Did God ever revoke his covenant with David tentatively?

Josheb said:

It's not what scripture states. It is what you made it say; it's what you are reading into the text. Scripture tells us what happens in the interim between what is now already existing and what will yet happen: he will be seated on his Father's throne until his Father makes his enemies a footstool.

That is what the scripture states.

Click to expand...

Matthew 25:31

"When the Son of man shall come in his glory,
and all the holy angels with him, then shall he
sit upon the throne of his glory:

Semper-Fi said:

I never said it did. What 1 Corinthians 15:27-28
shows is that not everything is put under Christ yet.

Click to expand...

No, it shows not everything is yet subdued. It does not say there is anything not yet under his rule. You screwed up. Go back and re-read the text.

Semper-Fi said:

You said Christ does not leave his throne
to defeat anyone, that is false.

I posted 2 Thessalonians 2:8 because it says He shall destroy with the brightness of his coming

Click to expand...

Yep. Already happened.



And you're digressing from the op. This op is about a very specific question asked about David's unending throne. Acts 2 answers that question. Everything else is off-topic.


But this is what happens everytime someone (not just me) posts this answer because it's intolerable to certain views. Immediately Jacob and Daniel and Ezekiel and all varieties of other scripture are brought eisegetically and off-topically into the conversation. If you read through my posts then you read where I posted the exact same admonition to OldWiseGuy: stay on topic; the topic is David's covenant and the descendant who would reign without end.

The problem with the copy-and-paste eisegesis is that I can't get any of you to ever stick to one verse at a time. When you get caught in the mistaken interpretation of one verse then you jump to another in avoidance. And then when that verse is addressed a leap to another and it becomes an endless chase around scripture in which you never face what scripture actually states. It's like chasing rabbits.

Acts 2 answers this op's question.

Semper-Fi said:

You are stuck on Acts 2 which says Christ is on the right hand of God the Fathers Throne over the universe. Other verses talk about [When] He [Christ] takes over King Davids Throne.

Click to expand...

I'm not stuck and you have yet to prove "Other verses talk about [When] He [Christ] takes over King Davids Throne." All of the OT passages you've quoted work through Acts 2. All the NT verses you've quoted prove what I've posted, not your position. This is quite obvious in the distinction between "rule" and "subdue" in 1 Cor. 15 but you've completely ignored what it states in favor of what your hermeneutic makes it say and you accuse me of not relying on what it states when the exact opposite is the case.


And we're not going to be able to have cogent discourse as long as you misrepresent my posts. We're not going to have cogent discourse as long as you misrepresent your own posts. We're not going to have cogent discourse as long as you post op-irrelevant content. We're not going to have cogent discourse as long as you don't actually read what the scriptures actually state. And we're not going to be able to have cogent discourse as long as you endlessly hop around scripture never dealing with anything either of us post. The scriptures you have posted prove what I have posted, not your position.

.

Semper-Fi said:

I never said it did. What 1 Corinthians 15:27-28 shows is that not everything is put under Christ yet.

Click to expand...

Well, let's look at that again, shall we?


First, you'll note Paul is quoting from the prophet Daniel (ch. 7) and Paul is implicitly saying that prophesy has been fulfilled. Second, it is plainly stated "All things are put in subjection." That is what the verse states, not what I make it say, not what I read into the text, not what I "interpret," so let's discard all those false accusations I am not standing on what t states and all those accusations I'm interpreting the verse. I am accepting it exactly as written.

Third, the verse says the one who put those things under Jesus is not Himself under that subjection. Fourth, the verse states, when all things are subjected to Jesus then Jesus himself will be subject to the one put who put all things under Jesus. When does the passage say all things will be subjected to Jesus? Well... according to what the verse actually factually, plainly STATES, all things have already been subjected to him!

You screwed up.

The plain reading of the text leaves with a bit of a conundrum: how can all things be under his subjection and something still be subjected to him? How can the verse state "All things are put in subjection," and then say, "When all things are subjected to him...?"

