ECT Acts 13-Interplanner's Continuous Rebellion
- Thread starter SaulToPaul 2
- Start date
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Why is the mystery of godliness still a mystery to your commentaries?
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Worth a repost.
Right Divider
Body part
I was throne by that post.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Interplanner
Well-known member
You know... Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery....
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
What original?
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
The context shows that this is referring to the church, the house of God.
How do you miss this?
Interplanner
Well-known member
Interplanner
Well-known member
Quote Originally Posted by SaulToPaul View Post
A total eclipse...
Made up
Here's the eclipse:
STP flops Acts 2, 13, and 15
2, because the normal meaning of 30-31 is that Christ was enthroned in the resurrection, made Lord and Christ (the exclamatory 'made him Lord and Christ' is not separate from the resurrection; it's what took place).
13, because 32-47 built on the resurrection enthronement and supported it with Is 55:3 and Ps 2:7 and said that 'the things God promised to the fathers' was now accomplished 'in that' (STP's fav trans) God raised Christ from the dead, providing justification from our sins.
15, because the 'raised tent of David' is the incoming of the Gentiles, their faith. James resolves the council saying just that; so the verse not only has its own commentary, it has an actual situation that it resolves ('what are Gentiles doing here?').
Speaking as though he controlled the Bible yesterday, STP offered to agree on 2 Cor 5:19-21. How generous. However, he is hostile, flip and anti-communicative about these three passages, systematically evading the true question.
I guarantee he will write them off as crap and say that Acts 13 is about 1 single promise. That's like saying the Statue of Liberty has color; mindless.
A total eclipse...
Made up
Here's the eclipse:
STP flops Acts 2, 13, and 15
2, because the normal meaning of 30-31 is that Christ was enthroned in the resurrection, made Lord and Christ (the exclamatory 'made him Lord and Christ' is not separate from the resurrection; it's what took place).
13, because 32-47 built on the resurrection enthronement and supported it with Is 55:3 and Ps 2:7 and said that 'the things God promised to the fathers' was now accomplished 'in that' (STP's fav trans) God raised Christ from the dead, providing justification from our sins.
15, because the 'raised tent of David' is the incoming of the Gentiles, their faith. James resolves the council saying just that; so the verse not only has its own commentary, it has an actual situation that it resolves ('what are Gentiles doing here?').
Speaking as though he controlled the Bible yesterday, STP offered to agree on 2 Cor 5:19-21. How generous. However, he is hostile, flip and anti-communicative about these three passages, systematically evading the true question.
I guarantee he will write them off as crap and say that Acts 13 is about 1 single promise. That's like saying the Statue of Liberty has color; mindless.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
These three points are commentary speak, and incorrect.
Interplanner
Well-known member
You are vapid and can never explain your position. All you do is protect yourself from some insecurity complex and be a victim and blame others. You preach from D'ist commentaries all day; I have read them all.
Please figure out how to communicate and move the discussion beyond glorifying yourself for being right. What are you saying? What was climactic about what Paul said about Israel and the resurection in Acts 13? Intelligent questions please.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
1. Yes, he was made both LORD and CHRIST. But he has not yet come in his glory, and is yet to sit on the throne of his glory. IF we are going to believe the book.
2. A specific singular promise, referring to the seed of David. It is insane to wrap all of the promises made to Israel up into this one singular promise. It is dishonest, and I will not fall for it.
3. I do not know how you can possibly mess this one up. There is no way possible to make the raised tent of David the incoming of Gentiles. The Gentiles come in AFTER the fallen tent of David is raised. The complexity of this point is on about a 3rd grade level.
2. A specific singular promise, referring to the seed of David. It is insane to wrap all of the promises made to Israel up into this one singular promise. It is dishonest, and I will not fall for it.
3. I do not know how you can possibly mess this one up. There is no way possible to make the raised tent of David the incoming of Gentiles. The Gentiles come in AFTER the fallen tent of David is raised. The complexity of this point is on about a 3rd grade level.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
I can and I have.
Hitherto, you had me on ignore, and my main goal was to mark your posts as made up for the TOL readers.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Everyone on TOL thinks they are right.
Can you specify something that you posted in error?
Atta boy!
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Still stand by this.
Amen.
Interplanner
Well-known member
What you have made up is that that throne is like a Davidic one that will be in Jerusalem. That's 2P2P nonsense coming through which you have succumbed to. Because of the belief that the Bible does not make sense without 2P2P.
What you are missing about 'what was promised' in Acts 13, is not confined to one line. This is a statement to the nation, specifically to dismayed Jews 3 countries away, about the mess Israel was in at the time. Paul says there is no problem, because God's plan since the Seed is right on track; the mission is here, which is the message that the resurrection proves justification from sin is availed; that THAT is how Abraham was justified from his sins.
There is no wiggling with the raised tent of David because it solved the situation at hand. The unstated idea of 2P2P is that these guys were actually talking about millenial issues that junk theologians 2000 years later would have and were solving them. Because we all know that the NT figures were really concerned about the junk questions that junke theologians 2000 years later would have!
This obsession that MAD has with finding some magic moment in Acts when Israel is rejected is a misconception, both as to time and to nature. To nature, because the NT is not generalizing about the race and says that it is faith now that matters--and it was faith back then in OT times that mattered. But even if it was constructed as D'ism thinks (that God is either totally with or against Israel), it missed Lk 13! The homework behind D'ism is poor that that is 3rd grade to be sure.