ECT Request for Clarity about Judaism and D'ism

[SaulToPaul 2]

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'?

Made up

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

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]

100% made up. Why would you do that?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

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.'

When will show us where the NT cancels out land promises to those it was promised to?
:idunno:

 

[Danoh]

When will show us where the NT cancels out land promises to those it was promised to?
:idunno:

When will you shew that the NT does not cancel out said land promise - 2 Cor. 13:1?

Unless your often cop out of some supposed silence on the matter is what you're sticking to :chuckle:

Nevertheless, Rom. 5:8

 

[Interplanner]

That is completely irrelevant to the scripture in question.


Your interpretation of what various apostles thought is simply incorrect.

I don't accetp dictates. they are both the plain meaning of the passage. What reasons do you have otherwise? It better not be D'ism in general because it is 'kata sarka' Chafer's improv-theology.

 

[Right Divider]

I don't accetp dictates.

I don't care, Mr. SpellingBeeChamp

they are both the plain meaning of the passage. What reasons do you have otherwise?

Because I'm not a crazy cancellationist that does not capitalize the first letter of a sentence.

It better not be D'ism in general because it is 'kata sarka' Chafer's improv-theology.

The Bible is clear and the LORD is clear about the throne that He will sit upon when He returns.

 

[Interplanner]

I don't care, Mr. SpellingBeeChamp


Because I'm not a crazy cancellationist that does not capitalize the first letter of a sentence.


The Bible is clear and the LORD is clear about the throne that He will sit upon when He returns.

That's not our return. That's OT text about the throne he is now upon. Like amos 9's 'I will return' (after the captivity). He is to be proclaimed as that so that all nations come to the obedience of faith. We are ambassadors--that word chosen because it is a reign that exists now.


The plain meaning of Acts 2:30 was framed by Lk 24's 'will rise...and come into his glory' upon resurrecting, not X000 years in the future. Why else would Stephen not be interested in the kingdom or worship system on earth anymore?

God is not doing 'copies' of the kingdom anymore. No more patterns on earth of brick and mortar and animal sacrifice.

 

[Interplanner]

How is it that you know all kinds of things about Ezekiel, yet among the most commonly quoted passages by the apostles is:

Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
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 is completely irrelevant to the scripture in question.




And you call it irrelevant to the enthronement of Christ? Acts 2:34 comes after 31, 32...

 

[Right Divider]

That's not our return.

Off on another trip are outer space, are you?

That's OT text about the throne he is now upon. Like amos 9's 'I will return' (after the captivity). He is to be proclaimed as that so that all nations come to the obedience of faith. We are ambassadors--that word chosen because it is a reign that exists now.

The LORD Jesus Christ will sit on the throne of His father David, just like He said that He would.

The plain meaning of Acts 2:30 was framed by Lk 24's 'will rise...and come into his glory' upon resurrecting, not X000 years in the future. Why else would Stephen not be interested in the kingdom or worship system on earth anymore?

Fantasy.... your favorite genre.

God is not doing 'copies' of the kingdom anymore. No more patterns on earth of brick and mortar and animal sacrifice.

Gods plans for the heaven and the earth will be fulfilled just like the scripture says that they will. Deal with it!

 

[Right Divider]

How is it that you know all kinds of things about Ezekiel, yet among the most commonly quoted passages by the apostles is:

Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
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 is completely irrelevant to the scripture in question.

And you call it irrelevant to the enthronement of Christ? Acts 2:34 comes after 31, 32...

That the LORD Jesus Christ is LORD and CHRIST does NOT change the FACT that He will sit on the throne of His father David. That throne is over the twelve tribes of Israel. That is why the LORD Jesus Christ said this:

Matt 19:28 (AKJV/PCE)​

(19:28) And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

​

Luke 22:30 (AKJV/PCE)​

(22:30) That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
​

No doubt you've got some completely ridiculous fairy story for that one too.

 

[Interplanner]

Off on another trip are outer space, are you?


The LORD Jesus Christ will sit on the throne of His father David, just like He said that He would.


Fantasy.... your favorite genre.


Gods plans for the heaven and the earth will be fulfilled just like the scripture says that they will. Deal with it!

You're not dealing with the reasons. You have to dismantle the interpretation there to prove anything. I DON'T ACCEPT YOUR DECLARATIONS THAT SOMETHING IS A FANTASY. It's like STP saying made-up. You don't know how to think. You don't know how to ask questions. You don't know how to show something is not there in the text. Until you do, and I'm persuaded, it's there, my friend.

