ECT Shall we use the NT interp of the OT or MAD/D'ism's?

Interplanner

New member
That's what all of the D'ist debate is about. It's about mere men trying to 'make sense' of the Bible and putting their theories above it, especially if a passage is about the very topic! (Gal 3, Rom 4, 2 Cor 3-5, Heb 8-10) Or about a key term/expression like 'the righteousness of God.'
 

Interplanner

New member
When I get to the end of a discussion with a D'ist, the final issue is their direct use of the OT. They insist on what it says no matter what the NT says.

The question being asked here is: shall we do that?
 

Interplanner

New member
As do you in your understanding.


Not on the direct use of the OT. I don't. I'm using the NT interp of, and you can usually see the conflict. Sometimes the Pharisees said it can't be read that way, sometimes the disciples, sometimes the Judaizers. But it was to be read that way.
 

Interplanner

New member
There is no fret. The land promise was a proof of the truth of God, and was fulfilled (several refs in Joshua), but never considered forever, for the world is not. And Israel in particular has been quite a mess since the exilic period. You may have noticed in Dan 9 that everything is fulfilled as far as Messiah goes, BUT THE LAND FALLS INTO RUIN. Reconcile that!

The so-called land promise is completely absent in the NT; instead it's all about the mission of the Gospel, with the risk being that that land would be ruined if Israel did not work in the mission. It was ruined. If you don't know this basic NT material fact, you need to start completely over.

The Jerusalem that is above takes over as early as Isaiah, but certainly in the earthquake and resurrection of Mt 27 of those believers already dead at the time of the Gospel.
 

Danoh

New member
Not on the direct use of the OT. I don't. I'm using the NT interp of, and you can usually see the conflict. Sometimes the Pharisees said it can't be read that way, sometimes the disciples, sometimes the Judaizers. But it was to be read that way.

No you are not.

Your mind has long been corrupted from seeing the obvious due to your wrong approach.

The Lord was clear - "let the dead bury the dead."

What do you do?

You go after "the dead."

For in your seeking to so called "do the history" through books by the dead, going on about the dead, you completely miss the obvious.

That Scripture is "done" through "the Scripture."

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

2 Timothy 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. 3:14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

But, you and your kind are too far gone down this supposed sound path of yours...too far gone.

To point it out to your kind is to set off your skewed frame of reference once more.

All it is able to see?

An enemy in my words to you on this collective blind alley of yours.

But, perhaps someone else might still be free to see what you obviously are no longer able to.

Regrettably,
 

SaulToPaul

New member
Silver Subscriber
Hall of Fame
There is no fret. The land promise was a proof of the truth of God, and was fulfilled (several refs in Joshua), but never considered forever,

IP versus the Holy Bible:


Ezekiel 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.


Not hard to understand, but hard for some to believe.


I know which I shall choose...the Holy Bible trumps IP.
 

Danoh

New member
IP versus the Holy Bible:


Ezekiel 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.


Not hard to understand, but hard for some to believe.


I know which I shall choose...the Holy Bible trumps IP.

:thumb:
 

Interplanner

New member
IP versus the Holy Bible:


Ezekiel 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.


Not hard to understand, but hard for some to believe.


I know which I shall choose...the Holy Bible trumps IP.


That's the prophets, though, as opposed to the more matter of fact Torah and History. Not much of the fulfillment of the prophets is the same as the prediction, as we know from the NT.

Besides simply not needing to happen (cp the exultation of Paul in Eph 3), we must consider that there are 2500 uses of the OT by the NT, and you can't find a land validation anywhere in it. There is no need in the age of the Gospel which lasts right to the end of time.
 

Interplanner

New member
Don't forget the "David" theme is absorbed and fulfilled too. See 2 Tim 2:8. The Seed of David was coronated by the resurrection, explained more fully in Acts 13's sermon on Israel's destiny in Christ.
 

steko

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
That's the prophets, though, as opposed to the more matter of fact Torah and History. Not much of the fulfillment of the prophets is the same as the prediction, as we know from the NT.

So... you don't believe Zec 9:9?



Besides simply not needing to happen (cp the exultation of Paul in Eph 3), we must consider that there are 2500 uses of the OT by the NT, and you can't find a land validation anywhere in it.

Not lookin' for it very hard, are ya'?

There is no need in the age of the Gospel which lasts right to the end of time.


What does that mean, 'end of time'?
 

Danoh

New member
That's the prophets, though, as opposed to the more matter of fact Torah and History. Not much of the fulfillment of the prophets is the same as the prediction, as we know from the NT.

Besides simply not needing to happen (cp the exultation of Paul in Eph 3), we must consider that there are 2500 uses of the OT by the NT, and you can't find a land validation anywhere in it. There is no need in the age of the Gospel which lasts right to the end of time.

Lol - Yours is such a full of holes argument.

Sort of like insisting on pausing just before you sit at your computer or lap top to reestablish - each and every time all over again - that the chair you have come to take for granted will hold you, will hold you...this time also.
 

Interplanner

New member
Ok, so the king of Zechariah 9 arrives seated on a colt. So now where is the prophetic vision--it's all a-tumble. And then, the colt event actually happens. So yes, some things happened "literally" but obviously (Jn 12:34) a completely different meaning was intended. Intended? Pictured!!! Portrayed!!! It was an un-kingdom, but how do you tell people in advance what that is? I'm not sure you can, and it certainly was not a consolidated theocracy was it?

No holes, just very familiar.
 

steko

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Ok, so the king of Zechariah 9 arrives seated on a colt. So now where is the prophetic vision--it's all a-tumble.

What's tumblin' about it?
The Lord Jesus fulfilled that part of the sentence exactly.
It's you that tumbles it all.

And then, the colt event actually happens. So yes, some things happened "literally"

Yep, it happened literally and the rest of the sentence/prophecy will too.



but obviously (Jn 12:34) a completely different meaning was intended. Intended? Pictured!!! Portrayed!!! It was an un-kingdom,

Nonsense.

The problem was that they didn't understand that Messiah must suffer before He would bring the Davidic Messianic Kingdom. The twelve didn't get it either.
It's plain from the whole of Scripture that the kingdom will be restored to Israel.


but how do you tell people in advance what that is? I'm not sure you can, and it certainly was not a consolidated theocracy was it?

GOD told them through the Prophets exactly what He meant and He expected them to believe Him.
That's why John the Baptist came on the scene preaching 'The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!'. He knew what it meant and the people who heard him knew what it meant. He meant the only thing that could have been meant from the accumulated information that they had, 'the Davidic Messianic Kingdom to Israel is at hand!'.


No holes, just very familiar.

Lots of holes in your paradigm.
 

SaulToPaul

New member
Silver Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Ok, so the king of Zechariah 9 arrives seated on a colt. So now where is the prophetic vision--it's all a-tumble. And then, the colt event actually happens. So yes, some things happened "literally" but obviously (Jn 12:34) a completely different meaning was intended. Intended? Pictured!!! Portrayed!!! It was an un-kingdom, but how do you tell people in advance what that is? I'm not sure you can, and it certainly was not a consolidated theocracy was it?

No holes, just very familiar.

Become a believer, IP.
You're a skeptic.
 
Top