A concept that will greatly help in understanding end time prophecy.

[Biblewriter]

My three examples now, Doug, are:
1, "little overlap between Lk 21 and the other two parallels"
2, not getting Rom 9-11. He can pull on 3 verses, but doesn't really follow it
3, the inexplicable jump to the distant future from the intro of Mt 24 and //s

In some games, three strikes and you're out

In the first place, I did not say there was "little overlap betweel luke 21 and Matthew 24 &Mark 13. I spoke of a "lack of parallel," and was speaking of Luke 21's speaking of a non- hasty flight when Jerusalem was surrounded by armies verses Matthew 24's and Mark 13's flight with great haste at a completely different sign. This is indeed a complete lack of parallel. As to the rest, you base your opinions on your interpretations of what the scriptures say, while I base mine on what they actually say.

And if you had bothered to read my comments in the thread "The True Meaning of Romans 9-11" you would know that I did not rely upon just thee verses, but upon a subject that runs all the way through that entire section.

 

[Biblewriter]

My three examples now, Doug, are:
1, "little overlap between Lk 21 and the other two parallels"
2, not getting Rom 9-11. He can pull on 3 verses, but doesn't really follow it
3, the inexplicable jump to the distant future from the intro of Mt 24 and //s

In some games, three strikes and you're out

In the first place, I did not say there was "little overlap between luke 21 and Matthew 24 &Mark 13. I spoke of a "lack of parallel," and was speaking of Luke 21's speaking of a non-hasty flight when Jerusalem was surrounded by armies verses Matthew 24's and Mark 13's flight with great haste at a completely different sign. This is indeed a complete lack of parallel. As to the rest, you base your opinions on your interpretations of what the scriptures say, while I base mine on what they actually say.

And if you had bothered to read my comments in the thread "The True Meaning of Romans 9-11" you would know that I did not rely upon just thee verses, but upon a subject that runs all the way through that entire section.

 

[Keachian]

In the first place, I did not say there was "little overlap between luke 21 and Matthew 24 &Mark 13. I spoke of a "lack of parallel," and was speaking of Luke 21's speaking of a non-hasty flight when Jerusalem was surrounded by armies verses Matthew 24's and Mark 13's flight with great haste at a completely different sign. This is indeed a complete lack of parallel. As to the rest, you base your opinions on your interpretations of what the scriptures say, while I base mine on what they actually say.

And if you had bothered to read my comments in the thread "The True Meaning of Romans 9-11" you would know that I did not rely upon just thee verses, but upon a subject that runs all the way through that entire section.

And yet they are the parallel accounts, Luke written after the events of AD70, what does this tell us of what Luke who infallibly interpreted the sources he used? (Lk 1:1ff) Does it not mean that the Olivet Discourse points to AD70?

 

[Interplanner]

Anyway, there is no lack of hurry in Lk 21. V21. Drop it, BW.

 

[Biblewriter]

And yet they are the parallel accounts, Luke written after the events of AD70, what does this tell us of what Luke who infallibly interpreted the sources he used? (Lk 1:1ff) Does it not mean that the Olivet Discourse points to AD70?

If the gospel of Luke had indeed been written after A.D. 70, the Apostles could not have based their decision to withdraw the Jerusalem church to Pella could not have been based on the only scripture where this instruction can be found.

 

[Biblewriter]

Anyway, there is no lack of hurry in Lk 21. V21. Drop it, BW.

The instructions to flee with extreme haste contained in the instructions of Matthew 24 and Mark 13 is indeed totally missing from Luke 21, so you are the one that needs to "drop it."

 

[Biblewriter]

Anyway, there is no lack of hurry in Lk 21. V21. Drop it, BW.

The instructions to flee with extreme haste contained in the instructions of Matthew 24 and Mark 13 are indeed totally missing from Luke 21, so you are the one that needs to "drop it," for you do not have a leg to stand on.

 

[Keachian]

If the gospel of Luke had indeed been written after A.D. 70, the Apostles could not have based their decision to withdraw the Jerusalem church to Pella could not have been based on the only scripture where this instruction can be found.

Except if Luke based his interpretation on the Apostle's decision, you're making this far more complicated than it needs to be and only giving more basis for the Apostolic understanding of the Olivet Discourse talking about the siege of Jerusalem in all its forms.

 

[Biblewriter]

Except if Luke based his interpretation on the Apostle's decision, you're making this far more complicated than it needs to be and only giving more basis for the Apostolic understanding of the Olivet Discourse talking about the siege of Jerusalem in all its forms.

The "Apostolic understanding" was that "the promises" and "the covenants" still pertained to Paul's "brethren according to the flesh, who are Israelites." (Romans 9:3-4) And that "God has not cast away His people." (Romans 11:2) "For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?" (Romans 11:15) Because "Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable." (Romans 11:28-29)

 

[Keachian]

The "Apostolic understanding" was that "the promises" and "the covenants" still pertained to Paul's "brethren according to the flesh, who are Israelites." (Romans 9:3-4) And that "God has not cast away His people." (Romans 11:2) "For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?" (Romans 11:15) Because "Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable." (Romans 11:28-29)

And this has what connection to what I said? It is very interesting that you bring this up as a proof for your interpretation of the Olivet Discourse, you would rather have the Apostles cutting themselves off from a promise of God for another than what the message of the Apostles is that is that Christ is the promise and to reject him is to cut yourself off from the promises.

