ECT Ps 2 as taught by the apostles vs by D'ism

Interplanner

Well-known member
This essay will show that Dispensationalism (AKA MAD AKA Futurism) is completely out of step with the NT about eschatology. It is simply a matter of reading Ps 2 as the apostles were taught.

Ps 2 is one of those places where, in spite of all the particulars that have been assigned to Israel, the 'shema' is still true in a width that is unbelievable: The LORD is one. The God of Ps 2 is none other than the creator of the world, the exactor of the world deluge and of the confusion of Babel, and the author of promises through Abraham to bless the whole world with credited righteousness, Gen 15. From that point on, it may SEEM like he is only concerned with the one nation Israel, but that keeps falling apart on close review.

There is one lord, and there is one kingdom of God, and there is one Gospel that 'belongs' to that reign of God. Ps 2, as well as other cases like Is 9 or Dan 2, expect a kingdom for the whole earth which is inevitable or unstoppable. Yet it is not made with human hands. Or in the case of Is 9, you have the ultimate in paradoxes: 'the government is on his shoulders'--and we all know what was on his shoulders...

It seems that the key to Ps 2 is finding out when he meant that it was true. There is no need to be lost or guessing about this. The day of enthronement--the ACT of enthronement--was the resurrection of Christ. Ps 2, 16, and 110 are the three most quoted by the apostles, fresh from teaching by Christ. Not Ps 83 about bashing the neighbor nations, which is the most commonly quoted in D'ist eschatology. The ACT of the enthronement of Christ, who sat down in honor at the right hand of God, except to get up for Stephen, is the 'mighty acts of God' referred to in Acts 2 along with the obvious work of the Gospel, and the supernatural undoing of the curse of Babel during Pentecost to kick start the mission of the Gospel.

The reign of God over the nations is taken totally seriously. It is not the cry of the anarchist (for no government at all) but it is to be declared to all authorities everywhere that this world is Christ's. All nations and rulers are warned: pay homage to the Son or you will be ruined. This warning belongs with all warnings to sinful man of the coming wrath of God, for which we need justification for our sins. And then they need to live righteously, Acts 4:25.


You can now see why early Acts is not just an Israel event. Acts 4 prays Ps 2: 'why do the nations imagine vain things?'

Jesus has been made Lord and Christ, Acts 2, and that is our daring declaration to all mankind as they need to be acceptable to him through justification provided by him. The NT needs a future 'restored Israel' like a fish needs a bicycle.
 

andyc

New member
It would be better if you started one thread, and list in it all of the proofs against mad.
I did one called mad thought for the day, and thats where I show them how stupid they are.
 

andyc

New member
Why would the Jerusalem above need to be restored?

I told you. The original Jerusalem is in physical bondage. Restoration requires relocation.
Even STP agrees with this, but he thinks it later comes back from the spiritual heaven to the restored physical earth, as he interprets the passage from Revelation.
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I told you. The original Jerusalem is in physical bondage. Restoration requires relocation.
Even STP agrees with this, but he thinks it later comes back from the spiritual heaven to the restored physical earth, as he interprets the passage from Revelation.
Restoration does not require relocation.
Jerusalem has been restored more than once, and it did not have to be relocated.

It is the earthly original Jerusalem that needs restoration, not the heavenly Jerusalem above.
 

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
I told you. The original Jerusalem is in physical bondage. Restoration requires relocation.
Even STP agrees with this, but he thinks it later comes back from the spiritual heaven to the restored physical earth, as he interprets the passage from Revelation.

Bible talks about land, city, and heaven.
I believe it, let it be.
 

andyc

New member
Nah...sister Tam and I will agree on 95% of things.

Can you say the same of your wild eyed Penty group?

Nothing wrong with disagreeing, but it would have been interesting to watch her trying to explain what the difference was between the restored Jerusalem, and the one that falls out of the sky.
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I'll let you two have it out :chuckle:
STP and I have nothing to have it out about this.

It is YOU claiming that the heavenly Jerusalem above was to be restored.
What does the heavenly Jerusalem above need a restoration from?
When did the heavenly Jerusalem above get destroyed that it needed a restoration?
 

andyc

New member
STP and I have nothing to have it out about this.

It is YOU claiming that the heavenly Jerusalem above was to be restored.
What does the heavenly Jerusalem above need a restoration from?
When did the heavenly Jerusalem above get destroyed that it needed a restoration?

:chuckle:

I've already told you twice, and you won't have it.
So let's look at it from a mad perspective.

Where does the *new* Jerusalem come from?
Obviously because we're talking about a new Jerusalem, it's going to be replacing the old Jerusalem, yes?
 
Top