NEWSFLASH: Abraham was not a Jew. Neither was Isaac. Neither was Jacob.

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Zao is life

Well-Known Member
Oct 3, 2020
3,162
1,247
113
Africa
zaoislife.blogspot.com
Faith
Christian
Country
South Africa
The covenants are the promises and bequests of the testaments. They are not themselves wills/testaments.

There are only two wills/testaments, the old and the New. The New replaces the old.

That's how wills/testaments work.
Right. The old is the covenant of law, ratified by blood. The New is the covenant in Christ's blood which replaced it.

It does not replace the Abrahamic Covenant that came 430 years before the law was added, not does it replace the Davidic Covenant which came in-between the law and Christ and promised the eternity of David's throne and royal family line (Christ).

Nor does it replace the Mechizedek Covenant.

You expressly stated in your post earlier that the New Covenant is a New Testament that replaces everything in the entire Old Testament. That's your argument to say that the Abrahamic Covenant and its promise has been "replaced".

The Abrahamic et al covenants are testamentary promises and bequests under a set of covers called the Old Testament.

A New Testament completely replaces an old testament and all of its promises and bequests under the principles of operation of wills and testaments. This is seen in the first clause of your own will and testament, and dates back to jurisprudence established in ancient Biblical times.

Christ is the complete fulfillment and replacement of all old testament promises and bequests. 2 Corinthians 1:20

The above statement you made is false. Christ inherited the promise contained in the everlasting Abrahamic Covenant, and we in Him. He also inherited the everlasting Davidic and Melchizedek covenants, which are His alone. This is not "Dispensationalist delusion". It's written in the New Testament.
 
Last edited:

Eternally Grateful

Well-Known Member
Feb 27, 2020
14,648
8,299
113
58
Columbus, ohio
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The covenants are the promises and bequests of the testaments. They are not themselves wills/testaments. They don't appear alone in a separate section of Scripture entitled e.g. Abrahamic Testament, Davidic Testament.

There are only two wills/testaments, the old and the New. The New replaces the old.

That's how wills/testaments work.
where do you get this notion from?
 

covenantee

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2022
4,600
1,873
113
73
Canada
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Right. The old is the covenant of law, ratified by blood. The New is the covenant in Christ's blood which replaced it.

It does not replace the Abrahamic Covenant that came 430 years before the law was added, not does it replace the Davidic Covenant which came in-between the law and Christ and promised the eternity of David's throne and royal family line (Christ).

Nor does it replace the Mechidek Covenant.

You expressly stated in your post earlier that the New Covenant is a New Testament that replaces everything in the entire Old Testament. That's your argument to say that the Abrahamic Covenant and its promise has been "replaced".



The above statement you made is false. Christ inherited the promise contained in the everlasting Abrahamic Covenant, and we in Him. He also inherited the everlasting Davidic and Mechizedek covenants, which are His alone. This is not "Dispensationalist delusion". It's written in the New Testament.
Is the promise of physical land in the Abrahamic covenant applicable, and if so, to whom and when?
 

Zao is life

Well-Known Member
Oct 3, 2020
3,162
1,247
113
Africa
zaoislife.blogspot.com
Faith
Christian
Country
South Africa
Is the promise of physical land in the Abrahamic covenant applicable, and if so, to whom and when?
The promise of land is repeated in Ezekiel and all the prophets. In a previous post - actually in previous posts - I said more than once I don't know when the prophecies regarding the gathering of the house of Israel and the house of Judah back into the land of their fathers will take place - whether in "the millennium", or in the new earth (NHNE).

After me saying repeatedly I don't know when or even how it will be fulfilled, you now ask me to tell you when and how.

But your question does not make your misinterpretation of the covenants "true", so I'm not sure why you asked. Jesus is the inheritor of all God's promises to Abraham, which ALL go under the heading "the promise" though the ONE promise to Abraham has three different categories under the umbrella of the one promise: Abraham would be the father of many nations. Abraham's seed would inherit the promise. Abraham's seed would inherit the promised land.