Psalm 110:1 answers that question and it does so without hermeneutic hurdles. No one has to interpret anything if they use Psalm 110:1. We don't have to go chasing through the Old Testament with eisegetic inference if we stand firm on what is firmly stated.

Fifth, Paul isn't actually making a statement about future history. Paul is making a statement about his previous statement. He is, in essence saying, "When I say, 'All things are put in subjection' I don't mean God is in subjection." And we understand this because Ephesians 1:23 states, "And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all." Jesus fills "all in all." He's already does that. All things are already put in subjection to Jesus and Jesus fills (not "will be") all in all.

That is what it states.

You screwed up twice. Three times if we count the failure to recognize Paul's implication Daniel 7 was fulfilled in the first century. Acts 2 tells us the unending Davidic throne was the resurrection.




Most important to this discussion, though, is the fact 1 Corinthians 15 doesn't mention "David" or "throne" anywhere. You've read that into the text. You did not read what was stated as I was falsely accused of doing. Under normal, ordinary, objective circumstances that's called hypocrisy. don't believe that was your intent so here's an opportunity for you to prove me correct about your innocence and good intent: Does 1 Corinthians 15 actually STATE anything about David or David's throne?


If not, then please retract what you posted about my not reading what is stated and please acknowledge it was you reading things into the text it doesn't actually state.

Because we won't be having cogent discourse if you don't have any personal integrity.

Semper-Fi said:

Matthew 25:31

"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

Click to expand...

Where's he coming to in that verse, Semper Fi? What does the verse state?

Josheb said:

Cop out. I'm discussing it with you.

Click to expand...

I'm through discussing it. Peace brother.

Josheb said:

Where's he coming to in that verse, Semper Fi? What does the verse state?

Click to expand...

Zechariah 14:4 (KJV)
And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

OldWiseGuy said:

I'm through discussing it. Peace brother.

Click to expand...

Odd, coming from a person who believes peace has yet to come.

I have to question the wish of peace from a guy who refuses to build from consensus and ignores what is plainly stated in God's word, off-topically insinuates someone is obsessed without any evidence whatsoever, and off-topically calls into question another's understanding (again without evidence).

That is a dubious kind of peace.

It's a small forum. We're likely to trade posts again (this isn't our first time). It does you no good to have a perfect position if it's posted rudely. Method is just as important and position. This is true of all of us. Paul put it well in 1 Corinthians 13:2 = "If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing." Nothing. James described the problem when he wrote, "...from the same mouth come both blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be this way."

I'm not singling you out pe se, OWG, because this is something about which we should all be mindful but there is a certain importance you should own because if you're a subscriber to British Israelism then the views you post and the frame from which engage the discussions are always going to be a statistical, normative, and theological outlier. Those views are by definition heresy and you're always going to be on the defensive when folks point that out - even if they mean to point out that fact without offense. This means you're always going to be in a position of wishing peace to those who rightly, justly, correctly, wisely and scripturally confront your position.


You should have left all the personal content out of the posts. Please do so next time we trade posts because if you make it personal you'll end dealing with the reality you're a heretic and not our brother.

We won't have any problem if you stick to the actual text of the Bible and practice proper exegesis.


Btw, I've read Allen's book. You're not gonna like what I have to say about it or the wayward religion it ended up begetting.

Peace

Josheb said:

Odd, coming from a person who believes peace has yet to come.

I have to question the wish of peace from a guy who refuses to build from consensus and ignores what is plainly stated in God's word, off-topically insinuates someone is obsessed without any evidence whatsoever, and off-topically calls into question another's understanding (again without evidence).

That is a dubious kind of peace.

It's a small forum. We're likely to trade posts again (this isn't our first time). It does you no good to have a perfect position if it's posted rudely. Method is just as important and position. This is true of all of us. Paul put it well in 1 Corinthians 13:2 = "If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing." Nothing. James described the problem when he wrote, "...from the same mouth come both blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be this way."

