ECT Acts realism vs MAD theoretics: Acts 16:3

I

Interplanner

Well-known member
After the council of ch 15 cleared up what mattered about the Law, Paul had to deal with pressure from Jews about the circumcision of Titus. It is perfectly clear that the reason for doing it was not devotion to the Law (ch 15 answered that with the 'yoke none of us could carry.') It was opposition from the Jews. You have to pick your fights and he decided not to put Titus in the middle of his fight.

This isolated incident is not 'evidence for MAD.' It just shows that the apostles were realistic, and did not force anyone to take risks they were not ready for. There was no easy way to make a transition from Judaism to Christian faith. The Christians were encouraged by the council's letter, but we don't read that the Jews were.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
SaulToPaul said:
I didn't even understand your original post. Very few do.
Why are you obsessed with "no land"?
Click to expand...


Because it is generated by 2 peoples/ 2 programs which is fraudulent. It is not in the Bible. It has people completely disturbed about how the NT sees the fulfillment of the OT in Christ.

There is no NT interest in the land, and there is no need for it to be, not in view of Christ.
 
D

Danoh

New member
SaulToPaul said:
I didn't even understand your original post. Very few do.
Why are you obsessed with "no land"?
Click to expand...

You're missing about as much action in not understanding his posts as Andy and Barney going back and forth with the "yep...yep."

In short, you are missing...nothing...at all - the guy's content is so baseless that not even ol Barney could come up with enough citations for all the principles IP continually violates :chuckle:
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
SaulToPaul said:
I didn't even understand your original post. Very few do.
Why are you obsessed with "no land"?
Click to expand...



There has to be an explanation why Titus was circumcised, and paradoxically, this comes right after the 'list' by the council about what matters from the law. Circumcision was not on the list. this is the only time this happened. The answer in the text is not that Paul was that devoted to making Gentiles keep the law or traditions. The answer is the violent pressure from the Jews.

He called the traditions the 'weak and miserable elements of the world.'

What is difficult about understanding that?
 
Jerry Shugart

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
It has people completely disturbed about how the NT sees the fulfillment of the OT in Christ.

There is no NT interest in the land, and there is no need for it to be, not in view of Christ.
Click to expand...

Let us look at the "land" promises of God under the Davidic covenant:

"Now therefore so shalt thou say unto my servant David...I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more; neither shall the children of wickedness afflict them any more, as beforetime" (2 Sam.7:8,10).

"And move no more"!

Therefore we can understand that the Lord has made promises to David in respect to the promised land that have not yet been fulfilled. There has never been a time when the children of Israel have been brought back to the promised land and have not "been pulled up out of their land" (unless that is being fulfilled now).

We also know that God said that He would not "alter" the promises which He made to David:

"I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant...Nevertheless my loving-kindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail. My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David" (Ps.89:3,33-35).

According to your mistaken view the land promises will never be fulfilled because God altered His promise He made to David in regard to the land.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Jerry Shugart said:
Let us look at the "land" promises of God under the Davidic covenant:

"Now therefore so shalt thou say unto my servant David...I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more; neither shall the children of wickedness afflict them any more, as beforetime" (2 Sam.7:8,10).

"And move no more"!

Therefore we can understand that the Lord has made promises to David in respect to the promised land that have not yet been fulfilled. There has never been a time when the children of Israel have been brought back to the promised land and have not "been pulled up out of their land" (unless that is being fulfilled now).

We also know that God said that He would not "alter" the promises which He made to David:

"I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant...Nevertheless my loving-kindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail. My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David" (Ps.89:3,33-35).

According to your mistaken view the land promises will never be fulfilled because God altered His promise He made to David in regard to the land.
Click to expand...



Apparently you haven't read Acts 13 which is quoting Is 55 about the promises to David and how they were given to Christ. When this is said, nothing about the land matters: what matters is the coronation of Christ in the resurrection for his accomplishment for mankind. The NHNE will be given and be righteous. There is no Judaic recycled episode going to happen.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
SaulToPaul said:
Read in The Book about the times of restitution of all things, and believe what you read, thou skeptic.
Click to expand...



That's the whole earth. Christ will be given back everything he deserves as Creator. All things.


You think 'skeptic' is defined by your flavor of 'end times knows it all.'
 
Right Divider

Right Divider

Body part
Interplanner said:
There has to be an explanation why Titus was circumcised, and paradoxically, this comes right after the 'list' by the council about what matters from the law. Circumcision was not on the list. this is the only time this happened. The answer in the text is not that Paul was that devoted to making Gentiles keep the law or traditions. The answer is the violent pressure from the Jews.

He called the traditions the 'weak and miserable elements of the world.'

What is difficult about understanding that?
Click to expand...
Where do get the bogus idea that Titus was circumcised?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top