User Tag List

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 82

Thread: The Resurrection Question that terminates D'ism

  1. #16
    TOL Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    near Olympic National Park
    Posts
    11,899
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 629 Times in 560 Posts

    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    183867
    Quote Originally Posted by Tambora View Post
    2Sa 3:10 To translate the kingdom from the house of Saul, and to set up the throne of David over Israel and over Judah, from Dan even to Beersheba.


    This is not some spiritual throne in heaven.
    It is not GOD's throne in heaven.
    This is an earthy throne on earth.

    The earthly throne of David was occupied by both righteous and wicked men.
    GOD's throne in heaven was never occupied by wicked men.
    You will run into several problems like this when trying to combine them as the same throne.

    GOD's heavenly throne is not the earthly throne of David.




    You need to update the features acc. to the prophets. It wasn't going to be the same old thing; that served its purpose in David's generation, Acts 13. The worship system and land was given to them, with the huge HOWEVER of Acts 7 that God does not dwell in such things.
    All Lives Matter --Marcus Sanford, youtube.com

  2. #17
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    12,494
    Thanks
    369
    Thanked 2,947 Times in 2,197 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    1069113
    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    What is it about the resurrection that is so complete for Israel that Paul could be allowed to say what he did in Acts 13:32+?
    One, the promise there is singular: the righteousness Christ has made possible.

    Two, Israel has fallen by then, and their Prophesied mission has been delayed.

    Three, again, what now remains on the table at that point in Acts is the righteousness the Cross has availed.

    Four, for had Israel not fallen, then said righteousness would have availed them access to all the promises said righteousness would have then allowed them access to, as Prophesied, and also, towards their mission, etc., see Acts 3.

    Five, the righteousness being offered remained as an offer but was now being offered to both Jew and Gentile without distinction (Acts 9 compared with Acts 15 and Galatians 1) because said righteousness is a key feature within both aspects of God's Two-Fold Purpose: Prophecy and Mystery.

    Six, you have proven nothing other than that you remain clueless about why Paul actually went to the Jew first, as well as to the fact that when he states in Acts 13, "lo we turn to the Gentiles" God had already been dealing with Gentiles through Paul, etc., and so it does not mean what it only appears to mean, there, in chapter 13.

    Nevertheless o ever clueless one, Rom. 5:8.

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Danoh For Your Post:

    steko (September 9th, 2017)

  4. #18
    Over 750 post club
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Ol Misery (Missouri)
    Posts
    860
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 211 Times in 170 Posts

    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    24786
    There is, that I know of, no statement in scripture saying that God had "plan B" in case Old Covenant or physical Israel rejected Christ. In dispensationalism Plan B would be to delay the fulfillment of the raising up of physical Israel, kata sarka, or after the flesh, as a kingdom of God. But Romans 11: 1-5 says that God used a remnant of Old Covenant Israel to begin the Everlasting New Covenant with.

    Isaiah mentions the Everlasting Covenant seven times, in 42:6; 49:8; 54:10, 55:3, 56:4,6; 59:21, 61:8.

    Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them...." Ezekiel 36: 26-27. 37:26

    Since the Old Covenant was done away with (II Corinthians 3: 7, 3: 11, Hebrews 10: 9), then the covenant which is to be everlasting is the New Covenant. Isaiah 61: 8, supported by Jeremiah 32: 40, Jeremiah 50: 5,Ezekiel 16: 60 and Ezekiel 37: 26.

    Hebrews 13: 20-21 talks about The "... blood of the everlasting covenant, make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight" The New Covenant is everlasting, not a temporary "dispensation," which is to give way to another dispensation of law for the people of the physical bloodline in some future time.

  5. #19
    Silver Member SaulToPaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    17,671
    Thanks
    2,850
    Thanked 17,950 Times in 10,587 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    2147788
    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    You need to update the features acc. to the prophets. It wasn't going to be the same old thing; that served its purpose in David's generation, Acts 13. The worship system and land was given to them, with the huge HOWEVER of Acts 7 that God does not dwell in such things.
    made up
    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 (September 10th, 2017)

  7. #20
    Silver Member SaulToPaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    17,671
    Thanks
    2,850
    Thanked 17,950 Times in 10,587 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    2147788
    Quote Originally Posted by northwye View Post
    There is, that I know of, no statement in scripture saying that God had "plan B"
    Correct. God had one multi purpose plan for the entire universe, and executed it wonderfully.
    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.

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

    Tambora (September 10th, 2017)

  9. #21
    TOL Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    near Olympic National Park
    Posts
    11,899
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 629 Times in 560 Posts

    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    183867
    Quote Originally Posted by northwye View Post
    There is, that I know of, no statement in scripture saying that God had "plan B" in case Old Covenant or physical Israel rejected Christ. In dispensationalism Plan B would be to delay the fulfillment of the raising up of physical Israel, kata sarka, or after the flesh, as a kingdom of God. But Romans 11: 1-5 says that God used a remnant of Old Covenant Israel to begin the Everlasting New Covenant with.

    Isaiah mentions the Everlasting Covenant seven times, in 42:6; 49:8; 54:10, 55:3, 56:4,6; 59:21, 61:8.

    Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them...." Ezekiel 36: 26-27. 37:26

    Since the Old Covenant was done away with (II Corinthians 3: 7, 3: 11, Hebrews 10: 9), then the covenant which is to be everlasting is the New Covenant. Isaiah 61: 8, supported by Jeremiah 32: 40, Jeremiah 50: 5,Ezekiel 16: 60 and Ezekiel 37: 26.

    Hebrews 13: 20-21 talks about The "... blood of the everlasting covenant, make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight" The New Covenant is everlasting, not a temporary "dispensation," which is to give way to another dispensation of law for the people of the physical bloodline in some future time.




    And they knew all along in the old era that the tabernacle was only a copy of the one in heaven.
    All Lives Matter --Marcus Sanford, youtube.com

  10. #22
    TOL Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    near Olympic National Park
    Posts
    11,899
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 629 Times in 560 Posts

    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    183867
    Further on this point of the copy, see Acts 7:44. That reference to the pattern is the same acknowledgement that it was only a temporal copy of the real one. That is why v48's "however" is so emphatic. which is the throne upon which Christ was seated, and stood up from, to receive Stephen.
    All Lives Matter --Marcus Sanford, youtube.com

  11. #23
    Silver Member SaulToPaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    17,671
    Thanks
    2,850
    Thanked 17,950 Times in 10,587 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    2147788
    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    Further on this point of the copy, see Acts 7:44. That reference to the pattern is the same acknowledgement that it was only a temporal copy of the real one. That is why v48's "however" is so emphatic. which is the throne upon which Christ was seated, and stood up from, to receive Stephen.
    Made up.
    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. #24
    Silver Member SaulToPaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    17,671
    Thanks
    2,850
    Thanked 17,950 Times in 10,587 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    2147788
    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    You need to update the features acc. to the prophets. It wasn't going to be the same old thing; that served its purpose in David's generation, Acts 13. The worship system and land was given to them, with the huge HOWEVER of Acts 7 that God does not dwell in such things.
    Did he ever dwell in the physical temple in Jerusalem?
    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.

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

    steko (September 10th, 2017)

  14. #25
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    12,494
    Thanks
    369
    Thanked 2,947 Times in 2,197 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    1069113
    Quote Originally Posted by SaulToPaul View Post
    Did he ever dwell in the physical temple in Jerusalem?
    Yep

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Danoh For Your Post:

    steko (September 10th, 2017)

  16. #26
    TOL Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    near Olympic National Park
    Posts
    11,899
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 629 Times in 560 Posts

    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    183867
    Quote Originally Posted by Tambora View Post
    Luke 1:32-33 KJV
    (32) He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
    (33) And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

    The throne of His father, David, is not the throne of His Father (God the Father).




    I know this may be hard to follow, but you're dealing with Acts 2:30 instead of Acts 13 on the promise. I think it can be extremely difficult to do good theology if you jump subjects that much.

    David foresaw the resurrection, otherwise there would not be the often quoted Ps 2 immediately after that.

    As for Acts 13, the question remains: what's in the resurrection that completed the promise the fathers so well that Paul could say what he did in 32, 33?

    It's 5 days now. do the D'ists have a response?
    All Lives Matter --Marcus Sanford, youtube.com

  17. #27
    TOL Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    near Olympic National Park
    Posts
    11,899
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 629 Times in 560 Posts

    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    183867
    Quote Originally Posted by DAN P View Post
    Hi and since this promise was fulfilled in verse 33 HOW that terminate dispensationalism ??

    Especially in the view of 2 Cor 3:13-16 and Luke 13:6-9 !

    dan p





    D'ism is based on separate promises fulfillments to Israel that have nothing to do with Christians, and especially nothing to do with the mission of justification to the nations!
    All Lives Matter --Marcus Sanford, youtube.com

  18. #28
    TOL Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    near Olympic National Park
    Posts
    11,899
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 629 Times in 560 Posts

    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    183867
    Quote Originally Posted by Truster View Post
    Here we go again...the term promise is a mistranslation. It should be pre-evangelism. It was first delivered to Adam and then to the fathers and prophets until He who was and is the evangelism came and delivered the power to establish it.


    They are even spelled similar in Greek!

    Yes, the mindset of this passage is that what was promised is now here in the Gospel.
    All Lives Matter --Marcus Sanford, youtube.com

  19. #29
    TOL Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    near Olympic National Park
    Posts
    11,899
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 629 Times in 560 Posts

    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    183867
    Quote Originally Posted by 1Mind1Spirit View Post
    You sayin' God don't dwell in test tube babies?



    His power and wisdom is shown in many things. Acts 7 was referring to where he reigns now, and how.
    All Lives Matter --Marcus Sanford, youtube.com

  20. #30
    TOL Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    near Olympic National Park
    Posts
    11,899
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 629 Times in 560 Posts

    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    183867
    Quote Originally Posted by Tambora View Post
    Acts 2:30 KJV
    (30) Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him [David], that of the fruit of his [David] loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his [David] throne;

    David's throne was earthly.

    Christ never needed to become man to sit on His heavenly Father's throne.
    But He did need to become man to sit on His earthly father's throne.

    They are not the same thrones.



    And yet the last debate with temple leaders in the record is that Christ was the Son of God, not David's son as they thought.
    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