Why Bastardize Ishmael but not the Tribes of Israel? The binding of Isaac or Ishmael?

originally posted by: yuppa
the ten commandments do not apply to NT covenant . .

originally posted by: yuppa
wrong
The topic has been researched quite well and im pretty sure what im talking about.

^ It does not take much effort to check wikip 101, yes the
10 commandments are indeed part of the NT.
References in the NT


#2 After the FLOOD , Humanity was on EQUAL GROUNDS
Thus WE ARE ALL CHOSEN lest we all would not be here.


BOTTOM LINE :
The ones who have claimed to be the
light onto the world are :
God and also lucifer, and jews.
Take your pick

Personally I will go with God of the univers, and call the others
impersonators, g_dS, "those that wish they were but are not".


Besides, the food was the equalizer to :
Galatians 3:28
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free,
there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one



. . . . . . . .

a reply to: zardust

Hello there Zardust. That was a wonderful and interesting explanation you presented! Do you feel that the stories, events, and characters are figuratively symbolic and archetypal, or do you think that they are both symbolic and actual? First son as flesh, second son as spirit,... why do you think this theme is repeated? Why does the second son triumph over the first? Rationally, we are inclined to accepting the greatest inheritance and blessing for the eldest son, so why do we so often see the usurpation of the older by the younger?

What I find hard to believe is that so many people cast so many aspersions on the Prophet Abraham. And by doing so, on God's decree. What people assert is not fitting for a person chosen of God. God could have chosen anyone, but surely he chose the best. You all know good people; do good people take mistresses, or do they get married? Don't forget God -All knowing - All Seeing would not be happy by such behavior, just as any of you wouldn't.

So, think about someone, chosen by God, with the highest morality, integrity and strength of will...remember he is the believer in his time, there isn't anyone else. Think about the character of such a man, before you start ascribing what you read in a book that could be right, but could also be wrong.

When God chose the Hebrew people for His purpose He said He didn't choose the biggest nor the strongest and often called the a rebellious group . Look at Jonah or even Lot . Then when you get into the new testament you see the same thing that not many wise, good or strong are chosen . And if you want to see a group of them and what He was dealing with then the Corinthians are your group . a reply to: FallenHuman

originally posted by: Sahabi
a reply to: AlephBet

The nations ARE deceived as stated in Revelation. Christ is the Son of God.

Perhaps I may be deceived,... and I concede that I may be wrong,... for many times my closely held truths have shattered into petty foolishness!

All is One and One is All. What you pay homage to as a Father, Mother, and Son is actually the worship of the primordial separation of the One into reality's existence. The unity of One is the Kingdom of God, whereas the separation into parts, figures, and roles (Father, Mother, Son) is the spiral into illusionary separation.

What you look for in a redeemer, savior, atoner, scapegoat, sacrificial lamb, or even the recipient of a pointed finger is actually the denial of what is,... and a forfeiture of one's own responsibility, power, and personal relationship/connection to All that is One.

You know, believe it or not, some and certainly myself understand what you mean about alternatives for a redeemer. But thats how we get back to the All that is One. The I am, back into the circle as it were. "I Am the door" for example. Redemption, restoration ect.

Now thats just as religiously philosophical as any of these other explanations but instead we get talked to like dumbasses.

The real problem some have with redemption, atonement ect is that it doesn't feed the GD ego. We don't see this as forfeiting anything but gaining. All these religions that speak of ways to obtain this or that are really EGO driven self determinative paths, works.....boy howdy I don't need a redeemer like these suckers, I am all that, finding the golden door all by my self, out of the intellect and the pure radiant light of enlightenment ect ect.

We understand all that and think its bullcrap. It takes enlightenment to understand that you need atoned for.

I found this and thought I would share because of the context to human principals and God's much deeper understanding of our dilemma .

God Cannot Forgive Sin
To Plato, Socrates has been quoted to say, “It may be that God can forgive sins but I do not see how.”
If God is just, and He claims to be, if God is impartial, and He claims to be, then can He forgive one man or woman without forgiving every man or woman—as we understand the term "forgive"?

