| Author |
 Topic  |
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
 Posted - 19 May 2004 : 08:46:15
|
Greetings,
I have a topic concerning Biblical Covenants. When the Abrahmic Covenant was passed on to Isaac and then on to Jacob, what effect did this passing have on the continuing seed of Abraham and Isaac thereafter? From what I can tell, the bloodline of Abraham would still be able to enjoy the promises given to their families even after the bloodline of Isaac and Jacob was added into the equation. If so, all of Abraham's offspring would still have Covenant promises that did not have any of the numerous "if" stipulations that are through out the Sinai Covenant. As I read the promises given at each step by YHWH, it seems He requires nothing in return from the recipients whereas when we come to the Sinai Covenant there are many 'if's' stipulated in the 'fine print'.
Peace,
Steve
"I am YHWH, and there is no other; apart from me there is no Elohim."
(Isa 45:5, Deut 4:35 1 King 8:60, Isa 45:18, Isa 45:14, Isa 46:9) |
Edited by - BatKol on 30 May 2004 11:21:34 |
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 30 May 2004 : 11:23:57
|
The Abrahamic Covenant
by Dr. Renald Showers
Preliminary Considerations
Two major systems of theology (Dispensational Theology and Covenant Theology) often differ from each other in their approaches to the major biblical covenants. These differences are significant, because they lead to contrasting views concerning the Millennium or future Kingdom of God foretold in the Bible. These differences are significant for another reason: they lead to contrasting views regarding the permanent existence of Israel as a nation and Israel’s permanent ownership of the promised land. Has God promised Israel permanent existence as a nation? Has He guaranteed Israel permanent ownership of the promised land and, therefore, the right to possess that land?
A number of the biblical covenants will determine the final outcome of these important issues. Therefore, the approach that a person takes to these covenants is most crucial. Because that is so, this and future articles will examine the biblical covenants which relate to these issues.
Major Issues Related to the Abrahamic Covenant
The Abrahamic Covenant involves three major issues. First, does it promise Israel permanent existence as a nation? Second, does it promise Israel permanent ownership of the promised land? Third, is the covenant conditional or unconditional in nature? If it is conditional, then the fulfillment of its promises is dependent upon the obedience of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their physical descendants, the people of Israel. If the Abrahamic Covenant is unconditional, then the fulfillment of its promises is dependent upon the faithfulness of God to His word, not upon human obedience.
The Parties of the Abrahamic Covenant
The Abrahamic Covenant was established by God with Abraham and his physical descendants, Isaac, Jacob, and the people of Israel. Genesis 15:18 states, "In the same day the LORD 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." In Genesis 17:4, 6-7 God said to Abraham, "As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee… and I will make thee exceedingly fruitful,… And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee."
The fact that God established the Abrahamic Covenant with the physical descendants of Abraham, the people of Israel, is made even more clear in several Genesis passages. In Genesis 17:19-21 God said to Abraham, "Sarah, thy wife, shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him. And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation. But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear unto thee." When Isaac became an adult God established the Abrahamic Covenant with him (Genesis 26:1-4). Later God established the covenant with Abraham’s physical grandson, Jacob (Genesis 28:10-14; 35:9-12; 48:3-4). The instructions which Joseph, Abraham’s great-grandson, gave at the end of his life clearly indicate that he understood the Abrahamic Covenant to have been made with Abraham and his physical descendants, the people of Israel (Genesis 50:24-25).
The Historical Establishment of the Abrahamic Covenant
Although some of the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant were given by God in Genesis 12:2-3 and 13:14-17, the covenant was not formally established until Genesis 15:7-21. Genesis 15:18 specifically states that "In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram." God formally established the covenant in the following manner: while Abraham slept a deep sleep, God (represented by a smoking oven and a flaming torch) moved between the pieces of animals which He had commanded Abraham to cut into two halves. Jeremiah 34:18 indicates that this procedure of passing between the halves of animals was a common way of establishing covenants in Old Testament times.
The Promises of the Abrahamic Covenant
God made three major kinds of promises in the Abrahamic Covenant. First, there were personal promises to Abraham. God promised to bless Abraham and to make him a blessing to others (Genesis 12:2), to make his name great (Genesis 12:2), to give him many physical descendants (Genesis 13:16; 15:4-5; 17:6), to make him the father of a multitude of nations (Genesis 17:4-5), to give him the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession (Genesis 13:14-15, 17; 15:7; 17:8), and to bless those who blessed Abraham and curse those who cursed him (Genesis 12:3).
Second, God made national promises concerning Israel. God promised to make a great nation of Abraham’s physical descendants (Genesis 12:2), to give the land of Canaan from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates River to Abraham’s physical descendants forever (Genesis 12:7; 13:14-15; 15:18-21; 17:8), and to give the Abrahamic Covenant to his descendants for an everlasting covenant (Genesis 17:7, 19). The Genesis 17:19 passage indicates that God intended the covenant to continue on through Isaac, Abraham’s biological son, and Isaac’s descendants—thus, through Abraham’s physical seed. The fact that God promised to give Abraham’s physical descendants the land of Canaan forever and the covenant for an everlasting covenant demands that Israel never perish as a people. Should Israel ever perish as a nation, it could not possess the land forever, and its Abrahamic Covenant could not be everlasting.
Third, God made universal promises which would affect all peoples of the world. God vowed that all families of the earth would be blessed through Abraham’s physical line of descent (Genesis 12:3; 22:18; 28:14). Later we shall see that great spiritual blessing has been made available to all peoples through Jesus Christ and the Jews.
In addition, Jesus’ statements in Matthew 25:31-46 (especially verses 40 and 45) seem to indicate that, when God promised to bless those who blessed Abraham and to curse those who cursed him, He intended this to be applicable, not only to Abraham, but also to Israel. In other words, God’s blessing or cursing of the peoples of the world would be determined to a large extent by their blessing or cursing of Israel. Jesus’ statements in Matthew 25 promise blessing to saved Gentiles who will aid persecuted Jews of the future Tribulation period and judgment to unsaved Gentiles who will not aid them.
The Abrahamic Covenant -- Part 2
by Dr. Renald E. Showers
Introduction
Thus far in our study of the Abrahamic Covenant we have considered the following matters: the major issues related to the Abrahamic Covenant, and the parties, historical establishment, and promises of that covenant. This present article will examine other matters related to it.
The Partial Historic Fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant
Parts of the Abrahamic Covenant have been fulfilled already. Personally, God did bless Abraham with great wealth and other blessings (Genesis 24:1, 35). God made him a blessing to others (for example, Abraham rescued Lot from captivity, Genesis 14). God has made Abraham’s name great (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have respected his name for centuries). God has given him many physical descendants and made him the father of a multitude of nations (the nation Israel has descended from him through Isaac and Jacob; some Arab nations have descended from him through Ishmael).
Nationally, God did make a great nation (Israel) of Abraham’s physical descendants. He did give the promised land to Israel after its exodus from Egypt (Deuteronomy 31:7-8; 32:45-52; Joshua 1:1-5, 10-11). In addition, Israel has never perished as a people.
Universally, God has made great blessing available to all families of the earth through Abraham’s physical line of descent. For example, Jesus Christ, who as a Jew was a physical descendant of Abraham, provided salvation for all mankind through His substitutionary death on the cross, burial, and bodily resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:1-4; 1 Timothy 2:5-6; Hebrews 2:9; 1 John 2:1-2). Thus, Jesus could declare that "salvation is of the Jews" (John 4:22). In addition, the Scriptures were produced primarily by Jewish prophets and apostles (Romans 3:1-2). Further, God has blessed those people and nations who have blessed Israel, but He has judged those who have abused Israel.
It should be noted that those parts of the Abrahamic Covenant which have been fulfilled thus far have been fulfilled literally (in accordance with the historical-grammatical method of interpreting the Bible, not in accordance with the allegorical or spiritualizing method). This would seem to imply that God intends every promise of that covenant to be fulfilled in that manner.
In addition, it should be noted that some parts of the Abrahamic Covenant have not been fulfilled totally. Since God promised to give the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession to Abraham’s physical descendants (Genesis 17:8) and to give the Abrahamic Covenant for an everlasting covenant to those same descendants (Genesis 17:7, 19), it cannot rightly be said that all the promises have been fulfilled totally until at least the end of world history.
The Controversy Concerning the Nature of the Abrahamic Covenant
In many respects the most crucial of the three major issues related to the Abrahamic Covenant is as follows: is that covenant conditional or unconditional in nature? This issue is most crucial because it determines the outcome of the other two major issues which were noted earlier.
If the Abrahamic Covenant is unconditional in nature (not dependent upon Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their physical descendants, the people of Israel, meeting conditions for the fulfillment of its promises), then every promise of that covenant must be fulfilled—including the promises that Israel would be given forever the land described in Genesis 15:18, and that the Abrahamic Covenant would be an everlasting covenant for Israel. This would mean that Israel would last forever as a people and that God has a future for that nation and its land. It would also mean that the biblical prophecies concerning the future of Israel and its land are to be interpreted literally and that the Dispensational-Premillennial view of those prophecies is correct.
