ECT How is Paul's message different?

[popsthebuilder]

No, it isn't just assumption. If you insist on crafting a rationally coherent doctrinal system where the plain reading of the text is PRIMARY whenever possible, you will be an Acts 9 Dispensationalist. The fact that you reject Mid-Acts Dispensationalism is proof - and I do mean proof - that you do otherwise.

Now, that doesn't mean you do it on purpose or consciously. In fact, I'm firmly convinced that the vast majority of people are quite completely blind to the way they interpret the bible as they read it. What they understand the bible to mean is what they've been taught to understand rather than what it actually says. The interpretation happens automatically and intuitively rather than consciously and on purpose. For most people, their understanding of scripture has as much or more to do with their doctrinal paradigm than it has to do with specifically what the text actually states.

Clete

And what about those who where never doctrinally influenced by man, and who received their faith from hearing and believing the Word of GOD?

What about the atheist who never thought any religious system was correct, but was shown that GOD was indeed real and true?

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[Clete]

Yet the twelve were sent to all people to spread the message to all, and Israel was too spread throughout all the world.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

That message being, in so many words, "Repent, obey Moses and believe Jesus is Israel's Messiah and then God will send Jesus back to give Israel it's prophesied Kingdom."

Further, they DID NOT go and spread their message to all. They stuck around in Israel and ministered to the believers there while Paul when to the rest of the world and spread a message that he had to go and explain to the Twelve and that the Apostle John said was "hard to understand".

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

And what about those who where never doctrinally influenced by man, and who received their faith from hearing and believing the Word of GOD?

What about the atheist who never thought any religious system was correct, but was shown that GOD was indeed real and true?

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

Change the topic much?

What about them?

 

[Right Divider]

That message being, in so many words, "Repent, obey Moses and believe Jesus is Israel's Messiah and then God will send Jesus back to give Israel it's prophesied Kingdom."

Further, they DID NOT go and spread their message to all. They stuck around in Israel and ministered to the believers there while Paul when to the rest of the world and spread a message that he had to go and explain to the Twelve and that the Apostle John said was "hard to understand".

Resting in Him,
Clete

That was actually Peter (2 Peter 3:16).

 

[popsthebuilder]

I'm not changing the topic.

You said if one crafts a belief system.....I'm asking what about one who didn't craft a belief system nor was ever indoctrinated by man.

Change the topic much?

What about them?

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[Interplanner]

That message being, in so many words, "Repent, obey Moses and believe Jesus is Israel's Messiah and then God will send Jesus back to give Israel it's prophesied Kingdom."

Further, they DID NOT go and spread their message to all. They stuck around in Israel and ministered to the believers there while Paul when to the rest of the world and spread a message that he had to go and explain to the Twelve and that the Apostle John said was "hard to understand".

Resting in Him,
Clete

They spread all over. Peter ended up in Rome, Thomas to India. The "sending" Jesus does not stand because there was nothing that would stop the destruction. So it had to be Jesus as in the mission to the nations.

D'ists cannot seem to grasp how central the mission is. They need to start in Lk 24. They think it is all about the one thing they were told NOT to bother with: a kingdom. But there are so many NOTs flying around here and there from D'ists that it could mean anything, and they have made it do so.

 

[Interplanner]

The tree is Christ.
The natural branches are Israel.

There's one of the big problems. It's individual Jews. It can't be Israel the total. IT never has been that point was made since ch 3 about the unbelief of Israel, and it is made about the future in 11:26 because 'in this way' means that Israel the nation will always be partly hard, and Israel the new creation will always have both Jews and Gentiles in it.

 

[Interplanner]

I have found that the vast majority of the bible is slap full of double and triple entendres.

As far as to why; that question I will not try to answer.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

I question your finding totally. It's confusion and God is not an author of confusion.

 

[Interplanner]

So what if something has multiple meanings? Why not just take scripture at face value, and understand what it's actually saying, instead of trying to always find the hidden meaning first and trying to interpret what it actually says by that? That seems like an extremely backwards approach to understanding the Bible?

The best way to understand the Bible is to get an overview, learn the Plot (so to speak), and then you can unlock the meaning behind the details.

Your method, Pops, always seems to be dive into the details and try to figure out where everything fits that way. I can tell you right now that that approach will leave you confused and ultimately lost. Get an overview first, and the details will, guaranteed, fall into place.