 

[Biblewriter]

And this has what connection to what I said? It is very interesting that you bring this up as a proof for your interpretation of the Olivet Discourse, you would rather have the Apostles cutting themselves off from a promise of God for another than what the message of the Apostles is that is that Christ is the promise and to reject him is to cut yourself off from the promises.

It is utter nonsense to claim that respecting the promises made to another people is cutting ourselves off from the promises made to ourselves.

The promises made to Israel all concerned blessing on this earth. The promises made to us all concerning blessing in heaven.

These are entirely different promises, made to entirely different peoples. And they are independent of each other, being united only by the faithfulness of the God that made all of the promises.

Actually, denying that the promises to Israel will indeed be fulfilled is denying that God can be trusted. And if that were true, then we would have no reason to trust the promises the very same God made to us.

Your position is exactly the opposite of the truth.

 

[Interplanner]

BW wrote:
The promises made to us all concerning blessing in heaven.

Totally mistaken categories. It is exactly because the promises are now in hand that Paul could resolve the tinder box of Galatians.

The resurrection is the fulfillment of the promises to the fathers so that we can be justified from our sins, which makes the Christian community the most powerful and loving force on earth, which much of the world wishes it could enjoy.

There's heaven, too, after all this. But not fractured from us for now like BW thinks.

 

[Keachian]

It is utter nonsense to claim that respecting the promises made to another people is cutting ourselves off from the promises made to ourselves.

The promises made to Israel all concerned blessing on this earth. The promises made to us all concerning blessing in heaven.

These are entirely different promises, made to entirely different peoples. And they are independent of each other, being united only by the faithfulness of the God that made all of the promises.

Actually, denying that the promises to Israel will indeed be fulfilled is denying that God can be trusted. And if that were true, then we would have no reason to trust the promises the very same God made to us.

Your position is exactly the opposite of the truth.

Apostles dude, we're talking about the inevitable conclusion that must be reached, the Apostles cut themselves off from the promises to Israel to share in the promises of the Church, that is not the Kerygma and it is completely ludicrous to propose.

 

[Interplanner]

No, they did not cut themselves off. They were the recips. Israel had cut itself off from the refreshment of the Spirit. The Spirit is called the promise in Gal 3, right in the same chapter where the final resting spot of Abraham's promises are explained.

Paul has a way of breaking down our categories!

 

[Keachian]

No, they did not cut themselves off. They were the recips. Israel had cut itself off from the refreshment of the Spirit. The Spirit is called the promise in Gal 3, right in the same chapter where the final resting spot of Abraham's promises are explained.

Paul has a way of breaking down our categories!

That is indeed what happened and is what the Apostolic Kerygma is all about, the fulfillment has arrived in Christ repent and believe or find yourself on the outside of the promises of God.

 

[parousia70]

That is indeed what happened and is what the Apostolic Kerygma is all about, the fulfillment has arrived in Christ repent and believe or find yourself on the outside of the promises of God.

Unless you are a modern day Israeli Jew, then your continued rejection of Christ is your ticket to finding favor in the eyes of God....

 

[Shocker]

Unless you are a modern day Israeli Jew, then your continued rejection of Christ is your ticket to finding favor in the eyes of God....

This is not true, the Jews had to crucify Christ, otherwise you wouldn't be saved.

If the Jews had accepted Christ, there would be no reason for the Gospel to go to the Gentiles.


To be honest, without the Jews rejecting Christ, salvation wouldn't be possible for you.

 

[Shocker]

Apostles dude, we're talking about the inevitable conclusion that must be reached, the Apostles cut themselves off from the promises to Israel to share in the promises of the Church, that is not the Kerygma and it is completely ludicrous to propose.

Why did God choose the Jews knowing they would reject Christ?


If the Jews had accepted Christ, how could you, a gentile, be given the chance at salvation in Christ if they never crucified him and accepted him for who he was?


I can tell you the answer to these questions, but Id like to know what you believe on the matter.

 

[Interplanner]

Because where sin abounds, grace abounds even more, Rom 5. If they can be justified from their sins, anyone can.

 

[Biblewriter]

Apostles dude, we're talking about the inevitable conclusion that must be reached, the Apostles cut themselves off from the promises to Israel to share in the promises of the Church, that is not the Kerygma and it is completely ludicrous to propose.

It is even more ridiculous to suppose that I even even hinted at the idea that the Apostles cut themselves off from anything. This is nothing but your interpretation of the meaning of what I said, and clearly demonstrates the invalidity of your assumptions about the meanings of anything anyone says.