By contrast, if the Abrahamic Covenant is conditional (dependent upon Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the people of Israel meeting conditions for the fulfillment of its promises), then not every promise of that covenant has to be fulfilled. Failure by Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the people of Israel to meet the conditions could nullify the fulfillment of the covenant’s promises. In light of such failure, Israel would not have to be given the land of Canaan forever, the Abrahamic Covenant would not have to be an everlasting covenant for Israel, the biblical prophecies concerning the future of Israel and its land could be interpreted allegorically or spiritualized, and the Dispensational-Premillennial view of those prophecies would be wrong.
Theologians disagree concerning whether the Abrahamic Covenant is conditional or unconditional. Dispensational theologians contend that the covenant is unconditional. Covenant theologians disagree with each other on this issue. Many Covenant theologians say that the Abrahamic Covenant is conditional, but other Covenant theologians say that it is unconditional, but that the national promises to Israel must be interpreted allegorically, not literally.
Those who believe that the Abrahamic Covenant is conditional point to certain biblical statements as their proof. For example, Genesis 17:1-2 declares that, when Abraham was 99 years old, God said to him, "walk before me, and be thou perfect. And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly." In Genesis 22:16-18 God said to Abraham, "By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD; for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son; that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the seashore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because thou hast obeyed my voice."
In Genesis 26:3-5 God said to Isaac, "Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I swore unto Abraham thy father; and I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws."
On the surface, these statements appear to indicate that the Abrahamic Covenant is conditional in nature. Before that conclusion is drawn, however, several significant things should be noted. The next article will begin to consider those things.
The Abrahamic Covenant -- Part 3
by Dr. Renald E. Showers
Introduction
In our previous article we noted that theologians disagree concerning whether the Abrahamic Covenant is conditional or unconditional. Dispensational theologians contend that the covenant is unconditional in nature (not dependent upon Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their physical descendants, the people of Israel, meeting conditions for the fulfillment of its promises). Many Covenant theologians claim that the Abrahamic Covenant is conditional (dependent upon Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the people of Israel meeting conditions for the fulfillment of its promises). Some Covenant theologians believe that the covenant is unconditional, but that the national promises to Israel must be interpreted allegorically, not literally. Those who claim that it is conditional point to statements in some biblical passages, such as Genesis 17:1-2; 22:16-18, and 26:3-5, as their proof.
On the surface, these statements appear to indicate that the Abrahamic Covenant is conditional in nature. But before that conclusion is drawn, several significant things should be noted.
The Significant Things To Be Noted
First, the biblical statements that appear to indicate that the Abrahamic Covenant is conditional in nature were made years after God formally established the covenant with Abraham in Genesis 15. When God formally established the covenant, He stated no conditions. This is significant, because, according to Galatians 3:15, once a covenant is established no conditions are added to it. Thus, to conclude that the statements of Genesis 17:1-2; 22:16-18, and 26:3-5 indicate that the Abrahamic Covenant is conditional is to say that God added conditions to the Abrahamic Covenant after it was established and thereby violated the principle of Galatians 3:15.
Second, when the covenant was formally established, only God passed between the halves of the animals. A deep sleep came upon Abraham so that he could not move between them (Genesis 15:8-18). This indicated that the fulfillment of the covenant’s promises was totally dependent upon God, not upon Abraham meeting certain conditions. The only time that both parties of a covenant would pass between the pieces of animals was when the fulfillment of the covenant was dependent upon both parties keeping commitments. Concerning the significance of God alone moving between the halves of the animals, George R. Berry wrote, "Here it is to be noted that it is a smoking furnace and a flaming torch, representing God, not Abraham, which passed between the pieces. Such an act, it would seem, should be shared by both parties, but in this case it is doubtless to be explained by the fact that the covenant is principally a promise by Jeh. He is one who binds Himself" ("Covenant," The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. James Orr [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1957], Volune II, p. 727).
Third, God formally established the Abrahamic Covenant in response to Abraham’s question, "Lord GOD, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it [the land]?" (Genesis 15:8). In the immediate context (v. 7) God had just reminded Abraham of the fact that He had brought him out of Ur of the Chaldees in order to give him the land of Canaan to possess it. In response to this reminder Abraham asked God for proof that he would fulfill His promise to give him the land. God consented to give such proof and formally established a solemn covenant with Abraham as that proof. The point is that the purpose for the formal establishment of the Abrahamic Covenant was that of assuring Abraham that God would keep His word. The total focus of the covenant was the faithfulness of God to His commitment. The focus had nothing to do with the faithfulness or obedience of Abraham or his physical descendants, the people of Israel. If the fulfillment of the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant depended in any way at all upon the faithfulness of anyone other than God, how could that covenant accomplish its intended purpose—confirming proof to Abraham that God would keep His word to give him the land of Canaan?
Fourth, the Abrahamic Covenant was still in effect even after the patriarchs of Israel had sinned several times. Although Abraham had sinned several times (Genesis 16:20) after the covenant had been established, God later confirmed the covenant with his son, Isaac (Genesis 26:1-4). In spite of Isaac’s sin after that confirmation (Genesis 26:6-11), God later confirmed the covenant with his son, Jacob (Genesis 28:13-15; 35:9-12; 48:3-4). Even though Jacob and his sons were guilty of various sins (Genesis 37:18-36; 38:12-26), Joseph regarded the covenant to be in effect at the end of his life and was convinced that it would continue to be so into the future (Genesis 50:24-26). Several generations after Joseph, when the people of Israel were enslaved in Egypt, God made it clear to Moses that the Abrahamic Covenant was still in effect (Exodus 2:24; 6:2-8).
Fifth, even after the nation of Israel had sinned in numerous ways over the course of several centuries, King David regarded the Abrahamic Covenant to be in effect with Israel in his day. In 1 Chronicles 16:15-18 David exhorted the Jews, "Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations, even of the covenant which he made with Abraham, and of his oath unto Isaac, and hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant, saying, Unto thee will I give the land of Canaan, the lot of your inheritance" (compare Psalm 105:8-11). Why would David exhort Jews of his day to be mindful of the Abrahamic Covenant if it were no longer in effect with them? Why would he exhort Jews to remember the covenant always, and why would he specifically call attention to the promise concerning Israel’s possession of the land if at any point in history that promise of the covenant could be annulled?
Sixth, Moses promised that, even though Israel would become idolatrous and evil and would be scattered from the land and suffer because of its sin, in the latter days it would have opportunity to return to God and be obedient because God would not fail Israel, nor destroy it, nor forget the Abrahamic Covenant which He swore to their fathers (Deuteronomy 4:25-31). Several things should be noted concerning this promise. First, it is the same people (literal Israel, the physical descendants of Abraham) who would depart from God and be scattered from the land of Canaan (v. 26) who would also have the opportunity to return to Him and be obedient in the latter days. This implies that the literal nation of Israel will still exist in the latter days and that God will have a program for that nation during that period of history. Second, the Abrahamic Covenant would still be in effect with the literal nation of Israel in the latter days in spite of its idolatry, evil, and traumatic history of dispersion and suffering. Surely that would not be true if the continuation of that covenant with Israel were dependent upon the faithfulness or obedience of that nation. Third, Moses made it clear (v. 31) that this promise in Deuteronomy 4 would continue to be in effect because of God’s faithfulness. Even though Israel would fail Him, He would not fail it. He would be faithful to His covenant commitment which He had sworn to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
The next article will consider more significant things that indicate that the Abrahamic Covenant is unconditional by nature.
The Abrahamic Covenant -- Part 4
by Dr. Renald Showers
Introduction
In our previous article we noted six significant things that indicate that the Abrahamic Covenant is unconditional by nature (not dependent upon Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their physical descendants, the people of Israel, meeting conditions for the fulfillment of its promises). This present article will consider additional significant things concerning the covenant’s unconditional nature.
Additional Significant Things To Be Noted
Seventh, even after Israel had compiled its sordid record of sin throughout all its centuries of Old Testament history, the Holy Spirit indicated that the Abrahamic Covenant was still in effect with that nation and that that covenant had something to do with Israel’s deliverance from its enemies (Luke 1:67-75). Shortly before Jesus’ birth the Holy Spirit prophesied through the Jewish priest, Zechariah, "Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people, and hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant, David; as he spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began: that we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us; to perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant; the oath which he sware to our father Abraham, that he would grant unto us, that we, being delivered out of the hand of our enemies, might serve him without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life."
Eighth, even though Israel committed the ultimate sin of rejecting the Son of God, Jesus, as its Messiah, the Apostle Peter still regarded the Jews (even the very Jews who had rejected Christ) as children of the Abrahamic Covenant. Peter said to a crowd in Jerusalem, "Ye men of Israel,… the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son, Jesus, whom ye delivered up and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go. But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you; and killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead, of which we are witnesses" (Acts 3:12-15).
