Interplanner
Well-known member
9 actually.
Thanks to Tambora, I can put this one away with this outline:
She wrote:
Don't mention land to IP.
It infuriates him that GOD promised Israel land.
And that the new covenant was promised to Israel & Judah infuriates him even more!
IP is really into replacement theology.
1, The excitement of Acts 2 was that the 'pouring out of the Spirit' had taken place. This was a gift to Messiah from the Father for Messiah's travail. The same thing is said in Eph 4 about the gifts given to men when captivity was taken captive by Messiah. This pouring out is also right in the middle of 'restoration' prophecy (in Ezekiel for ex) which D'ists think are to be taken so literally. Peter is saying it is fulfilled.
3, Peter continues to be just as enthused in ch 3 that this age in which Israel first was to be missionaries to the world was underway. Obviously this was underway with an event like Pentecost. But also it was what they had been taught was the promise by Christ (Lk 24, Acts 1). AKA the power of the kingdom that they had asked about. They NOW understood what the kingdom meant. 'Power' (authority to make declarations about things that were established by God's hand) was kingdom vocabulary; Jesus had been made Lord and Christ as David's vision had said, Acts 2:30-31.
4, This "unlikely" combination of Israel's destiny and the mission outreach through God-enabled gifts is also why Gal 3 says the Spirit is the promise, 3:14, where the grammar is saying that the Spirit is what was promised. This is why we have Peter referring to the Spirit and to the promise of including the nations in Acts 3 at the same time; they really are one manifestation.
5, Clearly, it has nothing to do with the land of Israel nor dependent on the worship system of Judaism, except as a preparatory illustration. This continues to be the case when Paul says all the same things in Acts 13's official sample sermon, and in his defense in Acts 26 where the hope of Israel is already realized and is the mission of Christ, not the thing they expect to happen by worshiping day and night at the temple. The obtaining of the land through Joshua is now a picture from Israel's past of obtaining rest in Christ from the fear of death through one's sins; remove that doctrine from Hebrews and half of it is gone.
I'm not furious about the land promise; it served its purpose; see several lines from Joshua on that. I'm furious as the inability of people like Tambora to move forward in a discussion like this to what is truly the issue. The RT remark is the same; see below.
6, D'ism is carnal and materialist, and happy to be so. It is not even remotely aware of the glorious truth as it in Christ. It is as though just a restored land would have resulted in any of this!
7, D'ism is that way (#5) just when the picture for the land of Israel could not have been worse. Rumors of total scorching by Rome were bouncing off of the mountains and desert stones since 6 AD when a general rebellion was started after the Census, Acts 5:37. "Secular" records tell us about that rebellion and the others, and Dan 8:13 said a "rebellion that desolates" was coming, but it is a 'sin' in D'ism to know such things EVEN WHEN 'SECULAR' HISTORY IS REFERRED TO IN THE BIBLE.
8, The new covenant launched at the last supper is for all people, and is found in the body and blood of Christ, but Christ was saying that much as far back as the beginning of his work anyway, because it is back at the beginning of Genesis. All the passages on the new covenant confirm that it has nothing to do with the land, and totally about the redemption from sin and death that is in Christ Jesus, Heb 8-10. Tam does not realize she is part of a Goebellian effort to snow those facts. No D'ist here has answered why Heb 9:15 confines the new covenant to a question of how sin is erased. STP said that that was "made-up" to think so.
9, There is a RT problem addressed in the NT and we should stick with that, not the 19th century one. It is in Gal 3:17 and the Judaizers had replaced the Promise of the Spirit to Reach the Nations--they had replaced THAT with the Law; or thought the mission to the nations would happen through the Law, Mt 23:15. Paul says someone had replaced the Promise and voided it with the Law; it was his career effort to get that straightened out.
Tell that to a D'ist and they have no idea what it is about.
Thanks to Tambora, I can put this one away with this outline:
She wrote:
Don't mention land to IP.
It infuriates him that GOD promised Israel land.
And that the new covenant was promised to Israel & Judah infuriates him even more!
IP is really into replacement theology.
1, The excitement of Acts 2 was that the 'pouring out of the Spirit' had taken place. This was a gift to Messiah from the Father for Messiah's travail. The same thing is said in Eph 4 about the gifts given to men when captivity was taken captive by Messiah. This pouring out is also right in the middle of 'restoration' prophecy (in Ezekiel for ex) which D'ists think are to be taken so literally. Peter is saying it is fulfilled.
3, Peter continues to be just as enthused in ch 3 that this age in which Israel first was to be missionaries to the world was underway. Obviously this was underway with an event like Pentecost. But also it was what they had been taught was the promise by Christ (Lk 24, Acts 1). AKA the power of the kingdom that they had asked about. They NOW understood what the kingdom meant. 'Power' (authority to make declarations about things that were established by God's hand) was kingdom vocabulary; Jesus had been made Lord and Christ as David's vision had said, Acts 2:30-31.
4, This "unlikely" combination of Israel's destiny and the mission outreach through God-enabled gifts is also why Gal 3 says the Spirit is the promise, 3:14, where the grammar is saying that the Spirit is what was promised. This is why we have Peter referring to the Spirit and to the promise of including the nations in Acts 3 at the same time; they really are one manifestation.
5, Clearly, it has nothing to do with the land of Israel nor dependent on the worship system of Judaism, except as a preparatory illustration. This continues to be the case when Paul says all the same things in Acts 13's official sample sermon, and in his defense in Acts 26 where the hope of Israel is already realized and is the mission of Christ, not the thing they expect to happen by worshiping day and night at the temple. The obtaining of the land through Joshua is now a picture from Israel's past of obtaining rest in Christ from the fear of death through one's sins; remove that doctrine from Hebrews and half of it is gone.
I'm not furious about the land promise; it served its purpose; see several lines from Joshua on that. I'm furious as the inability of people like Tambora to move forward in a discussion like this to what is truly the issue. The RT remark is the same; see below.
6, D'ism is carnal and materialist, and happy to be so. It is not even remotely aware of the glorious truth as it in Christ. It is as though just a restored land would have resulted in any of this!
7, D'ism is that way (#5) just when the picture for the land of Israel could not have been worse. Rumors of total scorching by Rome were bouncing off of the mountains and desert stones since 6 AD when a general rebellion was started after the Census, Acts 5:37. "Secular" records tell us about that rebellion and the others, and Dan 8:13 said a "rebellion that desolates" was coming, but it is a 'sin' in D'ism to know such things EVEN WHEN 'SECULAR' HISTORY IS REFERRED TO IN THE BIBLE.
8, The new covenant launched at the last supper is for all people, and is found in the body and blood of Christ, but Christ was saying that much as far back as the beginning of his work anyway, because it is back at the beginning of Genesis. All the passages on the new covenant confirm that it has nothing to do with the land, and totally about the redemption from sin and death that is in Christ Jesus, Heb 8-10. Tam does not realize she is part of a Goebellian effort to snow those facts. No D'ist here has answered why Heb 9:15 confines the new covenant to a question of how sin is erased. STP said that that was "made-up" to think so.
9, There is a RT problem addressed in the NT and we should stick with that, not the 19th century one. It is in Gal 3:17 and the Judaizers had replaced the Promise of the Spirit to Reach the Nations--they had replaced THAT with the Law; or thought the mission to the nations would happen through the Law, Mt 23:15. Paul says someone had replaced the Promise and voided it with the Law; it was his career effort to get that straightened out.
Tell that to a D'ist and they have no idea what it is about.
Last edited:
