User Tag List

Page 4 of 21 FirstFirst 123456714 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 309

Thread: Fundamental question: how can the one David referred to be his son?

  1. #46
    Does Whatever A Light-House Can Lighthouse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Anderson, IN
    Posts
    20,720
    Thanks
    1,174
    Thanked 13,117 Times in 10,018 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147864
    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    I know D'ism because we had to read Ryrie at MU. The fatal chapter is 2P2P. He said D'ism stands or falls on that doctrine, but he never said what he should have: it is a farce.
    It doesn't stand on that doctrine.

    There is nothing pivotal about Acts 9, that is all mistaking a Judaizers gospel invading the church and thinking that the church had 2 gospels, WHICH IT DID NOT.
    You're right; the church didn't have two gospels.

    Then if my question is stupid, so is the title of this thread.
    I agree. The title is stupid. But I didn't start the thread; you did.

    Why did christ bother with it, and why did it stop Judaism from any further questions?
    Why did Christ bother with what? What is"it"?

    I know the genealogies, Mr Sunday School instructor, but what you have not answered is christ's question which make it irrelevant. If he is called Lord, (what is the point) of calling him 'son'?
    "Son" is an idiom for a male descendant, you twit. That's the point. In order to sit on David's throne He had to be born in the flesh as a descendant of David.


  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Lighthouse For Your Post:

    steko (December 3rd, 2016)

  3. #47
    Silver Member Nang's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    California
    Posts
    7,808
    Thanks
    1,182
    Thanked 2,224 Times in 1,604 Posts

    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    257366
    Quote Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post
    It doesn't stand on that doctrine.


    You're right; the church didn't have two gospels.


    I agree. The title is stupid. But I didn't start the thread; you did.


    Why did Christ bother with what? What is"it"?


    "Son" is an idiom for a male descendant, you twit. That's the point. In order to sit on David's throne He had to be born in the flesh as a descendant of David.
    The "Son" of God assumed the issue (seed) of David to fulfill the full extant of His covenant promise given to Eve . . That the Savior who would remedy the original sin and crush the head of Satan, would be the Seed of God, born of woman.

    IOW's the Divine & Royal Son of God would utilize and supersede the royal human seed
    of David, through the hypostatic Union of God and Man in Jesus Christ.

    Any theology that goes to an extreme in emphasizing Spirit apart from flesh or flesh apart from Spirit as being a Gospel message that alone can save souls, does err.

    MADists emphasize David & Paul,s human status(flesh) over the revelation of the Man Jesus; equally filled with the Spirit of the Christ of God.

    There is only one Savior - the God/Man Jesus the Christ, provided by God as promised.
    "The immutable God never learned anything and never changed his mind. He knew everything from eternity."

    " The difference between faith and saving faith are the propositions believed."
    Gordon H. Clark

    "If a man be lost, God must not have the blame for it; but if a man be saved, God must have the glory of it."
    Charles Spurgeon

  4. #48
    TOL Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    near Olympic National Park
    Posts
    11,941
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 632 Times in 563 Posts

    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    183868
    Quote Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post
    It doesn't stand on that doctrine.


    You're right; the church didn't have two gospels.


    I agree. The title is stupid. But I didn't start the thread; you did.


    Why did Christ bother with what? What is"it"?


    "Son" is an idiom for a male descendant, you twit. That's the point. In order to sit on David's throne He had to be born in the flesh as a descendant of David.


    Ryrie is right: if you are going to believe D'ism it is because it stands on 2P2P. If 2P2P comes apart, D'ism comes apart.

    I don't mean the church vs BOC. I mean what Christ preached from the beginning back in Isaiah. I mean Genesis.

    There can't be anything 'stupid' (ie moot or worthless) about the thread. it is the full stop question by jesus that stopped everything Judaism had trumped up against him. The answer is that there is no point in the Davidic sonship. That David character called him Lord; so much for the sonship! They were worshipping David and 'Messiah' was going to be David reincarnated without sin. Much like what futurist Davidic theocracy says.
    All Lives Matter --Marcus Sanford, youtube.com

  5. #49
    Silver Member SaulToPaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    17,736
    Thanks
    2,866
    Thanked 18,068 Times in 10,646 Posts

    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147789
    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    I know D'ism because we had to read Ryrie at MU. The fatal chapter is 2P2P. He said D'ism stands or falls on that doctrine, but he never said what he should have: it is a farce.

