ECT Request for Clarity about Judaism and D'ism

Status
Not open for further replies.
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
There's not several thrones up there!
Click to expand...

Rev
20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
 
Right Divider

Right Divider

Body part
SaulToPaul said:
Rev
20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
Click to expand...
Rev 3:21 (AKJV/PCE)​
(3:21) To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. ​
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Right Divider said:
Another cancellationist masterpiece?

You are one silly faker.
Click to expand...





After showing that all Israel's land and kingdom had taken place, Stephen says HOWEVER to move on to the reality that is in Christ. This is the same thinking as col 2 on shadow to reality and Heb 10 and Gal 4 on maturity. Likewise, Acts 13: David was king but that purpose was completed in his generation.

That is an aside (that purpose was completed) showing that if Paul had anything to say about the future restoration of DNA Israel, it would have been there. He does not because there is not.

The NT is unified but it is a mess to Chafer and his 2P2P and D'ist pals. Because right where Christ is, the restoration of Israel should be, to them--if the Bible was to "make sense."

I can't grasp the mentality of D'ists on this. When these passages are shown, they go find those from Joshua or reflections back on the taking of the land that show incompleteness on Israel's part. OK, but the passages in Joshua and in the NT do say it was all completed! Meaning: God did what he said! Their (Israel's) mistakes are their problem, not a problem with God's coming-through.

So here is where all this goes: What is it about the resurrection that is so complete for Israel that Paul could be allowed to say what he did in Acts 13:32+?
 
Last edited:
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
After showing that all Israel's land and kingdom had taken place, Stephen says HOWEVER to move on to the reality that is in Christ. This is the same thinking as col 2 on shadow to reality and Heb 10 and Gal 4 on maturity. Likewise, Acts 13: David was king but that purpose was completed in his generation.

That is an aside (that purpose was completed) showing that if Paul had anything to say about the future restoration of DNA Israel, it would have been there. He does not because there is not.

The NT is unified but it is a mess to Chafer and his 2P2P and D'ist pals. Because right where Christ is, the restoration of Israel should be, to them--if the Bible was to "make sense."

I can't grasp the mentality of D'ists on this. When these passages are shown, they go find those from Joshua or reflections back on the taking of the land that show incompleteness on Israel's part. OK, but the passages in Joshua and in the NT do say it was all completed! Meaning: God did what he said! Their mistakes are their problem, not a problem with God's coming-through.

So here is where all this goes: What is it about the resurrection that is so complete for Israel that Paul could be allowed to say what he did in Acts 13:32+?
Click to expand...

Made up.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
The mistakes of Israel in not completely rooting out certain pagan cultures is Israel's problem; it does not mean God did not provide them the land.

So once again, there is the dark mystery of why D'ism chooses OT passages over NT clarity every time, and like RD and STP ridicules the plain meaning of the NT as 'not the Bible' or 'unbelief.'
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Right Divider said:
Rev 3:21 (AKJV/PCE)​
(3:21) To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. ​
Click to expand...





There are not several thrones up there. He is assuring the martyrs of that generation that they do already sit with Christ enthroned, no matter what an earthly sword does to their head and body.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Right Divider said:
Rev 3:21 (AKJV/PCE)​
(3:21) To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. ​
Click to expand...





Since Rev 20:4 speaks of them in its present tense, this is why the long reign of Christ is thought to be at the time. They were believers who were being killed by the madness in Israel in that generation, and he was telling them, they reign in Christ. Overwhelming comfort.
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
Since Rev 20:4 speaks of them in its present tense, this is why the long reign of Christ is thought to be at the time. They were believers who were being killed by the madness in Israel in that generation, and he was telling them, they reign in Christ. Overwhelming comfort.
Click to expand...

Made up.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Right Divider said:
Nonsense!
Click to expand...





It had served God's purpose in that generation, Acts 13. Notice that Acts 13 is preached well outside of Judea , and the question 'when is the land going to be straightened out?' is non-existent.

Thus there is the huge however of Stephen Acts 7 because he does not dwell on a man-made throne, and no need to. Those things, Stephen and Col and Heb say, were after the pattern of heaven anyway as temporary pointers. Get used to it.

The milk, honey and manna is Christ; to be in Christ is to enter his Sabbath rest from works. So that the whole world can be the new "land" of Israel. It's yumm! [not to be confused with yom kippers, which is an Irish snack]
 
Right Divider

Right Divider

Body part
Interplanner said:
It had served God's purpose in that generation, Acts 13. Notice that Acts 13 is preached well outside of Judea , and the question 'when is the land going to be straightened out?' is non-existent.

Thus there is the huge however of Stephen Acts 7 because he does not dwell on a man-made throne, and no need to. Those things, Stephen and Col and Heb say, were after the pattern of heaven anyway as temporary pointers. Get used to it.

The milk, honey and manna is Christ; to be in Christ is to enter his Sabbath rest from works. So that the whole world can be the new "land" of Israel. It's yumm! [not to be confused with yom kippers, which is an Irish snack]
Click to expand...
The throne OF HIS FATHER DAVID is most definitely a throne on earth.

The scripture is your enemy and you its.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Right Divider said:
The throne OF HIS FATHER DAVID is most definitely a throne on earth.

The scripture is your enemy and you its.
Click to expand...





the problem being, he is not the son of David in the normal sense, is he? "If David calls (Christ) Lord, how can (Christ) be (David's) son?"

That's why Peter saw the resurrection, on the tip from David, as the enthronement of Christ. That thought was framed by Christ back in Lk 24:26, to the fool disciples thinking the redemption of Israel was lost. Or did I miss where Christ said 'enter after X000 years'?
 
Right Divider

Right Divider

Body part
Interplanner said:
the problem being, he is not the son of David in the normal sense, is he? "If David calls (Christ) Lord, how can (Christ) be (David's) son?"
Click to expand...
That is completely irrelevant to the scripture in question.

Interplanner said:
That's why Peter saw the resurrection, on the tip from David, as the enthronement of Christ. That thought was framed by Christ back in Lk 24:26, to the fool disciples thinking the redemption of Israel was lost. Or did I miss where Christ said 'enter after X000 years'?
Click to expand...
Your interpretation of what various apostles thought is simply incorrect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top