ECT MAD's Interp Misake

Interplanner

Well-known member
The historic way is Acts 13:33+. The resurrection of Christ for justification from sins is the fulfillment of all promises to Israel.

Maybe the Acts 2 thing is off (there are others who do it) but you did say several times that the NT is specifically true because it is not backed up by other sources. That completely contradicts the mentality of...the NT.
 

Danoh

New member
The historic way is Acts 13:33+. The resurrection of Christ for justification from sins is the fulfillment of all promises to Israel.

Maybe the Acts 2 thing is off (there are others who do it) but you did say several times that the NT is specifically true because it is not backed up by other sources. That completely contradicts the mentality of...the NT.

What in the world? Lol

What I said is what I hold: that the NT is true because the NT is true.

The need to "do the history" (short for endless books "about") not needed but by individuals in doubt of THE BOOK. Period.

And the resurrection of Christ for justification from sins is the means by which all promises to Israel WILL BE fulfilled ONE DAY IN ONE DAY - "this is the new testament in my blood" and "there REMAINETH a rest for the people of God."

O wait a minute; you could care less about Mid-Acts distinctions.

I keep forgetting you are not all there :chuckle:
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
What in the world? Lol

What I said is what I hold: that the NT is true because the NT is true.

The need to "do the history" (short for endless books "about") not needed but by individuals in doubt of THE BOOK. Period.

And the resurrection of Christ for justification from sins is the means by which all promises to Israel WILL BE fulfilled ONE DAY IN ONE DAY - "this is the new testament in my blood" and "there REMAINETH a rest for the people of God."

O wait a minute; you could care less about Mid-Acts distinctions.

I keep forgetting you are not all there :chuckle:



No the denial of the historical is why you mock the value and place of the DofJ. You even put yourself above the evangelist Peter Holford who used all that like Mk 2 1-12 to show that the physical reality proved the authority and lordship of Christ, as it ought to show. but no, you are smarter and MAD is more necessary. Totally worthless posturing.

On 'sins will be forgiven ONE DAY IN ONE DAY' you sound futurist. that is not what Acts 13 means at all. It means like Rom 4:25 that the resurrection happened BECAUSE we were now justified from our sin; it is the most powerful event that ever took place. THe idea that can't be "understood" without a mid Acts distinction is total stupidity. it is MAD trying to justify its existence. It is 'other books' which I just learned yesterday you are full of, in spite of all your complaints about historians and people who weigh their contribution.
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
Do you have some obsolete KJV notion that 'remaineth' means future to us? Good grief. the sabbath he was talking about was the Gospel event. Hope you find your way around.
 

Danoh

New member
No the denial of the historical is why you mock the value and place of the DofJ. You even put yourself above the evangelist Peter Holford who used all that like Mk 2 1-12 to show that the physical reality proved the authority and lordship of Christ, as it ought to show. but no, you are smarter and MAD is more necessary. Totally worthless posturing.

On 'sins will be forgiven ONE DAY IN ONE DAY' you sound futurist. that is not what Acts 13 means at all. It means like Rom 4:25 that the resurrection happened BECAUSE we were now justified from our sin; it is the most powerful event that ever took place. THe idea that can't be "understood" without a mid Acts distinction is total stupidity. it is MAD trying to justify its existence. It is 'other books' which I just learned yesterday you are full of, in spite of all your complaints about historians and people who weigh their contribution.

There YOU go AGAIN - building doctrine on Acts - the very thing you are ever belly aching one should not do, o duplicitous one :chuckle:
 

steko

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
The historic way is Acts 13:33+. The resurrection of Christ for justification from sins is the fulfillment of all promises to Israel.

Uh....the problem is, it doesn't say that. You add to it by your own imagination.



Act 13:32 And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers,
Act 13:33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
 

Danoh

New member
Uh....the problem is, it doesn't say that. You add to it by your own imagination.



Act 13:32 And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers,
Act 13:33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

Yep, he is merely doing at that point what he always relates first, when dealing with Israel: relating that Jesus was very Christ.
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
Uh....the problem is, it doesn't say that. You add to it by your own imagination.



Act 13:32 And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers,
Act 13:33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.



There is nothing imagined. He goes on to explain in his excitement about his gospel that because of the resurrection, because the promises to Israel shifted to Christ (quoting isaiah), those who believe know that they are justified, and that is the promise to Israel.

