ECT 2 confrontations about Israel's kingdom

[Right Divider]

D'ism is so clever! You can have Christ refer to the disciples foolish hearts (Lk 24) and then tell them a certain topic is none of their business (Acts 1) and it's still not a rebuke or rebukes! I'll if that works where I work!

:mock: Grammar 101

P.S. He did NOT tell them that the RESTORED KINGDOM was none of their business, simply that the TIMING was not for them to know. You're dishonest or stupid once again.

 

[Right Divider]

D'ism is so clever! You can have Christ refer to the disciples foolish hearts (Lk 24) and then tell them a certain topic is none of their business (Acts 1) and it's still not a rebuke or rebukes! I'll if that works where I work!

I would also like to note your ignorance about WHO Jesus was talking to in these cases. They are NOT the same people.

In Luke 24 you have a couple of disciples and NOT any of the eleven (Judas Iscariot had not been replaced yet).

Luke 24:18 (AKJV/PCE)​

(24:18) And the one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answering said unto him, Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which are come to pass there in these days?

​

Luke 24:33-35 (AKJV/PCE)​

(24:33) And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, (24:34) Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon. (24:35) And they told what things [were done] in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread.

​

So NONE of the 12 apostles were the ones that were told that they were "slow of heart to believe" in THAT case.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

D'ism is so clever!

Yep, take God at his word, and all things fall into their rightful place.

 

[DAN P]

They are in the NT.

He reigns already; we reign in Him. Cp. Rom 8:37, 2 Cor 2:14, 6:10. There's that kind of reigning vs a theocracy. Show me where in the Rev the happy reign takes place. Instead it ends with the final trouble for believers at which they are rescued and the NHNE comes. Rev 20:4 puts the whole 'long reign' of Christ in heaven. But the Rev is heavily symbolic and visionary. I just don't find a reign on earth clearly validated in the plain language passages of NT eschatology, which I have listed 1000x (to use another symbol).

There is either the contradiction of reigning in this life or the bliss of the NHNE.

As for your Mt 19 and Lk 22 references, Lk 22 sets the time pretty tightly: their next supper like that will be in the kingdom. and he ends by saying he is conferring it upon them right then. They led "Israel." Other passages like this says along with persecutions and others say the position the disciples seek is secured by the loss of their lives, like him. Because they claimed they could drink his cup. I don't see where this is any thing other than what is about to happen at Pentecost, and "power" in Acts 1:8 is a king's authority and force, and it is certainly not distant future.

Hia and where in Rev 20:4 does it mention that Jesus reign is in HEAVEN ?

Verse 3 we see that Satan will again LOOSED upon the nations and verse 8 DOOM your THEORY !!

dan p

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Yep, take God at his word, and all things fall into their rightful place.

:idunno:

 

[Right Divider]

D'ism is so clever! You can have Christ refer to the disciples foolish hearts (Lk 24) and then tell them a certain topic is none of their business (Acts 1) and it's still not a rebuke or rebukes! I'll if that works where I work!

I would also like to note your ignorance about WHO Jesus was talking to in these cases. They are NOT the same people.

In Luke 24 you have a couple of disciples and NOT any of the eleven (Judas Iscariot had not been replaced yet).

Luke 24:18 (AKJV/PCE)​

(24:18) And the one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answering said unto him, Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which are come to pass there in these days?

​

Luke 24:33-35 (AKJV/PCE)​

(24:33) And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, (24:34) Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon. (24:35) And they told what things [were done] in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread.

​

So NONE of the 12 apostles were the ones that were told that they were "slow of heart to believe" in THAT case.

I wonder why IP never replied to this post. :idunno:

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

I wonder why IP never replied to this post. :idunno:

Yep, he starts a million threads, and then conveniently disappears at the right time.

 

[Interplanner]

I wonder why IP never replied to this post. :idunno:

It's irrelevant. He would have said the same thing to any of them.

Look what the others do in Acts 1, asking the stupid question about Israel's kingdom, when they had been told they would be getting to power to preach him through out the world.

I have never met anyone with more off center, off base questions than RD. I don't know if he's just extremely negative and disagreeable, but I do think he could be shown an attractive picture of his wife and find something wrong with her outfits colors.

Perhaps the problem is how vastly different D'ism interests are from those of the text, like what Jesus gave as instructions and near-range predictions in 46-49; you know, how you hate the idea of them getting to the Gentiles?

Or the "everything" of v44? Everything was fulfilled, including his glorification and giving of power. But, oh, no, nothing about him ruling from X000th century Jerusalem; not included in "everything" from Moses, Prophets, and Psalms. Darn.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

It's irrelevant. He would have said the same thing to any of them.

Look what the others do in Acts 1, asking the stupid question about Israel's kingdom, when they had been told they would be getting to power to preach him through out the world.

