ECT NT Eschatology #4: Isaiah shifts David's promises to Christ

[Interplanner]

The NT proof that Christ was Messiah and the Gospel and the new David is in Isaiah. Acts 13's sermon quotes Isaiah showing God saying he would give the promises of David to Christ. But before that, in Acts 2, we have:

David was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that (God) would place one of his descendants on his throne. Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ.v30-31.

This matches what Acts 13's punchline is: that the resurrection is the fulfillment of God's promises to the fathers. It proves that a person can be justified from their sins because Jesus was the perfect life and sacrifice. It also warrants the coming of the Spirit to go with God's mission to the nations.

That's why "David's raised fallen tent" of Acts 15 is the incoming of the nations to believe the Gospel that is happening at the time. That's what the promises where and how they got shifted to Christ.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

NT Eschatology #4: Isaiah shifts David's promises to Christ-

No, the Lord promised that He will 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 the LORD He will not "alter" the promises which He made to David but according to you the LORD did alter His promises to David because He "shifted" David's promises to Christ.

According to your theology the LORD lied to David because He said that He would not "alter" the promises which He made to David and then He turned around and "shifted" David's promises to Christ.

Your teaching is blasphemous but you couldn't care less!

 

[Interplanner]

No, because for the same reason, the promises were really to Christ. There are pictures or shadows and then the reality comes.

Why should I take JerryS on the i.net over Isaiah, and that's Isaiah mentioned by both Peter and Paul in unison theologically?

Yes, I do blaspheme D'ism. I just go with how the NT actually uses the OT instead of being in the veiled OT.

 

[Interplanner]

The #4 refers to this being the 4th item I seek to discuss about true NT eschatology. Here's the others so far:

1, NT eschatology does not mix 1st century Judean events with the end of the world judgment, since the end of the world did not come right after the DofJ
2, Gal 3:17 is the true Replacement issue we should be discussing
3, Rom 11 is prodding Israel not predicting anything (v14)

 

[Jerry Shugart]

No, because for the same reason, the promises were really to Christ.

Then why do you say that the promises were "shifted" to Christ?:

Isaiah shifts David's promises to Christ

If the promises were really to Christ then why would it be necesssary to "shift" those promises to Christ?

Anyone with the slightest degree of spiritual discernment can understand that the promises were 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).​

Here the LORD speaks of the covenant which He made with David. And then He says that He will not "alter" the thing that is gone out of His lips.

Despite that you say that He did alter those promises when He shifted them to Christ.

According to your mistaken ideas the LORD lied to David because He said that He would not "alter" the things He promised David and then He did just that!

Even after being shown the error of your ways you continue to insist that the LORD did alter His promises which He made to David!

You have no respect for what the Scriptures reveal because your ego is so big that you cannot see the error of your teaching.

 

[Interplanner]

No, I'm just reading Acts 2, 13 and 15. Calm down; there is no box under you that you think you are standing on. Just read what it says in those two sermons about what made the oath to David come in to existence. 15 defines what David's raised fallen tent is, and is related.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

No, I'm just reading Acts 2, 13 and 15. Calm down; there is no box under you that you think you are standing on. Just read what it says in those two sermons about what made the oath to David come in to existence. 15 defines what David's raised fallen tent is, and is related.

You need to read what is said at Psalm 89:3,33-35 and then start believing what is said there.

Because at this point you do not believe what is said there.

The people who are saved are those who "believe God," not those who deny the word of God:

"For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness" (Ro.4:3).​

In order to cling to your man made theology you just flat out deny what is said here by the LORD:

"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).​

 

[Interplanner]

The NT is my interp of the OT, not you.

Do you still wants to call it 'man-made'? I'm using it exactly as both Peter and Paul did. Read for yourself. The D'ists of 1900 systematically overlooked this material.

 

[Danoh]

The NT is my interp of the OT, not you.

Do you still wants to call it 'man-made'? I'm using it exactly as both Peter and Paul did. Read for yourself. The D'ists of 1900 systematically overlooked this material.

You mean your interpretation of the NT is the interpretation of the OT.

 

[Interplanner]

It's always better to villify than to illuminate, isn't it Danoh?

Will you ever just ask and answer 'what did Paul say that meant?' Or Peter. IT IS RIGHT THERE STARING AT YOU.

 

[Interplanner]

So...what did Paul say happened to the promises?

Isn't he qualifed to say (since it is scripture)?

 

[Lazy afternoon]

The NT proof that Christ was Messiah and the Gospel and the new David is in Isaiah. Acts 13's sermon quotes Isaiah showing God saying he would give the promises of David to Christ. But before that, in Acts 2, we have:

David was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that (God) would place one of his descendants on his throne. Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ.v30-31.

This matches what Acts 13's punchline is: that the resurrection is the fulfillment of God's promises to the fathers. It proves that a person can be justified from their sins because Jesus was the perfect life and sacrifice. It also warrants the coming of the Spirit to go with God's mission to the nations.

That's why "David's raised fallen tent" of Acts 15 is the incoming of the nations to believe the Gospel that is happening at the time. That's what the promises where and how they got shifted to Christ.

Well, the promises to the seed who is Christ are hidden in the OT types as you say.

Eze 37:25 And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children's children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever.

