ECT Lk 24 explodes D'ism because Christ is actually present in the transition
- Thread starter Interplanner
- Start date
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Such as should be saved...
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Worth a repost.
Interplanner
Well-known member
(This is the original post from June)
Lk 24 explodes D'ism because Christ is actually present in the transition
V21 points out the mentality of the mostly zealot-raised disciples: "we had hoped..." This hope for a monarchy was mistaken all along, but in case our D'ist friends need a proof, this is where their minds are , not Christ's. Christ never was there.
The transition is from what Judaism thought God would do to what God did in Christ.
the 'hope' in "we had hoped" is also what they mean by the redemption of Israel. This is a rather explosive expression at the time. I don't think for a minute that the true believer's songs at the beginning of Luke were about a monarchy when they mention the 'redemption' or 'salvation' of Israel, because they explain that it was the forgiveness of sins, accessed by faith like Abraham, sounding much like Gal 3.
We also see that the crucifixion of another 'social' or 'political' leader was the last thing they thought would happen (in their zealot-based minds) and that's why their faces were downcast to have to tell the whole account again, v18.
Then we find out the truth in Christ. I have complained in other cases that D'ism takes expressions and things in a narrative and generates universal doctrines from those lines. They might do this, for ex., in Acts 2 about a kingdom offer, etc.
But in the case of Lk 24, the person who would clear up a narrative declaration (where Christ was absent) is present. Christ is actually here in ch 24, telling them that they were slow to believe and foolish about the OT. This means that all of this had been taught to them from the beginning (that's 'from the beginning' as found in I Jn 1:1, not Jn 1--contact with Jesus).
The important thing is it is BEFORE the 40 day seminar. Not after. He's saying that they should have known from his teaching all through the ministry that what he was REPEATING here was true: the suffering of Christ and entering his glory (in the resurrection). All through Moses and the Prophets. This was obviously repetition, and there is obviously no reference to the 'canceled deal' about the monarchy.
Lk 24 explodes D'ism because Christ is actually present in the transition
V21 points out the mentality of the mostly zealot-raised disciples: "we had hoped..." This hope for a monarchy was mistaken all along, but in case our D'ist friends need a proof, this is where their minds are , not Christ's. Christ never was there.
The transition is from what Judaism thought God would do to what God did in Christ.
the 'hope' in "we had hoped" is also what they mean by the redemption of Israel. This is a rather explosive expression at the time. I don't think for a minute that the true believer's songs at the beginning of Luke were about a monarchy when they mention the 'redemption' or 'salvation' of Israel, because they explain that it was the forgiveness of sins, accessed by faith like Abraham, sounding much like Gal 3.
We also see that the crucifixion of another 'social' or 'political' leader was the last thing they thought would happen (in their zealot-based minds) and that's why their faces were downcast to have to tell the whole account again, v18.
Then we find out the truth in Christ. I have complained in other cases that D'ism takes expressions and things in a narrative and generates universal doctrines from those lines. They might do this, for ex., in Acts 2 about a kingdom offer, etc.
But in the case of Lk 24, the person who would clear up a narrative declaration (where Christ was absent) is present. Christ is actually here in ch 24, telling them that they were slow to believe and foolish about the OT. This means that all of this had been taught to them from the beginning (that's 'from the beginning' as found in I Jn 1:1, not Jn 1--contact with Jesus).
The important thing is it is BEFORE the 40 day seminar. Not after. He's saying that they should have known from his teaching all through the ministry that what he was REPEATING here was true: the suffering of Christ and entering his glory (in the resurrection). All through Moses and the Prophets. This was obviously repetition, and there is obviously no reference to the 'canceled deal' about the monarchy.
Hi and do you know that Acts 2:47 is saying , And the Lord was ADDING daily to the EKKELSIA / ASSEMBLY !!
The Geek word ADDED is in the Greek IMPERECT TENSE and means that from Pentecost , Jesus ADDED and the stopped adding to that assembly , because Israel was to be set aside as Acts 13:46 ans Acts 18:6 and Acts 28:28 say and as 2 Cor 3:13-16 is written !Q!
dan p
Interplanner
Well-known member
"We had hoped..." may be the most informative expression in the NT.
Hi and Peter never stop being one of the 12 apostles and always preach the MESSIAH and because of 2 Cor 3:13-16 , God stopped ADDING ,in Acts 2:47 when Acts 28:28 came along !!
The Greek word ADDING is in the Greek IMPERFECT TENSE and it is only God the ADDED to the MESSIANIC ASSEMBLY and we see that thousands of Jews were zealous of the Law , in Acts 21:20 !!
dan p
Translation: Psycho babble talk show opinion, about opinions, about opinions of opinions, from the little mutt.
Pathetic.
The title of his next fiction thread should be Nothing Is As It Is, depending on what the word "is" is.
Interplanner
Well-known member
That's why I gave the short form: 'we had hoped he would redeem Israel.' Lk 24. That is the crux of confusion about the NT right there. From what you all have said, I don't think you have any idea which direction the train was going when it wrecked.
Marxist answers never deal with reasons; they are just emotional outbursts.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Stop being a coward and talk directly to me.
The power that was conferred in Acts 1 was the Spirit's work to kick start the mission, which was a gift to the resurrected, enthroned Christ; it was his kingdom in action.
You wouldn't know the difference between the book of James, and James Dean, and would not know the difference between a "Hebrew National," and a gyros, and thinks "the Greek" is how you join a Greek frat, confining your "the Greek" knowledge to "Tappa Kegga Budda."
You are beginning to bore us with your psycho babble, speculation, "spiritual" contortions, cart wheels, re. the book.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Do you have an actual question about a specific passage? You show so little familiarity with the text; I'd like to help.
Interplanner
Well-known member
The power that was conferred in Acts 1 was the Spirit's work to kick start the mission, which was a gift to the resurrected, enthroned Christ; it was his kingdom in action.
Do you have a need to know? Aren't you being a bit too literal, with your "passage" reference? Remember.....
The days of literalism are over.
Interplanner
Well-known member
You are just a rude person. You don't communicate. Then you write some fake issue like the law is abolished, without any qualification.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
saint john w the great is high strung...his mother was the same way.
Can't be literal.
The days of literalism are over for you.
Happy hour early, Basil? No, Pate asserts that the law is abolished. Sober up. And please throw me another "hard ball," like that original "accusation of hate" technique, "You are just a rude person." Please?
Hey, look, Seymour...I just try to focus on "The Mission," and what do I get from you? Rabble rousing! You beat everything-you know that?