Chafer is a fraud who invented D'ism because the Bible doesn't make sense to him.

I don't have that problem, thanks to sticking with the actual text.

How do you go through Hebrews and not see the end of the old covenant system? Really?

 

[Right Divider]

You're not dealing with the reasons. You have to dismantle the interpretation there to prove anything. I DON'T ACCEPT YOUR DECLARATIONS THAT SOMETHING IS A FANTASY.

Whether you ever realize that your "interp" is a fairy tale fantasy is irrelevant.

It's like STP saying made-up. You don't know how to think. You don't know how to ask questions. You don't know how to show something is not there in the text. Until you do, and I'm persuaded, it's there, my friend.

You're the the champion of irony. It is YOU that does not know how to think.

Chafer is a fraud who invented D'ism because the Bible doesn't make sense to him.

I thought that Darby invented D'ism (according to dummies like yourself). Make up your mind.

I don't have that problem, thanks to sticking with the actual text.

How do you go through Hebrews and not see the end of the old covenant system? Really?

Who are these HEBREWS again?

 

[Interplanner]

That the LORD Jesus Christ is LORD and CHRIST does NOT change the FACT that He will sit on the throne of His father David. That throne is over the twelve tribes of Israel. That is why the LORD Jesus Christ said this:

Matt 19:28 (AKJV/PCE)​

(19:28) And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

​

Luke 22:30 (AKJV/PCE)​

(22:30) That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
​

No doubt you've got some completely ridiculous fairy story for that one too.

As usual, he meant his followers. It's like saying 'Elijah is supposed to come' but I tell you 'Elijah has come.' There is no fairy tale about this. It is a very common pattern of Christ and the apostles to take something from the past and practice it a new way, like the living temple.

the whole purpose for speaking of the son of David was to show that he was declared with power to be that Son by the resurrection, Rom 1:2. That is what Israel was supposed to submit to.

the 2nd is clearly about the Christian followers, the table.

 

[Interplanner]

Whether you ever realize that your "interp" is a fairy tale fantasy is irrelevant.


You're the the champion of irony. It is YOU that does not know how to think.


I thought that Darby invented D'ism (according to dummies like yourself). Make up your mind.


Who are these HEBREWS again?

You may be slightly correct on Darby, but Chafer was the one who said the bible doesn't make sense. That was what I mean to emphasize. It is folly to follow such a person.

 

[Interplanner]

Whether you ever realize that your "interp" is a fairy tale fantasy is irrelevant.


You're the the champion of irony. It is YOU that does not know how to think.


I thought that Darby invented D'ism (according to dummies like yourself). Make up your mind.


Who are these HEBREWS again?

Whether they are Christians or not does not change what is said about setting aside the old covenant. It's true anyway. Only the believers enjoy the new covenant. Not the nation. there is no evidence of that.

 

[Right Divider]

As usual, he meant his followers. It's like saying 'Elijah is supposed to come' but I tell you 'Elijah has come.' There is no fairy tale about this. It is a very common pattern of Christ and the apostles to take something from the past and practice it a new way, like the living temple.

the whole purpose for speaking of the son of David was to show that he was declared with power to be that Son by the resurrection, Rom 1:2. That is what Israel was supposed to submit to.

the 2nd is clearly about the Christian followers, the table.

Your idiocy and your lies know no bounds!

 

[Right Divider]

You may be slightly correct on Darby, but Chafer was the one who said the bible doesn't make sense. That was what I mean to emphasize. It is folly to follow such a person.

Your "interp" of the Bible makes no sense.

 

[Interplanner]

Your "interp" of the Bible makes no sense.

What do you think mine is?

and, what do you think 'In your seed, all the nations of the earth will be blessed' means?

 

[Interplanner]

Your idiocy and your lies know no bounds!

There are probably 20x in John when an OT or ordinary image is said to have a new meaning in Christ, and there are an equal number of times when Jesus corrects their literalism.

You are the liar, and you need to watch out who you call an idiot if you are not aware of such things in the text.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Whether they are Christians or not does not change what is said about setting aside the old covenant. It's true anyway. Only the believers enjoy the new covenant. Not the nation. there is no evidence of that.

Made up