ECT No one was "looking forward to the cross"

[SaulToPaul 2]

Ever since the Spirit was poured out as the prophecies had said, in and among those who believed the Gospel.

You have to understand "in Christ" first; otherwise nothing makes sense. The same is true (stated) in 2 Cor 5 about being in Christ and how Paul then understood about his past.

IP: "The years were never restored. God lied."

Ah, we see now.

 

[musterion]

IP: "The years were never restored. God lied."

That's the only logical conclusion of his position.

And he seems okay with that.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

That's the only logical conclusion of his position.

And he seems okay with that.

Yes, his conscience is eased because he's found a few "respected" commentaries that told him it was fulfilled "in Christ" (somehow).

He will not be able to rely on those commentaries at the Judgement seat of Christ (if he is there).

 

[musterion]

Other people in the picture--zealots, Judaizers, other Pharisee leaders who did not like him. He had a few enemies you know.

You elevate your idle speculations to the level of Scripture. You will be cast into the Lake of Fire for that.

As long as you call people fools, you probably are not Christ's. Mt 5:22. Oh, I forgot: those are verses for Jews, oh.

1. He wasn't addressing me when He said it. YOU DON'T LIKE THAT FACT BUT IT IS A FACT.

2. He told them not to speak to their brothers that way.

3. You are in no way my brother.

 

[Danoh]

See, THIS is the Danoh we need.

And THAT is the Danoh you are complaining about getting - when he turns his lens on "us also..."

Luv ya too, Musti

As tough as I am on the IP, I concede a point of his, where I find it valid - as few times as those end up being :chuckle:

The guy is far more often than not one wreck of mess; yes.

But Paul had no problem conceding an avowed enemy's point; why should we?

Example:

Titus 1:12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. 1:13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; 1:14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

In other words, an outsider had actually made a point the truth of which Paul found also applied to some of Paul's converts (in that case, as to those there "that they may be sound in the faith...that turn from the truth").

We ought to, and can easily be able to; take as good as we give.

Til then, I expect we will continue to think differently on this.

So be it until one or the other is fully persuaded in his own mind otherwise, bro.

This difference in "this persuasion" has to be that way until then.

"...for whatsover is not of faith is sin" - Rom. 14:23.

 

[Nick M]

If they had 'understood' it they prob would have tried to prevent it.

No kidding. That is what Paul said. However, God in control did it how he wanted it done. It was not a mugging and robbery by thugs ending in murder. He was executed by God authorized government.

 

[Nick M]

Who else could have done it, fool?

Trayvon Martin?

 

[musterion]

Trayvon Martin?

Not anymore.

 

[musterion]

And THAT is the Danoh you are complaining about getting - when he turns his lens on "us also..."

WRONGO, DANOH.

I have no problem, never have had, when you bring up some in-house doctrinal matter for disagreement. But your complains tend to not be of a doctrinal nature. They're not even really valid reproofs. They're just us failing to measure up to some nebulous, ill-defined standard of Danohism -- particularly when we fail to coo and mollycoddle some devout peddler of false righteousness and enemies of the Cross, as you often do. That is what's annoying so put that in your hat and smoke it.

 

[Nick M]

As pot stirrer extraordinaire David Manning said; Justice for Trayvon Martin? He did have justice served on him.

 

[musterion]

As pot stirrer extraordinaire David Manning said; Justice for Trayvon Martin? He did have justice served on him.

I'm not a big guy by any means, so if a 6+ foot thug is trying to pound my skull into the pavement, then whatever happens, happens.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Or, David said he knew that God would place a descedant on his (Davids) throne; Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave (quote). Acts 2:30-31. What is the plain language of that?

If you actually believe the plain language of the Bible you would understand that Peter was saying that the Lord Jesus was resurrected and he would sit upon the throne of David, an earthly throne. According to what you consider "plain language" the Lord's resurrection is that throne!

Since the plain language found in the Scriptures contradicts your ideas you just spiritualize away David's throne!

 

[dodge]

[Title borrowed from a mid-Acts blog]

If anyone during the Lord's time on earth would have anticipated His death, burial and resurrection for forgiveness and justification of the world, the disciples would have been the ones.

But what does God tell us?




So if you have been taught that people before Calvary were "looking forward to the cross" as their Good News, you have been fooled into placing stupid, lying human traditions that someone handed to you above the revealed Word of God. However, you can always repent [change your mind] about that, and you should do so immediately.

But if you read the above Scripture and still insist that people back then were somehow "looking forward to the cross" as their Good News, you are a literal pharisee because you hate God's Word and love the stupid lies of human traditions (Mark 7:13), which also reveals you to be a stiff-necked stupid liar yourself.