Your advice is good RD, but not the particulars you use, becausse you refuse to use the plot laid out in Gal 3..

 

[Interplanner]

No, it isn't just assumption. If you insist on crafting a rationally coherent doctrinal system where the plain reading of the text is PRIMARY whenever possible, you will be an Acts 9 Dispensationalist. The fact that you reject Mid-Acts Dispensationalism is proof - and I do mean proof - that you do otherwise.

Now, that doesn't mean you do it on purpose or consciously. In fact, I'm firmly convinced that the vast majority of people are quite completely blind to the way they interpret the bible as they read it. What they understand the bible to mean is what they've been taught to understand rather than what it actually says. The interpretation happens automatically and intuitively rather than consciously and on purpose. For most people, their understanding of scripture has as much or more to do with their doctrinal paradigm than it has to do with specifically what the text actually states.

Clete

I'm a Lk 24 historian, thanks.

 

[popsthebuilder]

I question your finding totally. It's confusion and God is not an author of confusion.

You claim a thing is confusion before even hearing it?

We agree that GOD is not the author of confusion.

Now substanciate your claim please. As if a thing isn't of GOD just because you have yet to attwmt to grasp it.



Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[Interplanner]

You claim a thing is confusion before even hearing it?

We agree that GOD is not the author of confusion.

Now substanciate your claim please. As if a thing isn't of GOD just because you have yet to attwmt to grasp it.



Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

for ex., it is ridiculous to make Mt 24A (up to v29) have multi-meanings. If you just told Jerusalem 3x that it was going to be destroyed soon, and your closest followers come along adoring the beautiful buildings, you probably are not talking about two things or three. You are talking about what would happen to them and warning them, and protecting them. In Lk 23 this is even more clear when he locks the time frame by saying the babies along the road where he carried his cross would see the catastrophe hit the city when they were adults. It's a no brainer.

Somewhere along the line since 1800 people got the idea in their heads that Jesus would not say anything that pointed or specific. And due to D'ist futurism they started inserting X000 years into Mt24A. Both of which are ridiculous.

 

[popsthebuilder]

for ex., it is ridiculous to make Mt 24A (up to v29) have multi-meanings. If you just told Jerusalem 3x that it was going to be destroyed soon, and your closest followers come along adoring the beautiful buildings, you probably are not talking about two things or three. You are talking about what would happen to them and warning them, and protecting them. In Lk 23 this is even more clear when he locks the time frame by saying the babies along the road where he carried his cross would see the catastrophe hit the city when they were adults. It's a no brainer.

Somewhere along the line since 1800 people got the idea in their heads that Jesus would not say anything that pointed or specific. And due to D'ist futurism they started inserting X000 years into Mt24A. Both of which are ridiculous.

So the kingdom being at hand and those of that generation not passing prior to the establishment of GOD'S kingdom on Earth means what to you?

Seems to verify the mystery to me; that is that Christ lives in the believer.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[Interplanner]

So the kingdom being at hand and those of that generation not passing prior to the establishment of GOD'S kingdom on Earth means what to you?

Seems to verify the mystery to me; that is that Christ lives in the believer.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

That (in hearts) is where the reign of God is best known, yes, but it is meant to affect the masses--without becoming a 'political' tool or movement. See Paul in his last statements in Acts 26's hearing. Telling even Roman admins to live righteously. (btw, this caused Emperor Vespasian to try to make adultery illegal, but the attempt failed badly).

That generation saw the destruction of the zealot empire, Jerusalem, and was supposed to see the final day of this world--unless the Father delayed.

This delay concept is the most foreign to D'ist friends. They think all positions are one sequence vs another vs another. No one has contingencies. Yet there is plenty of evidence that the final judgement before the New Heavne and Earth was delayed.

 

[popsthebuilder]

So do you now continue to deny that theajority of the bible shows progressive revelation via double and or triple entendres?

That (in hearts) is where the reign of God is best known, yes, but it is meant to affect the masses--without becoming a 'political' tool or movement. See Paul in his last statements in Acts 26's hearing. Telling even Roman admins to live righteously. (btw, this caused Emperor Vespasian to try to make adultery illegal, but the attempt failed badly).

That generation saw the destruction of the zealot empire, Jerusalem, and was supposed to see the final day of this world--unless the Father delayed.

Could you also define deist as you mean it?