Having thereby identified his audience, Peter said to them, "Ye are the sons of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. Unto you first God, having raised up his Son, Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities" (Acts 3:25-26).
Peter’s use of the present tense of the verb "are" in the expression "are the sons" indicates his conviction that these Jews were still sons of the covenant and that the covenant was still in effect with them. The only way the Abrahamic Covenant could still be in effect with the nation of Israel after its rejection of Christ was if the covenant were unconditional in nature. If that covenant had been dependent upon the obedience of Israel for the fulfillment of its promises, certainly it would have been nullified by Israel’s worst sin.
Ninth, the Epistle to the Hebrews indicates that God doubly emphasized the fact that the Abrahamic covenant was His unchangeable purpose and that, therefore, that covenant was still to be a source of encouragement to Jews who were living when the epistle was written. Hebrews 6:13-18 states, "For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he swore by himself, saying, Surely, blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee…. For men verily swear by the greater, and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife. Wherein God, willing more abundantly to show unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath, that by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us."
Two things should be noted concerning this statement. First, God wanted to impress Abraham and his descendants with the fact that He is absolutely determined to fulfill the Abrahamic Covenant and that fulfillment of the covenant is dependent totally upon God’s faithfulness to His Word. Second, the Abrahamic Covenant was still to be a source of encouragement to Jews who were living when Hebrews was written (during the 60s A.D.), in spite of the fact that Israel had rejected Christ several decades earlier.
Tenth, the Abrahamic Covenant included a universal promise of blessing to all families of the earth through Abraham’s seed (his physical descendants, Isaac, Jacob, and the people of Israel). The fulfillment of this promise involved the coming of the Redeemer and the provision of salvation for all peoples of the world. If the Abrahamic Covenant were conditional, then the coming of the Redeemer and the provision of salvation were dependent upon the obedience of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the people of Israel. Such an arrangement would have jeopardized the coming of Christ and the whole program of redemption. It also would have undermined the certainty of fulfillment of many Old Testament messianic prophecies. It is a fact, however, that the Redeemer did come and salvation was provided in spite of many centuries of disobedience by Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the people of Israel. That fact practically demands that the Abrahamic Covenant be unconditional in nature. And if it is unconditional in nature, then the fulfillment of all its promises (including the national promises to the literal nation of Israel) is dependent totally upon the faithfulness of God to His Word.
The next article will begin to consider the effects of the Abrahamic Covenant upon the nation of Israel.
The Effects of the Abrahamic Covenant Upon Israel
by Dr. Renald E. Showers
The Guarantee Of Israel’s Permanent Existence As A Nation
In our two previous articles we noted ten significant things that indicate that the Abrahamic Covenant is unconditional by nature. In light of its unconditional nature, the Abrahamic Covenant has at least a twofold effect upon the nation of Israel.
First, it guarantees Israel permanent existence as a nation. Since the Abrahamic Covenant is an unconditional covenant (totally dependent upon God’s faithfulness for fulfillment), and since God declared it to be an everlasting covenant with the people of Israel (Genesis 17:7, 19; 1 Chronicles 16:15-17; Psalm 105:8-10), the nation of Israel must exist forever. A covenant cannot be everlasting if one party of the covenant ceases to exist.
In Exodus 32:13 Moses appealed to the Abrahamic Covenant that God swore to keep, and to the fact that through that covenant God promised Israel ownership of the land of Canaan forever, as a reason for Israel not being consumed because of its sin. The only way that Israel could own the land forever is if it were to exist as a nation forever.
Several biblical passages promise that, in spite of Israel’s terrible sins, it never will be totally destroyed as a nation. In Deuteronomy 4:25-31 Moses declared to the people of Israel:
When thou shalt beget children, and children’s children, and ye shall have remained long in the land, and shall corrupt yourselves, and make a carved image, or the likeness of anything, and shall do evil in the sight of the LORD thy God, to provoke him to anger, I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that ye shall soon utterly perish from off the land whereunto ye go over the Jordan to possess it; ye shall not prolong your days upon it, but shall utterly be destroyed. And the LORD shall scatter you among the nations, and ye shall be left few in number among the nations, where the LORD shall lead you. And there ye shall serve gods, the work of men’s hands, wood and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell. But if from there thou shalt seek the LORD thy God, thou shalt find him, if thou seek him with all they heart and with all thy soul. When thou art in tribulation, and all these things are come upon thee, even in the latter days, if thou turn to the LORD thy God, and shalt be obedient unto his voice (For the LORD thy God is a merciful God), he will not forsake thee, neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers which he swore unto them.
At first glance verses 26 and 31 appear to contradict each other. Verse 26 states that Israel will be utterly destroyed, but verse 31 declares that God will not destroy Israel. It is important to note that the words translated destroy in these verses are two different words with two different meanings. Certainly the word destroyed in verse 26 cannot mean to put out of existence, for the next several verses indicate that these same people would be scattered among the nations, serve false gods, and have opportunity to seek the Lord after they had been destroyed. Non-existing people cannot perform such activities. The context requires that destroyed of verse 26 be understood as overthrown or removed from the land.
In verse 26 God warned that he would remove the nation of Israel from its land because of its terrible sins, but in verse 31 He promised that he would not destroy the nation of Israel in the sense of putting it out of existence. God will chasten the nation, but He will never annihilate it for its sins. Thus, verses 26 and 31 do not contradict each other.
It is significant that God linked His promise not to destroy the nation of Israel with His promises not to fail Israel or forget the Abrahamic Covenant which He swore to Israel’s ancestors (v. 31). The implication is that Israel’s permanent existence as a nation is guaranteed through the Abrahamic Covenant, because that covenant is totally dependent upon the faithfulness of God for its fulfillment.
God made a similar promise to the nation of Israel in Jeremiah 30:11: "For I am with thee, saith the LORD, to save thee; though I make a full end of all nations to which I have scattered thee, yet will I not make a full end of thee, but I will correct thee in measure, and will not leave thee altogether unpunished."
In Jeremiah 46:27-28 God declared, "But fear not, O my servant, Jacob, and be not dismayed, O Israel; for, behold, I will save thee from afar off, and thy seed from the land of their captivity; and Jacob shall return, and be in rest and at ease, and none shall make him afraid. Fear thou not, O Jacob, my servant, saith the LORD; for I am with thee; for I will make a full end of all the nations to which I have driven thee; but I will not make a full end of thee, but correct thee in measure; yet will I not leave thee wholly unpunished."
In Amos 9:8 God promised, "I will not utterly destroy the house of Jacob."
In Romans 11 the Apostle Paul taught that even in his day (after Israel’s rejection of Christ and while they were enemies of the gospel of Christ) the people of Israel were still beloved of God in accordance with His sovereign choice of them to be his special people (verses 1-2, 28; see also Deuteronomy 7:6; 14:2; 26:18-19) and for the sake of their ancestors to whom God swore the Abrahamic Covenant (v. 28; see also Deuteronomy 7:7-8). If God were to reject Israel or allow it to perish totally as a nation from the earth, He would thereby violate His own sovereign choice and betray the covenant commitment that He made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In light of this, Paul declared that God’s calling of Israel to be His special people is irrevocable (v. 29). The fact that that calling is irrevocable requires that Israel always exist.
Centuries before the Apostle Paul penned these significant words King David expressed the same truth with the same implication: "And what one nation in the earth is like thy people, even like Israel, whom God went to redeem for a people to himself, and to make him a name, and to do for you great things and terrible, for thy land, before thy people, which thou redeemedst to thee from Egypt, from the nation and their gods? For thou hast confirmed to thyself thy people Israel to be a people unto thee for ever: and thou, LORD, art become their God" (2 Samuel 7:23-24). The only way Israel could be a people unto God forever is if it would exist forever.
All of these biblical statements indicate that Israel is guaranteed permanent existence as a nation, and the Abrahamic Covenant is a major basis for that guarantee.
The next article will address the second effect that the Abrahamic Covenant has upon the nation of Israel.
The Effects of the Abrahamic Covenant Upon Israel, Part 2
by Dr. Renald Showers
The Guarantee of Israel’s Permanent Ownership of the Land
Our previous article dealt with the first of two effects that the unconditional Abrahamic Covenant has upon the nation of Israel—It guarantees Israel permanent existence as a nation. This present article will examine the second effect—The Abrahamic Covenant guarantees Israel permanent ownership of the land.
Since the Abrahamic Covenant is an unconditional covenant (not dependent upon Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their physical descendants, the people of Israel, meeting conditions for the fulfillment of the covenant’s promises), and since one of God’s promises in that covenant was to give the land of Canaan to Abraham and the people of Israel as a possession forever (Genesis 12:7; 13:14-15; 15:18-21; 17:8; 1 Chronicles 16:15-18; Psalm 105:8-11), Israel must hold ownership of Canaan through the end of history. This does not mean that Israel had to live in this land continuously in order to maintain ownership. Many landlords own property which they do not personally inhabit. Thus, ownership does not require personal inhabiting of property by its owner. Israel’s dispersions from Canaan because of sins have not ended its ownership of the land. Thus, Israel has rightful claim to the land both today and in the future.
