ECT Acts 13-Interplanner's Continuous Rebellion

[patrick jane]

It is not what Acts 2:30-31 plainly says. The resurrection was the enthronement. so does Eph 1:19+. D'ism is a total crock on this and needs to butt out. Especially on eph 1 because linked to it is the power of the resurrection in what we speak and teach. You screw it all up by distracting people to something in Judea etc. that is obstructing the power of the resurrection through the believer.

You lead people down the wrong road with your ill conceived interpretations. You have a serious problem understanding the written word.

 

[Tambora]

It is not what Acts 2:30-31 plainly says. The resurrection was the enthronement. so does Eph 1:19+. D'ism is a total crock on this and needs to butt out. Especially on eph 1 because linked to it is the power of the resurrection in what we speak and teach. You screw it all up by distracting people to something in Judea etc. that is obstructing the power of the resurrection through the believer.

Wrong.
To sit on David's throne, He had to be resurrected.
It does not say He immediately sat upon David's throne when he was resurrected.

The Lord Jesus Christ is not ruling from David's earthly throne.
He has not yet gathered the dispersed of Israel back into the promised land.
The northern and southern kingdoms of Israel have not been united and replanted into the promised land, never to be uprooted again.

 

[Tambora]

:chuckle:

I know that. But what she said sounded like preterism.
She'll say anything to oppose MAD wackos.

If she thinks the Lord Jesus Christ is already ruling from the earthly throne of David, she has a preterist view of it.

I don't know how anyone that studies the bible seriously could come to the conclusion that the northern and southern kingdoms have been regathered and united as one in the promised land, in safety and prosperous, never to be uprooted again.

 

[Interplanner]

If she thinks the Lord Jesus Christ is already ruling from the earthly throne of David, she has a preterist view of it.

I don't know how anyone that studies the bible seriously could come to the conclusion that the northern and southern kingdoms have been regathered and united as one in the promised land, in safety and prosperous, never to be uprooted again.

Because they are unified in Christ and his mission. You are really dense. You have to move past the literal constraints you have put on it; that's your problem.

He was made Lord and Christ. Every knee is to bow. The matter is about WHAT TO PREACH not whether we are supposed to be literal about the OT.

Crown him with many crowns! The Lamb upon his throne...

 

[Interplanner]

Wrong.
To sit on David's throne, He had to be resurrected.
It does not say He immediately sat upon David's throne when he was resurrected.

The Lord Jesus Christ is not ruling from David's earthly throne.
He has not yet gathered the dispersed of Israel back into the promised land.
The northern and southern kingdoms of Israel have not been united and replanted into the promised land, never to be uprooted again.

It wasn't that throne. The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand'...So how can it be the usual son or throne as Judaism thought? It is not.

The reason for his being "declared with power to be that Son of God through the resurrection" (ROm 1:2) was so that the mission to the nations would get underway and succeed. That's why Acts 15 is the authority on Amos 9. You need to completely change what you expect from 100 years of Chafer to what the NT says was to be expected.

 

[Interplanner]

You lead people down the wrong road with your ill conceived interpretations. You have a serious problem understanding the written word.

I already know you'll say that 100x. How about a reason? You have to have a reason about Acts 2. Tam just gave one, a miserable one but at least a reason: he wasn't sitting down immediately. Well, it's miserable because it is nonsense, and not what the text says. "Sit at my right hand until..." I just don't know where in internetland she gives herself the AUTHORITY to say things like this, but it seems to be from 100 years of Chafer.


--IP, proudly rebel from D'ism

 

[Tambora]

Because they are unified in Christ and his mission.

That does not fulfill the promise of a restored earthly kingdom of Israel located in the very land it once was before.

You are really dense. You have to move past the literal constraints you have put on it; that's your problem.

Treating the promise of literal land as literal land is not a constraint I have put on it.
Scripture does.
It was literal earthly land specified by literal earthly boundaries.
It was literal land that Abe literaly walked upon with his own literal feet and looked upon with his own literal eyes.

The matter is about WHAT TO PREACH not whether we are supposed to be literal about the OT.

You should be literal about the land promise because scripture is literal about the land promise.

 

[Interplanner]

That does not fulfill the promise of a restored earthly kingdom of Israel located in the very land it once was before.


Treating the promise of literal land as literal land is not a constraint I have put on it.
Scripture does.
It was literal earthly land specified by literal earthly boundaries.
It was literal land that Abe literaly walked upon with his own literal feet and looked upon with his own literal eyes.

You should be literal about the land promise because scripture is literal about the land promise.

The NT is not. That's why. There is not a hint of expectation in it like yours, only adaption to the enthroned king who is to be proclaimed to the whole earth. "We have heard from the Law that Messiah will remain forever. Jesus: While you have the light, walk in the light."