Thanks;

peace

This delay concept is the most foreign to D'ist friends. They think all positions are one sequence vs another vs another. No one has contingencies. Yet there is plenty of evidence that the final judgement before the New Heavne and Earth was delayed.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[Interplanner]

So do you now continue to deny that theajority of the bible shows progressive revelation via double and or triple entendres?





Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

I don't find that kind of progression when you look at Gal 3's organization of all biblical material up to the (its) present. Nor in the shadow vs reality concepts of Col 2 and Hebrews. All there is in both is a maturation. We are now in the time of reality, the law was the shadow of the past, of 'childhood.'

On a minor note, there is some similarity between the final conflict of darkness against believers in Rev 20, but darkness is swiftly destroyed and the NHNE are placed. I say that to show there is no protracted set of events there, where a person could say 'all the things in Mt24A are going to happen all over again' as though Mt 24A was a thing that had several layers.

Another thing that happens Pops is that the people who try to find several meanings to 'the abomination that desolates' find contradictory ones. Christ in Mt 24 said it only meant one thing: the rebellion of 1st century Judea would have the leader mentioned in Dan 8:13 and he would ruin the country. The expression was originally: the rebellion that desolates.

The emphasis on 'let the reader understand' was the "reader" for a church group (very few people could read; most communication was oral). They were to understand there was one meaning. That meaning was entirely anchored in what was happening in the 1st century Judean turmoil.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Please mind the fact that I repeat again the word "majority". That doesn't mean all friend.

The abomination of desolation doesn't really seem to fit the triple entendres statement, but could easily be seen two ways.


Those that seem to act as if the vast majority of the Bible isn't for them seem to be in much more danger

I don't find that kind of progression when you look at Gal 3's organization of all biblical material up to the (its) present. Nor in the shadow vs reality concepts of Col 2 and Hebrews. All there is in both is a maturation. We are now in the time of reality, the law was the shadow of the past, of 'childhood.'

On a minor note, there is some similarity between the final conflict of darkness against believers in Rev 20, but darkness is swiftly destroyed and the NHNE are placed. I say that to show there is no protracted set of events there, where a person could say 'all the things in Mt24A are going to happen all over again' as though Mt 24A was a thing that had several layers.

Another thing that happens Pops is that the people who try to find several meanings to 'the abomination that desolates' find contradictory ones. Christ in Mt 24 said it only meant one thing: the rebellion of 1st century Judea would have the leader mentioned in Dan 8:13 and he would ruin the country. The expression was originally: the rebellion that desolates.

The emphasis on 'let the reader understand' was the "reader" for a church group (very few people could read; most communication was oral). They were to understand there was one meaning. That meaning was entirely anchored in what was happening in the 1st century Judean turmoil.

So the abomanation that desolates is only a reference to a past event to you?

I find that odd as I believe everything in scripture is relavent to the current alive believer. That in no way means I support a private interpretation; just the attempted understanding of what is plainly written.

I don't see any texts limiting the abomination of desolation to the first century. Most seem to reference near end times to me.....that's two meanings right there.


Daniel 12: 1. And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. 2. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. 3. And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever. 5. Then I Daniel looked, and, behold, there stood other two, the one on this side of the bank of the river, and the other on that side of the bank of the river. 6. And one said to the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, How long shall it be to the end of these wonders? 7. And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished. 10. Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand. 13. But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days.


Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[Clete]

That was actually Peter (2 Peter 3:16).

Of course! :doh:

That's what I get for not looking up the reference.

 

[turbosixx]

I've got a pretty thick skin and a great deal of patients when people actually do make arguments. I don't remember the last time you made an argument and the comment you made about Satan's deception was terrible on at least two fronts. For one thing, it was blatantly insulting but more importantly it was entirely self-defeating because since you make the accusation outside of ANY context (i.e. an actual argument) whatsoever, the exact same accusation applies as equally to your own doctrine as it would mine or anyone else's for that matter. On what basis could you reject the possibility that you aren't the one who's been deceived? Maybe Satan has deceived us all! How would you refute such an accusation? You couldn't! You couldn't do it because it has no rational connection to anything specific. It's a totally meaningless and stupendously insulting waste of time thing to even think, never mind actually say. You should actively guard you mind against such emotionalism. It's the basis upon which every cult is based.

I hear ya. I promise I will try and do a better job of re-reading my posts to make sure they come across as intended before I hit the post button.

Also, why do you break up my posts and respond with three different posts? It makes it difficult to respond. I've had to recombine our discussion into a single post on more than one occasion. You gotta stop doing that.