In line with this rightful claim, many of the prophets foretold a total, permanent restoration of the people of Israel to the land which God promised to their fathers and them in the Abrahamic Covenant. For example, God said to the Prophet Isaiah, "Thy people also shall be all righteous: they shall inherit the land for ever, the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be glorified" (Isaiah 60:21).
Jeremiah foretold that in the future, when Jerusalem becomes "the throne of the LORD" and all nations are gathered to it, all the tribes of Israel will be reunited in the land which God gave to their fathers as an inheritance (Jeremiah 3:17-18). Again he declared that when David’s righteous Branch, the Messiah, reigns as King, God will regather the sons of Israel from the nations of the world and restore them to their own land which He gave to their fathers (Jeremiah 16:14-15; 23:5-8; 30:3). Further, through Jeremiah God promised that when He restores Israel to the land, he will make the people of Israel dwell in safety, will do them good, and "will plant them in this land assuredly" with all His heart and soul (Jeremiah 32:37, 41). The language of these promises indicates that God is fervently committed to this future restoration of Israel to its land and that this restoration is dependent upon God’s faithfulness to His Word expressed in the Abrahamic Covenant.
Ezekiel prophesied that God will restore the sons of Israel to their own land, the land which He swore to give to their forefathers. At that time God will make Israel one nation; no longer will it be divided into two kingdoms. Israel will have one king. The Israelites will live securely in their own land. No longer will they be a prey to other nations or have to endure their insults, for God will execute judgments upon all who scorn them. The restored Israelites and their descendants will live in their own land forever. God will not hide His face from them any longer. He will make an everlasting covenant with them, in spite of Israel’s evil and the fact that the nation does not deserve it. God will do it to vindicate the holiness of His name, to make Israel recognize their true God, and to impress all the other nations with Himself (Ezekiel 20:42, 44; 28:25-26; 34:13, 27-29; 36:22-32; 37:11-26; 39:25-29). These divinely stated purposes indicate once again that Israel’s future, permanent restoration to its own land is ultimately dependent upon God, not upon Israel’s obedience.
The Prophet Amos declared that God will restore the captivity of Israel. At that time the people of Israel will rebuild their ruined cities, plant vineyards and gardens, and enjoy the fruit of their labors. God declared, "And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them" (Amos 9:15).
Several things should be noted in light of these prophetic passages. The present restoration of Israel to its homeland that began in the middle of the 20th century is not the fulfillment of these prophecies. Two things indicate this. First, these prophecies foretell a total restoration of the Jews to their land from all the nations of the world. By contrast, the 20th century restoration has not been total. Those Jews who are still scattered among the nations of the world are considerably more numerous than those living in the state of Israel.
Second, these prophetic passages indicate that all the Jews who will return to their homeland in this future restoration will be righteous. They will dwell in complete safety. No one will insult or make them afraid. The Messiah, the righteous Branch of David, will reign over them as their King. They will recognize their true God. None of these things is a reality for the Jews in the present state of Israel. These conditions will not become reality for Israel until the Messiah will come in His Second Coming to reign as King. Thus, the restoration of Israel foretold in these prophetic passages will not take place until His Second Coming.
Another observation to be made on the basis of these prophetic passages is that the divine promises of these passages indicate that God regards the nation of Israel as the continuous owner of the land of Canaan in spite of its various dispersions from that land. They indicate this by God’s use of such expressions as their own land. God punished Israel for its sins by temporarily removing it more than once from its own land, but He will never punish it to the extent of abolishing its ownership of that land. To do so would be to violate His promise in the Abrahamic Covenant to give the land of Canaan to the fathers and people of Israel forever.
There is, then, an inseparable link between the Abrahamic Covenant and the prophetic passages that promise Israel’s total, permanent restoration to its homeland and future blessing. The covenant is the foundation or basis for these prophetic passages, and the passages are the natural outgrowth or result of the covenant. They foretell the ultimate, final fulfillment of the divine promise to Israel contained in the Abrahamic Covenant.
Some Important Conclusions
The twofold effect of the unconditional Abrahamic Covenant upon Israel prompts some important conclusions.
First, the fact that the Abrahamic Covenant guarantees Israel permanent existence as a nation prompts the conclusion that Jews will always be present in the world. No matter how ugly and powerful anti-Semitism may become, it will never be able to annihilate the Jews totally. This guarantee of the Abrahamic Covenant stands as an unyielding, immovable stone against which anti-Semitism will dash itself to bits in the future Tribulation period when it will make its last and greatest effort to destroy Israel.
Second, the fact that the Abrahamic Covenant guarantees Israel permanent ownership of the land of Canaan prompts the conclusion that Israel has the right to live in that land and exist there as an independent nation state at any time, even when world conditions do not permit it to do so. Even if future world events were to force Israel out of its homeland again in the future, the Abrahamic Covenant would forbid the conclusion that God had revoked the nation’s ownership of that land and its right to live there. God’s Abrahamic Covenant promises to that nation and its fathers are irrevocable (Romans 11:28-29).
"I am YHWH, and there is no other; apart from me there is no Elohim."
(Isa 45:5, Deut 4:35 1 King 8:60, Isa 45:18, Isa 45:14, Isa 46:9) |
 |
|
|
Robert-James
Advanced Member
uSA
353 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jul 2004 : 20:56:06
|
The Most High never entered into covenant with "Jew's." The descendants of king David own Yerusalem...the dirt. The contract is recorded in Scripture. Paid for in real money. General Allenby delivered Yerusalem from Turkish
dominion in 1917. The Jewish encyclopedia states that modern jew's, such as Rothschild, are Edomite's. One final delusion is covering the worldly.
On another note about covenants: covenant is an agreement-contract between two parties {or more}. We choose to enter into, or not, of a covenant. Choice is imperative.
If, as sone state, there is "no free will", then choice to enter into contract-covenant is negated.
Free will is an imperative for a contract to become real.
Now, The Most High did state that one {two} covenant is unconditional, which really precludes agreement by the other party. But, the rest of the covenant's are conditional. Conditioned upon one's free will to agree with the party of the First part.
Then again, new Yerusalem has absolutely nothing to do with dirt and sand in Palestine.
Psalms 82 states that there are many elohim. |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 02 Jul 2004 : 08:40:20
|
Robert-James said: On another note about covenants: covenant is an agreement-contract between two parties {or more}. We choose to enter into, or not, of a covenant. Choice is imperative.
Steve: Not the Abrahamic Covenant. Abram did not pass through the animals cut for the covenant agreement.
Genesis 15:17-21 17It came to pass that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold, a smoking furnace, and a flaming torch passed between these pieces. 18In that day Yahweh made a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your seed I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates: 19the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, 20the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, 21the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girga****es, and the Jebusites.”
I see that you did mention this as I read down in your post but I will address this part:
Robert-James: But, the rest of the covenant's are conditional.
Steve: Yes, and only the peoplehood of Israel who crossed the red sea are obligated to it. Them and their seed thereafter. The descendants of Abraham, who is the father of 'many Goyim', are not obligated to it. Never were. This is what Paul told the non-Israelite Gauls when they wanted Torah. Either way, YHWH does the picking and choosing ultimately as He is the master script writer in all matters.
Robert-James: Psalms 82 states that there are many elohim.
Steve: Yes, they were appointed judges who were supposed to decide matters according to Torah. This they did not do from the get start. YHWH dismantled them as He saw fit.
p.s. - There are some sects of Jews who will say that Rothschild and the like are not really Jews. They judge by observance to the extent that if you are from a family who has been non-observant for three generations you are considered a stranger and must convert. Regardless of race. Similarly, the Israelites cannot be considered a race but rather a peoplehood united by a Covenant. The Tanakh gives detailed rules for one to become a "ger" convert.
"...Seven times will pass by for you until you acknowledge that the Most High is sovereign over the kingdoms of men and gives them to anyone He wishes."
Daniel 4:25c
|
Edited by - BatKol on 02 Jul 2004 10:55:52 |
|
|
|
Robert-James
Advanced Member
uSA
353 Posts |
Posted - 02 Jul 2004 : 17:24:16
|
Well praise Yahuweh! We agree.
It is interesting to the extreme that El Elyon made that one covenant unconditional. Which is where 'free will' is redundant. But, to make Life interesting, stimulating, challenging here and now, condition's are stipulated in the newer covenants.
Many of us consider the Abrahamic covenant to be 4,000 year's till fulfillment, not 400. The great horror that fell upon Abram was seeing the vast amount of good-evil that must pass over and through the Children of the covenant.
The Hale-Bopp comet visited a few year's ago. The last time it visited was in Abram's day. Maybe just a 'heavenly' reminder? I enjoy thinking so.
Also scripture states that the covenant to David and his offspring are conditioned upon obedience, yet unconditional overall. Am sure you know Sol-Om-On was not the promised son...who would build the "temple". Yahushuah never claimed to be David's son either. Until the book of Revelations of Yahushuah messiah, as recorded by John. But who declare's {ponders} his generation? {seedline}
For year's now I have been trying to rectify race and grace. It's like the devil said, "pick one'. Whereas the two will be rectified. Ah, when the capstone set's!!! |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 02 Jul 2004 : 20:56:50
|
Robert-James said: Well praise Yahuweh! We agree.