That is why this is a 'short' version of Gal 3, saying the same thing.

It is you who do not know that Paul was preaching this everywhere as his Gospel.

As for the 'proof' theme (the resurrection proved that justification was secure), he said the same thing in Rom 4:25 where it is as clear as can be because of a parallel cause-and-effect about sin:

he was put to death because of our sin
he was raised because of our justification.

Paul was not in the business of saying that the resurrection was one of the things that needed to be done for it (justification of sinners) but that it proved it. That's why Ps 16 is quoted so much: God would not let his perfect one suffer decay. He was awarded resurrection and ascension and enthronement, which is what the apostles screamed all over Israel for months. He is enthroned in the David sense, and Paul says that is exactly according his Gospel in Rom 1's intro.

There he says that the resurrection DECLARED that he was the Son of God. RIght: the event itself made the declaration. That is the power of apostolic preaching. Romans ends with a parallel: the incoming (believing) of the nations DECLARES what the OT is about. It is not a doctrine in a passage as much as it is a well-known and publically noticed miracle. That is what was embedded in the OT ALL THIS TIME. And now (Paul's now) it is actually happening.
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
Uh....the problem is, it doesn't say that. You add to it by your own imagination.



Act 13:32 And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers,
Act 13:33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.



I have to say your translation lost some of the force of the original on the opening expression. It is an omni. 'Whatever was promised to the fathers...has been fufilled by God raising Jesus...' and btw, that is the raising of the resurrection, not raising up Jesus to minister as we might find in similar statements about OT prophets (God raised up Jeremiah to preach). It actually is the resurrection.
 

Interplanner

Well-known member


Jesus being Christ does not mean anything other than being resurrected as a reward for his perfect life and sacrifice for sin's debt. You should know this from Acts where 'Jesus is the Christ' summarizes his teaching emphasis in most places, but Acts 13 is the complete transcript.

This is why in 26, the ethne Israel keeps seeking the fulfillment by daily worship at the temple (v7), but the resurrection is proof that what they seek is here.

The passage hints that Judaism has trouble accepting that one person's resurrection can be a declaration of victory for 'the many' (which is exactly what Paul preached), because Judaism does not accept transferred righteousness as credit. They would not accept what Paul said the resurrection happened for.
 

heir

TOL Subscriber
One of the interpretive rules of the Reformation, collected and illustrated by Ramm, was "the systematic overrules the incidental."

I don't think I've mentioned my observation that now that I have heard the "best" explanation of MAD, it breaks this rule. It is trying to go through the day-by-day events of a few chapters in Acts, in slow motion, and find little 'dispensational' shifts month by month among the apostles. This in turn makes things like Paul's participation in a ritual in Acts 21 to be "theological" statement, when in fact, it may only be a socially strategic act to get the attention of the leader in Judaism and/or in Roman admin which Paul was led to speak to.
If you can't see things changing in the Acts of the Apostles, you've never read Acts!
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
I do, but the interpretive principle says, systematic statements in the letters overrule the incidental things that happen in the account. You need to let that register.

Things do change in the sense of heb 8:13: the old is fading, passing away. Notice that that takes time.

The dispensation change, though, is a clean break.
 

DAN P

Well-known member
I do, but the interpretive principle says, systematic statements in the letters overrule the incidental things that happen in the account. You need to let that register.

Things do change in the sense of heb 8:13: the old is fading, passing away. Notice that that takes time.

The dispensation change, though, is a clean break.


Hi and you say that you understand Acts , then you can say how Paul was saved in Acts 9:6 ??

#1 , Was it by repentance , Acts 26:20 ?

#2 , Was he saved by Grace ?

#3 , Was Paul saved by Baptism ?

What say you OR are you going to run away AGAIN ??

DAN P
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
Hi and you say that you understand Acts , then you can say how Paul was saved in Acts 9:6 ??

#1 , Was it by repentance , Acts 26:20 ?

#2 , Was he saved by Grace ?

#3 , Was Paul saved by Baptism ?

What say you OR are you going to run away AGAIN ??

DAN P


Just ask Paul, in Rom 3:21. it was the arrival of the righteousness of God in christ. It was none of the responses to the righteousness of Christ.
 
Top