    There is nothing pivotal about Acts 9, that is all mistaking a Judaizers gospel invading the church and thinking that the church had 2 gospels, WHICH IT DID NOT.

    Then if my question is stupid, so is the title of this thread. Why did christ bother with it, and why did it stop Judaism from any further questions?

    I know the genealogies, Mr Sunday School instructor, but what you have not answered is christ's question which make it irrelevant. If he is called Lord, (what is the point) of calling him 'son'?


    Proud, boasting, knowing nothing...
    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    They can't compete with a real writer and grammar scholar
    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    You're too literal to get it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    The New Covenant preceded the Old Covenant.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to SaulToPaul For Your Post:

    Tambora (December 7th, 2016)

  7. #50
    LIFETIME MEMBER
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    7,829
    Thanks
    448
    Thanked 807 Times in 674 Posts

    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    119834
    Quote Originally Posted by SaulToPaul View Post


    Proud, boasting, knowing nothing...
    Try to at least talk like a Christian will you.

    LA
    My theology is that the elect of Israel became the scattered church among the nations, and when filled up with the full number of gentiles who believe to become one with them, then Christ will return and gather them, and God will then pour out His wrath on the unbelievers of both Jew and Gentile.

  8. #51
    Silver Member SaulToPaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    17,736
    Thanks
    2,866
    Thanked 18,068 Times in 10,646 Posts

    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147789
    Quote Originally Posted by Lazy afternoon View Post
    Try to at least talk like a Christian will you.

    LA
    I was quoting the Apostle Paul. I am not surprised that you did not get it, since you avoid his letters like the plague.
    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    They can't compete with a real writer and grammar scholar
    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    You're too literal to get it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    The New Covenant preceded the Old Covenant.

  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to SaulToPaul For Your Post:

    Lighthouse (December 6th, 2016),Tambora (December 7th, 2016)

  10. #52
    LIFETIME MEMBER
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    7,829
    Thanks
    448
    Thanked 807 Times in 674 Posts

    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    119834
    Quote Originally Posted by SaulToPaul View Post
    I was quoting the Apostle Paul. I am not surprised that you did not get it, since you avoid his letters like the plague.
    Perhaps you could follow Paul in baptism as I did.(as he followed Christ)

    Act 22:14 And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth.
    Act 22:15 For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard.
    Act 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

    LA
    My theology is that the elect of Israel became the scattered church among the nations, and when filled up with the full number of gentiles who believe to become one with them, then Christ will return and gather them, and God will then pour out His wrath on the unbelievers of both Jew and Gentile.

  11. #53
    Silver Member SaulToPaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    17,736
    Thanks
    2,866
    Thanked 18,068 Times in 10,646 Posts

    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147789
    Quote Originally Posted by Lazy afternoon View Post
    Perhaps you could follow Paul in baptism as I did.(as he followed Christ)

    Act 22:14 And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth.
    Act 22:15 For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard.
    Act 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

    LA
    Calling on the name of the Lord washed away his sins. And you cannot prove it was water baptism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    They can't compete with a real writer and grammar scholar
    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    You're too literal to get it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    The New Covenant preceded the Old Covenant.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to SaulToPaul For Your Post:

    Tambora (December 7th, 2016)

  13. #54
    LIFETIME MEMBER
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    7,829
    Thanks
    448
    Thanked 807 Times in 674 Posts

    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    119834
    Quote Originally Posted by SaulToPaul View Post
    Calling on the name of the Lord washed away his sins. And you cannot prove it was water baptism.
    That is not what the text says. How convenient for you to twist the scriptures like that to suit your own sin laden religion.

    Act 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

    LA
    My theology is that the elect of Israel became the scattered church among the nations, and when filled up with the full number of gentiles who believe to become one with them, then Christ will return and gather them, and God will then pour out His wrath on the unbelievers of both Jew and Gentile.

  14. #55
    Silver Member SaulToPaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    17,736
    Thanks
    2,866
    Thanked 18,068 Times in 10,646 Posts

    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147789
    Quote Originally Posted by Lazy afternoon View Post
    That is not what the text says. How convenient for you to twist the scriptures like that to suit your own sin laden religion.

    Act 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

    LA
    Poor LA Lost


    AND wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    They can't compete with a real writer and grammar scholar
    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    You're too literal to get it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    The New Covenant preceded the Old Covenant.