Steve: I am marking my calander and declaring a Webb family holiday!!
Robert-James said: It is interesting to the extreme that El Elyon made that one covenant unconditional.
Steve: Enter Yoseph and Ephriam and Menasseh. The adopted sons mothered by an Egyptian priest's daughter. Yoseph was to be the "melo ha Goyim".... indeed.
Robert-James: Which is where 'free will' is redundant. But, to make Life interesting, stimulating, challenging here and now, condition's are stipulated in the newer covenants.
Steve: While never negating what was promised henceforth.
Robert-James: Many of us consider the Abrahamic covenant to be 4,000 year's till fulfillment, not 400. The great horror that fell upon Abram was seeing the vast amount of good-evil that must pass over and through the Children of the covenant.
Steve: His ways are not our way, for sure!
Robert-James: For year's now I have been trying to rectify race and grace. It's like the devil said, "pick one'. Whereas the two will be rectified. Ah, when the capstone set's!!!
Steve: Let me help here. It's available to all (with a very few stipulations). Requirements: Confess your God is my God, and your ways are my ways. Think Ruth.
Peace to you Robert-James,
Steve
"...Seven times will pass by for you until you acknowledge that the Most High is sovereign over the kingdoms of men and gives them to anyone He wishes."
Daniel 4:25c
|
|
|
|
Robert-James
Advanced Member
uSA
353 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jul 2004 : 17:23:17
|
Hello Brother,
boy I could say much about Ruth, the Moabitess. What is a Floridian, as per race? Don't know, do we.
Old "Neb" finally did have to choose, woop's, did I say choose? that Yahuweh Reign's. Yes, he finally chose to acknowledge Truth.
And, {not but] we could post many scripture references to show Yahuweh does not promote evil. So who does? Elohim...has the ability to create.
Man, when 'free will' strikes you, as lightening crossing the sky, you will be blown from your shoe's, and stand, stand, on Holy ground. Without shoe's on, as per Moses and Yahushuah, {Joshua].
As you well know, God-god is so generic.
Father YHWH stated that all must marry within their own tribe's, forget about another race of entities. That was out of the equation. With all the work being done in Iceland regarding DNA, during the next age, His priests will have the ability to sort things out, and bring Order...to the New World.
Your comment on "let me help"...if your God is my God, then we agree, we marry within our race. So simple.
Then again, in the resurrection, they neither marry nor are given in marriage.
A nation born on a day, July Fourth, 1776. Now, if 'it' would only come out of the matrix!!! |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jul 2004 : 12:08:08
|
Robert-James said: Father YHWH stated that all must marry within their own tribe's, forget about another race of entities. That was out of the equation.
Steve: Really? What about Yoseph and the Egyptian priests' wife? Had to happen for prophecies' sake. What about Moses, you know, the guy who the Torah was given to? Why did he not know about your statement above? One of his wives was Cushiite. What do we know of the Cushiites? Jeremiah 13:23 records a prophecy asking, "Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard its spots?". Cush means "black" or "burnt face" and these nations populated Africa, which is still where you will find Ethiopia. In other words, Moses married a black woman. Aaron and Miriam didn't like the Cushiite. Remember what YHWH did to Miriam? The problem with foreign wives is that they are likely to draw Israelites away from YHWH and into strange worship. And they did. Solomon, point in case. However, other races can join the peoplehood of Israel like Ruth did (the prohibition against Moabites joining Israel applies only to males, as the Hebrew shows). They must drop their previous customs and confess, "My God is your God, your people are my people, and my ways are your ways." BTW, there were mixed multitudes present when the Sinai Covenant was offered. You don't think that some of them said "I do" and became Israelites? The Israelites are a people not a race and Israelite men had the privilidge of being able to keep foreign wives for themselves when they conqured other peoples.
As you well know, there is no commandment that says you must marry one of another race either. So I did not. Not my 'cup of tea'.
Robert-James: With all the work being done in Iceland regarding DNA, during the next age, His priests will have the ability to sort things out, and bring Order...to the New World.
Steve: With all of the work being done with DNA, YHWH can have men of any race created in a lab. If YHWH can create one of Abraham's seed from a stone, what is stopping Him from creating from a test tube if He wills it?
Robert-James: Your comment on "let me help"...if your God is my God, then we agree, we marry within our race. So simple.
Steve: Moses proves you wrong on this. YHWH proved you wrong on this when he punished Miriam for harrasing the Cushiite. Yoseph married out of his 'tribe' as well. These statement in no way stand agaisnt racial pride for any being. I am very proud of my heritage. I think everyone should be proud of their heritage, but not at the expense of someone else. The lesson about what happened to Miriam concerning her attitude should be heeded.
Robert-James: Then again, in the resurrection, they neither marry nor are given in marriage.
Steve: Yeah. When one is resurrected from identification with the mind/body clay pot there is no mother, no father, no male or female, no beginning or end, no slave or free. This realization cannot be earned, it's a gracious gift from YHWH. The Magi who came from the East to pay homage to Christ knew all about this.
Robert-James: A nation born on a day, July Fourth, 1776. Now, if 'it' would only come out of the matrix!!!
Steve: The matrix is anything other than the "non-state" Paul speaks of wherein there is no male or female, no slave or free, no beginning or end, no mother or father.
"Elohim is not a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent" Numbers 23:19a |
Edited by - BatKol on 05 Jul 2004 12:17:17 |
|
|
|
Linc
Advanced Member
Canada
111 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jul 2004 : 13:43:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by BatKol
What about Yoseph and the Egyptian priests' wife?
Joseph married a Semite of the line of Arphaxad (a Hebrew). At the time a lot of non-Israelite Hebrews ruled the Nile Delta, closely blood-related to the Israelites, which is why Moses and Joseph were so easily mistaken for Egyptians. Racially they were the same.quote:
What about Moses, you know, the guy who the Torah was given to? Why did he not know about your statement above? One of his wives was Cushiite.
Mariam called Zipporah, the Midianite, a Cushi. This was an insult analogous to "nigger" today. Reason being, the white, Semitic, Abrahamic Midianites lived in an area ruled by black tribes who later migrated to the Hindu Kush. This area, known as "Cush" was south-east of Babylon and did not refer to Ethiopia at all, where Moses never went.
http://reactor-core.org/religion/moses-ethiopian.htmlquote:
However, other races can join the peoplehood of Israel like Ruth did
No. Ruth was an Israelite of the tribe of Reuben. At the time she married into the tribe of Judah, her home, the "plains of Moab", had not had any Moabites in them for hundreds of years.
http://reactor-core.org/religion/ruth-rahab.html quote:
BTW, there were mixed multitudes present when the Sinai Covenant was offered.
These mixed were Semitic Hebrew Egyptians, who were explicitly allowed into the congregation of Israel in the third generation, like the Edomites of that time.quote:
The Israelites are a people not a race and Israelite men had the privilidge of being able to keep foreign wives for themselves when they conqured other peoples.
Only if they were "white", a pure-born descendant of Shem. |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jul 2004 : 18:07:53
|
Linc said: Joseph married a Semite of the line of Arphaxad (a Hebrew).
Steve: How are you making the connection between Asenath and Arphaxad?
Just because Moses and Joseph could be mistaken as Egyptians does not mean they were of the same racial stock. I know some mixed race folk who can pass for Anglos. Even some modern day Brahmins in India look white.
Linc said: Mariam called Zipporah, the Midianite, a Cushi. This was an insult analogous to "nigger" today.
Steve: Yes. Agreed. Add to that Cush meaning "Black".
Linc said: Reason being, the white, Semitic, Abrahamic Midianites lived in an area ruled by black tribes who later migrated to the Hindu Kush.
Steve: I would not go so far as to say that your explaination over-rides the plain fact that a racial slur was used towords Zipporah. If she was of the same racial stock why Mariam would not be using such a slur?
Linc: No. Ruth was an Israelite of the tribe of Reuben.
Steve: Ruth and Orpan were not Israelites. Orpan went back to her 'people' and her 'gods' when her husband died. Ruth, however, wanted to continue on with Naomi's people: "Your people are now my people". She is joining the peoplehood of Israel, just like some one of another race or culture can drop their former citizenship and customs and become new citizens of a different nation. Happens every day, especially in this country... Also, notice Ruth also waits to glean corn in the field after the Israelites' are done reaping.
Linc: At the time she married into the tribe of Judah, her home, the "plains of Moab", had not had any Moabites in them for hundreds of years.
Steve: Notice the Orphan went back to 'other gods' and her own people. This does not give the impression that she was an Israelite..Clearly Moabites were different people with different gods
just as the Scriptures say.
Linc: These mixed were Semitic Hebrew Egyptians, who were explicitly allowed into the congregation of Israel in the third generation, like the Edomites of that time.