You know, I think the Bible may concur with Socrates. God cannot forgive sin.

To forgive means:

1. to cease to blame or hold resentment against (someone or something)

2. to grant pardon for (a mistake, wrongdoing, etc)

3. (tr) to free or pardon (someone) from penalty

4. (tr) to free from the obligation of (a debt, payment, etc)

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

To "forgive" a debt is to cancel or pardon a debt. I don’t think God can "forgive" sin as we define "forgive" since no payment would be required.

It is very clear throughout scripture that He does require payment for sin. Whether it is the life blood of doves, sheep, bulls, or even His Son, Yeshua. Speaking of Yeshua, John the Baptist said:

Payment is always required and since payment is required, the debt is not then "forgiven." Payment is made by some thing or someone.

And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness[a;fesij (aphiemi)]. Hebrews 9:22

This verse seems to be a paradox in combining payment with pardon. Payment in that blood is required, and if payment is made then forgiveness is redundant. It's paid, what's left to forgive?

Our problem, I think, comes in translation. Regardless of the Greek or Hebrew words used, when translated "forgive" it violates the principle of the congruity of scripture which states there must be payment and, logically, if payment is made there is nothing left to forgive.

"Behold the lamb of God who (gives His blood as payment for) the sin of the world!" John 1:29 (addition mine)

As humankind we are obligated to forgive (pardon) those who sin against us, however, as relates to God it is different. The debt must be paid.

There are a few verses in the NT that, referring of God, use the word "forgiving," one being the Lord’s Prayer and another is 1 John 1:9:

"If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (NKJV)

Here John is writing to the body of Christ, those who have already availed themselves of the payment for sin by accepting Yeshua's sacrifice. One payment for all their sin—past, present, and future.

In this verse we have the mix of forgiveness and being just.

The Greek word used here and in most places for forgive is a;fesij (aphiemi). Interestingly, a;fesij is used in other places and and with a very different meaning. For example:

Jesus speaking to the woman at the well, "So the woman left (a;fesij) her waterpot, and went into the city" John 4:28.
when Jesus called Peter and Andrew to follow him we read, "Immediately they left (a;fesij) their nets and followed Him." Matthew 4:20.
"Then the devil left (a;fesij) Him; and behold, angels came and began to minister to Him." Matthew 4:11
"in the same way also the men abandoned (a;fesij) the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men" Romans 1:27
There are many, many, other verses with similar meanings where the one having a burden (the pot, the net, an objective, nature) left these things and walked away without them. Other ways this word has been translated and the number times it was used this way are:

Usage: abandoned(1), allow(5), allowed(2), divorce(2), forgave(2), forgive(23), forgiven(23), forgives(1), gave...permission(1), leave(7), leaves(2), leaving(8), left(38), let(9), let...alone(6), let him have(1), neglected(1), neglecting(2), permit(6), permitted(1), permitting(1), send...away(1), tolerate(1), uttered(1), yielded(1). Strong’s Concordance
Could a better interpretation for a;fesij be, "to walk away" or "leave behind" rather than "forgive" (or pardon) as we understand the word in the English language and culture?

"If we confess our sins, He remains faithful and just and able to walk away from our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (my translation)

If you owe me a debt and I forgive you the debt or if you or someone else pays the debt for you, you can then walk away free of the burden of that debt. It is forgiveness or payment in these cases.

If forgiveness (no payment) were a viable option would Jesus’ sacrifice be required?

Hebrews 9:22 tells us the payment with blood is an absolute necessity. Our sin debt must be paid. Either we pay it with our life blood or someone (the Lamb) or something (a lamb) must pay the debt for us with His or its life.

Before Yeshua it was the annual life blood of animals that atoned, or covered, the sins of the people annually. Payment had to be made. In the case of of Yeshua, the Lamb of God, it is the quality of his life blood poured out as payment, once of all time that makes it sufficient for the sins of the whole world. Anyone willing to allow Yeshua to make payment for them can then, "walk away" from, or "leave behind" that debt burden for all time.

