Interplanner
Well-known member
It is being used here to refer to something the poster experienced, perhaps as a figure of speech. I'm not sure what he is referring to.
ECT Fundamental question: how can the one David referred to be his son?
- Thread starter Interplanner
- Start date
- Status
It is being used here to refer to something the poster experienced, perhaps as a figure of speech. I'm not sure what he is referring to.
So you've never been to church? Do you not know how to use a dictionary? I assure you, I was not using it as a figure of speech.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Could you please say what exactly you are talking about instead of telling us how to do thinking? What pulpit--when we were not speaking of one?
Interplanner
Well-known member
I understand the frustration but you've missed something essential. The meaning of the NT must go toward Christ, to ward what is now true in him. I will always push a text that way. "The promise was made to the Seed (meaning one person) not seeds (meaning many people). It does this itself all the time. It does not go in the future Israel direction and has no reason to. There is no left over 'business' that God needs to do with Israel. God has settled all accounts in Christ (Rom 11:30) and does not owe anyone anything (the doxology that follows that verse).
I never say an expression that is innovated (non-literal) by the NT means a green banana or a circus clown. It goes Christ-ward. David's fallen tent in Amos in Acts 15 is the Gentiles believing Christ and it is a beautiful word picture. I never say the thing can mean anything I want.
The Gospel to the circ and the uncirc was one Gospel, because the grammar there cannot mean anything YOU want. You want separation, fragmentation; the text calls for one unified Christian body.
So I have the same hatred for literalism that John (the 25 examples there) has, BUT YOU HAVE THE SAME LITERALISM THAT JOHN HAS. That is the huge difference.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Don't tell me what I have. And don't tell me I've missed something essential. You deny the plain facts in front of your face in order to adhere to something you were taught. You'd do quite well in a college classroom in the roll of professor....those kids will believe anything. :chew:
You're not very bright are you? I brought up "the pulpit" in reference to the many pulpits from which I heard preachers teach prior to my current understanding of the Bible. Are you really so daft that you could not muster the brainpower to put that together?
What is going on is that you are looking at what was said from within, or through the lens, of your own context; not from the other side's.
Just as many on here end up doing the very opposite, when reading one or another's posts.
Which is how such also so often end up failing to see what the other is talking about, and or where said other is coming from.
Which in turn, actually reveals a gaping hole in their study approach in general...
Too many attempt to understand the other side's communication from within their own context; instead of attempting to do so from the other side's.
The result?
A failure to get where the other side is coming from, and or is talking about.
It should be no surprise then; that such just may have done likewise here and there during their study of one thing or another, in Scripture.
By reason of use...
And too many not attempt to communicate their view to others from within their own context; instead of attempting to do so through the other side's context.
Such fail to attempt to walk a mile in the other guy's shoes, so to speak.
The result?
A failure to get their point accross.
The result of both?
The old "a failure to communicate."
And too many conclude...
...from a failure in either of those two...
...and from pride and its resulting ignorance and reading into things...
...and its' resulting intolerance with anyone who does not see what they supposedly see...
...and or who does not understand what they said...
...and or who asks for clarification;
...that such are stupid, proud, up to no good, or what have you.
To your credit, IP; you are often at least willing to expose your ignorance of where another is coming from and simply ask them what they'd meant by such and so.
At the same time; you have so deeply entrenched yourself in your view for decades now; that you have rendered yourself unable to even being able to see to ask the kinds of open faced questions you will one day find out you no longer had the interest in asking; out of your own arrogance, ignorance, and pride.
Because you make the exact same mistake of all who end up at a closed mind end up at: including some within so called MAD; at your kind of belief that you are right because you believe "well that is what this or that says..."
Such are ever blinded to the obvious; by it.
By the obvious, but to such; that theirs is actually nothing more than the blindsiding impact of "what it means to me."
Navigating its' often treacherous waters, is often lost on such.
In other words, there is ever a difference between the "what it thing means to me" moment...
...and what principles were either applied or ignored that might actually allow the "what it means to me" moment...
...to soundly align with what had actually been meant, or intended.
And tomorrow, it will be my turn once...to fail in the above...in some way...I'm sure.
:think:
oatmeal
Well-known member
Could you elaborate on that a bit more?
David is clearly the son of Jesse.
How does Jesus Christ enter into this?