Steve: How can you prove the mixed multitudes were Hebrew? I assert the reason for the three generation wait is because these people were not of the same racial stock. Israel had a problem with foreigners drawing them into strange worship. This three year wait gave time for assimilation thus lessoning the chance that Israelites might be drawn away, which, as you know was a huge problem for them.
Linc: (Commenting on taking foreign wives from war): Only if they were "white", a pure-born descendant of Shem.
Steve: I can agree that Israel did go to war against those of white racial stock. The Hittites and the Assyrians can be connected to white racial stock. Germany even has a town named after an Assyrian Princess. The Canaanite Phoenicians have ties to England as well.
Philistines were known as the "sea people". As you know, white folk were not brick making slaves in Egypt. The paintings from this era show as much. The Bible consistantly portrays these peoples as enemies and captors of the Israelites. I find this rectified by Joseph's children coming into the covenant and the prophecy of him becoming the "melo ha goyim".
I am very familiar with Xtian Identity and Comperet's work.
"Elohim is not a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent" Numbers 23:19a |
|
|
|
Robert-James
Advanced Member
uSA
353 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jul 2004 : 20:51:29
|
Greetings folks,
the best defination of 'ancient' Phoenician's is that: Phoenicians are racially Hebrew...culturally Cainainite. {Though this is not an absolute, it will help some sort thing's out}. And even today, this will hold true. Seem's many DNA hebrew's want to devolve from their spiritual birthright, as sons of Elohim, and wallow in the commerce of Cain. Mammon vs. YHWH. Yahushuah came to be a fisher of men. Catch the fish and deliver them from the sea of commerce. For, all of us, will serve YHWH OR mammon.
Leviathon is COMMERCE, a great "whale" who swallowed Jonah, who was told to preach repentance from worshipping commerce. Ninevah was from Asshur's bloodline, Seth's seed. But Asshur did not get the blessings of Firstborn, as Asshur chose commerce. Though the Great sign is that the Assurahite's are capable of repenting from serving mammon...because they are of the choosen seed. Even the "beasts" repented with Jonah's preaching. Think a cow repented? Think a donkey covered himself in sackcloth? {giggle}
I agree with the ancient Celtic Druid's in that it takes a man, already annointed, twenty year's of study in many fields to finally discern the Truth. {General rule, not all encompassing for all}
BatKol, ever try refute Compreret's explaination of Ruth-Moabite? It can not logically be done...though you may agree to disagree. Then again, I took Logic 101 in college, and know the rules.
May each of us work out our own salvation.
Some place in time, We will all submit to there being but One Voice.
p.s. Phoenician's {Tyre-Sidon prophetically} were kissin cousin's of Israel, with a much more relaxed moral structure. Tyre-Sidon set up the "City of London", where the statue's of Gog and Magog set, even today. Ah...the capital city of lawyer's and banker's.
Now what saith the prophets to Tyre-Sidon?
1 John2:20...but ye have an unction from the set-apart One, and ye know all things. {yes, but try and remember}
I have not written to you because ye know not the Truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the Truth. Who is a liar? He who denieth that Yahushuah is The Messiah, he is anti-messiah, that denieth the Father and Son. {proverb's 30:4} {psalms 110:1}
YHWH calles His Son{s} out of Egypt, or today...Babylon.
The latest evidence on ancient Troy is that Troy {think modern movie Troy} was around 950 b.c. It will fit much more conviently in scripture history than Troy and it's destruction back in the 1500's b.c.
To your tent's oh Israel.
|
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jul 2004 : 21:38:56
|
Robert-James said: BatKol, ever try refute Compreret's explaination of Ruth-Moabite? It can not logically be done...though you may agree to disagree. Then again, I took Logic 101 in college, and know the rules.
Steve: So you know the rules, huh? What 'logic' rule were you following when you painted the incorrect assertion into my statement that would assume Noah had three sons of a different race? I never implied such at thing..Then, to add more comedic value, you chastised me for the logic!!... Did they teach you that in college? Heck, on another issue you claimed "point blank sir: Allan Watts published 'screw' magazine, but then seven minutes later changed that statement to Goldstein published "screw' magazine. You missed that one even at point blank. How do you think this makes you look?
I have already offered a few rebuttals to Comperet's Ruth-Moabite theory:
Ruth and Orpan were not Israelites. Orpah went back to her 'people' and her 'gods' when her husband died. If she was an Israelite, she would not be going 'back to her own people and her own gods' in Moab. Ruth, however, wanted to continue on with Naomi's and her Israelite culture: "Your people are now my people, your ways are now my ways, etc". Clearly, she is making it known that she wants to join the peoplehood of Israel and is willing to renounce her previous citizenship. Someone of another race or culture can drop their former citizenship and customs and become new citizens of a different nation. Happens every day, especially in this country... Also, notice Ruth also waits to glean corn in the field after the servants are done reaping. Notice again that the servants who were harvesting the patch of land she was gleaning from instructed not to 'molest' Ruth. If Ruth was an Israelite this would not have been a problem.
On another note. Clearly, Israel was not in control of Moab at that point. Orpah was going back to her own people and her own gods. It is written that Joshua and the Israelites did all that was instructed by Moses. Part of that was to destroy all the alters of the foreign gods. Scripture says that was achieved. If this directive was carried out like the Scriptures say it was then Orpah would not have 'her own gods' to go back to. As an Israelite, she would have worshiped only One God, YHWH.... The story of Ruth and Orpah show a distinction between them and the Israelites. Even down to Ruth's behaviour in gleaning the fields and the instruction to the servants not to harrass her. Obviously she was an outsider who married into the tribe. Her desire was to be joined to Israel and she made this clear by not going back to her own people and her own gods like Orpah did.
Instead Ruth clearly pronounced that she wanted Naomi's people to be her people. She would not have needed to make this statement if she was an Israelite.
I notice you have not given a rebutal to the black folk and the 'breath of life' conversation you agreed to have. I'd like to see what you will come up with .... or have I persuaded you in my direction on this matter? (yeah, right!)
"Elohim is not a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent" Numbers 23:19a |
|
|
|
Linc
Advanced Member
Canada
111 Posts |
Posted - 07 Jul 2004 : 01:56:20
|
quote:
I have already offered a few rebuttals to Comperet's Ruth-Moabite theory:
Your rebuttals hold no water because they were already addressed. Pity you didn't read the article I linked, which not only disposes of your objections, but irrefutably proves who Ruth was. As a bonus, the article proves that Rahab was not an ancestress of Jesus.
Robert-James, the Moses-Ethopian article was by Pastor Comparet, but the Ruth-Rahab article is by R.K. Phillips. I highly recommend it.
http://reactor-core.org/religion/ruth-rahab.html |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 07 Jul 2004 : 06:47:12
|
Linc said: Your rebuttals hold no water because they were already addressed
Steve: Nonsense. I did read the article and refuted it. You have yet to refute my last rebutal. Why don't you deal with me personally instead of posting the work of someone else? If Ruth and Orpah were Israelites the story would be much different. The centerpiece to the story is Ruth's refusal to go back to her Moabite people who's "ways were not Naomi's ways, who's customs were not Naomi's cutoms, etc." Instead Ruth makes an open confession that she is renouncing her attachment to the Moabites and that Naomi's "people shall now be my people"....If the Israelites were in control of Moab at that time, then Orpah would have had no foreign gods and or people to go back to because the Israelites would have destroyed them. These other non-Israelite peoples and customs were still around when the era of the kings came as you can clearly see some kings adopting the customs of the surrounding foreigners. That these other non-Israelite people were still around during the era of the judges is obvious because the Israelites wanted a king LIKE THE GOYIM in 1 Samuel 8! Obviously some 'enemies' still existed next door... BTW, if you read the gender of the Hebrew word Moabite, you will see that this prohibition for no Moabites into the peoplehood of Israel is for the males. Why? Because the birthright passes on through the male. Forget the 'hornet argument' from the essay... Non-Israelite foreign wives were regularly taken from the defeated peoples.
I like this bit from your article: "Finally, let us turn to Ezra (Chapters 9 & 10) and to Nehemiah 9:1-3. In these chapters we find that those of God's People who returned from the Babylonian captivity, to rebuild Jerusalem, bewailed the fact that some of them had married women of the Canaanites, the Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusites, Ammonites, AND Moabites, Egyptians and Amorites."
Earlier you had said Egyptians were Hebrews. If so, then why the marriage problem above? We know the Hittites were indo-European, but not suitable for Israelite breeding? Think about it. The Phonecians were Canaanites, and we know they were white sea peoples who had impressive cities and heavy trading. We know the Assyrians were white...just look at a picture of the god they worshiped.
I used to be a card carrying adherent to the xtian identity ideology until I realized that the Egytian, Hittite, Assyrian and Scythian enemies and oppressors of the people called "Israelites" were of my own race! We don't find any paintings of brick laying slaves in Egypt who were white. No problem though: enter the adoption of Ephriam and Menasseh, the prophecy of Yoseph being the 'melo ha goyim', not to mention the birthright.