You are wrong again of course:

Job 19:25
For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:

Looks like you are the one following stupid lying traditions. Job KNEW.


Psalm 22:
The sacrifice and resurrection of the Messiah are throughout the Old Testament. Psalm 22, written by King David a millennium before Christ, gives us the very perspective of the Lord hanging on the cross. It describes how the people mocked Christ (Psalm 22:7-8; Mat 27:41-43), how they cast lots to divide up his clothes (Psalm 22:18;Mat 27:35), how his bones were out of joint (Psalm 22:14), how the wicked had surrounded him and pierced his hands and feet (Psalm 22:16) – the scars of which Thomas later got to touch and feel (John 20:27). Psalm 22 ends by saying God's righteousness would be declared to "a people that shall be born" (Psalm 22:31).

 

[Danoh]

WRONGO, DANOH.

I have no problem, never have had, when you bring up some in-house doctrinal matter for disagreement. But your complains tend to not be of a doctrinal nature. They're not even really valid reproofs. They're just us failing to measure up to some nebulous, ill-defined standard of Danohism -- particularly when we fail to coo and mollycoddle some devout peddler of false righteousness and enemies of the Cross, as you often do. That is what's annoying so put that in your hat and smoke it.

Yep - Danoh's so called "ism" versus Club TOL's MADism's member's self-delusion that they have a right not only to dish out, but to take issue with anyone who fires back.

Par for the course among many in life who are ever blunt - such are not very often much good at receiving same in kind.

Whop - there they come to high-five one another's next post once more .

Luke 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

Doh! I forgot - "that's not for us" triple exclamation point! :chuckle:

 

[Danoh]

I'm not a big guy by any means, so if a 6+ foot thug is trying to pound my skull into the pavement, then whatever happens, happens.

I used to teach mma full-time. One to three good years in the Judo aspect is all you'd need, bro.

I hate to say this; but it feels good to slam a 6 foot 4 coming at you into a brick wall.

Then share the gospel with them while you hold them til the cops show up.

They're much more cooperative with a smashed in face and a few busted teeth.

Regrettably, that kind of thing has to be dealt with in such a way.

You can probably find a good Judo class down at a local Y.

Enroll your kids, while you're at it.

Best toward you in this, bro; I'd rather have you around to argue with, than not :chuckle:

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

[Title borrowed from a mid-Acts blog]

If anyone during the Lord's time on earth would have anticipated His death, burial and resurrection for forgiveness and justification of the world, the disciples would have been the ones.

But what does God tell us?




So if you have been taught that people before Calvary were "looking forward to the cross" as their Good News, you have been fooled into placing stupid, lying human traditions that someone handed to you above the revealed Word of God. However, you can always repent [change your mind] about that, and you should do so immediately.

But if you read the above Scripture and still insist that people back then were somehow "looking forward to the cross" as their Good News, you are a literal pharisee because you hate God's Word and love the stupid lies of human traditions (Mark 7:13), which also reveals you to be a stiff-necked stupid liar yourself.

Look Mom... Musterion didn't sugar coat a thing.

Yes little Timmy... this is so stupid people will see how stupid they are!

But Mom... Jesus is Love

Yes little Timmy... and Love encourages, stupid lying Pharisees to use the brain God gave them.

Geee Mom... Musty is swell

Yes little Timmy... He sure is

 

[musterion]

Hardness with people who've heard, understood but insist on flatly rejecting the truth is necessary. Usually not for their own good but for the good of the hearers.

 

[Interplanner]

If you actually believe the plain language of the Bible you would understand that Peter was saying that the Lord Jesus was resurrected and he would sit upon the throne of David, an earthly throne. According to what you consider "plain language" the Lord's resurrection is that throne!

Since the plain language found in the Scriptures contradicts your ideas you just spiritualize away David's throne!

David said the resurrection was the enthronement, sorry. there is nothing in the sermon that has to do with anything X000 years in the future. That's what 2P2P WANTS but it is parasitic and thinks everyone thinks its way (in the bible).

what it should realize is that Judaism was expecting a monarchy right then and missed the whole point. thenit has to realize that what came was better and was actually what the prophets were talking about in the 3 passages they used which I listed above in the earlier post, Acts 2, 13, 15.

After that was absorbed by the apostles, there is no reference anywhere in the NT to another monarchy, and there is no reason why it should. Everything is about the mission of the Gospel, which God launched through Christ and the Spirit. That is what the kingdom or reign of Christ is about, as you can see from the parables.

Spiritual truth is not a dirty word. There was a copy or shadow throne on earth but now there is Christ's and it can redeem all. Jerry should realize that that throne saves his soul.

