Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
When did this happen?:
"Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him" (Rev.1:7).
ECT Satan and Preterism
- Thread starter Jerry Shugart
- Start date
When did this happen?:
Interplanner
Well-known member
why on earth would Christ have told them they were going to all nations, only to turn around and affirm something about a theocracy for Israel, only to turn again and tell them they would get power to preach to all nations?
Keep your confusion to yourself; it is juvenile.
Keep your confusion to yourself; it is juvenile.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
He knows it has not happened yet, but he found a commentary which explained it away somehow.
Interplanner
Well-known member
the point is he did NOT affirm it. He told them to knock it off, and told them what kind of power the kingdom actually has and they would be getting it; not as something for them to 'keep' but to reach the nations with grace
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Why did the Lord Jesus tell them they were not to know the time when the kingdom would be restored to Israel if it was never going to happen? That, my friend, would make no more sense than the garbage which you are trying to pawn off upon the unsuspecting.
The same old nonsense, asserting that this person has already come and gone:
"And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders" (2 Thess.2:8-9).
You are preparing the way for the wicked one by doing the advance work that Satan requires.
One thing is certain - IP does not know his Bible.
Fact of the matter is that a descriptive phrase like the phrase "the times or the seasons" is similar in use to how the Law and the Prophets used such wording, when describing one aspect or another of God's timing within the Prophetic aspect of His Plans and Purpose: The Earth.
Fact of the matter is that a descriptive phrase like the phrase "the times or the seasons" is similar in use to how the Law and the Prophets used such wording, when describing one aspect or another of God's timing within the Prophetic aspect of His Plans and Purpose: The Earth.
dodge
New member
IP , I have not read all these discussions yet.
I don't know if this will help but the Apostle John was told that many would come out of the great tribulation, which is after the temple is built and desecrated, and that has happened AFTER the 7 year peace treaty has been signed with Israel.
Rev 7:14
And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
Interplanner
Well-known member
oh shut up with your inside knowledge of Satan. A person might think you are more familiar with him than the text.
The times were none of their business because their thick heads went back one more frustrating time to the Davidic monarchy which was not going to happen. That's why the rebuke is so sharp. But you think he was being a kindly seminary professor. Nonsense.
In place of that concept is the power to proclaim.
There is no point in mentioning David's vision in 2:30 except to reinforce that it is not that kind of kingdom but the kind of enthronement that just happened AKA the resurrection.
You simply cannot carry a thought forward from one line in the text to the next:
"God had promised...one of his descendants on his throne. Seeing what was ahead (about that enthronement), he spoke of the resurrection..." God raised him, exalted him, awarded gifts, and he was made Lord and Christ. Sounds like an enthronement on the son of David throne that David had in that vision.
Your ability to find cracks and nonsense in the plainest of texts is ridiculous. You are possessed by 2P2P and it is muck and fraud.
Every natural or normal meaning in the text is subjected to the bizarre muck of 2P2P 24/7. Like the leftist media in America mucking up what needs to go on today. And what do they 2P2Ps say: it's just the plain meaning of the text!
The times were none of their business because their thick heads went back one more frustrating time to the Davidic monarchy which was not going to happen. That's why the rebuke is so sharp. But you think he was being a kindly seminary professor. Nonsense.
In place of that concept is the power to proclaim.
There is no point in mentioning David's vision in 2:30 except to reinforce that it is not that kind of kingdom but the kind of enthronement that just happened AKA the resurrection.
You simply cannot carry a thought forward from one line in the text to the next:
"God had promised...one of his descendants on his throne. Seeing what was ahead (about that enthronement), he spoke of the resurrection..." God raised him, exalted him, awarded gifts, and he was made Lord and Christ. Sounds like an enthronement on the son of David throne that David had in that vision.
Your ability to find cracks and nonsense in the plainest of texts is ridiculous. You are possessed by 2P2P and it is muck and fraud.
Every natural or normal meaning in the text is subjected to the bizarre muck of 2P2P 24/7. Like the leftist media in America mucking up what needs to go on today. And what do they 2P2Ps say: it's just the plain meaning of the text!
Interplanner
Well-known member
why do you people leave the scene of your crime and start jabbering about some other passage? you do this all the time.
Same reason the chicken crossed the road - to get to the other side.
Might as well...ain't no gettin through to you :chuckle:
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
:chuckle:
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Let us look at the meaning of the verse which you continue to cite:
"Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne" (Acts 2:30).
