ECT Acts 13-Interplanner's Continuous Rebellion

ClimateSanity

ClimateSanity

New member
Interplanner said:
That was to have been the knockout passage proving a kingdom of Israel in the future. But like the 10 others I have listed 1000x, that are all plain language passages (not symbolic) there is no future Israel. There is no need for it.
Click to expand...
It's a knock out punch because you believe it to be so. What else do you believe in? Unicorns? Make the case you are claiming, otherwise the point stands....so what?

Sent from my XT1254 using TOL mobile app
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
ClimateSanity said:
It's a knock out punch because you believe it to be so. What else do you believe in? Unicorns? Make the case you are claiming, otherwise the point stands....so what?

Sent from my XT1254 using TOL mobile app
Click to expand...





I don't know what your problem is but it is not me. The person said 2 Pet 3 was her unchallengeable proof that Christ was going to return to make a kingdom of Israel. I find nothing about Israel there. Return, yes.

That is my case.

As for the need, if Paul in Acts 13 and 26 and 2 Cor 1 says that what Christ accomplished, with his resurrection, is the fulfillment of what God promised the fathers, and mentions nothing else, then I don't know what need there is for a kingdom in Israel.

If such a kingdom includes the worship system, you may notice he specifically addressed that in Act 26, and besides Hebrews is telling us there is no further need for the sacrificial system.

He doesn't need a kingdom to do the judgement day of the whole world.

I don't see the need, besides not seeing that kind of kingdom coming in Israel. The prophets and Christ instead meant the kingdom or reign of Christ that came via him being enthroned in Acts 2:30 and being proclaimed as Christ and Lord, as he should be, to all nations, in the mission work which the OT expected would naturally flow from him being raised to glory on Gods throne.

I dont' know of one minor biblical issue in what I have just described, so I don't know why you are spouting 'so what?'
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
glorydaz said:
Then why didn't it end? :chew:
Click to expand...




There are 2-3 reasons, depending on when you think Peter said 2 Peter 3.
1, it was entirely up to the Father, even though the Son said it would end right after the destruction of Jerusalem, Mt 24:36. The previous verses put the 1st century traumatic ending together with the 2nd coming in judgement and said it would be that generation.
2, there were 4 times when it could end, acc. to the parable of the return of the manager in Mk 13:35.
3, Peter said the delay in the return in judgement meant God's mercy. The question is when did he say it. He says that in the chapter where he says that Paul says some things that are hard to understand. I believe that is because most of what Paul said about the end of time was that it was very close. Look , for ex., at the marriage advice in I Cor 7.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
The issue in the past posts was that Tam insisted that 2 Peter 3 is an unmistakable proof that Christ would redo Israel's kingdom when he returns. I see nothing and I know of no reason in the NT why he would do that.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
glorydaz said:
Must be because the world ended. :idunno:
Click to expand...





All of those expressions are in complete contexts. don't take them apart, that's dishonest. "I don't know" in the last meant 'there is not one minor biblical theme in the previous 3-4 lines' but the person had said
'so what?' about the importance of them. Really? so what about several major Biblica themes? But hey, you got thanked by Tam!
 
glorydaz

glorydaz

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
All of those expressions are in complete contexts. don't take them apart, that's dishonest. "I don't know" in the last meant 'there is not one minor biblical theme in the previous 3-4 lines' but the person had said
'so what?' about the importance of them. Really? so what about several major Biblica themes? But hey, you got thanked by Tam!
Click to expand...

I should have thanked myself. I got quite a chuckle out of it. :chuckle:
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
STP does not know real NT eschatology from a hole in the ground. It is impossible to disconnect it from the pile of events in judea in the 1st century. Everywhere you look in Paul, the end of the world is right after the DofJ. That's why Peter is a bit puzzled by Paul and is also dealing with that question of delay in 2 Pet 3:4--unless you can provide a reason why it would be about Christ's first coming.

He does not know shadow-to-reality progression in Acts 7, Col 2, Gal 4 and Heb 8-10.

He has blank refused comment on 10 verses on the new covenant in the NT because he only wants to quote Heb 8:8 because the others will conflict with his (Chafer's) pet theory that 'cleared up the Bible.' --2P2P

He does not accept the normal meaning of Acts 2:30 that the resurrection was the entrhonement that real Israel was awaiting so that their mission to the nations ('the Lord gave the word and the number of those who procaimed it was huge.'--Psalm __) would start. It was framed by Lk 24 and he still refuses.

He refuses to see that Acts 1 as well as an earlier line in Lk 24 are REBUKES of the ordinary type kingdom of Israel which is not happening then or now, while the divine and kingdom of God-power to preach was going to come--and proclaim Christ as Lord and enthroned so that all nations would come to the obedience of faith.

I could go on, but I don't need to.

So much for the stupidity of denying Christ's divinity. You have no idea what the NT is saying.
Click to expand...

:chuckle:
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Right Divider said:
No sense of humor and no knowledge of the Bible. Good work.
Click to expand...





Knowing Lk 24--Acts 3 and 13 and 26 is "no knowledge of the Bible." Righto RD. Anything else stupid you want to say? Get it out of your system. Better yet just deal with the question of the text.

But it's fun to get thanked isn't it? That's all that matters!
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
The issue in the past posts was that Tam insisted that 2 Peter 3 is an unmistakable proof that Christ would redo Israel's kingdom when he returns. I see nothing and I know of no reason in the NT why he would do that.
Click to expand...




I can half see why a person might think this from the dizzying action of Rev 19-21, but how did he manage to forget to say that anything in 20:1-6 was in Israel???

btw, for the friends who have eternalized Israel, please note 20:11: there was no place for the earth. Pretty gone, huh?
 
Right Divider

Right Divider

Body part
Interplanner said:
Knowing Lk 24--Acts 3 and 13 and 26 is "no knowledge of the Bible." Righto RD. Anything else stupid you want to say? Get it out of your system. Better yet just deal with the question of the text.

But it's fun to get thanked isn't it? That's all that matters!
Click to expand...
It's better than getting spanked, like you.

Your "system" is the one that is completely broken with all of your false premises leading you to all sorts of false conclusions.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Right Divider said:
It's better than getting spanked, like you.

Your "system" is the one that is completely broken with all of your false premises leading you to all sorts of false conclusions.
Click to expand...




Show me a false premise from those chapters. Be specific instead of congratulating your self on blanket mindless dismissals.

But first answer what Chafer is about. What is the confused Bible he is referring to?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top