See Rom 1: the reason for the reign of Christ is so that the whole earth comes to the obedience of faith. What on earth would be the purpose of reigning for a few years from Jerusalem, since you don't mean the NHNE?

Or take Acts 13: what is literal about saying the resurrection completes the fulfillment of the promise to Israel?

We are supposed to be preaching the apostle's doctrine, not a restoration of Israel about which we are not even to ask, but you are obsessed with it.

 

[Interplanner]

Christians preach a historic faith; that's what the four doctrines of the apostles consist of. IT does not preach something that might happen future that has been subject to 150 years of debate.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

STP, you are not getting the point about Acts 13. There is no such promise. Find me an OT promise that says what the explanation says: that the resurrection would give israel its mission to the world of forgiveness.

I don't care if you go singular, or a collective singular or plural. Paul is saying that what ever is outstanding promised to Israel is now completed in the resurrection FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE GOSPEL'S MISSION.

Made up. Singular promise.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Christians preach a historic faith; that's what the four doctrines of the apostles consist of. IT does not preach something that might happen future that has been subject to 150 years of debate.

More made up stuff.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Because they are unified in Christ and his mission. You are really dense. You have to move past the literal constraints you have put on it; that's your problem.

Taking God at his Word really upsets IP the Fabulous.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

God's new Covenant promises are all summed up in the singular Savior, Jesus Christ.

There is one God, one Saviour, one everlasting Covenant of Redemption, one Kingdom of God, and one Gospel message that is contained in the one Holy Scriptures.

With lots of biblical detail from a host of witnesses to the singular Truth of God provided in the O.T. and revealed in the N.T.

There is material available from Christian scholars that organize the doctrines and revelations of God that He provides to safely develop our weak minds to grow and think all this out with the mind of Christ.

I suggested a help to you to better handle the word of Truth, but you are stubborn and unwilling to be encouraged to learn, and I fear it is because you possess no love of Truth; nor do you hunger and thirst to grow in knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Your loss . . .

All made up.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Paul is saying that what ever is outstanding promised to Israel is now completed in the resurrection FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE GOSPEL'S MISSION.

You made that up. Why?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Because they are unified in Christ and his mission. You are really dense. You have to move past the literal constraints you have put on it; that's your problem.

He was made Lord and Christ. Every knee is to bow. The matter is about WHAT TO PREACH not whether we are supposed to be literal about the OT.

Crown him with many crowns! The Lamb upon his throne...

Heb 2:8 (KJV)

 

[Danoh]

The irony.

Irony?

The fact that someone so supposedly adament about the Cross just as vehemently supports so morally reprehensible an individual as Trump.

Your kind have nothing to say to anyone, about irony.

You each sold out on the grace in the gospel of grace so long ago that to attempt to address you on this obvious fact is to alienate you.

You're Galatianists through and through.

That is what all this going back and forth looking down your noses at others on here who do not hold your views is actually all about for you and your pals.

You each live for petty conflict.

Result?

There is no addressing any of you on this.

You'll note I barely ever bother responding to your stupidity anymore.

Nevertheless, Romans 5:8.

That's about all one can do with anyone - point them to what they supposedly hold to, or hopefully might one day.

 

[Tambora]

Irony?

Irony.

Your kind have nothing to say to anyone, about irony.

Your kind doesn't have the corner on irony.

You each sold out on the grace in the gospel of grace so long ago that to attempt to address you on this obvious fact is to alienate you.

His grace is sufficient.

That is what all this going back and forth looking down your noses at others on here who do not hold your views is actually all about for you and your pals.

You each live for petty conflict.

The irony.

Result?

There is no addressing any of you on this.

The irony.

You'll note I barely ever bother responding to your stupidity anymore.

Irrelevant.

Nevertheless, Romans 5:8.

That's about all one can do with anyone - point them to what they supposedly hold to, or hopefully might one day.

Back at ya, along with
2 Cor 12:9.

 

[patrick jane]

Thing is, the conclusion by some that you are Preterist is ignorant - even within some forms of Preterism some hold with Dispensationalism that the Tribulation, Anti-Christ, etc., are yet future.

Reminds me of that fool, GM. The first time I defended something IP posted that I found valid, GM wondered if I was a Preterist.

Showing he did not know how to tell what from what, no matter how convinced he has remained otherwise.

It is just ignorant to so quickly label others.

It really is.

It shows such know little beyond their own narrow view of things.

This too is "a doctrinal issue" such repeatedly fail in.

Rom. 5:8

You lash out, just like Trump does.

 

[Danoh]

You lash out, just like Trump does.

lol - if you say so, peej.

 

[Tambora]

Heb 2:8 (KJV)

Probably need to highlight it for IP.
He overlooks a lot.

Hebrews 2:8 KJV
(8) Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.


And ...

1 Corinthians 15:24-26 KJV
(24) Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
(25) For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
(26) The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.


We still have death.