ECT 2 confrontations about Israel's kingdom

[Interplanner]

Lk 24 and Acts 1 are not that far apart in real time.

In 24, the two disciples are downcast that it seemed that christ was not going to redeem Israel after all. 'He was well liked, but was killed by the leaders. But we had hoped...'

They are blasted by Christ for not realizing how much the resurrection meant. That's why I think it is safe to say that the apostles' doctrine must maximize all that the resurrection is, as I have done in the NT core thread. To not realize that the resurrection was Christ's entering his glory is to be both foolish and slow of heart. That's what 'all the prophets' means there. It clearly does not mean the restoration of the land of israel, as it sank into tragic conflagration. 'Enter his glory' is a perfect framing for Peter to preach: David foresaw that the resurrection was the enthronement, 2:30-31 in normal, plain language. Honestly, he is on such a different page from the ascended masters of D'ism it is irreparable. No wonder they think they have to fix it.

In Acts 1, they manage to ask again if Israel's kingdom was coming--maybe all that darkness and gloom he painted before the trial etc was supposed to be deleted....

He told them it was not supposed to be thought about. contrast that with Chafer and the minions who have made an industry out of it.

But...they would get the actual kingdom's power to preach to Israel and to the nations. That's the direction and shift that everything was supposed to take.

You only have to read ACts to know that's the direction it did take. No further word about a land of Israel restoration, in fact, twice set aside. And a wonderful effort to the nations.

 

[Danoh]

More of your books based dribble, IP.

Fact of the matter?

Luke 24:19 And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people:

24:20 And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him. 24:21 But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done.

24:25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: 24:26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

What understanding was that about first His sufferings, then His entering into His glory?

Why not ask Luke?

What a novel idea...

Luke 17:22 And he said unto the disciples, The days will come, when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see it. 17:23 And they shall say to you, See here; or, see there: go not after them, nor follow them. 17:24 For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day. 17:25 But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation. 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. 17:27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. 17:28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; 17:29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. 17:30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

Hunh?

Wait a minute - Peter was there when the Lord said all that in Luke 17 - let's let's ask him!

What a concept!

1 Peter 1:9 Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls. 1:10 Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: 1:11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. 1:12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into. 1:13 Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;

Boy, this Bible study sure is difficult - I wonder if IP might loan me his Preterist Central library card...

What's that o "word of Christ dwelling in" me "richly"?

Isaiah 8:19 And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

You're right, Word - never mind IP...

2 Corinthians 4:13 We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak; 4:14 Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present us with you.

Whew!

Close call into the notions of men there, for a sec.

 

[Interplanner]

As a unit, Lk 24 explains it's 'all that was written' itself. I did not go far enough in the OP.

v44 comes back to the 40 day seminar and says what the all is. There is no difference from earlier, and there is no restoration of Israel as D'ism thinks:
The Christ would suffer
rise from the dead
be preached to all nations, starting at Jerusalem. The content of the preaching was that repentance and forgiveness be preached in his name.
The promise would come: the Spirit of God and power.
The band of disciples were witnesses of him, his events and his commission.

The restoration of Israel is not on the list. It is not as such a consideration anywhere in the NT.

 

[jamie]

The restoration of Israel is not on the list. It is not as such a consideration anywhere in the NT.

"So Jesus said to them, 'Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.'" (Matthew 19:28)

"But you are those who have continued with Me in My trials. And I bestow upon you a kingdom, just as My Father bestowed one upon Me, that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel." (Luke 22:28-30)

"You are worthy to take the scroll,
And to open its seals;
For You were slain,
And have redeemed us to God by Your blood
Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation,
And have made us kings and priests to our God;
And we shall reign on the earth." (Revelation 5:9-10)

Redeemed us out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation.

To do what?

We shall reign on the earth.

Why do you believe these scriptures are not in the NT?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

As a unit, Lk 24 explains it's 'all that was written' itself. I did not go far enough in the OP.

v44 comes back to the 40 day seminar and says what the all is. There is no difference from earlier, and there is no restoration of Israel as D'ism thinks:
The Christ would suffer
rise from the dead
be preached to all nations, starting at Jerusalem. The content of the preaching was that repentance and forgiveness be preached in his name.
The promise would come: the Spirit of God and power.
The band of disciples were witnesses of him, his events and his commission.

The restoration of Israel is not on the list. It is not as such a consideration anywhere in the NT.

