ECT Acts 13-Interplanner's Continuous Rebellion

I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Show that he did.

You prob think its found in Acts 3:19+ which was just discussed yesterday.

'dechomai' is to receive. I have no idea why NIV went with remain, as though they were trying to pin down his location. The honoring or reception of Christ for his sacrifice is what sends the Spirit and power. That is what was restored to Israel in the apostles, and it is seen through the spreading of the Gospel, v25, 26. That is to continue until everything (not everything about Israel or Judaism, but everything) is restored in the NHNE. Which at that time they thought was very soon.

Anyone in Israel who did not fall in with Christ and his mission was to be expunged from the people, the most notable incident of that being the destruction of the land.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
musterion said:
I already did.

Show that Peter was not expecting a literal return of Christ for Israel.

If you can't, retract your false claim about Peter.
Click to expand...





Is it so complicated that you can't repeat it? Is it too sacred to repeat? Why do you sound like you are having a fit, just about repeating the one thing you believe matters the most?

I list all the passages and have for 2 years, but ask a D'ist what really proves them and they guilt you with not storing a post from months ago on the 3rd page of the forum.

I'm not aware of any demonstration by you. I can't even see where you read my post above about Acts 3!

That's the only passage that comes close, and in the overall view of the NT , I don't know why he would think so there and no where else. All this is concluded by the NT in what Paul said in Acts 26, where they are hornets again for Paul saying that it is in the resurrection that all Israel's hope is already fulfilled, same as ch 13.

I don't see where Peter had a similar arena.

All the material in I Pet 1-2 is about Christians and is all used by Paul in a similar way--living temple, priesthood, inheritance, etc. Nothing there.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Oh, you mean 2 Pet 3:4.

that's not about Israel in their land, if that's what you mean. That is clearly about wider society and evolutionists and skeptics not thinking there is any 2nd coming in judgement at all.

It may mean it was written after the DofJ because it was widely thought that the 2nd coming in judgement would be right after that. In fact, he mentions some of Paul's things being hard to understand, and I for one, think he meant how sure Paul was that the 2nd coming would happen right after the DofJ.
 
musterion

musterion

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
Is it so complicated that you can't repeat it? Is it too sacred to repeat? Why do you sound like you are having a fit, just about repeating the one thing you believe matters the most?

I list all the passages and have for 2 years, but ask a D'ist what really proves them and they guilt you with not storing a post from months ago on the 3rd page of the forum.

I'm not aware of any demonstration by you. I can't even see where you read my post above about Acts 3!

That's the only passage that comes close, and in the overall view of the NT , I don't know why he would think so there and no where else. All this is concluded by the NT in what Paul said in Acts 26, where they are hornets again for Paul saying that it is in the resurrection that all Israel's hope is already fulfilled, same as ch 13.

I don't see where Peter had a similar arena.

All the material in I Pet 1-2 is about Christians and is all used by Paul in a similar way--living temple, priesthood, inheritance, etc. Nothing there.
Click to expand...

Still waiting for you to show where Peter did not expect a literal return of Christ for Israel.
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

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...

all made up
 
D

Danoh

New member
glorydaz said:
Because that's all he's got. Fake news.

He just like the liberal democrats.
Click to expand...

That he is...as the staunch Trump supporter he has often posted being.

Lol - You "MADs" are somethin else; you don't even recognize your own kind :chuckle:

And whoops - that's what ya get for attacking a member of "the club" IP.

:D

Nevertheless, GD, welcome back, and Romans 5:8.
 
glorydaz

glorydaz

Well-known member
Danoh said:
That he is...as the staunch Trump supporter he has often posted being.

Lol - You "MADs" are somethin else; you don't even recognize your own kind :chuckle:

And whoops - that's what ya get for attacking a member of "the club" IP.

:D

Nevertheless, GD, welcome back, and Romans 5:8.
Click to expand...

Clearly you have a problem keeping politics from infecting all parts of your life. Others don't.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
musterion said:
He makes up stuff about the Bible, no stretch that he makes up stuff about you.
Click to expand...




Nothing is made up about Chafer or Acts 13 or Lk 24-Acts 3 or Acts 26. The only thing made up is that STP wears make up. You can tell because it keeps smearing in drips of tears on the page here.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
glorydaz said:
Because that's all he's got. Fake news.

He just like the liberal democrats.
Click to expand...




STP does not know real NT eschatology from a hole in the ground. It is impossible to disconnect it from the pile of events in judea in the 1st century. Everywhere you look in Paul, the end of the world is right after the DofJ. That's why Peter is a bit puzzled by Paul and is also dealing with that question of delay in 2 Pet 3:4--unless you can provide a reason why it would be about Christ's first coming.

He does not know shadow-to-reality progression in Acts 7, Col 2, Gal 4 and Heb 8-10.

He has blank refused comment on 10 verses on the new covenant in the NT because he only wants to quote Heb 8:8 because the others will conflict with his (Chafer's) pet theory that 'cleared up the Bible.' --2P2P

He does not accept the normal meaning of Acts 2:30 that the resurrection was the entrhonement that real Israel was awaiting so that their mission to the nations ('the Lord gave the word and the number of those who procaimed it was huge.'--Psalm __) would start. It was framed by Lk 24 and he still refuses.

He refuses to see that Acts 1 as well as an earlier line in Lk 24 are REBUKES of the ordinary type kingdom of Israel which is not happening then or now, while the divine and kingdom of God-power to preach was going to come--and proclaim Christ as Lord and enthroned so that all nations would come to the obedience of faith.

I could go on, but I don't need to.

So much for the stupidity of denying Christ's divinity. You have no idea what the NT is saying.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top