Ok.

Also, why do you ignore the most important parts of my posts? In my last post, I gave a very specific response in regards to Israel's Kingdom and why they didn't receive it. And your response is to continue the discussion as though I never said a word of it.

Sorry, I also skip replies to some of my important points as well. I guess I try to keep the post short so you don’t have to crunch through a lot. I will try and not do that.

When Jesus said that the Kingdom was at hand, He meant precisely that but it wasn't some invisible, undefinable, unfalsifiable fabrication that the modern church and you think it is. He meant a Kingdom - period. You know, the sort of Kingdom with a King and a thrown and political power and civil laws and a military and all the other things associated with a real Kingdom.

Jesus came and for three years He was looking for faith and couldn't find hardly any at all. He even asked the Father to cut them off before He was even crucified but the Father said that He would "fertilize" Israel and give it a year and, after that, if there is no fruit, then He would cut them off. (Luke 13).

So, Jesus ascends into Heaven and sends the Holy Spirit (Acts 2). Some time later (likely a year based on Luke 13), Israel has Stephen stoned to death and Jesus is seen standing at God's right hand (i.e. in preparation for judgment) (Acts 7). Israel is thus cut off and God turn's to the Gentiles (Acts 9).

Paul later explains the precise answer to why Israel did not receive their Kingdom and was cut off instead. Just because God promises you a Kingdom doesn't mean you can just do whatever the heck you want and He's still required to give it to you. God can and does change His mind and He is not obligated to give a Kingdom to a people who hate the King! This is what the whole chapter of Jeremiah 18 is all about and it just happens to be the very passage that Paul himself cites as the explanation for why Israel was cut off in Romans 9.

So, when you read something in the bible that doesn't seem to have come true, the key isn't to spiritualize it into meaninglessness.

I would like to address the last sentence but I know you wanted to expand on it so maybe it will come up later.

I agree Israel was cut off but I see it as fleshly Israel. I suggest that just as the law was a shadow so were the people. This is what I understand Jeremiah 18 and Romans 9 to be telling us. In Jeremiah 18 he says “so he made it again another vessel”. I believe Israel has to be converted to a new creature to continue. Paul says the gospel of Jesus Christ is the power of God unto salvation and the bible tells us the gospel of Jesus Christ began with John the Baptist, Mk. 1:1. John the Baptist told Israel the time is coming that they will no longer be able to rely on the fact that they are descendants of Abraham, Lk. 3:7-8. Jesus basically told Nicodemus the same thing that he could not rely on his birth as a Jew to enter the kingdom but that he had to be born again of water and the Spirit. So in order for Israel to be saved they have to become Christian. Jesus created in himself one new man: that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two.
He did that at the cross: reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross.

Romans 9 tells us they are not all Israel which are of Israel. 8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. They are not all children (heirs) because of their heritage but only those who are like Isaac. Paul tells us Christians are like Isaac, children of promise, Gal. 4.
In Romans 11 we can see not all of Israel will be saved but only a remnant will be saved. 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? Again, out of the same lump not all children of the flesh are heirs except those who are called. 5 So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. I see that in the tree analogy in that they have to be converted and only a remnant will do that. A natural branch (Israelite) that accepted Jesus was not broken off but stayed attached. Israelites that were broken off can be grafted back in if they accept Jesus, if they do not they are lost. Gentiles that accepted Jesus were grafted in. Fleshly Israel was cut off but God has not rejected his people. Paul uses himself as an example of that. He was converted and became a Christian. They can be saved. Saved from what? Sin. I don’t see anywhere talk about being saved from the physical things of life.

I believe the church is the kingdom. Paul tells us that Christians have been transferred to Jesus’s kingdom, Col. 1:13. Jesus tells Peter he was going to build his church and give him the keys to the kingdom. In Acts 2 we see him using those keys and letting 3,000 souls in.

What doesn’t make sense to me is that if Israel didn’t receive the kingdom because they rejected their king, why then the two opposing prophecies? God tells us through Daniel’s prophecy that during the time of the Roman Empire God would set up a kingdom all the while knowing the Jews would reject Jesus and therefore it would not be set it up?
44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

I look forward to your comments

 

[turbosixx]

The tree is Christ.
The natural branches are Israel.

That's the way I understand it. I understand the branches that were broken off were those Israelites that didn't accept Jesus.