moses 5-4-3
session 1 continued
part 2 abram
until now: summarized the era before abraham-covenant in chapter 15.18 land. despite rescuing Lot only faith was called righteous indicating faith is more powerful and even more pure than any good act. after coming to Haran the bible says the lord appeared, did he appear in haran? appeared is past form and the word moledet [leave place of birth] indicates that he left haran because of a command given long before becuase god appeaerd to abraham, before he lived in haran, meaning in the place of abrams birth. matching stephen in acts 7.
we begin part 2 of session one with 28 minutes remaining for the goal, and focus on the bulk of genesis the stories of abram jacob and josef. this part begins with the covenant to give abraham's offspring land. according to acts 7.4-12 and romans 8.7-13 and galations 3.16 [later check these sources for yourself] this covenant is about the land that stephen and the pharisee judges lived in: "here live in" granted by god to abram's offspring isac and jacob- IF... nothing. the covenant with abraham was by grace there is no condition/no if. simply god's promise and as the holy writings point out [galations 3.18-19 please check! but later!] gods word is permanent and moses covenant adds to this abrahamic covenant UNTIL something, but does not cancel the promise of god already given. for clarity i add not only is it a gift and no condition in this covenant, but also it is before abraham circumcised.
because there are political issues truth compelled me to emphasize the idea of god's word being permanent- even the new testament explains that broken-off-branches means "As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29 for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. " in king james english, god does not "repent"=turn, nor regret his gifts. some christians think the jews are rejected but even denying the old testament does not deny romans "kjv romans 11.28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes." despite being called enemies which makes some people happy, those same enemies continue to be loved. so if you believe the new testament, even those who are enemies are loved for their fore-fathers - fathers because it does not depend on the jews, only for the fathers regardless of what the jews do,
according to the holy writings even the broken-off branches are loved not for themselves but because of the patriarchs and to deny this- denying the old teastament such as leviticus 26.34 does not acheive because even the new testament said gods gift to abraham is irrevocable.
this covenant will be relied upon when he binds isac with faith see below.
after the pledge of a son and land, sarai presents hagar to abram 16.3 and a son is born named ishmael 16.15. abram's name is updated [neo would say "upgrade" in our culture!] to abraham 17.5 [note: the hebrew letter h was silent as we see in the name abel and juda. so his name was abram and is now abra-am]
CIRCUMCISION 17.10
although traditionaly this hebrew word "mal" is translated as "cision" like cut incision- that is only accurate/correct in other contexts, because the word itself "mila" does mean "word" and alone cannot mean cut as we see from the usage in deuteronomy "mal et lbbka circumcise your heart" which does not mean CUT and if you think it does, why does no-one cut their heart? because it hurts- only cut someone else- and when they are helpless to stop me- an infant. they cut the infants reproductive organ with no basis that this is the location- no basis besides mimicing ancient african culture not yet abandoned which became "rabbinic oral tradition" which is easily refuted as incompatible with judaism as well as with "moral" because it harms and has pain. one rabbi said "we do it with minimum possible pain" sounds "better" yet still has the word pain=pain is immoral and the minimum truly is no pain zero by not cutting.
the word is used when "cut" cannot be the meaning. this term means "word" and here "pray with words" about the male's heart called flesh, same as in deuteronomy the same quote and psalms "en mila blsoni" no WORD on my tongue, it is used for word in the context of tongue. the section not only lacks the word cut, but also lacks context of cut in this section and lacks even the idea to cut hence it would be wrong to accept this inaccurate translation in this context.
the covenant is for abraham to pray for his heart called flesh and for the males hearts and the "covenant in your heart" also again called "flesh" as common.
the word is used when "cut" cannot be the meaning. this term means "word" and here "pray with words" about the male's heart called flesh, same as in deuteronomy the same quote and psalms "en mila blsoni" no WORD on my tongue, it is used for word in the context of tongue. the section not only lacks the word cut, but also lacks context of cut in this section and lacks even the idea to cut hence it would be wrong to accept this inaccurate translation in this context.
the covenant is for abraham to pray for his heart called flesh and for the males hearts and the "covenant in your heart" also again called "flesh" as common.
because some people are stubborn, insisting they have the right to inflict cruel pain on infants, despite the absence of god ever saying "cut the babies reproductive organ" I will respond by adding that the foreskin is called just that "skin" did you see? fore-skin is skin and "not flesh". flesh is the heart and this distinction is even more clear in leviticus. simply pray and there is no basis for the cruel claim that god said cut a babies genitals.
it is so base less that when someone says "god said so" i ask show me that it is genitals- they can only point to the word "flesh" [or claim oral tradition] yet flesh is not skin nor genitals but does refer to the heart. it is so baseless that the only need for me to write this is only in response to cruel traditions but from the hebrew text there never was a basis to claim "cut" at all and even more distant "cut skin" (nor cut benis) but flesh which is used for heart, hence matching deuteronmy "circumcise heart" which does not mean cut. again there is no context of cut in this section of abraham.
it is against the values of morality to harm and to pain, and all this discussion is superflous because there is no basis to cut! not genitals, not skin, not cut.
no need to cut any cut and no need for abraham to cut. the word "mal" alone means "word" to pray unless there is a context to change the meaning. for an issue of pain it better be a clear context or it is evil and cruel.
abrahams gifts go through isac. some people do not like this and say they only believe the new testament-
to avoid these types of verses-
however the new testament in romans 9.7 and acts 7 say the same isac and jacob so denying the old testament does not acheive how disappointing that pauls "racist" letters are part of the christian book that is so inconveneint for some political opinions.
why do i add this? for truth. it IS in romans so do not be ignorant-
and a dry outline is also provided and i have nothing to lose because even before pointing this out i am hated until death by some.
three men visited abraam one man is jehova 18.10=18.13-14 abraam hears the decree to destroy sodom-city [gotham city? oh! sodom] and begs/prays for the few decent people there. sodom was destroyed except lot and daughters 19. to be continued...
this i read in 13 minutes6+11+13=30, 15 remain
enjoy your weekend, i will!
it is so base less that when someone says "god said so" i ask show me that it is genitals- they can only point to the word "flesh" [or claim oral tradition] yet flesh is not skin nor genitals but does refer to the heart. it is so baseless that the only need for me to write this is only in response to cruel traditions but from the hebrew text there never was a basis to claim "cut" at all and even more distant "cut skin" (nor cut benis) but flesh which is used for heart, hence matching deuteronmy "circumcise heart" which does not mean cut. again there is no context of cut in this section of abraham.
it is against the values of morality to harm and to pain, and all this discussion is superflous because there is no basis to cut! not genitals, not skin, not cut.
no need to cut any cut and no need for abraham to cut. the word "mal" alone means "word" to pray unless there is a context to change the meaning. for an issue of pain it better be a clear context or it is evil and cruel.
abrahams gifts go through isac. some people do not like this and say they only believe the new testament-
to avoid these types of verses-
however the new testament in romans 9.7 and acts 7 say the same isac and jacob so denying the old testament does not acheive how disappointing that pauls "racist" letters are part of the christian book that is so inconveneint for some political opinions.
why do i add this? for truth. it IS in romans so do not be ignorant-
and a dry outline is also provided and i have nothing to lose because even before pointing this out i am hated until death by some.
three men visited abraam one man is jehova 18.10=18.13-14 abraam hears the decree to destroy sodom-city [gotham city? oh! sodom] and begs/prays for the few decent people there. sodom was destroyed except lot and daughters 19. to be continued...
this i read in 13 minutes6+11+13=30, 15 remain
enjoy your weekend, i will!
אין תגובות:
הוסף רשומת תגובה