heir
TOL Subscriber
:doh:
vs.:
Acts 1:3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
What planet are you on?
ECT The 2P2P Revised Version: Acts 1
- Thread starter Interplanner
- Start date
- Status
vs.:
Acts 1:3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
What planet are you on?
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Are you serious?
heir
TOL Subscriber
Yep. He has some imagination.
Right Divider
Body part
He is factually challenged.
I've made it clear to him from scripture that the ones what Jesus called "fools" in Luke 24 were not even the twelve apostles.... but he just keeps claiming that they are.
The fiction author just cannot come back to reality.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Well, whether he hears what you say or not, I, for one, do, and I always appreciate your teachings. Thanks for hanging in there.....it isn't wasted when others can see.
Right Divider
Body part
Thanks GD, that's one of the main reasons that I keep at it.Well, whether he hears what you say or not, I, for one, do, and I always appreciate your teachings. Thanks for hanging in there.....it isn't wasted when others can see.
Right Divider
Body part
Apparently he's never heard of Ruth.
Interplanner
Well-known member
The fiction is that only those two disciples had that problem. And then RD and club turns around to Acts 1 and says they (all) had the "right" question in 1:6. Or had the right definition of 'basileiu.' Which is it, guys?
The 'people' (ethnei) in Mt 21:43 is not a nation as we know it. It is meant in the same sense as 'man'(-kind) in Eph 2:14 ('hen'). TEV: people. It is also not 'the Gentiles.' It is a new kind of people, whose denominator is faith in the Gospel.
The 'people' (ethnei) in Mt 21:43 is not a nation as we know it. It is meant in the same sense as 'man'(-kind) in Eph 2:14 ('hen'). TEV: people. It is also not 'the Gentiles.' It is a new kind of people, whose denominator is faith in the Gospel.
Right Divider
Body part
The great fiction writer is lost in the land of make believe.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Sure it is.
Right Divider
Body part
How can it be? IP has waved the magic wand!
Interplanner
Well-known member
You would have to be able to prove that 'kingdom of God' meant 'kingdom of Israel' in your sense and in the sense of Jn 12:34, which was set aside by Jesus (he was the 'light' they were in darkness).
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Since the "kingdom of Israel" is a subset of the kingdom of God, you are mistaken.
In between when He first called and commissioned the Twelve and just prior to His return back unto the Father; He had invested almost 4 years with them.
And yet, despite all they had experienced and been told while with Him all that time; some of them would end up focused on who was going to sit where with Him in His Kingdom.
THIS is what is behind the question in Acts 1.
Which is why He not only points out once more that it is not for them to know the timing of said Kingdom, but what their focus is to be: given the authority He had given them; and how that the Spirit would be seeing to that: to their being enabled to properly focus on their commission.
They are still scratching their heads, when those two angels once more remind them of what He had told them in Luke 13 - where He expected to find their focus having been, when He returns - giving Israel their meat; in its due season.
And THAT is exactly what they began to do AFTER THAT PARTICULAR Pentecost - "Ye men OF ISRAEL..." Acts 2 thru 7.
In THIS, Acts 10 had been FOR THEM an UNEXPECTED anomaly; thus Peter's sense of "mystery" or sense of a seeming riddle or "enigma" (Paul's understood sense of that in his use of that word, in Rom. 11).
They were thrown off by that Acts 10 event, because both they and the Lord had held that Israel - "the children" - would "be filled first" Mark 7.
Just as the Lord had reminded them near the end of Matthew 10...
But for...The Mystery.
And then you come along with your little red wagon full of books fresh from the nearest library, only to end up thrown off as to the sense of all that, by the lens you approach it all from - from your crystal clear OVER RELIANCE on the notions of men "about" these things...
O, I'm sure your view makes perfect sense to you - from within its vacuum, and all it has failed to consider.
But that is all your view is.
And it is...what it is...at this point - you are - married to it.
Rom. 5:8.
Last edited:
Interplanner
Well-known member
This whole page since Heir at the top post shows the bogus premise of D'ism/2P2P, namely: that anytime you see the 'kingdom of God/heaven' in the text in the Gospels, it is a validation of the 2nd program and people, it is the kingdom of Israel that the mistaken crowed of Jn 12:34 asked about and which the disciples in acts 1 should not have asked about.
so far as I can tell, that mistake is in every post on this page; the people involved are tone-deaf to it. They thus destroy what Acts 2:30 means, what 'power' means in acts 1:6's answer/rebuke to the disciples, etc. The amount of damage by this mistake cannot be underestimated. You can read clearly from passages like Isaiah 54 that the expected 'reign' as in 'Your God reigns' of ch 40, was not going to be the same thing as before, the total of which is the NHNE, even in Isaiah.
Gal 4 quotes this specifically from Is 54 because the new creation (Gal 6:15) is not like the previous. In the previous, the desolate woman got nothing; the woman with the husband had many.
so far as I can tell, that mistake is in every post on this page; the people involved are tone-deaf to it. They thus destroy what Acts 2:30 means, what 'power' means in acts 1:6's answer/rebuke to the disciples, etc. The amount of damage by this mistake cannot be underestimated. You can read clearly from passages like Isaiah 54 that the expected 'reign' as in 'Your God reigns' of ch 40, was not going to be the same thing as before, the total of which is the NHNE, even in Isaiah.
Gal 4 quotes this specifically from Is 54 because the new creation (Gal 6:15) is not like the previous. In the previous, the desolate woman got nothing; the woman with the husband had many.
2 Chronicles 13:5 Ought ye not to know that the LORD God of Israel gave the kingdom over Israel to David for ever, even to him and to his sons by a covenant of salt?
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Some get the land, some get the city, some get heaven.
Until you accept it, your confusion will 'reign'.
- Status