ECT The Resurrection Question that terminates D'ism

Status
Not open for further replies.
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
You can tell the resurrection of Christ sinks D'ism by the effort that goes into fighting the plain meaning of Acts 2:30, 31, and 13:32+. The enthronement and the completion of things promised to the fathers in the mission of telling the world about justification in Christ.

Today it's RD canceling the antecedent in Acts 2:30 and saying David didn't see the resurrection as the enthronement.

Partly confused by the one-step removed English grammar of "would". Which ends up not mattering, because David saw the resurrection.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Why oppose MAD they ask: because there is not supposed to be an industry of figuring out when Israel's kingdom happens. It is the wrong question.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
In order to understand a thing, in this case the apostle's doctrine, you have to enter their world to know their fears and hopes, etc. You have to do detective work. Everything I know about the approach of D'ism mitigates against this. D'ism is like the annoying deputies in FOYLE'S WAR who immediate change or touch evidence in the crime scene.

Right where there are clear declarations that Christ reigns are loud and raucous disputes that it actually means something Judean X000 years in the future. Right where it says the end of this age is almost here, are other kinds of glommed-on future expectations, like a mass of mosquitoes so that people can't see and will do anything to get away from the swarm. One mosquito is the complaint about literalism (ie, the assertion that
D'ism is the most literal thing out there) but on closer exam, they fail on passage after passage if futurism and D'ism is missing or doubted.
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
In order to understand a thing, in this case the apostle's doctrine, you have to enter their world to know their fears and hopes, etc. You have to do detective work. Everything I know about the approach of D'ism mitigates against this. D'ism is like the annoying deputies in FOYLE'S WAR who immediate change or touch evidence in the crime scene.

Right where there are clear declarations that Christ reigns are loud and raucous disputes that it actually means something Judean X000 years in the future. Right where it says the end of this age is almost here, are other kinds of glommed-on future expectations, like a mass of mosquitoes so that people can't see and will do anything to get away from the swarm. One mosquito is the complaint about literalism (ie, the assertion that
D'ism is the most literal thing out there) but on closer exam, they fail on passage after passage if futurism and D'ism is missing or doubted.
Click to expand...

All made up.
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
In order to understand a thing, in this case the apostle's doctrine, you have to enter their world to know their fears and hopes, etc. You have to do detective work. Everything I know about the approach of D'ism mitigates against this. D'ism is like the annoying deputies in FOYLE'S WAR who immediate change or touch evidence in the crime scene.

Right where there are clear declarations that Christ reigns are loud and raucous disputes that it actually means something Judean X000 years in the future. Right where it says the end of this age is almost here, are other kinds of glommed-on future expectations, like a mass of mosquitoes so that people can't see and will do anything to get away from the swarm. One mosquito is the complaint about literalism (ie, the assertion that
D'ism is the most literal thing out there) but on closer exam, they fail on passage after passage if futurism and D'ism is missing or doubted.
Click to expand...

It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
 
Nihilo

Nihilo

BANNED
Banned
Interplanner said:
You can tell the resurrection of Christ sinks D'ism by the effort that goes into fighting the plain meaning of Acts 2:30, 31, and 13:32+. The enthronement and the completion of things promised to the fathers in the mission of telling the world about justification in Christ.

Today it's RD canceling the antecedent in Acts 2:30 and saying David didn't see the resurrection as the enthronement.

Partly confused by the one-step removed English grammar of "would". Which ends up not mattering, because David saw the resurrection.
Click to expand...
I'm with you that the RESURRECTION is the end all be all of the Gospel.

THE LORD JESUS CHRIST IS RISEN. Mt28:6KJV Mk16:6KJV Lk24:6KJV (Ro10:9KJV)
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Nihilo said:
I'm with you that the RESURRECTION is the end all be all of the Gospel.

THE LORD JESUS CHRIST IS RISEN. Mt28:6KJV Mk16:6KJV Lk24:6KJV (Ro10:9KJV)
Click to expand...




Good but I'm asking that you stick with several more direct and profound passages:
1, David said the resurrection was the enthronement, Acts 2. Peter was not popping it a tidbit about some reign X000 years in the future.
2, The resurrection completes the promise to the fathers by proving that justification from our sins is accomplished, Acts 13
3, the resurrection itself was a declaration that Jesus was the Son of God, Rom 1
 
Nihilo

Nihilo

BANNED
Banned
Interplanner said:
Good but I'm asking that you stick with several more direct and profound passages:
1, David said the resurrection was the enthronement, Acts 2. Peter was not popping it a tidbit about some reign X000 years in the future.
2, The resurrection completes the promise to the fathers by proving that justification from our sins is accomplished, Acts 13
3, the resurrection itself was a declaration that Jesus was the Son of God, Rom 1
Click to expand...
There's too much Catholicism in there for me to agree with you on these points, being Catholic in my theology (not in body). People'd just think, "Well Nihilo is biased, because this is the Catholic view." And so what I think on this matter doesn't matter. If I disagreed with you, that'd be notable, but that I agree with a Catholic view, is :rolleyes:. It'd be a waste for me to agree with you on this matter publicly.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Nihilo said:
There's too much Catholicism in there for me to agree with you on these points, being Catholic in my theology (not in body). People'd just think, "Well Nihilo is biased, because this is the Catholic view." And so what I think on this matter doesn't matter. If I disagreed with you, that'd be notable, but that I agree with a Catholic view, is :rolleyes:. It'd be a waste for me to agree with you on this matter publicly.
Click to expand...