Matthew 10:23 (KJV)

 

[Interplanner]

"So Jesus said to them, 'Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.'" (Matthew 19:28)

"But you are those who have continued with Me in My trials. And I bestow upon you a kingdom, just as My Father bestowed one upon Me, that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel." (Luke 22:28-30)

"You are worthy to take the scroll,
And to open its seals;
For You were slain,
And have redeemed us to God by Your blood
Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation,
And have made us kings and priests to our God;
And we shall reign on the earth." (Revelation 5:9-10)

Redeemed us out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation.

To do what?

We shall reign on the earth.

Why do you believe these scriptures are not in the NT?

They are in the NT.

He reigns already; we reign in Him. Cp. Rom 8:37, 2 Cor 2:14, 6:10. There's that kind of reigning vs a theocracy. Show me where in the Rev the happy reign takes place. Instead it ends with the final trouble for believers at which they are rescued and the NHNE comes. Rev 20:4 puts the whole 'long reign' of Christ in heaven. But the Rev is heavily symbolic and visionary. I just don't find a reign on earth clearly validated in the plain language passages of NT eschatology, which I have listed 1000x (to use another symbol).

There is either the contradiction of reigning in this life or the bliss of the NHNE.

As for your Mt 19 and Lk 22 references, Lk 22 sets the time pretty tightly: their next supper like that will be in the kingdom. and he ends by saying he is conferring it upon them right then. They led "Israel." Other passages like this says along with persecutions and others say the position the disciples seek is secured by the loss of their lives, like him. Because they claimed they could drink his cup. I don't see where this is any thing other than what is about to happen at Pentecost, and "power" in Acts 1:8 is a king's authority and force, and it is certainly not distant future.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

They are in the NT.

He reigns already; we reign in Him. Cp. Rom 8:37, 2 Cor 2:14, 6:10. There's that kind of reigning vs a theocracy. Show me where in the Rev the happy reign takes place. Instead it ends with the final trouble for believers at which they are rescued and the NHNE comes. Rev 20:4 puts the whole 'long reign' of Christ in heaven. But the Rev is heavily symbolic and visionary. I just don't find a reign on earth clearly validated in the plain language passages of NT eschatology, which I have listed 1000x (to use another symbol).

There is either the contradiction of reigning in this life or the bliss of the NHNE.

As for your Mt 19 and Lk 22 references, Lk 22 sets the time pretty tightly: their next supper like that will be in the kingdom. and he ends by saying he is conferring it upon them right then. They led "Israel." Other passages like this says along with persecutions and others say the position the disciples seek is secured by the loss of their lives, like him. Because they claimed they could drink his cup. I don't see where this is any thing other than what is about to happen at Pentecost, and "power" in Acts 1:8 is a king's authority and force, and it is certainly not distant future.

Translation: unbelief

 

[jamie]

Translation: unbelief

:thumb:

My experience has been that scripture is just not for everybody.

 

[patrick jane]

:thumb:

My experience has been that scripture is just not for everybody.

It's OK, stick with it !! :thumb: :chuckle:

 

[Right Divider]

The restoration of Israel is not on the list. It is not as such a consideration anywhere in the NT.

Rom 11:11-15 (AKJV/PCE)​

(11:11) I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but [rather] through their fall salvation [is come] unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. (11:12) Now if the fall of them [be] the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness? (11:13) For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: (11:14) If by any means I may provoke to emulation [them which are] my flesh, and might save some of them. (11:15) For if the casting away of them [be] the reconciling of the world, what [shall] the receiving [of them be], but life from the dead?


​

Wrong again Mr. Unbeliever.

 

[Interplanner]

Rom 11:11-15 (AKJV/PCE)​

(11:11) I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but [rather] through their fall salvation [is come] unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. (11:12) Now if the fall of them [be] the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness? (11:13) For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: (11:14) If by any means I may provoke to emulation [them which are] my flesh, and might save some of them. (11:15) For if the casting away of them [be] the reconciling of the world, what [shall] the receiving [of them be], but life from the dead?


​

Wrong again Mr. Unbeliever.

Wrong again. he was talking about them helping in the mission of Christ. See the whole middle of ch 10. He is trying to provoke them to be involved. Because only if they produce its fruit will they truly be in the olive tree. The land of Israel has nothing to do it, except that had he succeeded in that generation, he might have saved the country from the complete destruction of 66-72.

 

[Interplanner]

Rom 11:11-15 (AKJV/PCE)​

(11:11) I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but [rather] through their fall salvation [is come] unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. (11:12) Now if the fall of them [be] the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness? (11:13) For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: (11:14) If by any means I may provoke to emulation [them which are] my flesh, and might save some of them. (11:15) For if the casting away of them [be] the reconciling of the world, what [shall] the receiving [of them be], but life from the dead?


