Why are they called Hebrews?

[eclipseEventSigns]

The facts were given in the original post.

I corrected your assumptions and opinion with the facts given in the Bible.

 

[Jarhead4Jesus]

I don't see a single verse reference in any of your posts.

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

I don't see a single verse reference in any of your posts.

Look again.

 

[Jarhead4Jesus]

Look again.

You must be referring to the verse references that were copied over from my posts, which then become the top portion of your response.

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

You must be referring to the verse references that were copied over from my posts, which then become the top portion of your response.

I'm really not interested anymore in this argument if you can't admit to error.

 

[Jarhead4Jesus]

Please, provide some scriptural references and thereby identify the errors that you're referring to.

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

Please, provide some scriptural references and thereby identify the errors that you're referring to.

LOL. Do some actual reading of your own thread.

 

[Jarhead4Jesus]

LOL. Do some actual reading of your own thread.

Indeed, because that's where the scriptural references in this post are found.

 

[Mr GLee]

Genesis chapter 11 provides the genealogy of the patriarchs from the time of the Flood to Abraham. The third patriarch to be born after the Flood was named ‘Eber’. It is this patriarch whose name is rendered ‘Hebrew’. So, why are Abraham and his lineage referred to as ‘Hebrews’, instead of something else from one of the other patriarchs?

Patriarchal Sequence	Patriarch	Year of Birth	Year of Death
10	Noah	1057	2007
11	Shem	1559	2159
12	Arphaxad	1659	2097
13	Salah	1694	2127
14	Eber (Hebrew)	1724	2188
15	Peleg	1758	1997
16	Reu	1788	2027
17	Serug	1820	2050
18	Nahor	1850	1998
19	Terah	1879	2084
20	Abraham	2009	2184
21	Isaac	2110	2290
22	Jacob	2170	2317

Eber outlived all of his fathers (that came through the Flood). He also outlived all of his children (in the patriarchal lineage) including Abraham. He lived long enough to have known Isaac and even Jacob to the age of 18.

Moses recognized Eber’s longevity before his lineage was even given.
Genesis 10:21, ‘Unto Shem also, the father of all the children of Eber, the brother of Japheth the elder, even to him were children born.’

And Abraham was the first to be called a ‘Hebrew’.
Genesis 14:13 ‘And there came one that had escaped, and told Abram the Hebrew; for he dwelt in the plain of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol, and brother of Aner: and these were confederate with Abram.’

Eber, so called Hebrew, was the elder father of the patriarchs after the Flood.

I would offer. No genealogy in the God head. One Spirit the Father of all spirit life

The spiritual seed of born-again mankind "Christ in us"

It powerfully worked in Abel setting up you must be born again from above the loving law .

Cain seeing no value in first born silenced the gospel. Cain buried Abel the martyr under the corn The pagan foundation "Out of sight out of mind "

That was In order to emphasize dying mankind must be born again. Christ used another second born to replace Abel . . Enos being the second time then and not before born again men were heard on high

That seed was passed down and rejected by dying men . Onan spiled it seeing no value in the invisible spiritual powerful things of Christ.

Esau sold his for a cup of hairy goat soup passed on the seed.

Abraham a second born it came to an end with Jesus the Son of Man. First born of many sons of God (Christian's)

Genisis 4:25-26And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the Lord.

 

[Jarhead4Jesus]

I would offer. No genealogy in the God head. One Spirit the Father of all spirit life

The spiritual seed of born-again mankind "Christ in us"

It powerfully worked in Abel setting up you must be born again from above the loving law .

Cain seeing no value in first born silenced the gospel. Cain buried Abel the martyr under the corn The pagan foundation "Out of sight out of mind "

That was In order to emphasize dying mankind must be born again. Christ used another second born to replace Abel . . Enos being the second time then and not before born again men were heard on high

That seed was passed down and rejected by dying men . Onan spiled it seeing no value in the invisible spiritual powerful things of Christ.

Esau sold his for a cup of hairy goat soup passed on the seed.

Abraham a second born it came to an end with Jesus the Son of Man. First born of many sons of God (Christian's)

Genisis 4:25-26And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the Lord.

I'm still not sure how that addresses this particular post. Cain and Abel don't really seem to be a part of the equation as it pertains to the lineage of the "Hebrews'. Esau was a bit after-the-fact, and Seth and Enos were also long gone by the time of the Flood.

 

[Mr GLee]

I'm still not sure how that addresses this particular post. Cain and Abel don't really seem to be a part of the equation as it pertains to the lineage of the "Hebrews'. Esau was a bit after-the-fact, and Seth and Enos were also long gone by the time of the Flood.

