ECT Fundamental question: how can the one David referred to be his son?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Lazy afternoon

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Dispensationalism stands on the literal, historical, grammatical hermeneutic.

2P2P is recognized in the Scripture as a result of this hermeneutic.

If one departs from that hermeneutic and begins to interpret Scripture with a basically allegorical hermeneutic, particularly with regard to prophecy, then 2P2P is no longer recognized in Scripture and it only seems that Dispenstionalism falls apart.

Dispensationalists believe the Scriptures as written.
Allegoricists import and impose a foreign meaning on Scripture. Those who believe what the Allegoricists say the Scripture means must place their faith in the self-proclaimed authority of the Allegoricist rather than just reading Scripture to discover what it plainly says. If Scripture is literal then most readers will come to basically the same understanding. If Scripture is to be understood allegorically, then the reader must go to the Allegoricist to discover what it means. I think that GOD meant for people to read and understand plainly what it means.

Ok read plainly what it says.

Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Eph 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
Eph 5:27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
Eph 5:28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
Eph 5:29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
Eph 5:30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
Eph 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
Eph 5:32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

2Co 11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.
2Co 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
2Co 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.
2Co 11:5 For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles.


LA
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
Dispensationalism stands on the literal, historical, grammatical hermeneutic.

2P2P is recognized in the Scripture as a result of this hermeneutic.

If one departs from that hermeneutic and begins to interpret Scripture with a basically allegorical hermeneutic, particularly with regard to prophecy, then 2P2P is no longer recognized in Scripture and it only seems that Dispenstionalism falls apart.

Dispensationalists believe the Scriptures as written.
Allegoricists import and impose a foreign meaning on Scripture. Those who believe what the Allegoricists say the Scripture means must place their faith in the self-proclaimed authority of the Allegoricist rather than just reading Scripture to discover what it plainly says. If Scripture is literal then most readers will come to basically the same understanding. If Scripture is to be understood allegorically, then the reader must go to the Allegoricist to discover what it means. I think that GOD meant for people to read and understand plainly what it means.



Actually they believe 'plainly what their system means.' Their system thinks that there is a ton of unfinished business left over from OT passages and that Christ is not the fulfillment of the ages or times in these things, and that there is another Judaic-Davidic theocracy coming.

I did not know that inserting X000 years in Mt 24's intro or the first page of the Rev was 'literal, historical' interp. I did not know that when the number 69 is followed by 70 that X000 years are in between 69 and 70. So I'm going to my bank to see if I'm missing some X000 dollars between the 69th and 70th dollars in my savings.

I did not know that when the emergence of the church with Gentiles is called the raised tent of David, that I had wandered off into cannabisianism. It was the plain meaning of Acts 15 about Amos 9.
 

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Dispensationalism stands on the literal, historical, grammatical hermeneutic.

2P2P is recognized in the Scripture as a result of this hermeneutic.

If one departs from that hermeneutic and begins to interpret Scripture with a basically allegorical hermeneutic, particularly with regard to prophecy, then 2P2P is no longer recognized in Scripture and it only seems that Dispenstionalism falls apart.

Dispensationalists believe the Scriptures as written.
Allegoricists import and impose a foreign meaning on Scripture. Those who believe what the Allegoricists say the Scripture means must place their faith in the self-proclaimed authority of the Allegoricist rather than just reading Scripture to discover what it plainly says. If Scripture is literal then most readers will come to basically the same understanding. If Scripture is to be understood allegorically, then the reader must go to the Allegoricist to discover what it means. I think that GOD meant for people to read and understand plainly what it means.

I noticed that Marcus Sanford, The Grand Scholar and Abbreviationist, ignored your post.
 

Danoh

New member
Poor LA Lost


AND wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

"And" is a conjunction - it is continuing Anania's thought.

Acts 22:12 And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there, 22:13 Came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up upon him. 22:14 And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth. 22:15 For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard. 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

And now - continues his thought.

Arise, and be baptized - continues his thought.

And wash away thy sins - continues his thought.

It is all the same thought.

He is talking about water baptism - as "a devout man, according to the law."
 

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.


Acts 2
21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
 

Danoh

New member
and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.


Acts 2
21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

That is according to, in line with, and or under, the PROPHETIC Aspect of God's Two-Fold Purpose: Prophecy (Israel/the Earth) and Mystery (the Body/the Heavenlies).

Just as the Spirit said that through Peter according to Israel's Prophet: Joel; Ananias said that to Paul "according to the law."

THEIR understanding and, thus, THEIR practice was WATER baptism for the putting away of the filthiness of the flesh, as THEIR answer of a good conscience toward God under Moses, BEFORE THEY could call on the LORD.

THIS is WHY Peter went ahead and WATER baptized Cornelius, anyway.

Peter labored "according to the law."

Only LATER did he come to understand the issue of God's "purifying THEIR (The Gentile's) hearts by faith..."

Such was not yet the case in Acts 9; which is when that took place with Ananias.
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Lighthouse,
the amount of material Ryrie put into that thesis (about 2P2P being the standing-or-falling article of D'ism) prohibits you from just answering 'nope.' It's meaningless. You must address a specific point, or it is just meaningless hiding from questions. It's up to you.
What questions?

Do we agree that we will talk about posts and propostions in them rather than people? I happen to think yours are foolish, but if you can support them go ahead. If it means anything in your Christian view of things (I assume you are an example of a changed heart), I do not think you are a fool. But your posts...that's another question.
You are a fool.

Lighthouse wrote:
It wasn't stupid when Jesus asked it because the answer was unknown to the audience.

Prove this. The rest of what you said has no value at this point.
Which part do you want me to prove?
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
I'm not violating anything; I have cause.


A what?


Could you try that again? With proper grammar, this time?





I think this was addressed to RD. But If you knew what Mt 5 was saying, you wouldn't bother presenting a cause.

RD repeatedly puts me down for believing the NT is Matthew--Revelation.

re the David's son declaration. It's missing the word declaration (by Christ). The person (RD again I think) was so far off that point, it wasn't worth discussing with him.
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
Paul called someone a fool.
Is he is danger of hell fire?


In danger yes, but on balance of his whole work as a Christian, no.

Obviously Mt 5:22 was written to Pharsaic people who thought nothing of saying it regularly.

The problem here is that tenths of percents differences are called fools. We agree on 99.9 of the rest. A person needs to keep some distance between themselves and their ideas, and to put out good support for what they are saying instead of retreating to shouting 'you're-a-fool' as a theological position.
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
I think this was addressed to RD. But If you knew what Mt 5 was saying, you wouldn't bother presenting a cause.

RD repeatedly puts me down for believing the NT is Matthew--Revelation.

re the David's son declaration. It's missing the word declaration (by Christ). The person (RD again I think) was so far off that point, it wasn't worth discussing with him.
Do you know what you're talking about?
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
You seemed to have arrived late. Have you read the OP?

I was explaining why this question ('how can he be David's son?') stopped Judaism. He was David's line, but not as they knew it.
I know what the OP is. I read it when you first posted it. My point is that you, in general, don't know what you're talking about; everything you post is tantamount to gibberish.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top