​

Wrong again Mr. Unbeliever.

Wrong again. he was talking about them helping in the mission of Christ. See the whole middle of ch 10. He is trying to provoke them to be involved. Because only if they produce its fruit will they truly be in the olive tree. The land of Israel has nothing to do it, except that had he succeeded in that generation, he might have saved the country from the complete destruction of 66-72.

It will help YOU RD if you stop putting yourself in the exalted position of being the judge of Bible believer or just plain believer. All it does it make your categories too worshiped to see clearly.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Wrong again. he was talking about them helping in the mission of Christ. See the whole middle of ch 10. He is trying to provoke them to be involved. Because only if they produce its fruit will they truly be in the olive tree. The land of Israel has nothing to do it, except that had he succeeded in that generation, he might have saved the country from the complete destruction of 66-72.

It will help YOU RD if you stop putting yourself in the exalted position of being the judge of Bible believer or just plain believer. All it does it make your categories too worshiped to see clearly.

Made up.

 

[Interplanner]

Even though 'terms of peace' is discussed as bona fide in Luke, I don't see where the destruction of Israel could have been prevented, but he did want to save (ie justification) as many of his countrymen as possible.

 

[Interplanner]

:thumb:

My experience has been that scripture is just not for everybody.

Do you mean that particular one (Mt 25), or that Scripture in general is quite difficult to follow? It certainly is, and I can understand why people thought 2P2P was such a great idea at first. Chafer developed it because he said Scripture is a mess of conflicting messages.

If you meant passages about the kingdom as a category, here are a couple pointers: 'basileu' is better as 'reign.' If you put 'kingdom' you are going to get entangled in the leftover expectations about Israel--the same ones the disciples were raised in in Lk 24:21 and Acts 1:6. Both of which were when they were unable to see what his reign was. so they thought he meant the usual---a Davidic theocracy with glorious positions for them. He did not.

D'ism keeps trying this.

The descriptions of his kingdom are not that brick and mortar. He does not have properties, lands, boundaries in his. It moves like the wind. There are no flags, no external markers. yet it asks all rulers on earth to submit to the exalted and enthroned Son of God, or face a nasty ending. Just see how many times Ps 2 is quoted about that!

Another thing you can do about kingdom passages is just learn about Christ's mission in general until THAT is your understanding of what God is doing since the Gospel event. Because his 'reign' was really just an alternate name for that mission.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Do you mean that particular one (Mt 25), or that Scripture in general is quite difficult to follow? It certainly is, and I can understand why people thought 2P2P was such a great idea at first. Chafer developed it because he said Scripture is a mess of conflicting messages.

If you meant passages about the kingdom as a category, here are a couple pointers: 'basileu' is better as 'reign.' If you put 'kingdom' you are going to get entangled in the leftover expectations about Israel--the same ones the disciples were raised in in Lk 24:21 and Acts 1:6. Both of which were when they were unable to see what his reign was. so they thought he meant the usual---a Davidic theocracy with glorious positions for them. He did not.

D'ism keeps trying this.

The descriptions of his kingdom are not that brick and mortar. He does not have properties, lands, boundaries in his. It moves like the wind. There are no flags, no external markers. yet it asks all rulers on earth to submit to the exalted and enthroned Son of God, or face a nasty ending. Just see how many times Ps 2 is quoted about that!

Another thing you can do about kingdom passages is just learn about Christ's mission in general until THAT is your understanding of what God is doing since the Gospel event. Because his 'reign' was really just an alternate name for that mission.

From which commentary is this lifted?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

The descriptions of his kingdom are not that brick and mortar. He does not have properties, lands, boundaries in his. It moves like the wind.

100% made up. Why?

 

[Interplanner]

D'ism is so clever! You can have Christ refer to the disciples foolish hearts (Lk 24) and then tell them a certain topic is none of their business (Acts 1) and it's still not a rebuke or rebukes! I'll if that works where I work!

 

[Interplanner]

I'm not here to win. I'm here to see more people saturated with the heart of the Bible, that the Seed was Christ, to work in his mission. I don't see where straining to show a land promise for Israel helps with that at all.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

I'm not here to win. I'm here to see more people saturated with the heart of the Bible, that the Seed was Christ, to work in his mission. I don't see where straining to show a land promise for Israel helps with that at all.

Sure.