If you take away the Abrahamic Covenant and the Davidic Covenant which is based on it, you deny Christ's inheritance. The promise is His - it is His inheritance, and those who are in Him. We are the seed of Abraham. If the Abrahamic Covenant is not eternal, it would not matter whose seed we are.
 

covenantee

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2022
4,600
1,873
113
73
Canada
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Jesus is the inheritor of all God's promises to Abraham...
Absolutely true. Galatians 3:16

But here's who EG says the inheritor is:
"to those who are blinded in part.. and the remnant. the children of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob"

For which there is not one whit of affirmative NT Scripture. From Galatians 3:16, the inheritors are Abraham and Christ.

Not "those who are blinded in part.. and the remnant. the children of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob".

Why aren't you arguing with him?
 
Last edited:

ewq1938

Well-Known Member
Jul 11, 2015
6,052
1,231
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
4. The New Covenant. Ratified by blood (the blood of Christ). Unconditional and eternal, and replaces the second covenant (the covenant of law).


When Paul spoke of the new covenant and the one it replaced, he spoke of first and second not third or fourth etc. You also leave out the covenant with Noah in the count. The only count that matters if the first and second covenants, which are the old covenant/testament and the new covenant/testament ratified at the cross. The others only confuse the matter.

Only those two covenants had laws regarding sin sacrifice/forgiveness.
 

covenantee

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2022
4,600
1,873
113
73
Canada
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Yes.

to those who are blinded in part.. and the remnant. the children of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob
Your claims are false in Scripture.

They are also false in science.

Through natural genetic dispersion and diffusion over up to more than three millennia, Abraham's DNA is possessed by the entire human race.

Corroborated empirically by the Jewish community itself.

Abraham lineage
DNA Tests Could Fulfill God’s Promise to Abraham by Revealing Millions of Jews. But How Jewish is Jewish Enough?
Israel in all of Us? Research finds 'Jewish genes' in unusual places
Jewish-Roots Arabs in Israel
Tracing the lost tribes to Jewish communities in Africa
Nigeria's Igbo Jews: 'Lost tribe' of Israel? - CNN
http://www.worldjewishcongress.org/...-africa-has-jewish-roots-genetic-tests-reveal
https://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/...her-claims-proof-of-tribe-of-Ephraim-in-India
https://www.jta.org/2013/05/23/life...bush-bani-israel-tribe-claims-jewish-heritage

Demonstrated mathematically.

Example of ancestral genetic ubiquity:

Charlemagne’s DNA and Our Universal Royalty

BY CARL ZIMMER

Nobody in my past was hugely famous, at least that I know of. I vaguely recall that an ancestor of mine who shipped over on the Mayflower distinguished himself by falling out of the ship and having to get fished out of the water. He might be notable, I guess, but hardly famous. It is much more fun to think that I am a bloodline descendant of Charlemagne. And in 1999, Joseph Chang gave me permission to think that way.

Chang was not a genealogist who had decided to make me his personal project. Instead, he is a statistician at Yale who likes to think of genealogy as a mathematical problem. When you draw your genealogy, you make two lines from yourself back to each of your parents. Then you have to draw two lines for each of them, back to your four grandparents. And then eight great-grandparents, sixteen great-great-grandparents, and so on. But not so on for very long. If you go back to the time of Charlemagne, forty generations or so, you should get to a generation of a trillion ancestors. That’s about two thousand times more people than existed on Earth when Charlemagne was alive.

The only way out of this paradox is to assume that our ancestors are not independent of one another. That is, if you trace their ancestry back, you loop back to a common ancestor. We’re not talking about first-cousin stuff here–more like twentieth-cousin. This means that instead of drawing a tree that fans out exponentially, we need to draw a web-like tapestry.

In a paper he published in 1999 [pdf], Chang analyzed this tapestry mathematically. If you look at the ancestry of a living population of people, he concluded, you’ll eventually find a common ancestor of all of them. That’s not to say that a single mythical woman somehow produced every European by magically laying a clutch of eggs. All this means is that as you move back through time, sooner or later some of the lines in the genealogy will cross, meeting at a single person.

