ECT Fundamental question: how can the one David referred to be his son?

[SaulToPaul 2]

Christ's reign is not quite that remote. It is seen in all the Christian mission work, which has had a positive impact socially wherever it has gone. It is still there only by faith, in the proclamation that he is Lord of the universe, whatever risks there may be in saying so. At the end of time, there is the NHNE.

When we cross examine the NHNE event in light of the gospel event, then transpose the transponders of equilibrium against the forces of standard deviation, we must conclude that the red dirt must remain.

 

[Lighthouse]

One part of understanding this line is the scene itself; the other part is to notice this is after the vineyard and wedding parables and before ch 23.

We know that Judaism was looking for David's son to appear because of all the MAD/D'ist people here obsessed with that. (D'ism is a way of doing Judaism with a modern twist). So it was logical in Mt 22:42 to do a climactic come-back to Judaism, to all its pesky questions. 'What do you (Judaism) think about the Christ? Whose son is he?'

We know the answer.

But this is not what Ps 110 is saying. The psalm is saying that he is the Lord of the universe, and David's lord. So he can't just be David's son as they knew it.

That is the whole point. Christ is not then nor in the future to be that kind of son. It is not what those passages were about. They were shadows or copies or 'types' of the reality that was coming in Christ. D'ism and MAD, like Judaism, are stuck in the former.

By the way, he won. I'm not sure if D'ism gets that.

Then came ch 23, the blast on Judaism, which ends with the declaration that the 'house' is already desolate (the term from Dan 9, which pops up again in 20 verses), except for those who sing Psalm 118 about him.

THE SETTING
But we can't forget that this comes after the general dismissal of Judaism in 21's vineyard parable and 22's wedding parable. The vineyard parable was 'talking about them.' He said another 'ethne' was going to take the place of Judaism. Not just take the place either. There would be destruction. There was going to be a king whose wedding invite was chided. The refused king sends his ARMY and BURNS down the city of the refusers. It was a pretty rough week for Judaism in general.

And now this--this denunciation of their doctrine of the son of David, which is what our friends here think is still going to happen. Apparently they can accuse people of making God a liar, but if God punishes a whole city for the wrong 'son of David' and then blesses that city X000 years later for the wrong son of David, it's OK. Yeah, right.

I didn't check to see if anyone had given this answer, yet, but if they have consider me in concordance with them. The answer to the basic question is very simple: John 1:1-14. That is how the one to whom David referred can be his son [male descendant].

And you, [MENTION=17235]Interplanner[/MENTION], don't know squat about dispensationalism.:nono:

 

[Interplanner]

I didn't check to see if anyone had given this answer, yet, but if they have consider me in concordance with them. The answer to the basic question is very simple: John 1:1-14. That is how the one to whom David referred can be his son [male descendant].

And you, [MENTION=17235]Interplanner[/MENTION], don't know squat about dispensationalism.:nono:

sorry but I have debated Walvoord in person, and Sauerwein and Needham at Multnomah U. I was taught D'ism since middle school. It is pretty corny.

As for this passage, where is David expressly mentioned in Jn 1:1-14? You don't answer a question without a specific reply even if you quote big-gun passages. The question of Jesus that stopped Judaism is what matters. The sonship does not matter, because he was Lord. Judaism had nothing else to say.

If you are upset to be participating in Judaism, that's your problem. Stop doing it.

 

[Lighthouse]

sorry but I have debated Walvoord in person, and Sauerwein and Needham at Multnomah U.

Do you want a cookie?

I was taught D'ism since middle school. It is pretty corny.

Clearly not Acts 9.

As for this passage, where is David expressly mentioned in Jn 1:1-14? You don't answer a question without a specific reply even if you quote big-gun passages. The question of Jesus that stopped Judaism is what matters. The sonship does not matter, because he was Lord. Judaism had nothing else to say.

Are you really that stupid? Jesus is God and He became flesh and dwelt among us. He was born of Mary who, as shown in one of the genealogies, is a descendant of David. Thus making Jesus a descendant of David through His birth to her.:dunce::duh:

All it takes is reading the fist chapter of Matthew, Luke and John to know the answer to the question.

If you are upset to be participating in Judaism, that's your problem. Stop doing it.

Judaism follows the Law for justification. I do not. I even eat shrimp and shellfish.:shocked:

 

[Interplanner]

Do you want a cookie?


Clearly not Acts 9.


