Why 2P2P does not accept the plain meaning of Acts 2, 13, 15, 26

Status
Not open for further replies.
steko

steko

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Tambora said:
They were sure of the restoration because they trusted in the word of God.
They were not asking the Lord IF the promised restoration was going to happen.
Their question to the Lord was not whether it WOULD happen, but WHEN.

The answer they received:
And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.
​

The timing of WHEN is known by the Father.
If there was no WHEN for it to happen, then the Father wouldn't have known a WHEN.
But the Father does know WHEN, therefore it will happen.
Click to expand...

Excellent, contextual, logical.

:thumb:
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
steko said:
Excellent, contextual, logical.

:thumb:
Click to expand...



No, because in the whole NT this is a freak question. That's why the But you is so strong. You are drunk on 2P2P and can't function properly.

A total restoration of Israel as such is nowhere in the picture. It is bogus. You have to start in the exile warnings of Isaiah and see that they are being moved from their role to that of the Servant, after which their role and identity is IN HIM as in Acts 13:47. That is the Bible is one line.

In no way does it depend on what kind of "logic" you can squeeze out of one verse. Nothing in the bible operates that way. I'm saying the METHOD is foolish, not just the result on this one verse.

All of 2P2P operates this way; ridiculous conclusions out of a few verses of the NT that try to keep it going and miss the forest for the trees.
 
steko

steko

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Interplanner said:
No, because in the whole NT this is a freak question. That's why the But you is so strong. You are drunk on 2P2P and can't function properly.

A total restoration of Israel as such is nowhere in the picture. It is bogus. You have to start in the exile warnings of Isaiah and see that they are being moved from their role to that of the Servant, after which their role and identity is IN HIM as in Acts 13:47. That is the Bible is one line.

In no way does it depend on what kind of "logic" you can squeeze out of one verse. Nothing in the bible operates that way. I'm saying the METHOD is foolish, not just the result on this one verse.

All of 2P2P operates this way; ridiculous conclusions out of a few verses of the NT that try to keep it going and miss the forest for the trees.
Click to expand...

:chuckle:
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
"But you..." is a sharp rebuke, if the 1st part was not enough.

There is no validation in ch 2, 13, 15, or 26 where this could have been the topic that supports it.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
That is the thing that begs all reality here. 2P2Ps think they have this great territory in 1:8, but they never talk about real structure to NT thinking and theology as it moves along in Acts.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
What is the "it" you are referring to?

How do I get the conclusions from the passages mentioned and "not believe" the Scriptures? What you mean is I don't believe 2P2P, which you think is Scripture.
 
D

Danoh

New member
Interplanner said:
"But you..." is a sharp rebuke, if the 1st part was not enough.

There is no validation in ch 2, 13, 15, or 26 where this could have been the topic that supports it.
Click to expand...

Point is, what is it you are basing your assertion on, other than on your assertion?

In my above post I at least laid out my case in TWO spoilers containing relevant passages.

What are YOU basing YOUR assertion on - on YOUR say so?

Make your case - lay out the passages that show the basis of your assertion.

What do you have to lose?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top