I'm not singling you out pe se, OWG, because this is something about which we should all be mindful but there is a certain importance you should own because if you're a subscriber to British Israelism then the views you post and the frame from which engage the discussions are always going to be a statistical, normative, and theological outlier. Those views are by definition heresy and you're always going to be on the defensive when folks point that out - even if they mean to point out that fact without offense. This means you're always going to be in a position of wishing peace to those who rightly, justly, correctly, wisely and scripturally confront your position.


You should have left all the personal content out of the posts. Please do so next time we trade posts because if you make it personal you'll end dealing with the reality you're a heretic and not our brother.

We won't have any problem if you stick to the actual text of the Bible and practice proper exegesis.


Btw, I've read Allen's book. You're not gonna like what I have to say about it or the wayward religion it ended up begetting.

Peace

Click to expand...

Like fasting, British Israelism isn't for everyone.

I sense a lot of anger in your posts. Whyzat?

Josheb said:

Most important to this discussion, though, is the fact 1 Corinthians 15 doesn't mention "David" or "throne" anywhere. You've read that into the text.

Click to expand...

Post #57 "I never said it did.

Semper-Fi said:

Zechariah 14:4 (KJV)
And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

Click to expand...

Look at what you have just done, Semper.



Just a post or three ago I posted about you never sticking with one post to understand what is stated but instead moving from post to post to post to post never bothering to stick to any of them, preferring instead to avoid looking at your own content.... and here you are doing it again!


You posted Matthew 25:31.

Asked you, "Where's he coming to in that verse, Semper Fi? What does the verse state?"

And what did you do? You completely ignored the specifics of the question! You completely ignored the very verse you quoted, the very verse to which you were appealing? Not only was the specific text in the verse you cited ignored, and not only were the specifics of my question ignored, but you went right ahead and demonstrated what I said you'd do: avoid the discussion!


So let's try to do this better. Let's us collaboratively do something different than what you normally do. Let's try to look at Mattew 25:31 and only Matthew 31 first. When we're done looking at what Matthew 25:31 actually states then I will be happy to look at Zechariah 14:4. Once you have demonstrated to me you have the ability to to discuss your own content, once you have demonstrated an ability to look at scripture as written, once you have provided some basis and some reason for me to trust you won't flitter from verse to verse to verse to verse to verse ad nauseam then I'll be happy to look at Zechariah 14:4 with you. You won't like what I have to say about that, either, because I am again going to first look at what the text actually factually states before doing anything else. I will then look at the surrounding text to see what the larger text and the context that text provides says. Then I'll look at how the NT interprets Zechariah 14:4. You're invited to join me .


After looking at what Matthew 25:31 actually states and answering the specific question asked.




In the specific verse of Matthew 25:31... where is Jesus coming to in that verse? What does the verse state?


I shouldn't have to ask thrice.

Josheb said:

In the specific verse of Matthew 25:31... where is Jesus coming to in that verse? What does the verse state?

Click to expand...

Post # 57

For precept must be upon precept, precept
upon precept; line upon line, line upon line;

2 Timothy 3:16, Isaiah 28:10 We are to
take all scripture into consideration.

"here a little, and there a little:"

We have to look at other scripture on subject.
You do not build doctrine from one verse alone.
Jesus Christ promised, “I will come again”

Other verses tells us when , where , and how,
many I have posted you ignore or miss apply.

What other verses mention him coming
with his angels ? Are they allowed?

I agree with others, I sense a lot of anger
in your posts.

The poster friend of had a question about God tentatively revoking the covenant He made with David. The ensuing posts show three posters one of whom is you) citing passages that are not where the covenant is found (it is first found in 2 Samuel 7 and occurs within the context of 1 Samuel 8, which inturn occurs within the covenants God made with Moses and before that Abraham). It's also very clear from the first few posts the poster friend of does not himself know where the covenant is found. this is demonstrably proven when he writes, "Yes. Scripture like those. Is there any more out there?" We see he doesn't actually know what the scriptures are. His entire inquiry is based, "I think I remember reading somewhere that God did this." His entire inquiry is based on something he thinks he remembers reading somewhere.


