ECT Heb 9 vs the "club"

Interplanner

Well-known member
Why did Judas the Galilean foment a general rebellion in 6 AD? (Acts 5:37)

I knew you didn't deal with reality but I didn't realize you'd be so obvious about it by posting your own post #.
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
The episode of the animated summaries THE BIBLE PROJECT has a great segment on the exile yearnings. It covers the theme of the kingdom from Isaiah to Luke. The good news is that the kingdom is coming. In Luke, the kingdom has come or is right at hand. But it is not a civic authority in Jerusalem as all declarations by Christ show us. And overturning world powers of the 1st century was not a serious question. Nor even stopping the zealots.

The only thing odd about this 5 minute video is that the 'enthronement' of Christ is the moment when he is crowned with thorns and covered with an elegant robe in mockery, and the lifting up on the cross was the enthronement. I don't know why the writers did that when there is Acts 2:30-31 clearly saying that the enthronement foreseen by David was the resurrection. Phil 2 says the exact opposite: the cross was his low point, the resurrection the utmost.
 

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
The episode of the animated summaries THE BIBLE PROJECT has a great segment on the exile yearnings. It covers the theme of the kingdom from Isaiah to Luke. The good news is that the kingdom is coming. In Luke, the kingdom has come or is right at hand. But it is not a civic authority in Jerusalem as all declarations by Christ show us. And overturning world powers of the 1st century was not a serious question. Nor even stopping the zealots.

The only thing odd about this 5 minute video is that the 'enthronement' of Christ is the moment when he is crowned with thorns and covered with an elegant robe in mockery, and the lifting up on the cross was the enthronement. I don't know why the writers did that when there is Acts 2:30-31 clearly saying that the enthronement foreseen by David was the resurrection. Phil 2 says the exact opposite: the cross was his low point, the resurrection the utmost.

:chuckle:

Anything but the Bible.
 

Right Divider

Body part
The episode of the animated summaries THE BIBLE PROJECT has a great segment on the exile yearnings. It covers the theme of the kingdom from Isaiah to Luke. The good news is that the kingdom is coming. In Luke, the kingdom has come or is right at hand. But it is not a civic authority in Jerusalem as all declarations by Christ show us. And overturning world powers of the 1st century was not a serious question. Nor even stopping the zealots.

The only thing odd about this 5 minute video is that the 'enthronement' of Christ is the moment when he is crowned with thorns and covered with an elegant robe in mockery, and the lifting up on the cross was the enthronement. I don't know why the writers did that when there is Acts 2:30-31 clearly saying that the enthronement foreseen by David was the resurrection. Phil 2 says the exact opposite: the cross was his low point, the resurrection the utmost.
It's ONE or the OTHER..... more IP confusion on display.
 

Right Divider

Body part
I mean for real, why do you think.
What does this have to do with Hebrews 9 and the club?

Probably this is a clue:

Acts 5:37 (AKJV/PCE)
(5:37) After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, [even] as many as obeyed him, were dispersed.

 

Interplanner

Well-known member
What does this have to do with Hebrews 9 and the club?

Probably this is a clue:

Acts 5:37 (AKJV/PCE)
(5:37) After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, [even] as many as obeyed him, were dispersed.





Good start. What are other tranlsations for 'the taxing'?

The conversation has drifted anyway , so who cares. What I noticed is that you are anti-historical. That's what this is about. You think the Bible is one theology proof-text after another (and that's why you hate or ignore so many). It has theology but it is also part of its history, very much! 1st century Judea had certain features, and once you ignore them with flannel-graph retelling, the account becomes worthless, because, for ex., one person carrying an assassin's weapon is treated as though he was nothing more than inept fisherman like many other inept fishermen down through time, with no specific roots, faith, background, events.

That's why D'ism exists. It doesn't know what went on in the 1st century; it just 'does theology.'
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
It's ONE or the OTHER..... more IP confusion on display.




Well that's saying a lot! I thought you thought the enthronement was going to happen before or in the millenium in a temple in Judea! That is not what Acts 2 is referring to but it what you have referred to from various scattered passages.
 

Right Divider

Body part
Well that's saying a lot! I thought you thought the enthronement was going to happen before or in the millenium in a temple in Judea! That is not what Acts 2 is referring to but it what you have referred to from various scattered passages.
Perhaps is was hard to follow my POINT, even though it highlighted it in YELLOW.

The episode of the animated summaries THE BIBLE PROJECT has a great segment on the exile yearnings. It covers the theme of the kingdom from Isaiah to Luke. The good news is that the kingdom is coming. In Luke, the kingdom has come or is right at hand. But it is not a civic authority in Jerusalem as all declarations by Christ show us. And overturning world powers of the 1st century was not a serious question. Nor even stopping the zealots.

Those are different. Pick one.

P.S. Why does a grammar scholar always use bad grammar and spelling?
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
Perhaps is was hard to follow my POINT, even though it highlighted it in YELLOW.



