I'm not a math person but the arithmetic analogy made sense to me. I knew what vs 25 wasn't saying but couldn't explain it... blessings guys. Will definitely have to re-watch this
I am so blessed by the studies..each one you have done. Thank you. And your joy and " Godly giddiness" washes over into me and I worship with you in those moments!
Loving this series, guys, and this episode has been my favorite so far! I didn't realize how much depth there is in the 2nd half of Galatians 3 - your discussion about it made my day today! Thanks a lot and God bless 🙏
As I was listening to the presentation again, it dawned on me how radical are Paul’s words in Galatians 3:28. The Gospel is extended to persons who were considered by religious Jews to be subhuman: women and slaves (treated as property) or Greeks (degenerate because of birth). These are “one in Christ Jesus,” that is, members of the Covenant if they have the faith of Abraham. “If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.” (Verse 29.) By extending “sonship” to Greeks, slaves and women, Paul patterns after Jesus the Messiah who mingled with Greeks, Romans, slaves, women, the poor, the diseased, the physically handicapped, the mentally ill, the unclean, those who did not align with his politics and religion, as if they were candidates for election as “sons of God.” In the Messiah, the Son of God, those of the faith of Abraham are "sons" by adoption into God’s family. Just as God called his “son” out of Egypt (Exodus 4:23; Hosea 11:1; Matthew 2:15), he calls his “sons” out of figurative “Egypt” (the principles on which this world is based) to walk in the Way, the Truth and the Life. (John 14:6.) How we relate to (“know”) God determines how we relate to others (especially our “enemies” and those with whom we disagree). If we do not “know” God as he has been revealed in his son Jesus, we will certainly never be part of his kingdom. (Matthew 7:23)
I would like to discuss scripture in general or Galatians in particular but I searched RUclips under the name “Ty Gibson” (and found this) because I recently finished reading the book The Heavenly Trio and I wanted to ask a question about it. Our parents read the book Desire of Ages to my siblings and me in the ‘50s (maybe before that as well) so I grew up under the impression that adventists considered the God of the Bible to be triune - one God in three persons. It wasn’t until the ‘70s that I started using the illustration that a treble note in a piano is one note - not three notes - while, at the same time, being composed of three strings - not one string. Most of my piano tuning customers were protestants. A few were unitarians. Starting no later than the 1980s, some were LdS. The “theology in a piano” doesn’t prove anything about the nature of God but it does answer the objection I heard from unitarians that it is irrational to teach that one God is three persons. Conversely, many - probably most - of my customers expressed delight to be introduced to the piano analogy. One LdS gentleman told me, “Catholics and Protestants teach that God is one person.” He seemed to think that “Catholics and Protestants” all explained the nature of God the way unitarians had explained their understanding to me. That same day, I went to the Cathedral of the Madeleine in Salt Lake City and asked to speak with a theologian. I told him my paternal grandmother was an adherent of the papal system and my dad was catechized before he was twenty. I was quite sure he was taught that the God of the Bible is one God in three divine persons. I told him what the LdS gentleman had said. The theologian assured me that my dad’s understanding of Roman doctrine was correct and that the LdS gentleman was mistaken about what is taught in catechism classes. I don’t remember when I was first introduced to the fact that most of the adventists who had formerly been members of the Christian Connexion continued to object to something about what they understood “the doctrine of the Trinity” to be. My first impression was that their objection in the nineteenth century was essentially the same as the objection of unitarians in the twentieth century. Do I understand The Heavenly Trio to be saying that the formerly Christian Connexion adventists misunderstood “the doctrine of the Trinity” in the same way that the above-mentioned LdS gentleman misunderstood it? If so, is that what is intended by the term “modalism”? Given that I have spoken with hundreds of people in several states (U.S.) about this subject and have yet to meet someone who considered himself “Trinitarian” and who used modalism to explain the nature of God (one person perceived in three different ways), with how many people who considered themselves “Trinitarian” have you discussed this subject and had them illustrate “God” by using the analogy of the shell and white and yolk of an egg or how H2O is “manifest” as ice, water, or vapor?
Hey mate, I you want to get an answer, talk to them via email or other social media. They do not have a moderator for their youtube comments, so you won't get an answer.
