If all was fulfilled in 70 AD...Amos 9:15?
Allegorical?
Figure of speech?
Hyperbole?
Hebraic poeticicism?
Spurchally fulfilled in the heavenlies?
Just not true?
Hat tip to Right Divider's sig for the excellent question.
Sorry, Dan, the preterists say that's not an option...AD 70. So they need to explain the what the passage does mean.
It all boils down to what each concludes passages like the following are actually talking about...
Amos 9:11 In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: 9:12 That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this.
And Acts 15 is not much help - because most turn to Acts 15 in search of an answer, or so called "New Testament interpretation of the Old" but the fact of the matter is that other passages prior to Acts 15 are what need to be consulted before one turns to Acts 15.
The answer being found in comparing Scripture with Scripture WITHIN OLD TESTAMENT GROUND as to intended sense as to this particular kind of issue - BEFORE even considering the so called New.
This view is very ignorant and believes itself more important than the apostles and the NT--which is exactly my experience with D'ism and MAD people.
No. It just proves your ignorance once more.
Fact is I do not study these things out from within a Dispensational scheme anymore than good forensics starts out already believing it knows who did what.
For the umpteenth time; I look at ALL things in life from within a framework that seeks to understand from THEM - from WITHIN THEIR OWN interaction how THEY work together to produce THEIR result.
What scheme is that o clueless one? :chuckle:
Reformed? Preteterist? Historicist? Futurist? Dispensational?
This?
That?
The other?
None of the above.
It is Behavioral.
The OBJECTIVE question - how is this interacting with itself to produce whatever it is that it might be producing?
What else?
And what else?
You see "a Dispensational scheme" within these kinds of questions?
Within basically OBJECTIVE questions?
:doh:
If all was fulfilled in 70 AD...Amos 9:15?
Allegorical?
Figure of speech?
Hyperbole?
Hebraic poeticicism?
Spurchally fulfilled in the heavenlies?
Just not true?
Hat tip to Right Divider's sig for the excellent question.
There are components of this that are already fulfilled in Christ before you get to this, but it seems you've heard 70 AD as though it was the only thing or moment in the 1st century other than the Gospel event. Well, there's quite a few others.
The incoming of the nations to faith is a major event, and is stretched out over decades, and is referred to in Rom 16 as the enactment of a royal decree, 'deigma.' Do we need further indication that a kingdom is present and at work? He's saying there that the reason so many are believing is because the King decreed it.
If all was fulfilled in 70 AD...Amos 9:15?
Allegorical?
Figure of speech?
Hyperbole?
Hebraic poeticicism?
Spurchally fulfilled in the heavenlies?
Just not true?
Hat tip to Right Divider's sig for the excellent question.
Your question brings up a question for me.
The church so far has been around for almost twice as long as the "future" millennial kingdom. Are there any OT prophecies about the church?
If all was fulfilled in 70 AD...Amos 9:15?
Different subject. Start a new thread on your question. This one won't be derailed.
I see it as the same subject. You could prove it to be a different subject if you can point to prophecy about the establishment of the church.
Don't get yourself spanked again. Participate honestly or leave.
When did Amos 9:15 happen. Where did it happen. How did it happen.
That's a dishonest answer. The apostles were not vacuous when they spoke and quoted Amos 9. They were referring to the nations starting to believe as the prophets had said. You are being excessive and complicated.
Likewise they were not vacuous when they quoted Ps 2 in prayer in Acts 4. It was ACTUAL AND PRESENT REALITY.
If you cannot formulate a cogent answer, or are not honest enough to admit you cannot formulate one, leave the thread.
You do nothing but disrupt threads with off topic rabbit trails and argue. Respond to the OP if you want. Do not try to derail.