 

[Lon]

[Title borrowed from a mid-Acts blog]

If anyone during the Lord's time on earth would have anticipated His death, burial and resurrection for forgiveness and justification of the world, the disciples would have been the ones.

I don't tend to get into these, and I'm not here to argue overtly, but you'd asked once why I'm not MAD and which points I would have, or do disagree with. On this, it is rather that some of the logical demands, 1) I believe are logical, but 2) not demands. Thus If/Then doesn't make the necessity OR I'd have to be MAD with no exception. Why this thread? Specifically, because I've seen comments regarding "Just believe it." Well, I do, but in point of fact, am a partial preterist 'because' I believe it. We are disagreeing on acceptable conclusions. The reason I tend not to get into it with others is simply, that they tend to be overblown imho. Yes, I realize there is stringent disagreement but does my Faith bank on whether David sits on the throne, or that I rather see Christ as that fulfillment? :nono: Therefore, I tend not to get too caught up in these banter sessions because it just isn't that important when other doctrines are. "Bigger fish to fry" so to speak. For a moment (or two) I'll post along just to show perspective from the other guy is always important.

But what does God tell us?

John 5:39; 8:56 Isaiah 53 etc.

[So if you have been taught that people before Calvary were "looking forward to the cross" as their Good News, you have been fooled into placing stupid, lying human traditions that someone handed to you above the revealed Word of God. However, you can always repent [change your mind] about that, and you should do so immediately.

I disagree. Isaiah 53 is soooo clear. Rather, tradition rather than scripture knowledge tended to rule the people. Jesus was constantly referring back to the scriptures over traditions. I do agree the disciples had not clue, but I'm saying that they 'could have.' Martin Luther broke with tradition when he realized scripture was clearer than those traditions. I agree with you the disciples didn't know. Mary was told by an angel: "He will be the Savior from sins." The Lord Jesus Christ had even told His disciples that He would die. They weren't looking forward to it, but He told them they 'should' be. They weren't completely clueless, just didn't like what they were hearing and didn't understand.

[But if you read the above Scripture and still insist that people back then were somehow "looking forward to the cross" as their Good News, you are a literal pharisee because you hate God's Word and love the stupid lies of human traditions (Mark 7:13), which also reveals you to be a stiff-necked stupid liar yourself.

And this is why I entered the conversation. I don't think it is true and really, I don't think you do either. Rather, and you being studied, I'd suggest you know better. I don't say people who aren't Covenant and don't get Covenant are stupid. In fact, I've found them (and you) to be intelligent and thoughtful just disagreeing on what points where from me. If it were a big deal, I'd pound TOL all over the place as others do, but this isn't it to me. Most of it tends to be eschatology and none of it the gospel. There is only one gospel today and I'm convinced MAD has it. The Lord Jesus Christ chose 12 ignorant men. They weren't called 'stupid' or 'pharisee' nor even stiff-necked by name. I suppose there may be 'stiff-necked' room in the thread. There are several mentions along the line of. However, I'm fairly certain I've seen no Pharisee nor stupid. Disagreeing? Yes. I've seen that much.

As I said, these kinds of discussions are not really my bag and boy-howdy this thread surely started on the incredibly challenging note. I'd suggest by tenor, it breaks the spirit of intention for the ECT section, imho, where conversation and weighty discussion is encouraged as the norm.

I guess I'm saying, while I read a lot of these discussions 1) I don't take part because it isn't the hill I want to take and not imho a strategic hill 2) that I do read when people are able to give their position, from scriptures, in strength, and 3) that I prefer them when they aren't so much banter, as a show of scriptural prowess. 4) that I'm encouraging the same. To me, it just doesn't look like it belongs in this section as vitriolic as it seems to be, nor that it fosters the kind of discussion that would allow me to be a nonparticipating reader (and I read a lot of them). I guess I'm saying I'm a little disappointed and at the same time, would like to see an entertainment of objections because I think they are what is necessary, even if you wanted to encourage another to consider the MAD position. Sometimes, I think you guys make your own fire-fights with other members.

Sorry, I'm not sure you guys even get 2 cents worth here, but in hopes those two pennies compound... -Lon

 

[Nang]

Covenant Theology answers these kinds of arguments; which prove to be predominantly instigated by Dispensationalists.

The answer is simple:

God's promise of a Savior was first presented in the garden, and thereafter to all, and the O.T. saints proved to be those who believed in that promise.

God's promise of a Savior was fulfilled in the Incarnation in the sight of all the world, which the N.T. saints proved to be the ones who believed the miraculous event.

One Promise, One new Covenant, One Savior, One Gospel, One salvation worked by God's grace, One kind of believers.

Why all the discussion and arguing?