ECT The Resurrection Question that terminates D'ism

Status
Not open for further replies.
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
northwye said:
There is, that I know of, no statement in scripture saying that God had "plan B" in case Old Covenant or physical Israel rejected Christ. In dispensationalism Plan B would be to delay the fulfillment of the raising up of physical Israel, kata sarka, or after the flesh, as a kingdom of God. But Romans 11: 1-5 says that God used a remnant of Old Covenant Israel to begin the Everlasting New Covenant with.

Isaiah mentions the Everlasting Covenant seven times, in 42:6; 49:8; 54:10, 55:3, 56:4,6; 59:21, 61:8.

Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them...." Ezekiel 36: 26-27. 37:26

Since the Old Covenant was done away with (II Corinthians 3: 7, 3: 11, Hebrews 10: 9), then the covenant which is to be everlasting is the New Covenant. Isaiah 61: 8, supported by Jeremiah 32: 40, Jeremiah 50: 5,Ezekiel 16: 60 and Ezekiel 37: 26.

Hebrews 13: 20-21 talks about The "... blood of the everlasting covenant, make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight" The New Covenant is everlasting, not a temporary "dispensation," which is to give way to another dispensation of law for the people of the physical bloodline in some future time.
Click to expand...





And they knew all along in the old era that the tabernacle was only a copy of the one in heaven.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Further on this point of the copy, see Acts 7:44. That reference to the pattern is the same acknowledgement that it was only a temporal copy of the real one. That is why v48's "however" is so emphatic. which is the throne upon which Christ was seated, and stood up from, to receive Stephen.
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
Further on this point of the copy, see Acts 7:44. That reference to the pattern is the same acknowledgement that it was only a temporal copy of the real one. That is why v48's "however" is so emphatic. which is the throne upon which Christ was seated, and stood up from, to receive Stephen.
Click to expand...

Made up.
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
You need to update the features acc. to the prophets. It wasn't going to be the same old thing; that served its purpose in David's generation, Acts 13. The worship system and land was given to them, with the huge HOWEVER of Acts 7 that God does not dwell in such things.
Click to expand...

Did he ever dwell in the physical temple in Jerusalem?
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Tambora said:
Luke 1:32-33 KJV
(32) He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
(33) And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

The throne of His father, David, is not the throne of His Father (God the Father).
Click to expand...





I know this may be hard to follow, but you're dealing with Acts 2:30 instead of Acts 13 on the promise. I think it can be extremely difficult to do good theology if you jump subjects that much.

David foresaw the resurrection, otherwise there would not be the often quoted Ps 2 immediately after that.

As for Acts 13, the question remains: what's in the resurrection that completed the promise the fathers so well that Paul could say what he did in 32, 33?

It's 5 days now. do the D'ists have a response?
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
DAN P said:
Hi and since this promise was fulfilled in verse 33 HOW that terminate dispensationalism ??

Especially in the view of 2 Cor 3:13-16 and Luke 13:6-9 !

dan p
Click to expand...






D'ism is based on separate promises fulfillments to Israel that have nothing to do with Christians, and especially nothing to do with the mission of justification to the nations!
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Truster said:
Here we go again...the term promise is a mistranslation. It should be pre-evangelism. It was first delivered to Adam and then to the fathers and prophets until He who was and is the evangelism came and delivered the power to establish it.
Click to expand...



They are even spelled similar in Greek!

Yes, the mindset of this passage is that what was promised is now here in the Gospel.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Tambora said:
Acts 2:30 KJV
(30) Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him [David], that of the fruit of his [David] loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his [David] throne;

David's throne was earthly.

Christ never needed to become man to sit on His heavenly Father's throne.
But He did need to become man to sit on His earthly father's throne.

They are not the same thrones.
Click to expand...




And yet the last debate with temple leaders in the record is that Christ was the Son of God, not David's son as they thought.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Two, two, two, two.

That's the sound of the D'ist train. Everythings in two. Because it starts with a confused Bible (--Chafer) and needs Chafer's 2P2P for it to 'make sense' which is not sense.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
So while I've answered everything throne-wise as best I can, I see that no D'ist has actually taken up the question and answered it. If it was me, I'd have a victim mentality: "mean old IP is always putting out threads; I'm helpless; I'm a victim; I can't do anything for 2P2P or D'ism; he's really mean."

What was it about the resurrection that 'allowed' Paul to say that all was fulfilled; what, if anything, is fulfilled in Israel's 'chest' of promises by the resurrection?
 
patrick jane

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
Interplanner said:
So while I've answered everything throne-wise as best I can, I see that no D'ist has actually taken up the question and answered it. If it was me, I'd have a victim mentality: "mean old IP is always putting out threads; I'm helpless; I'm a victim; I can't do anything for 2P2P or D'ism; he's really mean."

What was it about the resurrection that 'allowed' Paul to say that all was fulfilled; what, if anything, is fulfilled in Israel's 'chest' of promises by the resurrection?
Click to expand...
Paul never said "all was fulfilled" - you are insane if you think God is finished with Israel.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
patrick jane said:
Paul never said "all was fulfilled" - you are insane if you think God is finished with Israel.
Click to expand...



God is still trying to evangelise Israel and Cambodia and New Zealand, your're right.

Yes the resurrection was the complete fulfillment of what was promised. Can you figure out how? How could Paul dare say such a total statement. (He does the same thing in 2 Cor 1, and of course, in Acts 26).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top