Those are different. Pick one.

P.S. Why does a grammar scholar always use bad grammar and spelling?





Luke says both. I meant both raised on a cross and resurrected were the enthronement.

What was the taxation of Acts 5:37?
 

Right Divider

Body part
Luke says both. I meant both raised on a cross and resurrected were the enthronement.
Not on the throne of David, AS PER SCRIPTURE.

Matt 25:31-33 (AKJV/PCE)
(25:31) ¶ When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: (25:32) And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth [his] sheep from the goats: (25:33) And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

When did this occur? (Hint: not yet).

What was the taxation of Acts 5:37?
Irrelevant, Mr. Distracter.
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
Not on the throne of David, AS PER SCRIPTURE.

Matt 25:31-33 (AKJV/PCE)
(25:31) ¶ When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: (25:32) And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth [his] sheep from the goats: (25:33) And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

When did this occur? (Hint: not yet).


Irrelevant, Mr. Distracter.





He did intend to wrap up all affairs right away after the destruction of Jerusalem, but the Father only was to decide, and has delayed. it will still happen. I have taught the delay for 2 years now but I think you have ADD or a retention problem.

btw, your text says nothing clear about David's throne like Acts 2 does. You might want to pick clear scripture next time. Acts 2 has Peter quoting David who saw Messiah on his (David's) throne in the resurrection. So that's settled.

The taxation of AD 6 was the census of Lk 2. This sparked massive riots and revolt but it was put down by Rome. Even so, Galileans had that slant and reputation ever since. Part of the reason was that they had 2 remote authorities: Rome and Jerusalem and wanted self-rule. But what Jewish zealot would not want to rule from Jerusalem, so they kept making attempts. this is why the Galileans were estranged by Jerusalem/temple Judaism.

As you know from the IT period, Israel was pretty much a constant battle for independence. In 168 they were especially incensed by the mistreatment of that temple by the Greek admin Antiochus. Over time the Maccabean type rebel was considered a star and put on the same level as Phineas from the debauchery incident that Phineas stopped by spearing a couple together to death and stopping the plague that was on them in the wilderness. The name Phineas revived and was used during that period to name Maccabean children.

That's what kind of climate the Pharisees lived in. And therefore Jesus.
 

Danoh

New member
He did intend to wrap up all affairs right away after the destruction of Jerusalem, but the Father only was to decide, and has delayed. it will still happen. I have taught the delay for 2 years now but I think you have ADD or a retention problem.

btw, your text says nothing clear about David's throne like Acts 2 does. You might want to pick clear scripture next time. Acts 2 has Peter quoting David who saw Messiah on his (David's) throne in the resurrection. So that's settled.

The taxation of AD 6 was the census of Lk 2. This sparked massive riots and revolt but it was put down by Rome. Even so, Galileans had that slant and reputation ever since. Part of the reason was that they had 2 remote authorities: Rome and Jerusalem and wanted self-rule. But what Jewish zealot would not want to rule from Jerusalem, so they kept making attempts. this is why the Galileans were estranged by Jerusalem/temple Judaism.

As you know from the IT period, Israel was pretty much a constant battle for independence. In 168 they were especially incensed by the mistreatment of that temple by the Greek admin Antiochus. Over time the Maccabean type rebel was considered a star and put on the same level as Phineas from the debauchery incident that Phineas stopped by spearing a couple together to death and stopping the plague that was on them in the wilderness. The name Phineas revived and was used during that period to name Maccabean children.

That's what kind of climate the Pharisees lived in. And therefore Jesus.

Matthew 8:21 And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. 8:22 But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.

Luke 2:49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?
 

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
He did intend to wrap up all affairs right away after the destruction of Jerusalem, but the Father only was to decide, and has delayed. it will still happen. I have taught the delay for 2 years now but I think you have ADD or a retention problem.

btw, your text says nothing clear about David's throne like Acts 2 does. You might want to pick clear scripture next time. Acts 2 has Peter quoting David who saw Messiah on his (David's) throne in the resurrection. So that's settled.

The taxation of AD 6 was the census of Lk 2. This sparked massive riots and revolt but it was put down by Rome. Even so, Galileans had that slant and reputation ever since. Part of the reason was that they had 2 remote authorities: Rome and Jerusalem and wanted self-rule. But what Jewish zealot would not want to rule from Jerusalem, so they kept making attempts. this is why the Galileans were estranged by Jerusalem/temple Judaism.

As you know from the IT period, Israel was pretty much a constant battle for independence. In 168 they were especially incensed by the mistreatment of that temple by the Greek admin Antiochus. Over time the Maccabean type rebel was considered a star and put on the same level as Phineas from the debauchery incident that Phineas stopped by spearing a couple together to death and stopping the plague that was on them in the wilderness. The name Phineas revived and was used during that period to name Maccabean children.

That's what kind of climate the Pharisees lived in. And therefore Jesus.

Straight from a commentary.
 
Top