We can kindly agree to disagree no problem. I have been studying this exact issue for quite some time and have watched and participated in some debates between learned xtian identity types and white nationalists. Archeology and DNA is contra to the xtian identity position.
"Mine house shall be a house of prayer for ALL people"
p.s - Look at the Hebrew word and definition for mixed 06148 when studying the 'mixed multitude'. Pronounced Ayreb. |
Edited by - BatKol on 07 Jul 2004 12:44:54 |
|
|
|
Linc
Advanced Member
Canada
111 Posts |
Posted - 07 Jul 2004 : 13:22:10
|
Your "refutation" merely consisted of ignoring the contents of the article you say you read.quote:
If Ruth and Orpah were Israelites the story would be much different. The centerpiece to the story is Ruth's refusal to go back to her Moabite people who's "ways were not Naomi's ways, who's customs were not Naomi's cutoms, etc."
The Scriptures say nothing of the sort. You invented that quote.quote:
Instead Ruth makes an open confession that she is renouncing her attachment to the Moabites and that Naomi's "people shall now be my people"
The Israelite tribes had their own land and territory. They were distinct "peoples", in the original Hebrew sense of the word. That too is covered in the article. It in no way implies Ruth was a Moabite.quote:
....If the Israelites were in control of Moab at that time, then Orpah would have had no foreign gods and or people to go back to because the Israelites would have destroyed them.
Yet again you ignore the evidence in the original Hebrew itself, as pointed out by the article; Ruth and Orpah were worshippers of YHWH; Orpah went back to her (elected) judges/rulers, while Ruth went to live under the authority of the judges and rulers of Judah, whom she did not elect.quote:
Non-Israelite foreign wives were regularly taken from the defeated peoples.
Semitic wives, untainted by the cursed blood of Canaan, certainly.quote:
I like this bit from your article: "Finally, let us turn to Ezra (Chapters 9 & 10) and to Nehemiah 9:1-3. In these chapters we find that those of God's People who returned from the Babylonian captivity, to rebuild Jerusalem, bewailed the fact that some of them had married women of the Canaanites, the Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusites, Ammonites, AND Moabites, Egyptians and Amorites."
Earlier you had said Egyptians were Hebrews. If so, then why the marriage problem above?
Because the Egyptians of the time of Joseph and Moses were Hebrews who had recently invaded northern Egypt. Shortly before the Exodus they were conquered by the Hamitic Egyptians to the south, hence the pharaoh arose who "knew not Joseph". The Egyptians of Ezras time were Hamitic, not Semitic.quote:
The Phonecians were Canaanites, and we know they were white sea
We know no such thing. See Steven Collins work for the real skinny on the "Phoenicians". Most Phoenicians were actually Israelites.quote:
We know the Assyrians were white...just look at a picture of the god they worshiped.
Ezra never condemned marriage to the Assyrians. Assyrians from Asshur are also white Semites, and legitimate mates for Israelites. That is why it is ok for an Israelite man to take a German woman to wife.quote:
I used to be a card carrying adherent to the xtian identity ideology until I realized that the Egytian, Hittite, Assyrian and Scythian enemies and oppressors of the people called "Israelites" were of my own race!
I think you are a troublemaking Jew. The way you claim to rebut an article, while actually misrepresenting both what the Bible says, and what the article says, was giving you away. But now you confirmed it; out of your own mouth you reveal you are a mamzer Egyptian/Hittite with some small amount of Semitic blood in you.
The Scythians oppressed the Israelites? My oh my. The Scythians WERE the Israelites. Where do you get this historical garbage from? As for the Hittites, look at a Sioux Indian and you'll have an idea of how "white" they were. Todays Sioux are direct descendants of the Hittites.quote:
Archeology and DNA is contra to the xtian identity position.
There are many Christian Identity positions. Archaelogy and DNA always support the identity of modern day Israel, and confirm the Bible in every detail. |
Edited by - Linc on 07 Jul 2004 13:35:24 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 07 Jul 2004 : 15:54:07
|
Linc: Your "refutation" merely consisted of ignoring the contents of the article you say you read.
Steve: Not ignoring it, just not agreeing with it.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Ruth and Orpah were Israelites the story would be much different. The centerpiece to the story is Ruth's refusal to go back to her Moabite people who's "ways were not Naomi's ways, who's customs were not Naomi's cutoms, etc."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linc: The Scriptures say nothing of the sort. You invented that quote.
Steve: I was not making a direct quote. This statement is not wrong seeing as Ruth was a Moabitess.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instead Ruth makes an open confession that she is renouncing her attachment to the Moabites and that Naomi's "people shall now be my people"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linc: The Israelite tribes had their own land and territory. They were distinct "peoples", in the original Hebrew sense of the word. That too is covered in the article. It in no way implies Ruth was a Moabite.
Steve: It's the Scriptures that REPEATEDLY say Ruth was a Moabitess. Can you show me once where she is called an Israelite? And you speak of inventions?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
....If the Israelites were in control of Moab at that time, then Orpah would have had no foreign gods and or people to go back to because the Israelites would have destroyed them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linc: Yet again you ignore the evidence in the original Hebrew itself, as pointed out by the article; Ruth and Orpah were worshippers of YHWH;
Steve: I have read the article but I do not give it the same authority you do. The article claims that Ruth was an Israelite worshiper of YHWH because she used the name YHWH in a sentence. That's nonsense...Just because Ruth used the word YHWH does not mean she was an Israelite. Balaam said the word YHWH too, but that does not make him an Israelite? If Ruth was an Israelite, the Bible would have called her an Israelite instead of Moabitess. Ruth was singled out as a Moabitess even by the field workers. They were even told not to bother her. Your article does not address these details.
Linc: Orpah went back to her (elected) judges/rulers, while Ruth went to live under the authority of the judges and rulers of Judah, whom she did not elect.
Steve: You are correct in putting ( ) around (elected). That is not what the Scriptures say about these gods. You are speculating. Have you asked yourself why the Scriptures never call Ruth an Israelite?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Israelite foreign wives were regularly taken from the defeated peoples.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linc: Semitic wives, untainted by the cursed blood of Canaan, certainly.
Steve:
Judges 3:
5 And the children of Israel dwelt among the Canaanites, Hittites, and Amorites, and Perizzites, and Hivites, and Jebusites:
6 And they took their daughters to be their wives, and gave their daughters to their sons, and served their gods.
Here we have the Israelites shacking up with the enemies. They failed the test YHWH put to them, got put into bondage under the Moabites, then still did not learn the lesson! The Israelites have a consistant history for not following YHWH's commands.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I like this bit from your article: "Finally, let us turn to Ezra (Chapters 9 & 10) and to Nehemiah 9:1-3. In these chapters we find that those of God's People who returned from the Babylonian captivity, to rebuild Jerusalem, bewailed the fact that some of them had married women of the Canaanites, the Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusites, Ammonites, AND Moabites, Egyptians and Amorites."
Earlier you had said Egyptians were Hebrews. If so, then why the marriage problem above?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linc: Because the Egyptians of the time of Joseph and Moses were Hebrews who had recently invaded northern Egypt. Shortly before the Exodus they were conquered by the Hamitic Egyptians to the south, hence the pharaoh arose who "knew not Joseph". The Egyptians of Ezras time were Hamitic, not Semitic.
Steve: As you well know there are conflicting views on this. Just because the Pharoah "knew not Joseph" does not mean he was not white.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Phonecians were Canaanites, and we know they were white sea
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linc: We know no such thing. See Steven Collins work for the real skinny on the "Phoenicians". Most Phoenicians were actually Israelites.
Steve: Why not Waddell's "Phoenician origins of the Brits and the Scots"?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We know the Assyrians were white...just look at a picture of the god they worshiped.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linc: Ezra never condemned marriage to the Assyrians. Assyrians from Asshur are also white Semites, and legitimate mates for Israelites. That is why it is ok for an Israelite man to take a German woman to wife.
Steve: That all Israelites are white is your speculation. Of course you will disagree but there are white racialists who seriously disagree with your assertions. I do enjoy reading the debates between the two camps.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I used to be a card carrying adherent to the xtian identity ideology until I realized that the Egytian, Hittite, Assyrian and Scythian enemies and oppressors of the people called "Israelites" were of my own race!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linc: I think you are a troublemaking Jew. The way you claim to rebut an article, while actually misrepresenting both what the Bible says, and what the article says, was giving you away. But now you confirmed it; out of your own mouth you reveal you are a mamzer Egyptian/Hittite with some small amount of Semitic blood in you.
Steve: LOL. Ah, you are a seer! and a bad one at that.. Out of your own mouth you have just revealed to a good many people who watch this list (my wife included) that you don't know what the heck you are talking about. I love it. Your statement is incorrect so why should I take anything else you say at face value? Your jumping to wrong conclusions about me gives you away.
Linc: The Scythians WERE the Israelites. Where do you get this historical garbage from?
Steve: Where is your proof that the Israelites are Scythians? Is your proof for this the Declaration of Arbroath?