As you go back further in time, more of those lines cross as you encounter more common ancestors of the living population. And then something really interesting happens. There comes a point at which, Chang wrote, “all individuals who have any descendants among the present-day individuals are actually ancestors of all present-day individuals.”

In 2002, the journalist Steven Olson wrote an article in the Atlantic about Chang’s work. To put some empirical meat on the abstract bones of Chang’s research, Olson considered a group of real people–living Europeans.

The most recent common ancestor of every European today (except for recent immigrants to the Continent) was someone who lived in Europe in the surprisingly recent past—only about 600 years ago. In other words, all Europeans alive today have among their ancestors the same man or woman who lived around 1400. Before that date, according to Chang’s model, the number of ancestors common to all Europeans today increased, until, about a thousand years ago, a peculiar situation prevailed: 20 percent of the adult Europeans alive in 1000 would turn out to be the ancestors of no one living today (that is, they had no children or all their descendants eventually died childless); each of the remaining 80 percent would turn out to be a direct ancestor of every European living today.

Suddenly, my pedigree looked classier: I am a descendant of Charlemagne. Of course, so is every other European. By the way, I’m also a descendant of Nefertiti. And so are you, and everyone else on Earth today. Chang figured that out by expanding his model from living Europeans to living humans, and getting an estimate of 3400 years instead of a thousand for the all-ancestor generation.

Things have changed a lot in the fourteen years since Chang published his first paper on ancestry. Scientists have amassed huge databases of genetic information about people all over the world. These may not be the same thing as a complete genealogy of the human race, but geneticists can still use them to tackle some of the same questions that intrigued Chang.

Recently, two geneticists, Peter Ralph of the University of Southern California and Graham Coop of the University of California at Davis, decided to look at the ancestry of Europe. They took advantage of a compilation of information about 2257 people from across the continent. Scientists had examined half a million sites in each person’s DNA, creating a distinctive list of genetic markers for each of them.

You can use this kind of genetic information to make some genealogical inferences, but you have to know what you’re dealing with. Your DNA is not a carbon copy of your parents’. Each time they made eggs or sperm, they shuffled the two copies of each of their chromosomes and put one in the cell. Just as a new deck gets more scrambled the more times you shuffle it, chromosomes get more shuffled from one generation to the next.

This means that if you compare two people’s DNA, you will find some chunks that are identical in sequence. The more closely related people are, the bigger the chunks you’ll find. This diagram shows how two first cousins share a piece of DNA that’s identical by descent (IBD for short).

Ralph and Coop identified 1.9 million of these long shared segments of DNA shared by at least two people in their study. They then used the length of each segment to estimate how long ago it arose from a common ancestor of the living Europeans.

Their results, published today in PLOS Biology, both confirm Chang’s mathematical approach and enrich it. Even within the past thousand years, Ralph and Coop found, people on opposite sides of the continent share a lot of segments in common–so many, in fact, that it’s statistically impossible for them to have gotten them all from a single ancestor. Instead, someone in Turkey and someone in England have to share a lot of ancestors. In fact, as Chang suspected, the only way to explain the DNA is to conclude that everyone who lived a thousand years ago who has any descendants today is an ancestor of every European. Charlemagne for everyone!

If you compare two people in Turkey, you’ll find bigger shared segments of DNA, which isn’t surprising. Since they live in the same country, chances are they have more recent ancestors, and more of them. But there is a rich, intriguing pattern to the number of shared segments among Europeans. People across Eastern Europe, for example, have a larger set of shared segments than people from within single countries in Western Europe. That difference may be the signature of a big expansion of the Slavs.

Ralph and Coop’s study may provide a new tool for reconstructing the history of humans on every continent, not just Europe. It will also probably keep people puzzling over the complexities of genealogy.


How does God distinguish genetic Jews from genetic Jews?

It matters not one whit.

Because God has only two covenant criteria.

Two spiritual genes.

Faith and obedience.

Abraham's Spiritual DNA.

And nothing else.
 

Eternally Grateful

Well-Known Member
Feb 27, 2020
14,648
8,299
113
58
Columbus, ohio
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Absolutely true. Galatians 3:16

But here's who EG says the inheritor is:
"to those who are blinded in part.. and the remnant. the children of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob"

For which there is not one whit of affirmative NT Scripture.

Why aren't you arguing with him?
No

The inheritor of the land of Canaan

Gal 3 is not about the land promise

once again, stop putting words in peoples mouths that they did not say.

You break one of the ten commands when you do so.
 

Eternally Grateful

Well-Known Member
Feb 27, 2020
14,648
8,299
113
58
Columbus, ohio
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Your claims are false in Scripture.

They are also false in science.

Through natural genetic dispersion and diffusion over up to more than three millennia, Abraham's DNA is possessed by the entire human race.

Corroborated empirically by the Jewish community itself.

Abraham lineage
DNA Tests Could Fulfill God’s Promise to Abraham by Revealing Millions of Jews. But How Jewish is Jewish Enough?
Israel in all of Us? Research finds 'Jewish genes' in unusual places
Jewish-Roots Arabs in Israel
Tracing the lost tribes to Jewish communities in Africa
Nigeria's Igbo Jews: 'Lost tribe' of Israel? - CNN
http://www.worldjewishcongress.org/...-africa-has-jewish-roots-genetic-tests-reveal
https://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/...her-claims-proof-of-tribe-of-Ephraim-in-India
https://www.jta.org/2013/05/23/life...bush-bani-israel-tribe-claims-jewish-heritage

Demonstrated mathematically.

Example of ancestral genetic ubiquity:

Charlemagne’s DNA and Our Universal Royalty

BY CARL ZIMMER

Nobody in my past was hugely famous, at least that I know of. I vaguely recall that an ancestor of mine who shipped over on the Mayflower distinguished himself by falling out of the ship and having to get fished out of the water. He might be notable, I guess, but hardly famous. It is much more fun to think that I am a bloodline descendant of Charlemagne. And in 1999, Joseph Chang gave me permission to think that way.

Chang was not a genealogist who had decided to make me his personal project. Instead, he is a statistician at Yale who likes to think of genealogy as a mathematical problem. When you draw your genealogy, you make two lines from yourself back to each of your parents. Then you have to draw two lines for each of them, back to your four grandparents. And then eight great-grandparents, sixteen great-great-grandparents, and so on. But not so on for very long. If you go back to the time of Charlemagne, forty generations or so, you should get to a generation of a trillion ancestors. That’s about two thousand times more people than existed on Earth when Charlemagne was alive.

The only way out of this paradox is to assume that our ancestors are not independent of one another. That is, if you trace their ancestry back, you loop back to a common ancestor. We’re not talking about first-cousin stuff here–more like twentieth-cousin. This means that instead of drawing a tree that fans out exponentially, we need to draw a web-like tapestry.

In a paper he published in 1999 [pdf], Chang analyzed this tapestry mathematically. If you look at the ancestry of a living population of people, he concluded, you’ll eventually find a common ancestor of all of them. That’s not to say that a single mythical woman somehow produced every European by magically laying a clutch of eggs. All this means is that as you move back through time, sooner or later some of the lines in the genealogy will cross, meeting at a single person.

As you go back further in time, more of those lines cross as you encounter more common ancestors of the living population. And then something really interesting happens. There comes a point at which, Chang wrote, “all individuals who have any descendants among the present-day individuals are actually ancestors of all present-day individuals.”

In 2002, the journalist Steven Olson wrote an article in the Atlantic about Chang’s work. To put some empirical meat on the abstract bones of Chang’s research, Olson considered a group of real people–living Europeans.

The most recent common ancestor of every European today (except for recent immigrants to the Continent) was someone who lived in Europe in the surprisingly recent past—only about 600 years ago. In other words, all Europeans alive today have among their ancestors the same man or woman who lived around 1400. Before that date, according to Chang’s model, the number of ancestors common to all Europeans today increased, until, about a thousand years ago, a peculiar situation prevailed: 20 percent of the adult Europeans alive in 1000 would turn out to be the ancestors of no one living today (that is, they had no children or all their descendants eventually died childless); each of the remaining 80 percent would turn out to be a direct ancestor of every European living today.

