ECT Acts 13-Interplanner's Continuous Rebellion

[SaulToPaul 2]

At some point, STP, you have to really get into the mind of the writer, not just the words.

:chuckle:

My job is to believe what God has said, not become a mind reader.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Just so we understand the overall working situation of the forum: the object is to arrive at the meaning of the Word. I long ago realized STP was in no position to be some kind of guide or leader, so his saying he was 'correcting' something is his vanity to work out. You have to have linguistic or background reasons in order for something to stand.

No, if you can read 6th grade English, you can understand the promise (singular) in Acts 13.
What you do to this text is a travesty.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

It's not really a matter of the expression; there is nothing in any prophecy that says the resurrection of Christ was going to have the finality that Paul says it has here. That's because it provides everything through Christ or in Christ. The days of literalism are over. It is the forgiveness of sins--justification--and it is the mission of that afterwards.

No other mention is made of the land here, and given the circumstances over in Judea, I'm not surprised.

You people need to show why there is an outstanding need after this has taken place to have another go in Judea. It's irrelevant and it is not what the NT looks for when you read Gal, Col, Hebrews about the role of Judaism. That is what I have never understood about your view and you never talk about it. Like you are afraid something will fall apart. it will. So you just keep dictating it on scant evidence and on the notion that 'God would be a liar' inspite of bringing Israel back after exile.

It's not a singular promise, it is a visionary one that changed the world and was meant to continue doing so.

What or 'That which' God promised. 'Promise' is in a verb form. But in a history of Israel where the land and the kingdom have been covered--served their purpose--and in view of there not being a specific 'resurrection' promise, he is obviously saying it is all done through the resurrection.

Made up, speculation, rationalization, humanism, unbelief.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Rom 11 was about what had taken place in Paul's time; the Redeemer who came to Zion and took away sins.

Made up. The LORD has yet to roar out of Zion.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

worship STP

Silly accusation.

 

[Danoh]

No, if you can read 6th grade English, you can understand the promise (singular) in Acts 13.
What you do to this text is a travesty.

So why does your "6th grade English" fail you so miserably, say, on Romans, etc.?

You need to hold yourself to the same high standard you are supposedly holding him to.

Rom. 5:8

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

So why does your "6th grade English" fail you so miserably, say, on Romans, etc.?

You need to hold yourself to the same high standard you are supposedly holding him to.

Rom. 5:8

It doesn't.

 

[Danoh]

It doesn't.

If you say so "STP the adequate." :chuckle:

Somehow your supposedly "lost Romans" not only understood the baptism in Romans 6 was not water, as lost people, but without Paul's having to explain what he'd meant.

For he explains what he'd meant by it, nowhere in Romans.

Rather, as with many of the issues he tells them he was merely putting them in mind of in Romans; much of his writing in Romans shows they already know what he is talking about.

Your Mid-Acts is inconsistent.

Plain and simple.

In this, Romans, etc, are clearly beyond, at least your application...of your "6th grade English."

Nevertheless, Romans 5:8.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

If you say so "STP the adequate." :chuckle:

Somehow your supposedly "lost Romans" not only understood the baptism in Romans 6 was not water, as lost people, but without Paul's having to explain what he'd meant.

For he explains what he'd meant by it, nowhere in Romans.

Rather, as with many of the issues he tells them he was merely putting them in mind of in Romans; much of his writing in Romans shows they already know what he is talking about.

Your Mid-Acts is inconsistent.

Plain and simple.

In this, Romans, etc, are clearly beyond, at least your application...of your "6th grade English."

Nevertheless, Romans 5:8.

They weren't lost. They had a faith.

:e4e:

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Yes, it is sadder.

And the saddest is they are encouraging others to be against GOD's promises.

I know that Satan does not want the earth, City, and heavens filled with God's people for all of eternity.
And, his children follow suit.