@@Johnhasa1 This first question is for anyone who might know: Do you know of a way for me to contact Ty Gibson about the subject of his book The Heavenly Trio? There seems to be some difference of opinion among SdA as to what “the advent movement” is. These differences seem to affect how we discuss “adventist doctrine”. Some SdA operate on the premise that the advent movement is a continuation of the protestant movement. In the sixteenth century, Martin Luther emphasized justification by grace alone through faith alone, the primacy of scripture and the priesthood of all believers. In the eighteenth century, John Wesley emphasized sanctification and free moral agency. In the nineteenth century, second adventists emphasized the nature of King Jesus (love - not coercion) and that those who have part in the first resurrection shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years (in heaven - not on earth). Evangelism consists of encouraging people to trust the Lord and his written word, encouraging people to read and study the Bible or/and showing people how to use non-denominational study aids such as marginal references and concordances. Under this concept of what the advent movement is, an adventist’s religion is biblical Christianity and adventists’ denominational affiliation is Seventh-day Adventist. (Two related but different things.) Different ways of explaining doctrine (such as questions about whether God is triune) are a matter of individual understanding and a variety of views can be accommodated so long as they are explained as personal views rather than as denominational dogma. Other SdA consider SdA doctrine to be VERY different in some ways from that of LdS (Mormons) but similar in the sense of being based on special revelation to a nineteenth century prophet. The result of this perspective seems to be similar to LdS in the sense that 1) there is more emphasis on what people should DO than on the grace of God, 2) there is as much as or more emphasis on the teaching of a nineteenth century prophet than on the Bible and 3) there is a basic assumption that spiritual authority is received from the officers of a religious organization through ordination ceremonies. Evangelism consists of encouraging people to trust the modern prophet’s interpretation of the Bible or encouraging people to trust a religious organization. Under this concept of what the advent movement is, the individual adventist’s religion is Advent-ISM and there is a sense that, if two adventists differ in their understanding of doctrine or use different language to explain their understanding, one of them is “wrong” or “not a real adventist”. Does any of this matter? Yes. Because these discussions detract from the message that the kingdom of Jesus is “not of this world” (John 18:36) and that, therefore, his kingdom cannot be advanced by political means. It seems to me that attempts to get all SdA to agree about whether God is triune are an exercise in futility BUT adventists who prefer to be peacemakers can encourage people to be as dedicated to independent Bible study as the adventists of the late 1940s and the decade of the 1850s, i.e. between the great disappointment and the creation of Seventh-day Adventist organizations. Organizations can help to make evangelism more effective or more efficient but only to the extent that they don’t become and end in and of themselves.
how does the law keep one HOPING? How can a guide provide hope? Just because Jesus provides all necessary requirements for restoration with our Father, that doesn't mean that there is not a standard. The law creates the framework/standard but Jesus' death and resurrection fulfills the requirement for restoration.
Amen! I was incarcerated and humbled and found freedom! It's in the gospel that was revealed to Paul and shared with us. I spent my time memorizing the scriptures that tell me that God IS Love, that He made me His child, that is IN Messiah Yeshua, we call Jesus the Christ, that I am a new creation, and sitting in the heavenly realm IN Christ, an heir according the Promise! There are so few that understand and teach this but you guys are right on and I say that to you! Isn't this the third Angels message in 'verity', the Angel that came down who lightens the earth with the Good News? These are the verses I memorized and go over daily that remind me of this hope: ruclips.net/video/F-cwEzApCDo/видео.html
How is it that you think we are going to be kings and priests if its only talking about the people back then that were under the law back then? Gal 4:5 That he might make them free WHO WERE UNDER THE LAW, and that we might be given the place of sons. The we here is them back then that were under the law. We are under grace today. This is not for us to be kings and priests.
Galatians 3:19. The translation note on this verse by the NET bible makes it clear that Moses was not acting as a mediator: "Many modern translations (NASB, NIV, NRSV) render this word (μεσίτης, mesitēs; here and in v. 20) as “mediator,” but this conveys a wrong impression in contemporary English. If this is referring to Moses, he certainly did not “mediate” between God and Israel but was an intermediary on God’s behalf. Moses was not a mediator, for example, who worked for compromise between opposing parties. He instead was God’s representative to his people who enabled them to have a relationship, but entirely on God’s terms." Moses was God's spokesperson, representing him and his Law to the people. Neither God's Law nor his Covenant were being negotiated by Moses between God and the people of Israel. The Law and the Covenant were on God's terms only.
