ECT The NT theology core

[SaulToPaul 2]

Acts 13
23 Of this man's seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus: 24 When John had first preached before his coming the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel. 25 And as John fulfilled his course, he said, Whom think ye that I am? I am not he. But, behold, there cometh one after me, whose shoes of his feet I am not worthy to loose. 26 Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent. 27 For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read* every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him. 28 And though they found no cause of death in him, yet desired they Pilate that he should be slain. 29 And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre. 30 But God raised him from the dead: 31 And he was seen many* days of them which came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses unto the people. 32 And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, 33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee

 

[Right Divider]

Made up.
Promise, singular.

:mock: "Real writer and grammar scholar".

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

:mock: "Real writer and grammar scholar".

Does not know the difference in promise and promises.
He's not fooling anyone here.

 

[john w]

Does not know the difference in promise and promises.
He's not fooling anyone here.

You "nit pickers!!!!!" It all says the same thing!!!! Focus on the mission, and fracturization....

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

You "nit pickers!!!!!" It all says the same thing!!!! Focus on the mission, and fracturization....

The Mission and Gazintas, I say!

 

[Interplanner]

:mock: "Real writer and grammar scholar".

Since 'promise' as a noun was not in question in Acts 13:32, and never has been, I went back to see what scandal STP was concocting this time. Sure enough, after 2 years and a hundred discussions, he found some other occurence of promise in the sermon. Way to go STP. You're the greatest.

The matter in question is 'tauten' and since Tam is a Greek scholar she will know! The options are 'what ever God promise' or 'what God promised' or 'the things God promised.'

So once again the ridicule is quite short lived and the boys of D'ism are naked to the world.

Without being too technical with the Greek, they might look at the overall picture of the sermon and notice that step by step things have been fulfilled and now all of it is fulfilled in the resurrection. That is the sense I get but it is a bit subjective. For ex., they DID get their land; done deal. David DID get a kingdom, done deal. Now in Christ it was time for something new to arrive; the mission to the nations through the Spirit.

 

[Interplanner]

Poor northwye, another lost soul

He may run long, but if you don't know those issues, you haven't even started PJ. Anyone who has worked in Greek a year will tell you that sorting out 'kata sarka' is a huge project, extremely definitive to the whole NT. You have to read many times to get an accurate picture. You have nothing without it.

 

[Interplanner]

Chafer wrote (thanks North)
Lewis S. Chafer said that dispensationalism has
"...changed the Bible from being a mass of more or less conflicting
writings into a classified and easily assimilated revelation

I've been trying to explain this for years. Like a centralized government, D'ism bellyaches that you 'need' them (it--2P2P) to 'get' the Bible. Like a Marxist, there is always need for a 'crisis' for which the 'government' is needed to solve it. Presto: D'ist ideas! They will solve all the problems.

I wonder...if D'ism's similarity to Judaism was...one of the conflicts! Could it be?

 

[Interplanner]

Your explanations are confused by your FALSE premise that absence is cancellation.

Until you FIX your FALSE ideas, you'll never understand what is actually being taught in the scripture.

That's not quite what I mean by talking about WHY you believe what you do, RD. Try again. I already know you have 10 ways of saying that. I need to speak on the level of reasons. What reasons do you think Paul and Peter are NOT deeply unified on these things? OK? Try that.

 

[Interplanner]

It figures that you would back up some crazy ideas.

There are already some translations that say 'seal up'--as in close. I will try to find the other reference. Hebrew is quite surprising where it can go. I assume you know, for ex., what it means when it says near Moses death, 'he was still strong.'?

 

[Interplanner]

And the gaming kind of dialectic goes on and on here on TOL. How would the TOL dispensationalists start to get out of the gaming dialectic? By learning that an honest argument or debate depends upon some agreement between the opposing factions on what a fact is. Here a fact is scripture and often sets of scripture. The difference between an argument which is not substantive and one that is at least partly substantive has to be understood and valued. Otherwise the dialectic tends toward the gaming form - often subtle put downs and attacks upon individuals, and often too brief to make sense.

Very good summary. It's breeding ground for a cult.

 

[Interplanner]

So I've just returned to the forum after 12 hours only to find that no one here has a word about the summary points. The short list of the 4 doctrines. Apparently none of the D'ists believe them, nor have any value in them. Which means to me that they are in a completely different faith from the apostles.

 

[Nang]

He may run long, but if you don't know those issues, you haven't even started PJ. Anyone who has worked in Greek a year will tell you that sorting out 'kata sarka' is a huge project, extremely definitive to the whole NT. You have to read many times to get an accurate picture. You have nothing without it.