 

[Tambora]

I know that Satan does not want the earth, City, and heavens filled with God's people for all of eternity.
And, his children follow suit.

Ahh, yes.
"Did GOD really say .... ?"
And they bite into the fruit of doubt.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Except that its not.

The place you go off the rails is the new covenant and as long as you worship STP you won't get this straigtened out. It is currently true and evangelistic and it is not about the land of Judea. THAT is exactly what makes it exciting. It is you people who are missing out, it is you to be pitied.

STP is nothing if not rebellious about it being current, evangelistic, and not about the land. The NT passages with the EXCEPTION of Heb 8 are perfectly clear.

Thus, Heb 8 is on my list of about 10 passages on which D'ism is just as much a cult as JW's saying that Jesus is a god in Jn 1. I'm sure you know the others--or not so sure because I detect a HUGE memory problem.

If thou knewest the difference between the spirit of the new testament and the letter of the new testament, thou would not havest these major problems.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

What a ridiculous thing to quote! It is exactly that kind of teaching that would manifest in the apostles doctrine showing the new covenant was current and evangelistic and not about Judea (not confined to). He meant the suffering and resurrection of Christ as his enthronement. That what they taught was the 4 doctrines I outlined. That Acts 26 shows Paul limiting what he teaches from the prophets to: the suffering, raising and mission of Christ. And does not teach what you teach.

So even here D'ism is parasitic. It finds the word ALL in a passage on the prophets, rips it from context, declares its complicated additions to be THE TRUTH and ridicules what the apostles actually taught.

Made up.

 

[Danoh]

They weren't lost. They had a faith.

:e4e:

You are not believing your KJB on this, you are believing what your poor study method has you concluding.

And skirting the baptism point I made (as you did recently on another thread where someone brought up some other points your inconsistent approach fails to consider) isn't helping your case any.

lol - you crack me up.

Nevertheless, Rom. 5:8

 

[Interplanner]

Ahh, yes.
"Did GOD really say .... ?"
And they bite into the fruit of doubt.

There are no such details in the passages I have listed 1000x times here. It's imaginary. I'm talking about those places where extended attention is given to the 2nd coming and beyond. Not soundbytes.

 

[Interplanner]

The point is the promise (even if a singularity) was completed by the resurrection. all theology has to switch to that.

We know that in the resurrection:
Christ was enthroned on what David foresaw;
He was awarded the resurrection for the accomplishment of justifying righteousness.

So that's what it was supposed to be about.

 

[Tambora]

The point is the promise (even if a singularity) was completed by the resurrection. all theology has to switch to that.

We know that in the resurrection:
Christ was enthroned on what David foresaw;
He was awarded the resurrection for the accomplishment of justifying righteousness.

So that's what it was supposed to be about.

No.
The promise of the restored kingdom is an earthly kingdom.
The throne of David is an earthly throne.
David has never had a throne other than his earthly one.
A heavenly or spiritual throne cannot possibly be David's throne.

 

[Interplanner]

No.
The promise of the restored kingdom is an earthly kingdom.
The throne of David is an earthly throne.
David has never had a throne other than his earthly one.
A heavenly or spiritual throne cannot possibly be David's throne.

You have to have solid NT doctrinal chapter reasons, not broken record dictates. Acts 2:30-31 settles it. Eph 1 is totally parallel, and OUR resurrection (our new life) is IN his resurrection and enthronement.

What reason after 2 destructions and 'all that is written poured out' and Hebrews--what reason is there for another round of it? Not a private interp text but a DOCTRINAL REASON.

 

[Tambora]

GOD does not break His promises, no matter how much IP and Nang want to tell you He does.

 

[Interplanner]

GOD does not break His promises, no matter how much IP and Nang want to tell you He does.

He didn't. he took care of the land thing earlier. This is about his not breaking the 'blessing to all nations.' Wish you were interested in what the NT is interested in. It automatically makes missions and mission things happen. Demanding a land promise never will.