ECT Acts 13-Interplanner's Continuous Rebellion

Right Divider

Right Divider

Body part
Interplanner said:
So you don't think Chafer said that, and you don't think the confusion is this belief: that a Davidic theocracy is supposed to happen in Judea, as a solid fact of history, as solid the crucifixion of Christ in Jerusalem in 33AD?
Click to expand...
Your grammar is so bad that it's difficult to follow this post.

The LORD Jesus Christ will sit on the throne of David when He returns in glory, just like He and scripture says. Period. You cannot cancel it.

Matt 25:31-33 (AKJV/PCE)​
(25:31) ¶ When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: (25:32) And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth [his] sheep from the goats: (25:33) And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. ​
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Right Divider said:
Your grammar is so bad that it's difficult to follow this post.

The LORD Jesus Christ will sit on the throne of David when He returns in glory, just like He and scripture says. Period. You cannot cancel it.

Matt 25:31-33 (AKJV/PCE)​
(25:31) ¶ When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: (25:32) And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth [his] sheep from the goats: (25:33) And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. ​
Click to expand...





You did follow it just fine; you think a Davidic theocracy is as established a fact as the crucifixion in 33AD. You are wrong. Peter said the throne that David saw was in heaven and the resurrection was the enthronement. "Foreseeing this, he spoke of the resurrection..." there is nothing more clear.

Your Matt. quote is about that throne, says nothing about this earth or David's place.

The end of the world and judgement was originally expected very quickly in that generation.
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
You did follow it just fine; you think a Davidic theocracy is as established a fact as the crucifixion in 33AD. You are wrong. Peter said the throne that David saw was in heaven and the resurrection was the enthronement. "Foreseeing this, he spoke of the resurrection..." there is nothing more clear.

Your Matt. quote is about that throne, says nothing about this earth or David's place.

The end of the world and judgement was originally expected very quickly in that generation.
Click to expand...

Lifted from a commentary.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Once D'ists realize how quickly the end of the world and judgement was expected by the apostles they might start saying something that really matters.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
steko said:
The dispensational consideration of scripture didn't come first with me.

A literal, historical, grammatical, read it like it is understanding came first.

Later on, I discovered that there was a category of Bible interpretation and I found that it was practiced by those who understand the Bible literally.

The Lord Jesus said 'all' and I believe Him.
I don't believe you.

The Lord was referring to His resurrection, which just took place.
He said 'all' because His followers had believed on the prophetic passages about Him up until the resurrection. However, the resurrection is one part of the 'all' that He was referring to.

You're in the same shape as they were. You believe in the resurrection, which is good, but you don't believe 'all' that the prophets said about Him, which is bad.... and sad.
Click to expand...





You don't think a D'ist framework came first, but how do you know? These things are not easily seen unless pointed out by someone else. Safe to say: a person CANNOT see them themselves.

What I think you don't believe about 'all' is that he meant all of it will be found to be true in Christ, just as all that was promised to Israel is found to be true in the resurrection. That's why Paul who preached it all, and his 1000 quotes of the OT says: "I dared not go beyond what the prophets and Moses said:
that Christ would suffer
be raised as the first fruits
and be preached among the nations as a light to the Gentiles
--Acts 26
Guess who he's talking to: the people who thought there was supposed to be a kingdom for Israel.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
And wouldn't use so many cartoons, which simply close your mind to the thinking you need to do. Because of the emotional hit you get from using them.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
steko said:
I'm rarely shocked at anything anymore, but at what you affirm in this post, people should be.
Click to expand...




And yet both the Jacob-Esau contrast in Rom 9 and the Hagar reference in Gal 4 support it, although he says he is taking Hagar figuratively.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Nang said:
My earlier posts have nothing to do with Replacement Theology.

The believing remnant of Israelites that received the everlasting covenant promises through Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are citizens of Christ's invisible and heavenly church.

The promises regarding the promised son Isaac, from God, was a type of the Gospel promise of God's Son, the Savior Jesus Christ, sent from God who would save His spiritual and faithful offspring, His "church," which consists of O.T. saints as well as N.T. saints. Romans 4:19-25

See Hebrews Chapter 11 for a partial listing of these sons of God saved by grace through faith in these everlasting promises.
Click to expand...





"In your Seed (Christ), all the nations will be blessed." We either realize that that is the one Gospel or we have Chafer's 'set of conflicting messages that needs to be fixed.'
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
musterion said:
2 Peter 3:4
Click to expand...





STP misses the point again. Why trust him with the Bible? The question is now what is it about the resurrection that could be called the promise with such finality in Acts 13? At the climax of a sermon about what was Israel's golden age (and not reminding them very much of the failures that led to captivity...), how does the resurrection now (at Paul's time) fulfill what was promised?

STP is a mindless and willful and dishonest reader who simply does not take up questions when stuck. He has NEVER answered about the other 10 references to the new covenant other than heb 8:8. As though the only thing the Bible said was 8:8, and even that does not necessitate the land; only the reunion. And no real comment on what Acts 26 is saying, and no answer back about how Acts 2:30 says Peter says David saw the resurrection as enthronement. The grammar demands it.

But what is to be expected when the whole system is based on Chafer thinking the Bible was confused? That has not been answered clearly either.
 
musterion

musterion

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
STP misses the point again. Why trust him with the Bible? The question is now what is it about the resurrection that could be called the promise with such finality in Acts 13? At the climax of a sermon about what was Israel's golden age (and not reminding them very much of the failures that led to captivity...), how does the resurrection now (at Paul's time) fulfill what was promised?

STP is a mindless and willful and dishonest reader who simply does not take up questions when stuck. He has NEVER answered about the other 10 references to the new covenant other than heb 8:8. As though the only thing the Bible said was 8:8, and even that does not necessitate the land; only the reunion. And no real comment on what Acts 26 is saying, and no answer back about how Acts 2:30 says Peter says David saw the resurrection as enthronement. The grammar demands it.

But what is to be expected when the whole system is based on Chafer thinking the Bible was confused? That has not been answered clearly either.
Click to expand...

At least STP knows how to quote the person he's responding to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top