Ty u said for. Us. To let you know what things came to mind. Here is one thing that stands . Seems like buzz word in many discussions ....it all depends on how you interpret theology......depends on how you interpret.......wow!!!how you interpret theology....come on!!it is so a buzz WORDS TYPE OF WORDING THAT A PERSON HEARS and....bla A buzz WORDS
Could not finish the point Which was....it has nothing to do with what a point is being made to coin a popular saying IT IS WHAT IT IS....SO WHERE DOES IT FIT IN TO ITS ALL HOW YOU INTERPRET IT. ANSWER JUST AS IT IS 7TH DAY IS THE SABBATH Take that and show a person that it's all in how You interpret it.JUST AS IT IS...M😋
Israel IS Ishmael Hi all It is So surprising that no one knows that the people (Jerusalem) that did Not believe the Christ, killed the Christ, and replaced the Christ with their doctrine. That is the definition of the Antichrist. They cause trouble for the Christ ians. Just like Ishmael caused trouble for Issac in: Gal 4:29 But the other son of Abraham, who was born in the normal way (Through intercourse), caused trouble for the one who was born by the power of the Spirit (miracle). It is the same today. It was Ishmael that was born only of the flesh. And he represents the earthly Jerusalem like it say in the scripture below. The earthly Jerusalem has no spirit because they can’t believe in Jesus. Today the fleshly Jews are our fathers of the flesh. Heb_12:9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh (Jerusalem) which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? Gal_4:25 So Hagar is like Mount Sinai in Arabia. She is a picture of the earthly Jewish city of Jerusalem. This city is a slave, and all its people are slaves to the law. Isaac was born of the spirit (miracle) birth to Sarah. Jesus was born of spirit (miracle) birth to Mary. Isaac was chosen by God, Jesus was Chosen by God. They together represent the born-again Christian as chosen by God. Which is the New Jerusalem Kingdom Jesus brought 2000 years ago. It is still growing like a mustard seed. Abraham was promised Jesus (the seed) to bring this better land (New Kingdom) and if you are on the narrow path it directly leads you to heaven. Heb 11:16 But now they stretch forth to a better fatherland, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared a city for them. Jesus also tells us of this. Joh_14:2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. Abraham is still alive today in a spiritual body in the heavenly land and he saw it be fulfilled when Jesus came to earth.
Joh_8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. Mat_22:32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. They live today in Heaven. The only reason you would want to be of Ismael is that you want to inherit the physical land of a physical Jerusalem like the Jews and not the spiritual heavenly land. Gal 4:30 But what do the Scriptures say? "Throw out the slave woman and her son Ishmael! The son of the free woman will receive everything his father has, but the son of the slave woman (Jerusalem) will receive nothing." ruclips.net/user/777Darrellablevideos
KJV Romans 9:8 8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. KJV Matthew 13:38 38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; KJV Romans 9:7 7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. KJV Romans 9:8 8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. KJV Galatians 3:16 16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. KJV 1 John 3:9 9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. KJV Revelation 12:17 17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
![Part 6: They Want to Exclude You [Grasping Galatians] // Ty Gibson + David Asscherick](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/2EjuxCHQm9s/mqdefault.jpg)
![Part 6: They Want to Exclude You [Grasping Galatians] // Ty Gibson + David Asscherick](/img/tr.png)
![Part 1: Are You Kidding Me? [Grasping Galatians] // Ty Gibson + David Asscherick](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/jzZKtpFm-3E/mqdefault.jpg)
![Part 2: Spiritual Spies and False Followers [Grasping Galatians] // Ty Gibson + David Asscherick](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/v1jHJ9XV_l8/mqdefault.jpg)
![Part 3: But I Say, Part 1 [Kingdom Manifesto] // Ty Gibson & David Asscherick](/img/1.gif)
Love this series. I watch it as soon as it drops every Sabbath afternoon. "Omnidirectional" is my takeaway term for today.