Here Peter is speaking of the fact that Christ would sit upon the throne of David. You say that has already happened. Here is what we read about the Lord Jesus and that throne:
"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: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end" (Lk.1:33).
If you are right then now the Lord Jesus is sitting upon His own throne, the throne which was given to Him and Him alone. However, He is now sitting at His Father's throne and not His own throne:
"To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with Me in My throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with My Father in His throne" (Rev.3:21).
Are you so spiritually deficient that you cannot even distinguish between the throne of the Lord Jesus (the throne of David) and the throne of the Father? I guess that you are.
Notice that I am the one who is interpreting these texts which I quoted from the NT according to their normal meaning. It is you who is doing your best to pervert that plain meaning.
Interplanner
Well-known member
no you are not! The normal meaning is found in the next verse, 2:31: that is how it happened. YOU BLOCK, CHEAT, NEGLECT, OVERLOOK, SKIP ALL THE TIME. You flit off to some other location, all the time. this is how 2P2P has screwed all of this and all of us.
Spirituality is not agreeing with you nitpicking categories-- not when you are a loser about things as obvious as the coherent unity of Acts 2:30 and Eph 1.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
:chuckle:
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
How do YOU compare spiritual things with spiritual? (which is how the Holy Ghost teaches us- not commentaries)
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Your interpretation of what is said by Peter at Acts 2:31 is proven to be wrong, as witnessed by the other verses which I quoted from the NT. And of course you said nothing about those verses.
Consider the following...
The sense of "comparing...with" is that of using words in a specific word order and sequence so as to properly communicate the Spirit's intended sense through words to Paul's readership there.
He is not talking about comparing passages with one another there.
He is talking about stringing together words in such a way that they properly convey the Spirit's intended sense to Paul's readers through said word order and sequence.
As in the impact on intended sense, through word order and sequence, say, in the words "open the door" and "the open door."
And he is saying that although he has done just that; it has been to no avail due to where they look at things from.
He is talking about how their having allowed themselves to take personal issue with one another is carnal, is not of The Spirit, and as a result, blocks their proper discernment of the Spirit's intended sense through Paul's word use, to them.
As a result, Paul's intended sense through his use of the very specific word order and sequence given him by the Spirit towards conveying the Spirit's intended sense through very specific word order and sequence, can only remain hidden from the eyes of their understanding.
As in...
Nehemiah 8:8 So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.
It is an aspect of this very issue, by the way, that distinguishes between, say, GSB's strong KJVO stance and that of other KJVO's.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Everything you quoted was OT, that I recall. I was drawing the parallel to Eph 1:19, not you. It confirms what Peter is saying here.
Why on earth does Peter ask the question 'for David did not ascend up to heaven'? Because the thing David was looking at was Christ on his throne, ahead of time.
Paul and Peter are completely unified here.
You have to stay in a passage until there is a reason to leave. I see no reason to leave. Peter is not a sound byte robot, a space case. He is not incoherent "needing" 2P2P theology to clear him up. He is clear.
Check why the contrastive "But..." is in v30. He saw what was ahead about the son on his throne. It was Christ, and the enthronement was the resurrection. All Israel is to be assured of that enthronement in v36 and all of them are supposed to become ministers in the message that was for their children and for all who are distant. this is the mission of the Gospel. It is not some monarchy crap just about israel.
Paul further echoes Peter exactly here when starting Romans. Yes, Christ was of David's lineage. but the declaration of being the Son of God, supplanting that line, was the resurrection; that event itself IS the declaration. that is what 1:4 means.
So the apostles kept a few customs of Judaism for a while, but on these things, there was nothing but conflict with Judaism. Which 2P2P by nature cannot see.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Let us look at that verse:
"For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand" (Acts 2:34).
The Lord Jesus is not now sitting upon His own throne but instead the throne of the Father:
"To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with Me in My throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with My Father in His throne" (Rev.3:21).
The Lord Jesus' throne will be His throne and His throne alone--the throne of David:
"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: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end" (Lk.1:33).
Your confusion is reaching new heights!
Interplanner
Well-known member
Not at all. David realized it was all about Christ; you do not. 2P2Ps ALWAYS see something that isn't there; it is a disease. If Eph 4 has 7 ones (singles), 2P2P finds doubles!
Glad you know that Christ reigns now. You just don't that it is what David was looking forward at. That's why Acts 15 says what it does about the raising of his tent. That's why Acts 13 says what it does about the transfered promises to Christ. That's why Acts 26's hearing says nothing about a future for Israel as Judaism thought.