ECT All the Prophets, Acts 3

I

Interplanner

Well-known member
In the teaching of Acts 3, we see that all the prophets said the suffering of Christ was coming. Peter then explains that all the prophets said that the refreshing and restoration would come, thought not at the same time.

Does anyone actually think the suffering of Christ was only for Israel? Then why would the other be only for Israel? It is not. He was setting up the same apostolic doctrine as Paul, that the Genesis promise was that the end-time mission of Israel (first) would be to all nations to bless them with justification.

It is not one race and then another. It is not one group and then another. It is that it launches in israel and goes to the ends of the earth.

Whoever said that it was all set up as being one group and then sequentially another, doesn't know the NT. Most of the first generation of believers were Jews and it tapered off from that point, but was always for all, always idealized in Eph 2-3 as being a unity in faith in the Gospel.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
The emphasis here on this being the message in the prophets is again in ch 26 where Paul explains he does not go beyond what the prophets said: that Christ would suffer, rise and be preached among the nations. There is nothing else to know about, about the Christian message. That's where D'ism is hopelessly flawed.

But back to the early 2 chapter: would the D'ists please explain why Christ only died for Israel's sins, and what situation that leaves us nations in? It would help to know if he's going to die again, and other important facts.
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
The emphasis here on this being the message in the prophets is again in ch 26 where Paul explains he does not go beyond what the prophets said: that Christ would suffer, rise and be preached among the nations. There is nothing else to know about, about the Christian message. That's where D'ism is hopelessly flawed.

But back to the early 2 chapter: would the D'ists please explain why Christ only died for Israel's sins, and what situation that leaves us nations in? It would help to know if he's going to die again, and other important facts.
Click to expand...

Tell me which sins were atoned for, under the Law. Every single person on the planet? Or just those Israelites and Gentiles gathered around the Temple?
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
"Correcting" means defiling the normal sense of the passage and teasing people about OT goats. Get a life.

You seem to be interested in persuading me of your views. Do you realize you have failed so far?
 
D

Danoh

New member
Interplanner said:
The emphasis here on this being the message in the prophets is again in ch 26 where Paul explains he does not go beyond what the prophets said: that Christ would suffer, rise and be preached among the nations. There is nothing else to know about, about the Christian message. That's where D'ism is hopelessly flawed.

But back to the early 2 chapter: would the D'ists please explain why Christ only died for Israel's sins, and what situation that leaves us nations in? It would help to know if he's going to die again, and other important facts.
Click to expand...

Nope, Paul's is a practice there often found being practiced in Scripture.

The practice of saying no more than that which is in agreement with a thing.

(which is where Islam gets that same practice from).

There, Paul is focusing on that aspect of his Mystery ministry which does not differ from God's plans and purpose for and through Israel.

Within both aspects of God's plans and purpose, the principle is the same.

At the same time, it's application differs, within each.

Paul's focusing on the principle both aspects share in common, when dealing with Israelites; can wind up misinterpreted by the less Biblically astute as asserting both aspects of God's plans and purpose are one and the same.

IP is a prime example of said "less astute."

His being the result of his ever bragged about on here by him - his decades old OVER reliance on his ever endless books "about" and their equally ever endless reasoning "after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ" - Colossians 2:8.

No...thanks.

2 Tim. 3:16,17 asserts the Scripture is more than enough where "that the man of God might be perfect" is concerned - that is to say, where his being able to reach a point where he is "thoroughly furnished unto all good works" is one's intent.

Rom. 5:8
Acts 17:11,12
 
Tambora

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
SaulToPaul said:
Tell me which sins were atoned for, under the Law. Every single person on the planet? Or just those Israelites and Gentiles gathered around the Temple?
Click to expand...
IP won't believe scripture.
But here is the answer for those that do.

Leviticus 16:21-22 KJV
(21) And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness:
(22) And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.
 
Tambora

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Interplanner said:
The atonement, says hebrews, was 'hapax legomena' (once for all time).
Click to expand...
Yeppers.
And the schoolmaster of that 'once for all time' was the TWO goats of the day of Atonement, both of which were a typology of what Christ would accomplish.

The goats are not a back door to 2P2P
Click to expand...
Who has said anything about the goats (plural, because there were TWO) being a back door????
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Tambora said:
Yeppers.
And the schoolmaster of that 'once for all time' was the TWO goats of the day of Atonement, both of which were a typology of what Christ would accomplish.

Who has said anything about the goats (plural, because there were TWO) being a back door????
Click to expand...





So if it is true that Christ did both things at once (I have no problem with that) what's so hard about believing he was a party in the covenant as well as the covenant once it was over?

I believe STP said they had a way of referring to two comings or two separate acts just for Israel. He is obtusely esoteric, because God forbid anyone actually understand the illustration easily.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top