I love how excited you are to talk about God and His Word, more teachers should be this way
Such a blessing I’m understanding this book after 30 years love this
I'm not a math person but the arithmetic analogy made sense to me. I knew what vs 25 wasn't saying but couldn't explain it... blessings guys. Will definitely have to re-watch this
I am so blessed by the studies..each one you have done. Thank you. And your joy and " Godly giddiness" washes over into me and I worship with you in those moments!
40:17 made my day! Loving this series!
Happy Sabbath from LaFayette, GA. I love these guys & these wonderful studies 🛐♥️🛐
Loving this series, guys, and this episode has been my favorite so far! I didn't realize how much depth there is in the 2nd half of Galatians 3 - your discussion about it made my day today! Thanks a lot and God bless 🙏
You guys are so well spoken. Well done and keep up the good work.
Greetings from Seymour TN. Love these studies! Thank you.
Loving this . great study!
Another great study! Thank you
Love your talks on the Bible/
Amen! I follow you on Instagram and Facebook but use another name. You 2 are full of The Holy Spirit.
As I was listening to the presentation again, it dawned on me how radical are Paul’s words in Galatians 3:28. The Gospel is extended to persons who were considered by religious Jews to be subhuman: women and slaves (treated as property) or Greeks (degenerate because of birth). These are “one in Christ Jesus,” that is, members of the Covenant if they have the faith of Abraham. “If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.” (Verse 29.)
By extending “sonship” to Greeks, slaves and women, Paul patterns after Jesus the Messiah who mingled with Greeks, Romans, slaves, women, the poor, the diseased, the physically handicapped, the mentally ill, the unclean, those who did not align with his politics and religion, as if they were candidates for election as “sons of God.” In the Messiah, the Son of God, those of the faith of Abraham are "sons" by adoption into God’s family.
Just as God called his “son” out of Egypt (Exodus 4:23; Hosea 11:1; Matthew 2:15), he calls his “sons” out of figurative “Egypt” (the principles on which this world is based) to walk in the Way, the Truth and the Life. (John 14:6.) How we relate to (“know”) God determines how we relate to others (especially our “enemies” and those with whom we disagree). If we do not “know” God as he has been revealed in his son Jesus, we will certainly never be part of his kingdom. (Matthew 7:23)
👍🕊
AMEN
I would like to discuss scripture in general or Galatians in particular but I searched RUclips under the name “Ty Gibson” (and found this) because I recently finished reading the book The Heavenly Trio and I wanted to ask a question about it.
Our parents read the book Desire of Ages to my siblings and me in the ‘50s (maybe before that as well) so I grew up under the impression that adventists considered the God of the Bible to be triune - one God in three persons.
It wasn’t until the ‘70s that I started using the illustration that a treble note in a piano is one note - not three notes - while, at the same time, being composed of three strings - not one string. Most of my piano tuning customers were protestants. A few were unitarians. Starting no later than the 1980s, some were LdS.
The “theology in a piano” doesn’t prove anything about the nature of God but it does answer the objection I heard from unitarians that it is irrational to teach that one God is three persons. Conversely, many - probably most - of my customers expressed delight to be introduced to the piano analogy.
One LdS gentleman told me, “Catholics and Protestants teach that God is one person.” He seemed to think that “Catholics and Protestants” all explained the nature of God the way unitarians had explained their understanding to me.
That same day, I went to the Cathedral of the Madeleine in Salt Lake City and asked to speak with a theologian. I told him my paternal grandmother was an adherent of the papal system and my dad was catechized before he was twenty. I was quite sure he was taught that the God of the Bible is one God in three divine persons. I told him what the LdS gentleman had said.
The theologian assured me that my dad’s understanding of Roman doctrine was correct and that the LdS gentleman was mistaken about what is taught in catechism classes.
I don’t remember when I was first introduced to the fact that most of the adventists who had formerly been members of the Christian Connexion continued to object to something about what they understood “the doctrine of the Trinity” to be. My first impression was that their objection in the nineteenth century was essentially the same as the objection of unitarians in the twentieth century.
Do I understand The Heavenly Trio to be saying that the formerly Christian Connexion adventists misunderstood “the doctrine of the Trinity” in the same way that the above-mentioned LdS gentleman misunderstood it? If so, is that what is intended by the term “modalism”?
