Summations Only

Well, the evidence should lead you to inspiration but since it doesn't, so much for that.

The Hebrew word for "beget" is irrelevant since the phrase
"only begotten Son: occurs in the New Testament, which is in Greek, where it clearly points to Jesus as inheriting the very nature of God through His begetting. That's what the word implies, and otherwise it wouldn't have been used. Jesus is both fully God and fully Man by his parentage.

I'm afraid all you've succeeded in doing is making me aware that this subject can't be discussed with people who have such utterly different assumptions. You have to at least take your example from the Biblical text if you want to accuse me of making a false correspondence between Biblical texts.And there are many false religions that play on the prophecy from Eden and have their "god" die and resurrect, this is just another of them, but it lacks the essentials to connect it with Christ, since there's nothing about sin in the story, no sacrifice for sin etc. Not at all similar in the points that matter between the sacrifice of Isaac and Christ's death to atone for our sins.I reject your revisionist re-dating of the Biblical events. The Flood was about 2300 BC, Abraham about 1900 BC, Moses about 1500 BC, David about 1000 BC etc.There is really nothing more to say.I hope someone comes along who will read the post simply and correctly, since it's really all there in the facts described, but if not then that's the end of my attempts to try to prove inerrancy. Can't be done when people have diehard assumptions that rule it out at the getgo.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

False. Abraham lived around 1900 BC. No, I'm saying that God arranged both events and arranged the Abraham story to provide a type or prophecy of the sacrifice of Christ. But of course if you won't even take what is written in the Bible as any kind of authority whatever, even that it simply was written as it was written, we have no grounds for having any kind of discussion at all.The idea that the Abraham story contains prophetic elements that point to the sacrifice of Christ is simply in the events of the story as I described them in my post. It's all there, nothing else is required, that's the evidence, and it is good evidence for the claim that God oversaw -- planned, arranged -- the entire history that the Bible covers. The evidence is all there, nothing else is required.

Thank you very much. I prayed a lot. If I keep praying I may avoid having meltdowns. And by the way, I apologize for that.Must keep praying, only God can keep me from coming unglued under pressure. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That earlier use of the term "sons of God" refers to angels. The only begotten Son of God is unique.

You should at least try to get the facts right, and for anyone who would like to do just that I refer them back to Message 1593.For instance I did not call Isaac "God's only begotten son" ANYWHERE.

Jepthah could not possibly have promised the God of Israel a human sacrifice, since God condemns human sacrifice, unless he was completely out of his mind.

Thank you.

GOD's only begotten Son. Whoever begets you passes on their own characteristics. Thus Jesus, being God's begotten Son, has the attributes of God as well as humanity.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

KJV Search Results for "only" AND "begotten"Philippians 2:6-8:
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.He also fulfilled the OT prophecies of the Messiah that refer to Him as God, in Jeremiah, as "God our righteousness" and in Isaiah as "The mighty God, everlasting Father..."

Ya know, Percy, if you'd suspend your bias for a short time and just read the points I made in Message 1593 you might at least know that what is actually written there does indeed quite amazingly parallel what is said of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. The number of elements in the story that also describe Christ is beyond probability and beyond anybody's ability to tamper with them in the future. And how could anyone seriously think that somehow someone engineered Jesus' sacrifice to imitate the story of Abraham and Isaac anyway? How smart do you think the apostles were, and how well able to get everyone to say the same thing? The suppositions of the debunkers are an amazing exercise in fantasy. They invented Herod and Pilate and the Centurion at the foot of the cross, they invented the empty tomb, what else do you think these omniscient geniuses might have invented to make it all work out to seem to be fulfilled prophecy? And there are lots of other prophetic types and statements they'd also had to make Jesus' death conform to.Yes of course Jesus existed before He was begotten as a man, He was with God in eternity before that event when He was made incarnate as a human being in the womb of Mary.I guess you just aren't very familiar with how God gave Isaac to Abraham, but it does make quite a good parallel with the gift of Christ to us, as good a parallel as you're going to get from a merely human birth.

Thank you for the first half of your post.

I believe I've made it clear more than once that God would have condemned both the vow and human sacrifice so why are you all going on as if that wasn't the case?Jephthah made a rash vow and felt obligated to perform it even though performing it would be a great sin. This is why some commentators think he couldn't have gone through with it although I agree with those who think he must have, judging from the passage itself. That puts him in great sin from God's point of view, however.abe; the idea that he could have had any degree of intent to sacrifice a member of his family just can't be taken seriously. Why would he sacrifice his only daughter, which the passage makes clear he loved? Such ideas are ridiculous. He had to have anticipated an animal coming out of his house, there is no other possibility. /abeThe best excuse I can offer for him is that things were pretty primitive in the time of the Judges, the Law wasn't consistently followed and in fact it is said that "everyone did what was right in their own eyes" just like the heathen. This doesn't exonerate him from the great sin in any case, it just provides some kind of explanation.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The passage SAYS Isaac was Abraham's only son. THat's what it SAYS. abe: Which is because God planned the birth of Isaac as the father of the nation He promised to Abraham, whereas Ishmael was the result of Abrhaham's failure of faith /abe You want to rewrite scripture don't try to get me to buy your rewrite.Yes, "father of multitudes" is the usual translation and I should have remembered that but I didn't. However, you are wrong that it makes less of a parallel. Of course it makes a better parallel since God Himself is certainly the father of multitudes, not God-begotten multitudes but created / human-begotten multitudes.Having the intention to kill Isaac is what supports the parallel with the sacrifice of Christ. He would have done it if God hadn't intervened. So you are wrong to dismiss that obvious parallel.YOu are not reading carefully if you think Abraham's expectation that God would raise Isaac from the dead is not clearly indicated by the facts I gave. FACTS.Moriah figures in all three descriptions and Mt. Moriah too. You need to turn yourself into a mental pretzel to deny it. Not that you aren't very good at doing just that when your bias requires it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.