ECT When DID Amos 9:15 happen?

musterion

Well-known member
If all was fulfilled in 70 AD...Amos 9:15?

Allegorical?

Figure of speech?

Hyperbole?

Hebraic poeticicism?

Spurchally fulfilled in the heavenlies?

Just not true?

Hat tip to Right Divider's sig for the excellent question.
 

DAN P

New member
If all was fulfilled in 70 AD...Amos 9:15?

Allegorical?

Figure of speech?

Hyperbole?

Hebraic poeticicism?

Spurchally fulfilled in the heavenlies?

Just not true?

Hat tip to Right Divider's sig for the excellent question.


Hi and can I take a WILD GUESS , not yet !!

It will take place AFTER the Great Tribulation , JUST a wild Guess !!

dan p
 

musterion

Well-known member
Sorry, Dan, the preterists say that's not an option...AD 70. So they need to explain the what the passage does mean.
 

Danoh

New member
It all boils down to what each concludes passages like the following are actually talking about...

Amos 9:11 In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: 9:12 That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this.

And Acts 15 is not much help - because most turn to Acts 15 in search of an answer, or so called "New Testament interpretation of the Old" but the fact of the matter is that other passages prior to Acts 15 are what need to be consulted before one turns to Acts 15.

The answer being found in comparing Scripture with Scripture WITHIN OLD TESTAMENT GROUND as to intended sense as to this particular kind of issue - BEFORE even considering the so called New.
 

Interplanner

New member
It all boils down to what each concludes passages like the following are actually talking about...

Amos 9:11 In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: 9:12 That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this.

And Acts 15 is not much help - because most turn to Acts 15 in search of an answer, or so called "New Testament interpretation of the Old" but the fact of the matter is that other passages prior to Acts 15 are what need to be consulted before one turns to Acts 15.

The answer being found in comparing Scripture with Scripture WITHIN OLD TESTAMENT GROUND as to intended sense as to this particular kind of issue - BEFORE even considering the so called New.


This view is very ignorant and believes itself more important than the apostles and the NT--which is exactly my experience with D'ism and MAD people.
 

Danoh

New member
This view is very ignorant and believes itself more important than the apostles and the NT--which is exactly my experience with D'ism and MAD people.

No. It just proves your ignorance once more.

Fact is I do not study these things out from within a Dispensational scheme anymore than good forensics starts out already believing it knows who did what.

For the umpteenth time; I look at ALL things in life from within a framework that seeks to understand from THEM - from WITHIN THEIR OWN interaction how THEY work together to produce THEIR result.

What scheme is that o clueless one? :chuckle:

Reformed? Preteterist? Historicist? Futurist? Dispensational?

This?

That?

The other?

None of the above.

It is Behavioral.

The OBJECTIVE question - how is this interacting with itself to produce whatever it is that it might be producing?

What else?

And what else?

You see "a Dispensational scheme" within these kinds of questions?

Within basically OBJECTIVE questions?

:doh:
 

Interplanner

New member
No. It just proves your ignorance once more.

Fact is I do not study these things out from within a Dispensational scheme anymore than good forensics starts out already believing it knows who did what.

For the umpteenth time; I look at ALL things in life from within a framework that seeks to understand from THEM - from WITHIN THEIR OWN interaction how THEY work together to produce THEIR result.

What scheme is that o clueless one? :chuckle:

Reformed? Preteterist? Historicist? Futurist? Dispensational?

This?

That?

The other?

None of the above.

It is Behavioral.

The OBJECTIVE question - how is this interacting with itself to produce whatever it is that it might be producing?

What else?

And what else?

You see "a Dispensational scheme" within these kinds of questions?

Within basically OBJECTIVE questions?

:doh:



So when you are cornered, you DO go your word against the opponent, don't you?

Here's the deal. When an official interp is given about a passage AFTER all the other ones that only indirectly deal with (that is the case here with Amos 9), the official last-arriving interp is WHAT IT MEANS. The raised "tent" was the Gentiles who believed, because all the time, the Davidic throne was to give away to Christ and refer to his reign (his title to) over the whole world. Thus the anguish of the prayer of Ps 2 in Acts 4. And note that that anguish was expressed way in advance! Those who know the Bible therefore know that the coming reign was not going to be like the state had been! It was going to be a time of paradox and conflict and contradiction, but it was Christ's reign!

That advance expression is why we know that these themes always were meant to be about Christ being honored properly as King of Kings etc. It is nothing but clutter to go back to David reincarnated or any other Judaic trappings.

Just offering a few morre clues to you, Mr Clue It All.
 

Interplanner

New member
If all was fulfilled in 70 AD...Amos 9:15?