Linc: As for the Hittites, look at a Sioux Indian and you'll have an idea of how "white" they were. Todays Sioux are direct descendants of the Hittites.
Steve: Where are you getting that from? Fact: the Priest David choose was a Hittite named Ahimelech. Too bad you were not around to council King David on this grave error. I guess David let Ahimelech be Priest but did not let him marry any of the Israelite girls..
Info on White Hittites:
From the white-history.com website:
(snip) "Some Nordic tribes migrated into the Far East - as far as China, where Nordic remains have been found in burial chambers. The Indo-European Nordic tribes were responsible for many of the world's principal civilizations: the Aryans in India, the Kassites, the Hittites, Persian, Mycenaean, Greek, Roman, Celtic, Teutonic, Slavic and latter day Western European cultures"
From The White Syrians Of Aramaean Cappadocia
http://www.apollonius.net/whitesyrians.html
From THE PHOENICIAN ORIGIN OF THE BRITONS, SCOTS & ANGLO-SAXONS
http://www.jrbooksonline.com/pob/pob_ch01.html
Also:
(snip) The Hittites are not mentioned by any of the classical writers excepting Herodotus (who speaks of them as "Syrians"), Strabo (who [p. 737] calls them "White Syrians" [AËåõêüóõñïé], localizing them about Mount Taurus and the Black Sea), and possibly Homer (if the KÊÞôéïé or ×Þôéïé, named once in the "Odyssey" [xi. 521) as allies of the Trojans, were really the Hittites).
Also, as a side note, another bit of info on a forbiden people:
(snip) The Amorites.. were a tall and handsome people. They are depicted with white skins, blue eyes, and reddish hair, all the characteristics, in fact, of the white race" (Sayce's The Hittites).
So you see, Linc, not everybody agrees on your take concerning the Hittites. In fact, there is evidence that some of the forbiden peoples were actually white.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archeology and DNA is contra to the xtian identity position.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linc: There are many Christian Identity positions. Archaelogy and DNA always support the identity of modern day Israel, and confirm the Bible in every detail.
Steve: Always? LOL. Please.
"Elohim is not a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent" Numbers 23:19a |
Edited by - BatKol on 07 Jul 2004 21:18:14 |
|
|
|
Linc
Advanced Member
Canada
111 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jul 2004 : 02:17:09
|
quote:
Linc: I think you are a troublemaking Jew. The way you claim to rebut an article, while actually misrepresenting both what the Bible says, and what the article says, was giving you away. But now you confirmed it; out of your own mouth you reveal you are a mamzer Egyptian/Hittite with some small amount of Semitic blood in you.
Steve: LOL. Ah, you are a seer! and a bad one at that.. Out of your own mouth you have just revealed to a good many people who watch this list (my wife included) that you don't know what the heck you are talking about. I love it. Your statement is incorrect so why should I take anything else you say at face value? Your jumping to wrong conclusions about me gives you away.
For this reason I will not reply to the points you made. You reveal your fundamental dishonesty. On the one hand you said you were of Egyptian, Hittite, and Assyrian origin. On the other hand, when I repeat your words back to you, you claim I know nothing. If I cannot take you at your word, we have nothing to discuss.
Jews don't care about truth, they care about "winning", which is the attitude you are displaying here. An Israelite has truth as his chief goal when he discusses things. This is the end of the road for thee, son of Esau. May YHWH be merciful to you in his day of wrath.
quote:
Linc: There are many Christian Identity positions. Archaelogy and DNA always support the identity of modern day Israel, and confirm the Bible in every detail.
Steve: Always? LOL. Please.
You reveal yourself a second time. Christians do not question the infallibility of the Bible, but Edomite Jews do. |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jul 2004 : 08:39:32
|
Linc said: For this reason I will not reply to the points you made. You reveal your fundamental dishonesty. On the one hand you said you were of Egyptian, Hittite, and Assyrian origin. On the other hand, when I repeat your words back to you, you claim I know nothing. If I cannot take you at your word, we have nothing to discuss.
Steve: Oh, how selective of you. You reveal your fundamental evasiveness when you willfuly ignore the info I posted that have the Hittites being of White stock. Now you want to say I am dishonest!? I even showed you where David choose a Hittite for a priest. I also plainly showed you where I came about my information on the Hittites. You choose to ignore it, not refute it... We already agreed that the Assyrians and Egyptians were white (unless of course you have personally categorized me in the Ezra era Egyptians, LOL). You are a joke, Sir. You are the one who asserts the Hittites are not White, not me.
As for dishonesty, you said: "On the other hand, when I repeat your words back to you, you claim I know nothing".
Let's see what Linc repeated back, the very words he 'claims' I said:
"But now you confirmed it; out of your own mouth you reveal you are a mamzer Egyptian/Hittite with some small amount of Semitic blood in you".
Steve: You call me dishonest when you try to pass this pork off on us? You quoted some of my words and threw in 'mamzer' on your own while at the same time personally deciding what amount of 'semetic blood' I have based on 'your' very questionable doctrine. Then you have the gall to ignore the info that disagrees with your assertions concerning the Hittites.. Information that shows why a white man would add Hittite into the equation... What's funny about you is, aside from this failed device/character witness, you lace your replies with pseudo-pious rhetoric. From my experience debating with your types so far, this device is stock in trade when one brings out the microscope.
Linc: Jews don't care about truth, they care about "winning", which is the attitude you are displaying here.
Steve: Oh. So I don't agree with your position so you say I don't care about Truth. Of course. I am not a Jew but I will say that your ignorance is really shining through. I know more than one Jew who is very concerned about the Truth. If you are so concerned about Truth, why the 'slight of hand' with my original statement concerning my heritage?
Linc: An Israelite has truth as his chief goal when he discusses things.
Steve: Then you might want to question your own "heritage", not mine. Truth? Of course you will be the judge of what is acceptable in this conversation as long as it agrees with your position (which is obviously at this point not up for debate). What's funny is your position that Moabitess means that Ruth was only 'from the land of Moab' works against you when you apply the same equal weights and measures to the term Israelite. You prove nothing 'racially' if that is your measure.
Linc: This is the end of the road for thee, son of Esau.
Steve: Nice cop out. Linc, I guess you did not like my "links"
that are contra to your "links"...... so Linc goes limp.
Linc: May YHWH be merciful to you in his day of wrath.
Steve: May YHWH bless you NOW with health, safety and a good Jewish shrink!
Linc: You reveal yourself a second time. Christians do not question the infallibility of the Bible, but Edomite Jews do.
Steve: I never once claimed to you I was a Christian. You got that one right...and you are wrong again with your empty assertions that Edomite Jews question the infallibility of the Bible, they defend it quite vigorously . That is just plain bald face ignorance on your part, Sir... Maybe main-stream "Christians" don't question the Scriptures, but all 'Christians'?.... I can provide you with many White Folk who do more than question the infallibility of the Bible; they prove the fallibility of the Bible. You are dealing with one here. Concerning infallibility, ever heard of the lying pen of the scribes? Does that mean the Bible is not the word of YHWH? NO!
So, Farewell to thee also, Mr. Cop Out. When you've found some 'staying power' and want a point by point debate on the infallibility of the Bible, look me up here. No links, just you, me, the Bible and a Strong's.
"Mine will be a house of prayer for all peoples" |
Edited by - BatKol on 10 Jul 2004 09:14:41 |
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 30 Aug 2004 : 23:04:49
|
Linc said: No. Ruth was an Israelite of the tribe of Reuben. At the time she married into the tribe of Judah, her home, the "plains of Moab", had not had any Moabites in them for hundreds of years.
Steve: Wrong. Ruth lived during the time of Judges. Ruth 1:1 Now it came to pass in the days when the judges ruled.. Now read Judges 3:14 So the children of Israel served Eglon the king of Moab eighteen years. So much for your claim there were no Moabites during Ruth's time....  Ouch!
The Anglo-Israel doctrine is full of these types of errors and I love it when AI's quote strait from the movement's faulty essays without checking the validity.
|
Edited by - BatKol on 30 Aug 2004 23:09:26 |
|
|
|
Robert-James
Advanced Member
uSA
353 Posts |
Posted - 31 Aug 2004 : 21:46:51
|
Greetings ecclecia,
Steven denies the Blood Atonement of Yahushuah[aka Jesus}, so take this into consideration, please.
In the natural world Steven presents his self, i.e. the persona of his worth as STEVEN JOHN WEBB. Trust him? At your own risk.
Go read, courtesy of Bondservent: What is a PERSON.
So, a PERSON, a DEAD THING is giving you his persona.
|
|
|
|
BatKol
Advanced Member
USA
735 Posts |
Posted - 31 Aug 2004 : 22:47:06
|
LOL. Correct, don't trust me. Look it up in your own bible... and then tune in to 'debunking Anglo-Israelism'. Robert-James you grasping for straws!
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert-James said: "Yes, we make practical use of the legal fictious government. Why not? They are pretend, and dead as a door nail."
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Biblical Covenants