Suddenly, my pedigree looked classier: I am a descendant of Charlemagne. Of course, so is every other European. By the way, I’m also a descendant of Nefertiti. And so are you, and everyone else on Earth today. Chang figured that out by expanding his model from living Europeans to living humans, and getting an estimate of 3400 years instead of a thousand for the all-ancestor generation.

Things have changed a lot in the fourteen years since Chang published his first paper on ancestry. Scientists have amassed huge databases of genetic information about people all over the world. These may not be the same thing as a complete genealogy of the human race, but geneticists can still use them to tackle some of the same questions that intrigued Chang.

Recently, two geneticists, Peter Ralph of the University of Southern California and Graham Coop of the University of California at Davis, decided to look at the ancestry of Europe. They took advantage of a compilation of information about 2257 people from across the continent. Scientists had examined half a million sites in each person’s DNA, creating a distinctive list of genetic markers for each of them.

You can use this kind of genetic information to make some genealogical inferences, but you have to know what you’re dealing with. Your DNA is not a carbon copy of your parents’. Each time they made eggs or sperm, they shuffled the two copies of each of their chromosomes and put one in the cell. Just as a new deck gets more scrambled the more times you shuffle it, chromosomes get more shuffled from one generation to the next.

This means that if you compare two people’s DNA, you will find some chunks that are identical in sequence. The more closely related people are, the bigger the chunks you’ll find. This diagram shows how two first cousins share a piece of DNA that’s identical by descent (IBD for short).

Ralph and Coop identified 1.9 million of these long shared segments of DNA shared by at least two people in their study. They then used the length of each segment to estimate how long ago it arose from a common ancestor of the living Europeans.

Their results, published today in PLOS Biology, both confirm Chang’s mathematical approach and enrich it. Even within the past thousand years, Ralph and Coop found, people on opposite sides of the continent share a lot of segments in common–so many, in fact, that it’s statistically impossible for them to have gotten them all from a single ancestor. Instead, someone in Turkey and someone in England have to share a lot of ancestors. In fact, as Chang suspected, the only way to explain the DNA is to conclude that everyone who lived a thousand years ago who has any descendants today is an ancestor of every European. Charlemagne for everyone!

If you compare two people in Turkey, you’ll find bigger shared segments of DNA, which isn’t surprising. Since they live in the same country, chances are they have more recent ancestors, and more of them. But there is a rich, intriguing pattern to the number of shared segments among Europeans. People across Eastern Europe, for example, have a larger set of shared segments than people from within single countries in Western Europe. That difference may be the signature of a big expansion of the Slavs.

Ralph and Coop’s study may provide a new tool for reconstructing the history of humans on every continent, not just Europe. It will also probably keep people puzzling over the complexities of genealogy.


How does God distinguish genetic Jews from genetic Jews?

It matters not one whit.

Because God has only two covenant criteria.

Two spiritual genes.

Faith and obedience.

Abraham's Spiritual DNA.

And nothing else.
Lol

I believe scripture.

God said forever. He did not say Until. He said forever.

Last i saw forever still exists.

I do not need science to show me who or who is not Israel. I just have to trust God will keep his promise. He knows who they are.

They have not been restored yet. They are still in sin

nice try though
 

Eternally Grateful

Well-Known Member
Feb 27, 2020
14,648
8,299
113
58
Columbus, ohio
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
When Paul spoke of the new covenant and the one it replaced, he spoke of first and second not third or fourth etc. You also leave out the covenant with Noah in the count. The only count that matters if the first and second covenants, which are the old covenant/testament and the new covenant/testament ratified at the cross. The others only confuse the matter.

Only those two covenants had laws regarding sin sacrifice/forgiveness.
So we ignore the abrahamic, and the davidic covenants? And we ignore all the OT prophets which speak of the continuing and fulfillment of these covenants?
 

covenantee

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2022
4,600
1,873
113
73
Canada
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Lol

I believe scripture.