Thereafter, the periodic confession (acknowledgement) when we have sinned, enables God cleanse us of those subsequent unrighteous acts.

Since payment must always be made for sin(s), forgiveness (i.e. pardon) cannot be a theologically correct translation for the Greek word a;fesij (aphiemi). As pertains to the inter-relationships of humankind, the principle "forgiveness" or pardon is correct since we are asked not to require payment where others have wronged us.

The Lord's Prayer then would read, "Our Father…add all our current trespasses to those already paid for, as we pardon those who trespasses against us.

www.beinaberean.org... a reply to: Logarock

a reply to: the2ofusr1

this can be a complicated subject. It requires change perspective or understand position just about every time one comes by the problem.

It would appear that Christ requires his followers to forgive as a demonstration of their understanding of their own forgiveness. And yes just because we forgive someone doesn't mean that person will not reap the rewards of their actions ultimately or right now.

When Jesus talked to his disciples forgiving sin was in the context of a matter between brothers. Jesus Himself could forgive anyone at the moment. He was even questioned by the Pharisees how he could be so presumptuous as to forgive sin seeing how only God can forgive sin. He responded basically by pointing to His divinity which enraged the Pharisees. He later forgave the Pharisees as He was dying on the cross. This didn't however separate the Pharisees from the spiritual evaluations given them by Christ. For example calling them a brood of vipers.

As far as ultimate judgment apparently these rights remain in force and in tact. That is life will be granted some and death to others. The mission was really a focus on restoration of the "few that be that find it" and really not a blanket restoration for the whole of mankind. None the less Christ had to "buy the whole field" which gives Him authority do "separate the wheat and the tares". The whole field being purchased so that the "pearl of great price" could be obtained. The idea of blanket forgiveness is a twisting of the concept of purchasing the earth. Christ purchased the whole lot but still maintains the right, also purchased, to sort it out as He wants.

There does seem to be some question about humans being able to act in an arbitrary manner on the question. " If you forgive anyone's sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven." and "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven". The last part here is in reference to brothers that will not take responsibility for a sin or trespass against another brother. They don't have to be coddled or tolerated and can be dealt with by separation. Or as Paul said in some cases "turned over to satan for the destruction of the flesh".

Folks generally focus on a very limited aspect of the forgiveness question. And frankly it does look like a contradiction from certain positions. But its really not. It has to do with dealing in the realm of the law and humanity and brothers in the faith. You can be as gracious as you want but contrary to how many teach it you do not have to tolerate certain behaviors, can and should bring the issue to a head and can and should ostracize. God understands this and doesn't expect humans to stupidly bear the effects of bad behavior quietly.

Not trying to preach here just laying it out.

Thanks for the reply ,and I do see what you are saying .Some how the term that Jesus came to seek and save that which was lost has a greater meaning and encompasses much more then what meet the humans perspective .God being the creator and responsible for it took the actions to redeem it from the fall and therefore overturning the forfeiture that happened in the garden . A big subject to think about for sure and the answers are all contained in His Christ . a reply to: Logarock

a reply to: the2ofusr1


There is reason to believe that Christ actually created the world but only with the caveat that He may have to redeem with His own life. His Father was His teacher. Christ totally enraged the religious leaders when He referred to Himself as I Am which is to say Yahweh. They took up stones on the spot. Many miss that. Many don't want to really talk about it because of what it implies.

Sadly for many that believe and teach otherwise there is no indication in scripture anywhere that salvation, redemption ect was a blanket effect but pertains only to selection. I am not saying that out of any personal position one way or another but out of taking a look at it.

a reply to: Logarock

Your last paragraph is patently false. The entire bible is filled with teaching of the salvation of all. It's the corrupted doctrine of eternal damnation that is nothing more than a facade for religious control. It's not your fault though. It's the utter lack of understanding from the theologians for the last 1600 years or so. Building a false building on a sinking foundation. The errors are repeated ad nauseum by carnal minded men who have not had the veil of death removed. The men who place themselves in seats of power akin to the Pharisees who placed themselves in the seat of Moses ( the accuser or the symbol for the accuser/law). Going to heaven, having a personal relationship with Jesus, the rapture, anything having to do with blood lines in the now, the end times of doom and gloom. All of these are the other foundations of this whorehouse of modern churchianity built on sinking sand and causing the destruction of mankind (self destruction).