Eze 37:26 Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore. Eze 37:27 My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Eze 37:28 And the heathen shall know that I the LORD do sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore.

Joh 10:15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.
Joh 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

Act 5:30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.
Act 5:31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.
Act 5:32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.

Act 15:14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
Act 15:15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
Act 15:16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
Act 15:17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.

The tabernacle of David was built again by Christ and set up at His first coming so that the gentiles are now entering it today.

LA

 

[Danoh]

It's always better to villify than to illuminate, isn't it Danoh?

Will you ever just ask and answer 'what did Paul say that meant?' Or Peter. IT IS RIGHT THERE STARING AT YOU.

Right through the lens of your decades of overreliance on books supposedly based on the Bible.

 

[Danoh]

No, because for the same reason, the promises were really to Christ. There are pictures or shadows and then the reality comes.

Why should I take JerryS on the i.net over Isaiah, and that's Isaiah mentioned by both Peter and Paul in unison theologically?

Yes, I do blaspheme D'ism. I just go with how the NT actually uses the OT instead of being in the veiled OT.

Nonsense! You go with what you decades; your head buried in your overreliance on your books, has led you and yours to distort these issues into.

 

[Interplanner]

I don't see anything but the plain meaning of Peter in Acts 2 and Paul in 13. Show otherwise from those passages please, instead of the phantom books you are so concerned about.

 

[Danoh]

I don't see anything but the plain meaning of Peter in Acts 2 and Paul in 13. Show otherwise from those passages please, instead of the phantom books you are so concerned about.

You most certainly do not. You have the Lord sitting on David's throne as your misinterpretation of Acts 2:30-33.

Whereas Peter relates there in Acts 2:34-35 that Christ is sitting at the Father's right hand until His return to make His enemies His footstool, Acts 3:23.

You and yours contradict what the Lord said in passages like Matthew 13:41-43; 19:28, etc., as to when He will sit on David's throne as His rightful heir.

 

[Interplanner]

Thanks for breaking your pathological villyfying and actually saying something direct about the passages involved! (Many of your posts are a huge waste of time that way).

So we now know you don't accept v31, which says, like Acts 13, that the resurrection was the placement of Christ on the throne of David. You see, if you guys would spend time on Ps 2, 16 and 110 the way the apostles did, you wouldn't have this problem.

You do have 2P2P after all. This is the proof. You think there is a separate program going on for Israel as an ethnos.

The Spirit was given so his Gospel would fill the earth with the glory of the knowledge of the Lord as the water covers the sea. The giving of the Spirit is historic fact. There is nothing waiting in that department.

Mt 13's verses have no bearing on this at all. You are back to your offbeat, out of place selection. You should be sticking with Ps 2, 16 and 110 and what the apostles said about it, which of course is what Is 55 said about it. Why should I go with your books instead of the apostles and Isaiah?

At least I can see some merit in your point about Matt 19's verses because there may be confusion about the renewal of all things. Apparently you don't think that is the resurrection of Christ. So try this:

Mt 19's renewal: the resurrection of Christ
Acts 3's times of refreshing: the coming of the Spirit
Acts 3's restitution: the end of time when Christ's kingdom is given back to the Father

The other descriptions or saying of what the disciples will gain ('what will there be for us?') show that the renewal happens in normal history before the end of time because the disciples will gain relationships along with persecutions and eternal life.

 

[tetelestai]

You have the Lord sitting on David's throne as your misinterpretation of Acts 2:30-33.

If you knew the difference between "David's Tent" and "David's Throne" you wouldn't be so confused.

(Acts 15:16) "'After this I will return and rebuild David's fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it,

The OT tells us that David's tent stood for 40 years and had the Ark of the Covenant in it, all while Moses' tabernacle stood at the same time. In fact, the High Priest carried out all his priestly duties at Moses' tabernacle while David and others worshipped God at David't tent.

There is no place for David't Tent in Dispensationalism. Dispensationalism has a rapture, followed by a tribulation, then a millennial kingdom with a third temple, but no David't tent.

That's because David's tent stood from 30AD - 70AD, while the Second Temple stood also (just like in the OT).

That's why James quoted Amos in Acts 15. It was to show that the prophecy of David's tent in Amos was fulfilled in the first century.

In 70AD, David's tent and the Second temple came to an end (just like in the OT), and Christ Jesus sat on His throne in the kingdom, just like Solomon sat on David's throne in the new temple.

From 30AD - 70AD Jesus sat at the right hand of God, on God the Father's throne, but God's presence was in David's tent even though the Second temple still stood (just like in the OT)

If people understood David's tent, there wouldn't be any Dispensationalists.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

NT Eschatology #4: Isaiah shifts David's promises to Christ-

No, the Lord promised that He will 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 the LORD He will not "alter" the promises which He made to David but according to you the LORD did alter His promises to David because He "shifted" David's promises to Christ.

According to your theology the LORD lied to David because He said that He would not "alter" the promises which He made to David and then He turned around and "shifted" David's promises to Christ.

Your teaching is blasphemous but you couldn't care less!

 

[Interplanner]

Christ was David, if you can accept it. The doctrine of transference to Christ is in both Acts 2 and Acts 13, so they are blasphemous, too. Enjoy.