lol, Catholic? You must be kidding. How?
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
Good but I'm asking that you stick with several more direct and profound passages:
1, David said the resurrection was the enthronement, Acts 2. Peter was not popping it a tidbit about some reign X000 years in the future.
2, The resurrection completes the promise to the fathers by proving that justification from our sins is accomplished, Acts 13
3, the resurrection itself was a declaration that Jesus was the Son of God, Rom 1
Click to expand...

You made up 1 and 2.
3 is true.

33% accuracy. F-.
 
Nihilo

Nihilo

BANNED
Banned
Interplanner said:
lol, Catholic? You must be kidding. How?
Click to expand...
This is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

652 Christ's Resurrection is the fulfillment of the promises both of the Old Testament and of Jesus himself during his earthly life. The phrase "in accordance with the Scriptures" indicates that Christ's Resurrection fulfilled these predictions.
​

There's a whole lot of other stuff in there on the significance of that first Easter.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a5p2.htm
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Nihilo said:
There's too much Catholicism in there for me to agree with you on these points, being Catholic in my theology (not in body). People'd just think, "Well Nihilo is biased, because this is the Catholic view." And so what I think on this matter doesn't matter. If I disagreed with you, that'd be notable, but that I agree with a Catholic view, is :rolleyes:. It'd be a waste for me to agree with you on this matter publicly.
Click to expand...





So much confusion:
1, if it was Catholic, it would be saying there is a government on earth now that is the kingdom of God, with offices in some city on earth
2, neither the Catholic, nor the accuser of Catholicism in this case, is factoring in the widespread belief in the apostle's generation, that the end of the world would take place right after the destruction of Jerusalem. "Catholicism" would not be in error for believing #1 and 3 of the above list, but for thinking that after the fact that the end did not take place, they were supposed to take over, ie, establish a kingdom on earth in the theocratic sense. It makes no difference whether you do this yourself or believe this is supposed to happen at some future point through Israel, it is the same mistake.
3, #2 is specifically not Catholic on 'gratia infusa.' Justification was never by imputation (unless you think Luther was a mental case), so they would not have had the doctrine that the Res was the proof of an imputed righteousness. Even as recently as in the mystery series FATHER BROWN, that priest says that God's working in you when you admit sin is his grace that resolves your sin so that you will be accepted by him. C'ism always said that; that the grace at work within you resolves the debt; 'gratia infusa'. The Protestant protest was that it was Christ's work outside of us and our lives in history that did so, 'gratia imputa.'
 
D

DAN P

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
The fulfilled promise of the resurrection and enthroned Messiah and his mission on earth is all the remained to be delivered to Israel; it was then Israel's task to be missionaries of that. About 210 were ready by the time of Pentecost, and then it was open to anyone at all who believed/feared God.

D'ism is trying to say that there needs to be another episode of a Davidic theocracy with the worship system operating in Judea, even if with Christ as King/Priest. There is not. It was referring to the living temple of the Christian community and each person as an ongoing living sacrifice, Rom 12:1.
Click to expand...


Hi and when is Israel to be MISSIONARIES and verse are basing this on ??

O , not that famous Matt 28:19 and 20 ?

Explain Rom 5:14 ??

You can do it ??

YES or NO ??

,Looks like NO ??

dan p
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
DAN P said:
Hi and when is Israel to be MISSIONARIES and verse are basing this on ??

O , not that famous Matt 28:19 and 20 ?

Explain Rom 5:14 ??

You can do it ??

YES or NO ??

,Looks like NO ??

dan p
Click to expand...






The middle of Romans 10. that's not written about just getting Israel to believe; it is written to get them to do what they were meant to do. V15. They don't have beautiful feet because they are perfect bio-specimens, but because they take the Gospel everywhere. That's why, once you understand that, the whole of ch 11 looks different. ch 11 is not excitement about a future in the land; it is trying to leverage their (Israel's) background and aggressiveness to work in the mission.

Acts 13:47. After explaining that the resurrection is what completes things promised to Israel, he explains that it should take the light of Messiah to the world. It is light to the world insofar as it takes Messiah to the world. Not in itself. Not because there will be a 'kingdom in Israel.' This is another exact location in Acts, where, if there was supposed to be a kingdom (which D'ism believes from 1:8 and 3:21), Paul would have said so. Or else the apostles were quite possibly the most absent-minded collection of teachers ever assembled in history, because they systematically forget what is so important so often, on so many occasions, when theirs and others lives are at stake!

Psalm ___. "The Lord gave the word, and great was the multitude of those who proclaimed it."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top