ECT The thing MAD can't grasp about the plot of the NT

D

Danoh

New member
Interplanner said:
As the OP says, the reason for picking Amos 9 is because the mission to the nations is what the 'restoration of David's fallen tent' is about. Instead of putting 2 and 2 together, you put 1 foreign idea here and 1 there and think they are a more intelligent system. I've heard you brag about your intelligence, yes indeed. You know so much more than anyone here, it takes our breath away.
Click to expand...

You actually think the promised restoration of David's Tabernacle was not a reference to the promised PHYSICAL restoration of his house; don't you :chuckle:

Yeah, now you will prove your ignorance further...

And actually, I do know a lot. It is your ignorance about one's right to assert a thing one is sound in "with authority" that has you offended...

No matter their assertion they walk by faith - what they often prove otherwise - that they are actually walk by sighters - are always so easily offended...
 
G

Grosnick Marowbe

New member
Hall of Fame
Interplanner said:
GM, I won't be answering any posts where you just talk about the person, not the exegesis. It is a waste of time. So figure out how to talk about the text itself.
Click to expand...

There're times you don't even make any sense. So, tell me how to talk to you during those times? Should I just post "Nonsensical," will that help you?
 
G

Grosnick Marowbe

New member
Hall of Fame
Interplanner said:
Peter did not preach a message about a theocracy. The terms in the ch 3 sermon that sound like that were about the refreshing work of the Spirit in taking the gospel to all nations. It also happens that by doing so a very serious problem would solved in that generation: the problem of a liberation revolt against Rome. There would simply be no need or interest if the work of the mission of the Gospel was pursued.

So there is no 'gospel' about a theocracy. There is however, the reign of God to proclaim to all the earth but it is enacted or empowered by the same redemptive Gospel of God's love, which is the power of God.

As you can see this is why Acts 2's sermon has no "Israel" attachments to it. It is to Israel because the audience is primarily Jews at Pentecost. But it is the same forgiveness message as Act 13 etc. It is also proclaiming the reign of Christ already; not one waiting for or dependent on Israel's response. The response of Israel that awaited was merely to the mission work.
Click to expand...

Huh? Could you post this in simple English?
 
steko

steko

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Interplanner said:
There is no prophesied earthly aspect, not on this earth.
Click to expand...

Yes, there is.

Luk 1:31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
Luk 1:32 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:
Luk 1:33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.


it's going to be NHNE, sort of a counterpart to contrast with the deluge (2 Pet 3).
Click to expand...

That happens later.

We are the issue that matters in the Bible. God is the kind of guy who drops the 99 and rescues the 1 lost one.
Click to expand...

'The Glory of GOD' is the issue that matters in the Bible, to be demonstrated by the fact that He keeps His promises....all of them.
Click to expand...
 
L

Lazy afternoon

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Danoh said:
You actually think the promised restoration of David's Tabernacle was not a reference to the promised PHYSICAL restoration of his house; don't you :chuckle:
Click to expand...

Davids tabernacle was a temporary hose for God in the OT, and the reference to it in the NT is that God indeed did return to Israel the elect in the indwelling of His Church at Pentecost as stated--

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.

Change it to your peril.

LA
 
D

Danoh

New member
Lazy afternoon said:
Davids tabernacle was a temporary hose for God in the OT, and the reference to it in the NT is that God indeed did return to Israel the elect in the indwelling of His Church at Pentecost as stated--

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.

Change it to your peril.

LA
Click to expand...

We will have to differ on this one also.

And I am fine with that.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
steko said:
Interplanner said:
Yes, there is.

Luk 1:31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
Luk 1:32 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:
Luk 1:33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.




That happens later.



'The Glory of GOD' is the issue that matters in the Bible, to be demonstrated by the fact that He keeps His promises....all of them.
Click to expand...



Steko and all:
you must not have read Rom 1 that the son of David was also declared son of God by the resurrection event.

You must not have read Acts 1 that asking about a restored Israel was an idiotic question never raised again in Acts and twice said to be fulfilled in the resurrection and the believers created by it

You must not have read Acts 13's sermon that says that the promises to David were actually given to the Servant, known to be the case as far back as the quote from Isaiah that is used to prove that.

YOU ARE 2700 YEARS LATE!!!
Click to expand...
 
L

Lazy afternoon

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Grosnick Marowbe said:
LA, every time you post something, your credibility goes down a notch or two. If you're not careful, someday you'll end up sounding like Letsargue. I'm only trying to help you seem more intelligent. Although, at this point, it appears to be an "Exercise in Futility."

Again, stay off that LA Freeway, it's bumper to bumper with false doctrine and confusion. It's not your fault. Oh, wait a second, it is your fault.
Click to expand...

Silence, you speaker for the flesh and the devil.

Act 13:10 And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?

LA
 
G

Grosnick Marowbe

New member
Hall of Fame
Interplanner said:
steko said:
Steko and all:
you must not have read Rom 1 that the son of David was also declared son of God by the resurrection event.

You must not have read Acts 1 that asking about a restored Israel was an idiotic question never raised again in Acts and twice said to be fulfilled in the resurrection and the believers created by it

You must not have read Acts 13's sermon that says that the promises to David were actually given to the Servant, known to be the case as far back as the quote from Isaiah that is used to prove that.

YOU ARE 2700 YEARS LATE!!!
Click to expand...

Huh?? :confused:
Click to expand...
 
G

Grosnick Marowbe

New member
Hall of Fame
Is it me or is it "Interplanetary?" I rarely understand what he's posting about. If the majority of posters say it's me, I'll promise not to post a single comment for at least ten seconds after I tally up the votes.

VOTING SETUP:

Is it, me? Yes or No?
Is it Interplanetary? Yes or No?
 
steko

steko

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Grosnick Marowbe said:
Is it me or is it "Interplanetary?" I rarely understand what he's posting about. If the majority of posters say it's me, I'll promise not to post a single comment for at least ten seconds after I tally up the votes.

VOTING SETUP:

Is it, me? Yes or No?
Is it Interplanetary? Yes or No?
Click to expand...

I guess maybe the allegorical method of interpretation eventually warps one's ability to communicate in simple terms with others. :idunno:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top