Given that I have spoken with hundreds of people in several states (U.S.) about this subject and have yet to meet someone who considered himself “Trinitarian” and who used modalism to explain the nature of God (one person perceived in three different ways), with how many people who considered themselves “Trinitarian” have you discussed this subject and had them illustrate “God” by using the analogy of the shell and white and yolk of an egg or how H2O is “manifest” as ice, water, or vapor?
I want to know the answer to this. Just following. Blessings
@@Anarodriguez-ry6lw Have you read Ty Gibson's book, The Heavenly Trio?
Hey mate, I you want to get an answer, talk to them via email or other social media. They do not have a moderator for their youtube comments, so you won't get an answer.
Also, they weren't modal. Just a lot of Adventists have a minimal understanding of the trinity, and therefore some fall into such misconceptions.
@@Johnhasa1 This first question is for anyone who might know: Do you know of a way for me to contact Ty Gibson about the subject of his book The Heavenly Trio?
There seems to be some difference of opinion among SdA as to what “the advent movement” is. These differences seem to affect how we discuss “adventist doctrine”.
Some SdA operate on the premise that the advent movement is a continuation of the protestant movement. In the sixteenth century, Martin Luther emphasized justification by grace alone through faith alone, the primacy of scripture and the priesthood of all believers. In the eighteenth century, John Wesley emphasized sanctification and free moral agency. In the nineteenth century, second adventists emphasized the nature of King Jesus (love - not coercion) and that those who have part in the first resurrection shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years (in heaven - not on earth). Evangelism consists of encouraging people to trust the Lord and his written word, encouraging people to read and study the Bible or/and showing people how to use non-denominational study aids such as marginal references and concordances. Under this concept of what the advent movement is, an adventist’s religion is biblical Christianity and adventists’ denominational affiliation is Seventh-day Adventist. (Two related but different things.) Different ways of explaining doctrine (such as questions about whether God is triune) are a matter of individual understanding and a variety of views can be accommodated so long as they are explained as personal views rather than as denominational dogma.
Other SdA consider SdA doctrine to be VERY different in some ways from that of LdS (Mormons) but similar in the sense of being based on special revelation to a nineteenth century prophet. The result of this perspective seems to be similar to LdS in the sense that 1) there is more emphasis on what people should DO than on the grace of God, 2) there is as much as or more emphasis on the teaching of a nineteenth century prophet than on the Bible and 3) there is a basic assumption that spiritual authority is received from the officers of a religious organization through ordination ceremonies. Evangelism consists of encouraging people to trust the modern prophet’s interpretation of the Bible or encouraging people to trust a religious organization. Under this concept of what the advent movement is, the individual adventist’s religion is Advent-ISM and there is a sense that, if two adventists differ in their understanding of doctrine or use different language to explain their understanding, one of them is “wrong” or “not a real adventist”.
Does any of this matter?
Yes. Because these discussions detract from the message that the kingdom of Jesus is “not of this world” (John 18:36) and that, therefore, his kingdom cannot be advanced by political means.
It seems to me that attempts to get all SdA to agree about whether God is triune are an exercise in futility BUT adventists who prefer to be peacemakers can encourage people to be as dedicated to independent Bible study as the adventists of the late 1940s and the decade of the 1850s, i.e. between the great disappointment and the creation of Seventh-day Adventist organizations. Organizations can help to make evangelism more effective or more efficient but only to the extent that they don’t become and end in and of themselves.
how does the law keep one HOPING? How can a guide provide hope?
Just because Jesus provides all necessary requirements for restoration with our Father, that doesn't mean that there is not a standard. The law creates the framework/standard but Jesus' death and resurrection fulfills the requirement for restoration.
Amen! I was incarcerated and humbled and found freedom! It's in the gospel that was revealed to Paul and shared with us. I spent my time memorizing the scriptures that tell me that God IS Love, that He made me His child, that is IN Messiah Yeshua, we call Jesus the Christ, that I am a new creation, and sitting in the heavenly realm IN Christ, an heir according the Promise! There are so few that understand and teach this but you guys are right on and I say that to you! Isn't this the third Angels message in 'verity', the Angel that came down who lightens the earth with the Good News? These are the verses I memorized and go over daily that remind me of this hope: ruclips.net/video/F-cwEzApCDo/видео.html
The Law was needed for slaves... in the process of being people back to Jesus.