Is there a reason or benefit to sharing the Gospel ? If not then why does He send those out to proclaim it ? Why record any of the Bible for that matter ? a reply to: zardust

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
Is there a reason or benefit to sharing the Gospel ? If not then why does He send those out to proclaim it ? Why record any of the Bible for that matter ? a reply to: zardust

To bring the good news that God has won. All have been chosen. Evangelists were used by the Roman Empire to tell the people that the war was over. Peace had come. Jesus was taking that feature of empire and flipping the script. Sending peacemakers saying that the war was already won. It was never being fought except in the mind of man. God was not ever counting our trespasses against us but always reconciling all things to himself.

The gospel is tge proclamation that we can do nothing to attain salvation. That the kingdom of heaven is already in us all. You are the word made flesh. You are the temple of God.

Behold I'm bringing good news/evangelion of great joy for all people. Not some who say a magic prayer. Or the lucky ones god doesn't hate. Not for the select few.

All

Ok then ,what was Jesus saying when he said you must be born again ? a reply to: zardust

a reply to: ToneDeaf

go to the baptist belief. I didnt go to wiki myself though.

Look as christians we are to respect the commandments yes but our salvation does not hinge on them these days. Why?because we can not ever keep them all perfectly.Remember if we break one we break all. It hinges on us being saved by grace. remember we are not saved by works alone. That aapplies to all actually.

originally posted by: zardust
a reply to: Logarock

Your last paragraph is patently false. The entire bible is filled with teaching of the salvation of all. It's the corrupted doctrine of eternal damnation that is nothing more than a facade for religious control. It's not your fault though. It's the utter lack of understanding from the theologians for the last 1600 years or so. Building a false building on a sinking foundation. The errors are repeated ad nauseum by carnal minded men who have not had the veil of death removed. The men who place themselves in seats of power akin to the Pharisees who placed themselves in the seat of Moses ( the accuser or the symbol for the accuser/law). Going to heaven, having a personal relationship with Jesus, the rapture, anything having to do with blood lines in the now, the end times of doom and gloom. All of these are the other foundations of this whorehouse of modern churchianity built on sinking sand and causing the destruction of mankind (self destruction).

Any time you want to open a thread on this issue I will be glad to contribute.

a reply to: Sahabi

Ishmael, first-born son of Abraham, has been marginalized and bastardized by Judaism and Christendom. A major reasoning is that Ishmael was born "out of wedlock" to Sarah's slave; Hagar.

Wrong. The command to be with one woman came after the exodus and with Moses. The reason why Ishmael was not given the inheritance was because he was conceived in the flesh, Issac was the child of faith. Abram and Sarai didn't trust God and His promise when Ishmael was conceived.

That's why.

Why the emphases on blood lines ?
^ talk about born of flesh, Lol
Blood-lines are out of FLESH.

Ishmael however was born of spirit and love, and that
is the point.
After the flood,
bloodlines were mute. Blood-lines means nothing to
God.
Yet why is it still an issue in judiasm ?

Jesus The Equalizer
Galatians 3:28
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free,
there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one

Besides, holding an innocent child responsible, for what
the parents did is scapegoating to say the least.
Coincidentally scapegoating is a 613 ritual.

Revelations warning :
The ones who have claimed to be the
light onto the world are :
God, also lucifer, and jews.
Take your pick


. . . . . . . .

originally posted by: ToneDeaf
Why the emphases on blood lines ?
^ talk about born of flesh, Lol
Blood-lines are out of FLESH.

