# Issac was promised before Ishmael



## Artfuldodger (May 4, 2012)

This was mentioned on another thread about firstborn. Does this story have anything to teach other than God having the power to do what he chooses or is it just a part of biblical history showing lineage?


----------



## Ronnie T (May 4, 2012)

No sir, it's a perfect example of God doing exactly as he pleases.  There's a chapter in Romans that continues to make that clear.
He is not bound by our beliefs.  There isn't anything written or spoken by Jesus or His disciples that will refute that fact.
God is God.


----------



## hobbs27 (May 6, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> This was mentioned on another thread about firstborn. Does this story have anything to teach other than God having the power to do what he chooses or is it just a part of biblical history showing lineage?



Pray about it, see if God shows you something about the Jew and the Gentile. There's a story there, but not everyone will accept it.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 6, 2012)

Ishemael was the result of Abraham trying to help God with his promise. Abraham was promised a son. So Abraham tried to create the promise. God did not need any help in delievering what he had promised. Issac was Abraham's firstborn because he was "before" Ishmael. OT saints considered God's promises as if they were fact, just not always existing as of yet.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 6, 2012)

This is a good example of the use of "through". The promise came through Issac. The promise of the HS came through Jesus. Upon receiving the HS, we become a new creation. All "through" Jesus. The incorrect rendering of "by" instead of "through" has forever derailed many


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 6, 2012)

What I got out of it was the "firstborn" could  be something totally different that what we think is the firstborn. Like the firstborn of creation or Jesus.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 6, 2012)

If you looked that up in a dictionary you will see how religion has influenced. It clearly means that he is the first one born. He is also the first one born from the dead. Yet they have twisted it to fit saying that it means rank. They did the same to mediator, saying you must be both God and man to be a mediator. Not so as you know. There are a couple more words that are defined corruptly that I can't recall------ After rereading your post, I think I misunderstood


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 6, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> What I got out of it was the "firstborn" could  be something totally different that what we think is the firstborn. Like the firstborn of creation or Jesus.


Trins don't accept that Jesus is created by God. That he had a beginning. Check out Rev 3:14 "the ruler of God's creation". LOL This use of "ruler" is the only time they rendered it this way. Why, because they did not want to use the proper "beginning" of God's creation. This greek word "arche" means beginning 31 times in the NT. Intentional corruption abounds


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 6, 2012)

My Jesus isn't God. He is the Son of God. To the Trinity believers Jesus is part 2 of 3. To the Oneness believers he is God, not divided into three. To the J.W.'s he is an angel. To me he has deity. To 1gr8bldr he is a man given the right to be the firstborn Son of God. God can make Jesus whoever he wants him to be.
I don't know all the answers but I do know that Jesus died for my sins and that he is my Savior. I haven't read anything in the Bible that says I have to believe he is anyone but the "Son of God."


----------