How is it that you think we are going to be kings and priests if its only talking about the people back then that were under the law back then?
Gal 4:5 That he might make them free WHO WERE UNDER THE LAW, and that we might be given the place of sons. The we here is them back then that were under the law. We are under grace today. This is not for us to be kings and priests.
What was the name of the book by Pastor Gibson that you were talking about?
Galatians 3:19. The translation note on this verse by the NET bible makes it clear that Moses was not acting as a mediator:
"Many modern translations (NASB, NIV, NRSV) render this word (μεσίτης, mesitēs; here and in v. 20) as “mediator,” but this conveys a wrong impression in contemporary English. If this is referring to Moses, he certainly did not “mediate” between God and Israel but was an intermediary on God’s behalf. Moses was not a mediator, for example, who worked for compromise between opposing parties. He instead was God’s representative to his people who enabled them to have a relationship, but entirely on God’s terms."
Moses was God's spokesperson, representing him and his Law to the people. Neither God's Law nor his Covenant were being negotiated by Moses between God and the people of Israel. The Law and the Covenant were on God's terms only.
Thanks guys, for just letting the Bible speak and not tying to prove any particular doctrinal point.
Ty u said for. Us. To let you know what things came to mind. Here is one thing that stands . Seems like buzz word in many discussions ....it all depends on how you interpret theology......depends on how you interpret.......wow!!!how you interpret theology....come on!!it is so a buzz WORDS TYPE OF
WORDING THAT A PERSON HEARS and....bla
A buzz WORDS
Could not finish the point
Which was....it has nothing to do with what a point is being made to coin a popular saying IT IS WHAT IT IS....SO WHERE DOES IT
FIT IN TO ITS ALL HOW YOU INTERPRET IT. ANSWER JUST AS IT IS
7TH DAY IS THE SABBATH
Take that and show a person that it's all in how
You interpret it.JUST AS IT IS...M😋
Israel IS Ishmael
Hi all
It is So surprising that no one knows that the people (Jerusalem) that did Not believe the Christ, killed the Christ, and replaced the Christ with their doctrine. That is the definition of the Antichrist. They cause trouble for the Christ ians. Just like Ishmael caused trouble for Issac in:
Gal 4:29 But the other son of Abraham, who was born in the normal way (Through intercourse), caused trouble for the one who was born by the power of the Spirit (miracle). It is the same today.
It was Ishmael that was born only of the flesh. And he represents the earthly Jerusalem like it say in the scripture below. The earthly Jerusalem has no spirit because they can’t believe in Jesus. Today the fleshly Jews are our fathers of the flesh.
Heb_12:9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh (Jerusalem) which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?
Gal_4:25 So Hagar is like Mount Sinai in Arabia. She is a picture of the earthly Jewish city of Jerusalem. This city is a slave, and all its people are slaves to the law.
Isaac was born of the spirit (miracle) birth to Sarah. Jesus was born of spirit (miracle) birth to Mary. Isaac was chosen by God, Jesus was Chosen by God. They together represent the born-again Christian as chosen by God. Which is the New Jerusalem Kingdom Jesus brought 2000 years ago. It is still growing like a mustard seed. Abraham was promised Jesus (the seed) to bring this better land (New Kingdom) and if you are on the narrow path it directly leads you to heaven.
Heb 11:16 But now they stretch forth to a better fatherland, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared a city for them.
Jesus also tells us of this.
Joh_14:2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
Abraham is still alive today in a spiritual body in the heavenly land and he saw it be fulfilled when Jesus came to earth.
Joh_8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
Mat_22:32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
They live today in Heaven.
The only reason you would want to be of Ismael is that you want to inherit the physical land of a physical Jerusalem like the Jews and not the spiritual heavenly land.
Gal 4:30 But what do the Scriptures say? "Throw out the slave woman and her son Ishmael! The son of the free woman will receive everything his father has, but the son of the slave woman (Jerusalem) will receive nothing."
ruclips.net/user/777Darrellablevideos
KJV Romans 9:8
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
KJV Matthew 13:38
38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;
KJV Romans 9:7
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
KJV Romans 9:8
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
KJV Galatians 3:16
16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
KJV 1 John 3:9
9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
KJV Revelation 12:17
17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Wish u would shut up Ty some time seems u keep interrupting DAVID!!