  15. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to SaulToPaul For Your Post:

    steko (December 6th, 2016),Tambora (December 7th, 2016)

  16. #56
    LIFETIME MEMBER steko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    12,413
    Thanks
    21,661
    Thanked 18,534 Times in 10,410 Posts

    Mentioned
    54 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147692
    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    Ryrie is right: if you are going to believe D'ism it is because it stands on 2P2P. If 2P2P comes apart, D'ism comes apart.

    .
    Dispensationalism stands on the literal, historical, grammatical hermeneutic.

    2P2P is recognized in the Scripture as a result of this hermeneutic.

    If one departs from that hermeneutic and begins to interpret Scripture with a basically allegorical hermeneutic, particularly with regard to prophecy, then 2P2P is no longer recognized in Scripture and it only seems that Dispenstionalism falls apart.

    Dispensationalists believe the Scriptures as written.
    Allegoricists import and impose a foreign meaning on Scripture. Those who believe what the Allegoricists say the Scripture means must place their faith in the self-proclaimed authority of the Allegoricist rather than just reading Scripture to discover what it plainly says. If Scripture is literal then most readers will come to basically the same understanding. If Scripture is to be understood allegorically, then the reader must go to the Allegoricist to discover what it means. I think that GOD meant for people to read and understand plainly what it means.
    Jer 23:5 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD[YHVH], that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.
    Jer 23:6 In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he[the Branch] shall be called, THE LORD[YHVH] OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

  17. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to steko For Your Post:

    SaulToPaul (December 7th, 2016),Tambora (December 7th, 2016)

  18. #57
    Does Whatever A Light-House Can Lighthouse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Anderson, IN
    Posts
    20,720
    Thanks
    1,174
    Thanked 13,117 Times in 10,018 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147864
    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    Ryrie is right: if you are going to believe D'ism it is because it stands on 2P2P. If 2P2P comes apart, D'ism comes apart.
    Nope.

    I don't mean the church vs BOC. I mean what Christ preached from the beginning back in Isaiah. I mean Genesis.
    What?

    Would I need to get high in order to understand you?

    There can't be anything 'stupid' (ie moot or worthless) about the thread. it is the full stop question by jesus that stopped everything Judaism had trumped up against him. The answer is that there is no point in the Davidic sonship. That David character called him Lord; so much for the sonship! They were worshipping David and 'Messiah' was going to be David reincarnated without sin. Much like what futurist Davidic theocracy says.
    It wasn't stupid when Jesus asked it because the answer was unknown to the audience. But since Jesus gave us the answer it is now stupid to ask it again.

    You are a fool.


  19. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Lighthouse For Your Post:

    steko (December 6th, 2016),Tambora (December 7th, 2016)

  20. #58
    TOL Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    near Olympic National Park
    Posts
    11,941
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 632 Times in 563 Posts

    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    183868
    Quote Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post
    Nope.


    What?

    Would I need to get high in order to understand you?


    It wasn't stupid when Jesus asked it because the answer was unknown to the audience. But since Jesus gave us the answer it is now stupid to ask it again.

    You are a fool.


    Lighthouse,
    the amount of material Ryrie put into that thesis (about 2P2P being the standing-or-falling article of D'ism) prohibits you from just answering 'nope.' It's meaningless. You must address a specific point, or it is just meaningless hiding from questions. It's up to you.
    All Lives Matter --Marcus Sanford, youtube.com

  21. #59
    TOL Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    near Olympic National Park
    Posts
    11,941
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 632 Times in 563 Posts

    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    183868
    Lighthouse wrote:
    It wasn't stupid when Jesus asked it because the answer was unknown to the audience.

    Prove this. The rest of what you said has no value at this point.
    All Lives Matter --Marcus Sanford, youtube.com

  22. #60
    TOL Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    near Olympic National Park
    Posts
    11,941
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 632 Times in 563 Posts

    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    183868
    Quote Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post
    Nope.


    What?

    Would I need to get high in order to understand you?


    It wasn't stupid when Jesus asked it because the answer was unknown to the audience. But since Jesus gave us the answer it is now stupid to ask it again.

    You are a fool.

    Do we agree that we will talk about posts and propostions in them rather than people? I happen to think yours are foolish, but if you can support them go ahead. If it means anything in your Christian view of things (I assume you are an example of a changed heart), I do not think you are a fool. But your posts...that's another question.
    All Lives Matter --Marcus Sanford, youtube.com

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us