Interplanner
Well-known member
Mt 22:41+ is saying with finality that their conception of David's son is mistaken. With finality, because this is the last question taken up Christ in direct exchange. They think--in their eschatology--that all that is coming is a son of David. They had a passive view of this; it was going to be a supernatural event that could not be stopped. The zealots, on the other hand, had an active view that they were to prepare to fight. This was egged on by texts from the time such as THE WAR SCROLL and THE BATTLE OF THE SONS OF LIGHT AGAINST THE SONS OF DARKNESS, all materials found in Qumran and from the period, showing us what kind of dissent there was from temple Judaism.
We also see that Christ won. They could not answer. He had shown that this Ps 110 is actually about the Lord of the universe. So both temple Judaism and the Galilean and desert zealots had gaps in their understanding.
He was setting up early Christian preaching. The disciples could now see that he was to be preached as Lord of the universe once he was enthroned in his resurrection. And that his enemies would one day be subdued. Whether enemies on earth or otherwise. That is the end of time when the Godhead makes the NHNE.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Which commentary taught you this?
Lighthouse,
I didn't know you knew IP was biblically retarded... At this point... I'm a lighthouse fan.
- EE
Interplanner
Well-known member
We weren't talking about any pulpits and all of a sudden he says something he heard from a pulpit, instead of dealing the text. And he keeps doing so. He thinks I can read his mind. I can not. He cannot communicate directly or clearly.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
The irony...
I've known for a long time.
You're just dumb. The fact you can't figure out from the context why I used the word "pulpit" is all the evidence we need of that.
Interplanner
Well-known member
I'm not going to read your mind and don't want to. Part of being in a forum is that you want to know what other people think. You are killing that interest.
Will you waste more time or just say what mattered?
Idiot.:doh:
Interplanner
Well-known member
How can the one David referred to be his son?
Interplanner
Well-known member
I don't know that any D'ists ever got this. It has everything to do with which throne is there in Acts 2:30, and the same Lord said to my Lord quote...
Verse 29 speaks of King David.
Act 2:29* Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.*
Verse 30 says that King David's descendant, Messiah, would be raised up by GOD to sit on his(King David's) throne.
Act 2:30* 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;*
Verse 31 says that King David, as a prophet, spoke of the resurrection of Messiah, when David said(verse 30) that his descendant would be raised up to sit on David's throne.
Act 2:31* He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
Verse 32 says that GOD has raised up this Jesus of Nazareth and that Peter and the rest are all witnesses of the fact.
*
Act 2:32* This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.*
Verse 33 says that Messiah has been exalted to the right hand of GOD.
Act 2:33* Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.*
Verse 34 refers back to verses 29 and 31 that King David was not referring to himself but to his future descendant.
Peter then quotes Ps 110 concerning Messiah prophesied to be seated at the right hand of GOD.
And verse 35.
Act 2:34* For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,*
Act 2:35* Until I make thy foes thy footstool.
Verse 36 Peter says to the historically represented house of Israel, that GOD has made Jesus of Nazareth, whom they had crucified, both Lord and Messiah.
*
Act 2:36* Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.*
Peter says nothing about Jesus Messiah being presently seated on David's throne.
One would have to forcibly glom that on from one's own imagination thru dialectical synthesis.
Yeah, that's right, it's you and Northwye who are guilty of dialectic thought.
Those who read the Scriptures for what they literally say in context are not involved in the triadic thought process.
Again, Peter says nothing about Messiah being presently seated on David's throne.
What he says is that Messiah was raised up 'to sit' on David's throne.
He doesn't say that Messiah is now sitting there.
In Biblical context, David's throne is a reign from Jerusalem over the twelve tribes of Israel in the land called Israel.
Messiah can't reign from David's throne until there is a sufficient believing remnant to constitute the twelve tribes in the land promised.
Messiah is now seated in the Father's throne, at the right hand of GOD, expecting until His enemies become subservient. As Psalm 110 says, "My people(Israel) will be willing in the day of His power".
Jesus Messiah said in Mt 25:31 that He will sit on that throne at His second coming.
Jesus Messiah says in Mt 23:39 that He will not be recognizably seen by Israel until they say unto Him, "Baruch haba b'shem Adonai".
Peter says in Acts 3:19-20 that GOD will not send Jesus Messiah back until Israel(a sufficient remnant) repents.
Gabriel said, to Mary:
Luk 1:31* And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.*
Luk 1:32* 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:*
Luk 1:33* And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.*
I believe all of these Scriptures. You don't.
You're caught in the dialectical tangled up barbed-wire and you make no sense to simple ordinary people who take GOD at His Word.
Last edited:
I was wondering who stole my book on just right, fully sound, very specific doctrine on all that :chuckle:
:thumb:
Rom. 5:8
- Status