Allegorical?

Figure of speech?

Hyperbole?

Hebraic poeticicism?

Spurchally fulfilled in the heavenlies?

Just not true?

Hat tip to Right Divider's sig for the excellent question.



There are components of this that are already fulfilled in Christ before you get to this, but it seems you've heard 70 AD as though it was the only thing or moment in the 1st century other than the Gospel event. Well, there's quite a few others.

The incoming of the nations to faith is a major event, and is stretched out over decades, and is referred to in Rom 16 as the enactment of a royal decree, 'deigma.' Do we need further indication that a kingdom is present and at work? He's saying there that the reason so many are believing is because the King decreed it.
 

musterion

Well-known member
There are components of this that are already fulfilled in Christ before you get to this, but it seems you've heard 70 AD as though it was the only thing or moment in the 1st century other than the Gospel event. Well, there's quite a few others.

The incoming of the nations to faith is a major event, and is stretched out over decades, and is referred to in Rom 16 as the enactment of a royal decree, 'deigma.' Do we need further indication that a kingdom is present and at work? He's saying there that the reason so many are believing is because the King decreed it.

Don't get yourself spanked again. Participate honestly or leave.

When did Amos 9:15 happen. Where did it happen. How did it happen.
 

turbosixx

New member
If all was fulfilled in 70 AD...Amos 9:15?

Allegorical?

Figure of speech?

Hyperbole?

Hebraic poeticicism?

Spurchally fulfilled in the heavenlies?

Just not true?

Hat tip to Right Divider's sig for the excellent question.


Your question brings up a question for me.

The church so far has been around for almost twice as long as the "future" millennial kingdom. Are there any OT prophecies about the church?
 

musterion

Well-known member
Your question brings up a question for me.

The church so far has been around for almost twice as long as the "future" millennial kingdom. Are there any OT prophecies about the church?

Different subject. Start a new thread on your question. This one won't be derailed.
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
HINT:

The tabernacle of David stood for 40 years, while the tabernacle of Moses stood at the same time.

The priests performed all their priestly duties at Moses' tabernacle, but God dwelled at David's tabernacle via the Ark of the Covenant.

Both stood at the same time for 40 years. When the 40 years ended, the son sat down on God's throne in the new temple.
 

musterion

Well-known member
I see it as the same subject. You could prove it to be a different subject if you can point to prophecy about the establishment of the church.

You do nothing but disrupt threads with off topic rabbit trails and argue. Respond to the OP if you want. Do not try to derail.
 

Interplanner

New member
Don't get yourself spanked again. Participate honestly or leave.

When did Amos 9:15 happen. Where did it happen. How did it happen.


That's a dishonest answer. The apostles were not vacuous when they spoke and quoted Amos 9. They were referring to the nations starting to believe as the prophets had said. You are being excessive and complicated.

Likewise they were not vacuous when they quoted Ps 2 in prayer in Acts 4. It was ACTUAL AND PRESENT REALITY.
 

musterion

Well-known member
That's a dishonest answer. The apostles were not vacuous when they spoke and quoted Amos 9. They were referring to the nations starting to believe as the prophets had said. You are being excessive and complicated.

Likewise they were not vacuous when they quoted Ps 2 in prayer in Acts 4. It was ACTUAL AND PRESENT REALITY.

If you cannot formulate a cogent answer, or are not honest enough to admit you cannot formulate one, leave the thread.
 

Interplanner

New member
If you cannot formulate a cogent answer, or are not honest enough to admit you cannot formulate one, leave the thread.


Ahhh, "cogent" means "agrees with you" I see. I'll edit my dictionary.

The fact of new belief by the non-Jews in the Christian church there in that chapter IS the raised fallen tent.

So there is a 'new' Israel that Amos 9 has in mind and it is planted in the missionary work of the church. Consequently they get an unshakeable kingdom because all created things will be shaken and destroyed, Heb 12.
 

turbosixx

New member
You do nothing but disrupt threads with off topic rabbit trails and argue. Respond to the OP if you want. Do not try to derail.

Those are not my intentions and I'm sorry if that's how I appear. I'm merely trying to challenge your thinking and have you challenge mine.

In my understanding, the nation of Israel is merely a physical picture of man’s relationship to God. The OT prophecies of the restoration of Israel are really the restoration of the relationship between man and God (the church). What does Israel (man) really need, a savior to give their land back or one who will remove sin that separates man from God?


In Ephesians we see all the riches of being in Christ, forgiveness of sin, adoption, ect. The riches of being in Christ are clearly greater than land.

Eph. 1: In Him 11 also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose
It also says this was predestined, if predestined there must be prophecy.
 
Top