God said forever. He did not say Until. He said forever.

Last i saw forever still exists.

I do not need science to show me who or who is not Israel. I just have to trust God will keep his promise. He knows who they are.

They have not been restored yet. They are still in sin

nice try though

Confirmation of Scriptural and scientific vacuity.

Thanks.

And you still haven't explained the difference between forever and everlasting.

Hint: They are exactly the same word in Hebrew.

You're welcome.
 

covenantee

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2022
4,600
1,873
113
73
Canada
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
No

The inheritor of the land of Canaan

Gal 3 is not about the land promise

once again, stop putting words in peoples mouths that they did not say.

You break one of the ten commands when you do so.

So the promises to Abraham in Galatians 3:16 were not about the land?

Scripture for that?

You have no idea what you're talking about. :laughing:
 

ewq1938

Well-Known Member
Jul 11, 2015
6,052
1,231
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
So we ignore the abrahamic, and the davidic covenants? And we ignore all the OT prophets which speak of the continuing and fulfillment of these covenants?


They are not law covenants dealing with the removal of sin. If you want to discuss covenants in general, speak of them and others like the one you don't mention such as the one with Noah. But writers like Paul speak of only the two because one replaced the other. Neither is related to any other covenants.


Heb 9:11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
Heb 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
Heb 9:13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
Heb 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
Heb 9:16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.



Heb 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
Heb 10:2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
Heb 10:3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
Heb 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
Heb 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
Heb 10:6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
Heb 10:7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
Heb 10:8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
Heb 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
 

Eternally Grateful

Well-Known Member
Feb 27, 2020
14,648
8,299
113
58
Columbus, ohio
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Confirmation of Scriptural and scientific vacuity.

Thanks.

And you still haven't explained the difference between forever and everlasting.

Hint: They are exactly the same word in Hebrew.

You're welcome.
Yes, and Unless specified, it means everlasting, never ending.

And I do not need science to tell me God keeps his promises
 

Eternally Grateful

Well-Known Member
Feb 27, 2020
14,648
8,299
113
58
Columbus, ohio
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
So the promises to Abraham in Galatians 3:16 were not about the land?

Scripture for that?

You have no idea what you're talking about. :laughing:
15 Brethren, I speak in the manner of men: Though it is only a man’s covenant, yet if it isconfirmed, no one annuls or adds to it. 16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to your Seed,” who is Christ.

This concerns the promise, In you shall all nations of the world be blessed.

Not I give you and your descendents after you this land..


You can say I have no idea what I am saying all you want.. it does not make you correct.
 

covenantee

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2022
4,600
1,873
113
73
Canada
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Yes, and Unless specified, it means everlasting, never ending.

And I do not need science to tell me God keeps his promises
And I showed you how everlasting circumcision was.

God's promises are to and for His faithful and obedient.

None others.

God is not a racist.

Stop trying to contort Him into one.
 

Eternally Grateful

Well-Known Member
Feb 27, 2020
14,648
8,299
113
58
Columbus, ohio
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
They are not law covenants dealing with the removal of sin. If you want to discuss covenants in general, speak of them and others like the one you don't mention such as the one with Noah. But writers like Paul speak of only the two because one replaced the other. Neither is related to any other covenants.


Heb 9:11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
Heb 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
Heb 9:13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
Heb 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
Heb 9:16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.



Heb 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
Heb 10:2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
Heb 10:3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
Heb 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
Heb 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
Heb 10:6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
Heb 10:7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
Heb 10:8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
Heb 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
Actually part of the abrahamic covenant did have to do with the removal of sin. All the nations of the world are blessed because Christ came to save the world

The mosaic covenant could never take away sin. So using that as yoru guide, it does not fit your criteria either.

Now. He takes the first away, is the mosaic, because again, it could never take away sin

But the abrahamic, through the one seed (christ) all the nations of the world are blessed and continue to be blessed, because God took away sin