I have never met anyone with more off center, off base questions than RD. I don't know if he's just extremely negative and disagreeable, but I do think he could be shown an attractive picture of his wife and find something wrong with her outfits colors.

Perhaps the problem is how vastly different D'ism interests are from those of the text, like what Jesus gave as instructions and near-range predictions in 46-49; you know, how you hate the idea of them getting to the Gentiles?

Or the "everything" of v44? Everything was fulfilled, including his glorification and giving of power. But, oh, no, nothing about him ruling from X000th century Jerusalem; not included in "everything" from Moses, Prophets, and Psalms. Darn.

Thanks for the opinions, Regis.

 

[Right Divider]

It's irrelevant. He would have said the same thing to any of them.

Actually it IS relevant. It shows clearly, AGAIN, that you do not know what you're talking about.

It shows that you are either completely INCOMPETENT with the Word of God or that your are LYING.

Look what the others do in Acts 1, asking the stupid question about Israel's kingdom, when they had been told they would be getting to power to preach him through out the world.

You call the twelve apostles that will judge the twelve tribes of Israel, "the others"? What a dummy you are!

Once AGAIN, you LIE about the character of the apostles here.... but other times you tell us that we just need to take YOUR account of what they thought and meant.

There question was not stupid, it was based on true knowledge from the LORD Jesus Christ. The LORD Jesus Christ taught them for FORTY days and YET you think that they "just didn't get it".

That is shear ignorance on YOUR PART!

I have never met anyone with more off center, off base questions than RD. I don't know if he's just extremely negative and disagreeable, but I do think he could be shown an attractive picture of his wife and find something wrong with her outfits colors.

Don't speak to me in the third person when you're replying to MY post, you sniveling little wimp.

Perhaps the problem is how vastly different D'ism interests are from those of the text, like what Jesus gave as instructions and near-range predictions in 46-49; you know, how you hate the idea of them getting to the Gentiles?

Or the "everything" of v44? Everything was fulfilled, including his glorification and giving of power. But, oh, no, nothing about him ruling from X000th century Jerusalem; not included in "everything" from Moses, Prophets, and Psalms. Darn.

More fantasy from the great fiction writer and clueless one.

 

[Interplanner]

Actually it IS relevant. It shows clearly, AGAIN, that you do not know what you're talking about.

It shows that you are either completely INCOMPETENT with the Word of God or that your are LYING.


You call the twelve apostles that will judge the twelve tribes of Israel, "the others"? What a dummy you are!

Once AGAIN, you LIE about the character of the apostles here.... but other times you tell us that we just need to take YOUR account of what they thought and meant.

There question was not stupid, it was based on true knowledge from the LORD Jesus Christ. The LORD Jesus Christ taught them for FORTY days and YET you think that they "just didn't get it".

That is shear ignorance on YOUR PART!


Don't speak to me in the third person when you're replying to MY post, you sniveling little wimp.


More fantasy from the great fiction writer and clueless one.

I don't see what you mean at all. They were called ones with foolish hearts and I'm sure they went and admitted that to the others they rejoined. Are you creating more compartments that aren't there like you usually do?

I don't know if I called you an idiot in the past. I meant your post. If I said you as a person, I apologize. Obviously sometimes here on TOL we are only speaking of a person as they are here at TOL, but it needs to stated.

 

[Interplanner]

The fiction that I know of in these Lk 24 and Acts 1 scenes is that 'oh foolish hearts' and 'it's not for you to know' are not rebukes, as you think. As the club thinks, because any of you that say so get thanked for such 'wisdom.'

another fiction is that a future kingdom in israel is mentioned in 24:25-27. All of you have those bibles with green lights where things X000 years in the future are going to happen. Mine does not.

How is it that they trained with him all those days, yet when they raise the Israel's kingdom message is when 'their hearts burn within them as he explained--opened!-- the scripture?' Are they finally realizing that kingdom of Israel has nothing to do with it? It has nothing to do with 46-48! Instead they were to get power, which is exactly where Acts 1 launches them, and the israel kingdom question is never heard of again after that.

If it is, show us.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

The fiction that I know of in these Lk 24 and Acts 1 scenes is that 'oh foolish hearts' and 'it's not for you to know' are not rebukes, as you think. As the club thinks, because any of you that say so get thanked for such 'wisdom.'

another fiction is that a future kingdom in israel is mentioned in 24:25-27. All of you have those bibles with green lights where things X000 years in the future are going to happen. Mine does not.

How is it that they trained with him all those days, yet when they raise the Israel's kingdom message is when 'their hearts burn within them as he explained--opened!-- the scripture?' Are they finally realizing that kingdom of Israel has nothing to do with it? It has nothing to do with 46-48! Instead they were to get power, which is exactly where Acts 1 launches them, and the israel kingdom question is never heard of again after that.

