorance” and “the futile ways inherited from your forefathers”. This does not fit a Jewish audience.

And this is where it diverges: There was never a promise to physical Israel through Abraham. The promise to physical Israel came at Sinai only and that was through the law. While it was supposed to be the time in which all national Israel came into the covenant of promise, they did not come...

You what is also disconcerting: the moral passes Christians are willing to give Israel when they conduct war; as if anything they do is permitted because they are "God's people": as if the standard in the earth, for those who love God, is anything less than Christ's.

We all grew up somewhat affected by politics surrounding national Israel so I can understand some of the confusion. But, when you read the revelation given to the apostles in the New Testament (who were natural Jews!) there's no way to reconcile the political message and the gospel message.

No one is replacing anyone. God's people have always been "people of promise": "..nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.” First the Jews, then the Gentiles. Peter, writing to Gentile believers, said "But you are a chosen...