The apostle Abel the first second born used represent Christ the unseen spiritual seed that works in all born again sons of God.

Satan destroyed the use of the seed (Christ) through Abel the martyr The second time he used Enos then the rest is shown in the Luke Genealogy

Luke 3:34;38 Which was the son of Jacob(second born), which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham(second born ) , which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor, Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala, Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech, Which was the son of Matehuala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,; Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

Indeed, because that's where the scriptural references in this post are found.

That you are not honest when people point out your failings makes it highly unlikely you will be taken seriously from now on.

 

[Jarhead4Jesus]

That you are not honest when people point out your failings makes it highly unlikely you will be taken seriously from now on.

I am confident that anyone who reads the conversation of this post will clearly identify the dishonesty.

 

[EarlyActs]

I believe it is because in Abraham are all the promises given to what will be the nation of Israel. All promises given after that grow out of the Abrahamic covenant.

Lees

Actually Gal 3 says that such promises are in Christ, and that's what the letter to the Hebrews is quite detached from the land, ch 11 (they were not seeking a land). Paul clearly sees the evangelism of the world as the completion of promises, and hoped that Jews would see that.

 

[EarlyActs]

Genesis chapter 11 provides the genealogy of the patriarchs from the time of the Flood to Abraham. The third patriarch to be born after the Flood was named ‘Eber’. It is this patriarch whose name is rendered ‘Hebrew’. So, why are Abraham and his lineage referred to as ‘Hebrews’, instead of something else from one of the other patriarchs?

Patriarchal Sequence	Patriarch	Year of Birth	Year of Death
10	Noah	1057	2007
11	Shem	1559	2159
12	Arphaxad	1659	2097
13	Salah	1694	2127
14	Eber (Hebrew)	1724	2188
15	Peleg	1758	1997
16	Reu	1788	2027
17	Serug	1820	2050
18	Nahor	1850	1998
19	Terah	1879	2084
20	Abraham	2009	2184
21	Isaac	2110	2290
22	Jacob	2170	2317

Eber outlived all of his fathers (that came through the Flood). He also outlived all of his children (in the patriarchal lineage) including Abraham. He lived long enough to have known Isaac and even Jacob to the age of 18.

Moses recognized Eber’s longevity before his lineage was even given.
Genesis 10:21, ‘Unto Shem also, the father of all the children of Eber, the brother of Japheth the elder, even to him were children born.’

And Abraham was the first to be called a ‘Hebrew’.
Genesis 14:13 ‘And there came one that had escaped, and told Abram the Hebrew; for he dwelt in the plain of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol, and brother of Aner: and these were confederate with Abram.’

Eber, so called Hebrew, was the elder father of the patriarchs after the Flood.

I've also read that the Gen 14 naming (not in connection to the genealogy) may be from a connection to the city Hebron which was east of the Jordan, possibly Nabatean.

 

[Lees]

Actually Gal 3 says that such promises are in Christ, and that's what the letter to the Hebrews is quite detached from the land, ch 11 (they were not seeking a land). Paul clearly sees the evangelism of the world as the completion of promises, and hoped that Jews would see that.

Where in (Gal. 3) does it say that?

Why do you see (Heb. 11) detached from the land promises to Abraham? Are you saying God promised them the land, but reneged on His promise?

Are you saying the 'evangelism of the world' means the 'conversion of the world'?

Lees

 

[EarlyActs]

Where in (Gal. 3) does it say that?

Why do you see (Heb. 11) detached from the land promises to Abraham? Are you saying God promised them the land, but reneged on His promise?

Are you saying the 'evangelism of the world' means the 'conversion of the world'?

Lees

Read Gal 3 10x and then define the promise. It's not the land.

Read Heb 11 10x and then see what they (the faith-full) thought of the land. This may be due to the line back in ch 2, that 'this great salvation' was about the world to come, not on this one. Note the extended contrast between the Jerusalem below and the one 'above' which is a term that actually means the 'original.'

Paul hoped (with Isaiah, Daniel, etc) that the people would go all over the earth as evangelists about Christ. He restated this nearly every time, and the last time in public in ch 26. That's why the gate of the new city is salvation and its courts are praise--Isaiah. He did not pin any perfect outcome on it, but Christ was enthroned in the resurrection and anyone belonging to him should be explaining this to those around them, in honor of Him. (Ps 2, Acts 2-4).

 

[Lees]

Read Gal 3 10x and then define the promise. It's not the land.

Read Heb 11 10x and then see what they (the faith-full) thought of the land. This may be due to the line back in ch 2, that 'this great salvation' was about the world to come, not on this one. Note the extended contrast between the Jerusalem below and the one 'above' which is a term that actually means the 'original.'