I am not a Greek language expert, but I discern faith in the Gospel Truth when expressed by the brethren in Christ, and northwye is a fellow Christian who testifies to that absolute Gospel Truth of God, while providing correct historical context and evidence for the same.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Since 'promise' as a noun was not in question in Acts 13:32, and never has been, I went back to see what scandal STP was concocting this time. Sure enough, after 2 years and a hundred discussions, he found some other occurence of promise in the sermon. Way to go STP. You're the greatest.

The matter in question is 'tauten' and since Tam is a Greek scholar she will know! The options are 'what ever God promise' or 'what God promised' or 'the things God promised.'

So once again the ridicule is quite short lived and the boys of D'ism are naked to the world.

Without being too technical with the Greek, they might look at the overall picture of the sermon and notice that step by step things have been fulfilled and now all of it is fulfilled in the resurrection. That is the sense I get but it is a bit subjective. For ex., they DID get their land; done deal. David DID get a kingdom, done deal. Now in Christ it was time for something new to arrive; the mission to the nations through the Spirit.

Translation: You don't believe the passage.

 

[Truster]

Since 'promise' as a noun was not in question in Acts 13:32, and never has been, I went back to see what scandal STP was concocting this time. Sure enough, after 2 years and a hundred discussions, he found some other occurence of promise in the sermon. Way to go STP. You're the greatest.

The matter in question is 'tauten' and since Tam is a Greek scholar she will know! The options are 'what ever God promise' or 'what God promised' or 'the things God promised.'

So once again the ridicule is quite short lived and the boys of D'ism are naked to the world.

Without being too technical with the Greek, they might look at the overall picture of the sermon and notice that step by step things have been fulfilled and now all of it is fulfilled in the resurrection. That is the sense I get but it is a bit subjective. For ex., they DID get their land; done deal. David DID get a kingdom, done deal. Now in Christ it was time for something new to arrive; the mission to the nations through the Spirit.

The English term promise is mis-translated. The correct translation is pre-evangelism. Because evangelism has been mis-translated as gospel it really does hide what was being conveyed. This is part of the judgement of Elohim to remove the means of salvation far from the reprobates.

 

[jamie]

This is part of the judgement of Elohim to remove the means of salvation far from the reprobates.

Are reprobates anything like sinners?

Jesus died for sinners.

 

[Interplanner]

Because of the question of honesty by STP that I raised above, I read his post and sure enough he is being dishonest. He is referring to v23 and refusing to acknowledge that I'm talking about the expression in v32. I pretty much knew he would do that.

The sermon is anchored in a doctrine which D'ism cannot absorb without collapsing.

At a certain point, at this level with the Bible, you have 1, know Greek for years or
2, trust Greek commentators.

STP does neither; he has disqualified himself.

 

[Right Divider]

That's not quite what I mean by talking about WHY you believe what you do, RD. Try again. I already know you have 10 ways of saying that. I need to speak on the level of reasons. What reasons do you think Paul and Peter are NOT deeply unified on these things? OK? Try that.

In ONE SENSE the entire plan of God is unified. But that is NOT the WHOLE story.

God REVEALED things to Paul that had NOT been REVEALED before.

Paul went to great lengths to make this known and yet SOOOO many, like you, ignore it and try to make it go away.

 

[john w]

Without being too technical with the Greek,

Tappa Kegga Budda?

the mission to the nations through the Spirit.

Remember, MAD wacko's-focus on the mission.


Thanks for checkin; in, James Tiberius Kirkerplanner....

 

[patrick jane]

Since 'promise' as a noun was not in question in Acts 13:32, and never has been, I went back to see what scandal STP was concocting this time. Sure enough, after 2 years and a hundred discussions, he found some other occurence of promise in the sermon. Way to go STP. You're the greatest.

The matter in question is 'tauten' and since Tam is a Greek scholar she will know! The options are 'what ever God promise' or 'what God promised' or 'the things God promised.'

So once again the ridicule is quite short lived and the boys of D'ism are naked to the world.

Without being too technical with the Greek, they might look at the overall picture of the sermon and notice that step by step things have been fulfilled and now all of it is fulfilled in the resurrection. That is the sense I get but it is a bit subjective. For ex., they DID get their land; done deal. David DID get a kingdom, done deal. Now in Christ it was time for something new to arrive; the mission to the nations through the Spirit.

STP and the "boys" are naked to the world?