Are you really that stupid? Jesus is God and He became flesh and dwelt among us. He was born of Mary who, as shown in one of the genealogies, is a descendant of David. Thus making Jesus a descendant of David through His birth to her.:dunce::duh:

All it takes is reading the fist chapter of Matthew, Luke and John to know the answer to the question.


Judaism follows the Law for justification. I do not. I even eat shrimp and shellfish.:shocked:

I know D'ism because we had to read Ryrie at MU. The fatal chapter is 2P2P. He said D'ism stands or falls on that doctrine, but he never said what he should have: it is a farce.

There is nothing pivotal about Acts 9, that is all mistaking a Judaizers gospel invading the church and thinking that the church had 2 gospels, WHICH IT DID NOT.

Then if my question is stupid, so is the title of this thread. Why did christ bother with it, and why did it stop Judaism from any further questions?

I know the genealogies, Mr Sunday School instructor, but what you have not answered is christ's question which make it irrelevant. If he is called Lord, (what is the point) of calling him 'son'?

 

[Lighthouse]

I know D'ism because we had to read Ryrie at MU. The fatal chapter is 2P2P. He said D'ism stands or falls on that doctrine, but he never said what he should have: it is a farce.

It doesn't stand on that doctrine.:nono:

There is nothing pivotal about Acts 9, that is all mistaking a Judaizers gospel invading the church and thinking that the church had 2 gospels, WHICH IT DID NOT.

You're right; the church didn't have two gospels.

Then if my question is stupid, so is the title of this thread.

I agree. The title is stupid. But I didn't start the thread; you did.

Why did christ bother with it, and why did it stop Judaism from any further questions?

Why did Christ bother with what? What is"it"?

I know the genealogies, Mr Sunday School instructor, but what you have not answered is christ's question which make it irrelevant. If he is called Lord, (what is the point) of calling him 'son'?

"Son" is an idiom for a male descendant, you twit. That's the point. In order to sit on David's throne He had to be born in the flesh as a descendant of David.

 

[Nang]

It doesn't stand on that doctrine.:nono:


You're right; the church didn't have two gospels.


I agree. The title is stupid. But I didn't start the thread; you did.


Why did Christ bother with what? What is"it"?


"Son" is an idiom for a male descendant, you twit. That's the point. In order to sit on David's throne He had to be born in the flesh as a descendant of David.

The "Son" of God assumed the issue (seed) of David to fulfill the full extant of His covenant promise given to Eve . . That the Savior who would remedy the original sin and crush the head of Satan, would be the Seed of God, born of woman.

IOW's the Divine & Royal Son of God would utilize and supersede the royal human seed
of David, through the hypostatic Union of God and Man in Jesus Christ.

Any theology that goes to an extreme in emphasizing Spirit apart from flesh or flesh apart from Spirit as being a Gospel message that alone can save souls, does err.

MADists emphasize David & Paul,s human status(flesh) over the revelation of the Man Jesus; equally filled with the Spirit of the Christ of God.

There is only one Savior - the God/Man Jesus the Christ, provided by God as promised.

 

[Interplanner]

It doesn't stand on that doctrine.:nono:


You're right; the church didn't have two gospels.


I agree. The title is stupid. But I didn't start the thread; you did.


Why did Christ bother with what? What is"it"?


"Son" is an idiom for a male descendant, you twit. That's the point. In order to sit on David's throne He had to be born in the flesh as a descendant of David.

Ryrie is right: if you are going to believe D'ism it is because it stands on 2P2P. If 2P2P comes apart, D'ism comes apart.

I don't mean the church vs BOC. I mean what Christ preached from the beginning back in Isaiah. I mean Genesis.

There can't be anything 'stupid' (ie moot or worthless) about the thread. it is the full stop question by jesus that stopped everything Judaism had trumped up against him. The answer is that there is no point in the Davidic sonship. That David character called him Lord; so much for the sonship! They were worshipping David and 'Messiah' was going to be David reincarnated without sin. Much like what futurist Davidic theocracy says.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

I know D'ism because we had to read Ryrie at MU. The fatal chapter is 2P2P. He said D'ism stands or falls on that doctrine, but he never said what he should have: it is a farce.

There is nothing pivotal about Acts 9, that is all mistaking a Judaizers gospel invading the church and thinking that the church had 2 gospels, WHICH IT DID NOT.

Then if my question is stupid, so is the title of this thread. Why did christ bother with it, and why did it stop Judaism from any further questions?