If it is, show us.

made up

 

[Tambora]

I'm not here to win. I'm here to see more people saturated with the heart of the Bible, that the Seed was Christ, to work in his mission. I don't see where straining to show a land promise for Israel helps with that at all.

You don't see a lot of things that are spoken of in scripture.
And you certainly don't have to strain to find a land promise to Israel.
It is repeated several times in scripture.
All of which you try to convince folks are not there to find.

 

[Right Divider]

D'ism is so clever! You can have Christ refer to the disciples foolish hearts (Lk 24) and then tell them a certain topic is none of their business (Acts 1) and it's still not a rebuke or rebukes! I'll if that works where I work!

I don't see what you mean at all. They were called ones with foolish hearts and I'm sure they went and admitted that to the others they rejoined. Are you creating more compartments that aren't there like you usually do?

I mean that you were completely WRONG when you posted the ABOVE.

You said that Christ called the SAME people "foolish of heart" and "a certain topic was none of THEIR business" (the second one is just completely WRONG no matter who was spoken to, but that's another topic).

Over and over you've proven that you do NOT have an understanding of scripture and you continually make false claims (like above).

I don't know if I called you an idiot in the past. I meant your post. If I said you as a person, I apologize. Obviously sometimes here on TOL we are only speaking of a person as they are here at TOL, but it needs to stated.

I too apologize for calling you an idiot, but you do post idiotic ideas (like above). I will be more careful in the future.

 

[Interplanner]

You don't see a lot of things that are spoken of in scripture.
And you certainly don't have to strain to find a land promise to Israel.
It is repeated several times in scripture.
All of which you try to convince folks are not there to find.

You miss the whole point after two years Tam, so I don't know what to do. I'm referring to what the NT says about the OT. THAT is where there is no land promise, instead there is the acknowledgement in the NT that the land is about to be decimated like Dan 9 said, when Dan 9 said, and there is nothing after that. I don't know how you can miss that--either in the Bible or in my posts. I suspect you have very little retention of either. Have you ever thought of a sabbatical from TOL and just studying the 2500 uses of the OT by the NT? do you have a lot emotionally invested in being known as Tam the expert on prophecy at TOL with 10 readers ooooohing and aaaaaahing at every post?

 

[Interplanner]

I mean that you were completely WRONG when you posted the ABOVE.

You said that Christ called the SAME people "foolish of heart" and "a certain topic was none of THEIR business" (the second one is just completely WRONG no matter who was spoken to, but that's another topic).

Over and over you've proven that you do NOT have an understanding of scripture and you continually make false claims (like above).


I too apologize for calling you an idiot, but you do post idiotic ideas (like above). I will be more careful in the future.

Thanks for accepting my apology.

Since they went and rejoined the others, I have no idea what you mean. The only time their hearts were burning in them was when he showed them that he was going to suffer and be glorified and don power to preach that, not "redeem Israel". Not restore Israel. Btw, to say that you were doing that with any political aspect to it, probably meant your head in the middle of the 1st century.

So when someone like Steko says 'Christ was going to redeem Israel; Lk 1-2 is a copy of the prophets', he doesn't realize that the reason it is in Luke is Luke is Paul's background deposition for Roman admins to read, and was showing that he did NOT have any political plans, in fact, Christ opposed the 'leistes' (terrorists) at the temple. The 'redeeming of Israel' of 1-2 did not have any revolutionary component to it, or all would have been headless.

 

[Danoh]

...

I too apologize for calling you an idiot, but you do post idiotic ideas (like above). I will be more careful in the future.

Yes!

Let freedom - the freedom of Romans 5:8 - reign!

Praise the LORD for His Amazing Son's Cross!!!

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

You miss the whole point after two years Tam, so I don't know what to do. I'm referring to what the NT says about the OT. THAT is where there is no land promise, instead there is the acknowledgement in the NT that the land is about to be decimated like Dan 9 said, when Dan 9 said, and there is nothing after that. I don't know how you can miss that--either in the Bible or in my posts. I suspect you have very little retention of either. Have you ever thought of a sabbatical from TOL and just studying the 2500 uses of the OT by the NT? do you have a lot emotionally invested in being known as Tam the expert on prophecy at TOL with 10 readers ooooohing and aaaaaahing at every post?

Made up

 

[Interplanner]

RD wrote:
(the second one is just completely WRONG no matter who was spoken to, but that's another topic).

The "2nd one" (rebuke) refers to Acts 1:8. No wonder Walvoord told me that can't possibly mean what it says! D'ist literalism is so funny. It's one big 'what part of NO don't you understand?'!

If I call Acts 1:8 a rebuke, D'ist literalism says that cant' possibly mean that and it's a separate topic from rebukes!