Ishmael however was born of spirit and love, and that
is the point.
After the flood,
bloodlines were mute. Blood-lines means nothing to
God.
Yet why is it still an issue in judiasm ?

Its an issue only with the Jews? It has been and is an issue with a lot of folks.

a reply to: Logarock

I may soon since I'll have some time. Please forgive my tone. I get heated about this issue because of the damage it causes.

a reply to: zardust


Yes it has caused a good deal of problems over the years, its true. And usually the folks exposing it are arrogant unsympathetic sorts it would seem. John Calvin had a brand as you probably know and did some burning at the stake.

But taken as a whole the subject and its commentary are very interesting. It has been a problem that many have wrestled with from day one. Even one of Christ disciples asked Him "how is it that you have reveled yourself to us but not the rest of the world" and thats a paraphrase.

Several times in scripture there are suggestions made to folks that were known "before the foundations of the world". This idea has staggering implications to the whole of what is know as modern evangelism....and just about every thing we have come to understand traditionally.

a reply to: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Logarock
a reply to: yuppa
a reply to: Seede
a reply to: alwayslearning33

the2ofusr1, Logarock, yuppa, Seede, and alwayslearning33,... your replies revolve around the conclusion that Sarah's womb bore the birthright,... that the covenant, blessing, and inheritance was promised to the union between Abraham and Sarah.

Sarah was never promised children until after the birth of Ishmael.

Biblical chronology of the events differs from this stance. From Genesis 12 to 17, only Abraham was promised descendants, offspring, a son, and an heir of his own flesh and blood. Ishmael is born in Genesis 16, afterward God calls Abraham faithful and blameless is Genesis 17. It was not until Genesis 17:15 that Sarah was ever mentioned regarding Abraham's children.

• Genesis 11:26, Abram is introduced

• Genesis 11:29, Sarai is introduced

• Genesis 12:7, The Land of Canaan is promised to the "offspring" of Abram

• Genesis 14:14-17, The Land of Canaan is promised to the "offspring" of Abram. Abram's "offspring" are promised to be plentiful as the dust.

• Genesis 15:4, God promises "a son who is your own flesh and blood will be your heir."

• Genesis 15:5, Abram's "offspring" are promised to be as plentiful as the stars.

• Genesis 15:13-21, The Land of Canaan is promised to the "descendants" of Abram.

• Genesis 16:3-4, Sarai gives Hagar to Abram as a wife.

• Genesis 16:10, Hagar is promised innumerable descendants.

• Genesis 16:15-16, Through Abram and Hagar, the first son Ishmael is born.

• Genesis 17:1, God fully approves of everything up to this point, including Hagar and Ishmael, as God calls Abram "faithful and blameless".

• Genesis 17:1-27, God promises a covenant with Abraham's "descendants," a promise of numerous offspring who shall raise nations and rule as kings, and inherit the Land of Canaan. The covenant is an "everlasting covenant" (Genesis 17:13) based upon circumcision. Ishmael participates in the circumcision (Genesis 17:23-27) and is a descendant of Abraham, which directly includes him in the "everlasting covenant".

• Genesis 17:15-19, God promises Sarah a son, and to be the matriarch of nations and kings. This son, Isaac, is promised an "everlasting covenant."

• Genesis 21:1-7, Sarah gives birth to Isaac, and he is circumcised at 8 days old.

• Genesis 21:10, Sarah orders Abraham to expel Hagar and Ishmael, saying that Ismael "will never share in the inheritance with my son Isaac.”

• Genesis 21:12 God tells Abraham "through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned."

• Genesis 21:13, God calls Ishmael the "offspring" of Abraham, and promises to make him a nation.

• Genesis 21:14-21, Hagar and Ishmael are expelled.


According to this chronology, how can we say that Ishmael is not a benefactor in the inheritance of the Land of Canaan or the "everlasting covenant" of the circumcision? According to these verses, it was Sarah, not God, who sought to revoke Ishmael's birth-rite.

If I am incorrect, please point out so in the above Biblical chronology.