I know the genealogies, Mr Sunday School instructor, but what you have not answered is christ's question which make it irrelevant. If he is called Lord, (what is the point) of calling him 'son'?

:chuckle:

Proud, boasting, knowing nothing...

 

[Lazy afternoon]

:chuckle:

Proud, boasting, knowing nothing...

Try to at least talk like a Christian will you.

LA

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Try to at least talk like a Christian will you.

LA

I was quoting the Apostle Paul. I am not surprised that you did not get it, since you avoid his letters like the plague.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

I was quoting the Apostle Paul. I am not surprised that you did not get it, since you avoid his letters like the plague.

Perhaps you could follow Paul in baptism as I did.(as he followed Christ)

Act 22:14 And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth.
Act 22:15 For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard.
Act 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

LA

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Perhaps you could follow Paul in baptism as I did.(as he followed Christ)

Act 22:14 And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth.
Act 22:15 For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard.
Act 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

LA

Calling on the name of the Lord washed away his sins. And you cannot prove it was water baptism.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

Calling on the name of the Lord washed away his sins. And you cannot prove it was water baptism.

That is not what the text says. How convenient for you to twist the scriptures like that to suit your own sin laden religion.

Act 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

LA

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

That is not what the text says. How convenient for you to twist the scriptures like that to suit your own sin laden religion.

Act 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

LA

Poor LA Lost


AND wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

 

[steko]

Ryrie is right: if you are going to believe D'ism it is because it stands on 2P2P. If 2P2P comes apart, D'ism comes apart.

.

Dispensationalism stands on the literal, historical, grammatical hermeneutic.

2P2P is recognized in the Scripture as a result of this hermeneutic.

If one departs from that hermeneutic and begins to interpret Scripture with a basically allegorical hermeneutic, particularly with regard to prophecy, then 2P2P is no longer recognized in Scripture and it only seems that Dispenstionalism falls apart.

Dispensationalists believe the Scriptures as written.
Allegoricists import and impose a foreign meaning on Scripture. Those who believe what the Allegoricists say the Scripture means must place their faith in the self-proclaimed authority of the Allegoricist rather than just reading Scripture to discover what it plainly says. If Scripture is literal then most readers will come to basically the same understanding. If Scripture is to be understood allegorically, then the reader must go to the Allegoricist to discover what it means. I think that GOD meant for people to read and understand plainly what it means.

 

[Lighthouse]

Ryrie is right: if you are going to believe D'ism it is because it stands on 2P2P. If 2P2P comes apart, D'ism comes apart.

Nope.

I don't mean the church vs BOC. I mean what Christ preached from the beginning back in Isaiah. I mean Genesis.

What?

Would I need to get high in order to understand you?

There can't be anything 'stupid' (ie moot or worthless) about the thread. it is the full stop question by jesus that stopped everything Judaism had trumped up against him. The answer is that there is no point in the Davidic sonship. That David character called him Lord; so much for the sonship! They were worshipping David and 'Messiah' was going to be David reincarnated without sin. Much like what futurist Davidic theocracy says.

It wasn't stupid when Jesus asked it because the answer was unknown to the audience. But since Jesus gave us the answer it is now stupid to ask it again.

You are a fool.

 

[Interplanner]

Nope.


What?

Would I need to get high in order to understand you?


It wasn't stupid when Jesus asked it because the answer was unknown to the audience. But since Jesus gave us the answer it is now stupid to ask it again.

You are a fool.

Lighthouse,
the amount of material Ryrie put into that thesis (about 2P2P being the standing-or-falling article of D'ism) prohibits you from just answering 'nope.' It's meaningless. You must address a specific point, or it is just meaningless hiding from questions. It's up to you.

 

[Interplanner]

Lighthouse wrote:
It wasn't stupid when Jesus asked it because the answer was unknown to the audience.

Prove this. The rest of what you said has no value at this point.

 

[Interplanner]

Nope.


What?

Would I need to get high in order to understand you?


It wasn't stupid when Jesus asked it because the answer was unknown to the audience. But since Jesus gave us the answer it is now stupid to ask it again.

You are a fool.

Do we agree that we will talk about posts and propostions in them rather than people? I happen to think yours are foolish, but if you can support them go ahead. If it means anything in your Christian view of things (I assume you are an example of a changed heart), I do not think you are a fool. But your posts...that's another question.