Paul hoped (with Isaiah, Daniel, etc) that the people would go all over the earth as evangelists about Christ. He restated this nearly every time, and the last time in public in ch 26. That's why the gate of the new city is salvation and its courts are praise--Isaiah. He did not pin any perfect outcome on it, but Christ was enthroned in the resurrection and anyone belonging to him should be explaining this to those around them, in honor of Him. (Ps 2, Acts 2-4).

Sorry, I don't see it. Point it out to me. I see the promises explained to the Gentiles. That is only part of the Abrahamic Covenant.

Again, sorry, I don't see it. Point it out to me. None of what you say addresses the land promise. Again, are you saying God reneged on His promise to Abraham concerning the land?

Evangelism is important in the Christian faith. But it's not the end or completion of God's promises. And is not the fulfillment of God's promises to Abraham.

Lees

 

[EarlyActs]

Sorry, I don't see it. Point it out to me. I see the promises explained to the Gentiles. That is only part of the Abrahamic Covenant.

Again, sorry, I don't see it. Point it out to me. None of what you say addresses the land promise. Again, are you saying God reneged on His promise to Abraham concerning the land?

Evangelism is important in the Christian faith. But it's not the end or completion of God's promises. And is not the fulfillment of God's promises to Abraham.

Lees

You have to realize that to say the land promise matters at the time put you in the league of the zealots and their rebellion against Rome. That is why the land does not matter, in a streetwise sense.

But theologically, God did not reneg because Joshua said twice that all the promise was fulfilled. When David came that promise was fulfilled. That's why neither factor in the official sermon to a synagogue in Acts 13. In fact Paul quotes an Isaiah verse about the transfer of David's to Christ and sees it as fulfilled in the resurrection, which demonstrates that Acts 2:30 was truly about the resurrection not a future kingdom, as the grammar has it.

Then in speaking of the res in Acts 13, he says that all things promised to the patriarchs are fulfilled. If this were not the case (if the resurrection had not superceded), there would have been no after issue with the Jews there, which there was.

This is why Gal 3 does not mention the land; there are not 2 programs going on in the Bible, like Ryrie taught in DISPENSATIONALISM TODAY, there is just one. IF there were two, there would be no conflict between Judaism and Christian faith, but of course there is.

Heb 11 does not mention the land for the same 2 reasons; one that it is totally inappropriate in that generation to put yourself on the side of the zealots and the risks that involved, and a believer had to expect persecution by the zealots not complicity with them! And two because the chapter says twice that the believers never where looking for a land here on earth even though they had it for the sake of the location of Israel in being a hub of 3 continents, for the sake of evangelism. If you can't find these verses, you are missing the pulse of Heb 11. Likewise in Gal 3.

Any normal reading of Gal 3 is that the promise was the opportunity to be Messiah's evangelists to the world. This is why the analogy or allegory is drawn from Isaiah in Gal 4 'shout aloud barren woman' (the believers).

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

You have to realize that to say the land promise matters at the time put you in the league of the zealots and their rebellion against Rome. That is why the land does not matter, in a streetwise sense.

But theologically, God did not reneg because Joshua said twice that all the promise was fulfilled. When David came that promise was fulfilled. That's why neither factor in the official sermon to a synagogue in Acts 13. In fact Paul quotes an Isaiah verse about the transfer of David's to Christ and sees it as fulfilled in the resurrection, which demonstrates that Acts 2:30 was truly about the resurrection not a future kingdom, as the grammar has it.

Then in speaking of the res in Acts 13, he says that all things promised to the patriarchs are fulfilled. If this were not the case (if the resurrection had not superceded), there would have been no after issue with the Jews there, which there was.

This is why Gal 3 does not mention the land; there are not 2 programs going on in the Bible, like Ryrie taught in DISPENSATIONALISM TODAY, there is just one. IF there were two, there would be no conflict between Judaism and Christian faith, but of course there is.

Heb 11 does not mention the land for the same 2 reasons; one that it is totally inappropriate in that generation to put yourself on the side of the zealots and the risks that involved, and a believer had to expect persecution by the zealots not complicity with them! And two because the chapter says twice that the believers never where looking for a land here on earth even though they had it for the sake of the location of Israel in being a hub of 3 continents, for the sake of evangelism. If you can't find these verses, you are missing the pulse of Heb 11. Likewise in Gal 3.

Any normal reading of Gal 3 is that the promise was the opportunity to be Messiah's evangelists to the world. This is why the analogy or allegory is drawn from Isaiah in Gal 4 'shout aloud barren woman' (the believers).

Provably false statements. The promised land has never been fully realized. God promised His chosen nation of Israel all the land up to the Euphrates river and into Egypt. That has NEVER happened yet.