And you came to help by framing the entire conversation within British Israelism.

And you came to help by framing the entire conversation within British Israelism even though you believe - according to your own post - British Israelism isn't for everyone.

OldWiseGuy said:

Like fasting, British Israelism isn't for everyone.

Click to expand...

Are you wanting to discuss this, because you're on record stating something different. And why would you post such relativism as a defense?

OldWiseGuy said:

I sense a lot of anger in your posts. Whyzat?

Click to expand...

Once again: a baseless accusation that comes entirely from your mind and what you read in my posts. I'm not anger at all and it was wrong of you - again - to make the discussion personal. Once you make it personal you make yourself fair game. Is that how you want this to unfold?

Posts.

Posts, not posters.

It's a really simple concept. You clearly have difficulty with it and when that's noted you think the other person is angry and not compassionate or concerned for your well-being, or simply making objective observations based on the actual content of the posts.


And... once again... I have to wonder what kind of guy it is who wishes peace to those he falsely accuses of anger without looking at his own conduct. You do understand peace is an inherently relational condition, yes? Wrongly telling others wrongly how they are feeling is the antithesis of peace.

Semper-Fi said:

You do not build doctrine from one verse alone.

Click to expand...

I completely agree and nothing I have posted should be construed to say otherwise.

We don't build sound doctrine by avoiding what a verse actually states, either, and yet that is exactly what you are doing. Repeatedly. Once again I'm reading another example of inconsistency, and this inconsistency again borders on hypocrisy. I explicitly stated I'd be happy to look at Zechariah 14:4... once you've dealt with the verse you first cited, Matthew 25:31.I'm quite content to look at all scripture and apply to teaching you, reproving you, correcting you, and training you in righteousness so that you can be equipped for every good work.

You'll have to start with and briefly stick with Matthew 25:31 before proceeding to Zechariah 14:4. All scripture, Semper Fi. All of it beginning with Matthew 25:31.

Semper-Fi said:

Post # 57

For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; 2 Timothy 3:16, Isaiah 28:10 We are to take all scripture into consideration. "here a little, and there a little:" We have to look at other scripture on subject. You do not build doctrine from one verse alone. Jesus Christ promised, “I will come again”

Other verses tells us when , where , and how, many I have posted you ignore or miss apply. What other verses mention him coming with his angels ? Are they allowed?

I agree with others, I sense a lot of anger in your posts.

Click to expand...

Fail.


You were asked a specific question.
You were asked a specific question based solely on a verse to which you yourself appealed.
You were asked twice.

The concept "precept upon precept," cannot be appealed to until the first precept is actually attained!
And you haven't done that.
You're not even trying.

And - once again - the flighting away from Matthew 25:31 to another verse is demonstrated. This time Matthew 25:31 is avoided in favor of 2 Timothy 3:16. Yes, ALL scripture is useful, Semper Fi, but all scripture isn't actually being used because Matthew 25:31 isn't being used in its entirety! The question asked specifically and explicitly asks what one verse states, not what other verses say about that verse.Yes, Jesus is coming with his angels. To where is he coming? What does the verse state?

Please answer the question asked.

In the specific verse of Matthew 25:31... where is Jesus coming to in that verse? What does the verse state?

It is clearly stated in the verse. I shouldn't have to ask at all but here we are me having to ask thrice because a refusal to look at what is actually, factually, undeniably, irrefutably stated.

In the specific verse of Matthew 25:31... where is Jesus coming to in that verse? What does the verse state?

Semper-Fi said:

Post #57 "I never said it did.

Click to expand...

Fail.

Post #57 is in direct response to something I specifically posted, something you specifically quoted me posting: "Jesus has been given rule over everything," and Jesus having been given rule over everything explicitly occurs in the specific context of is throne... as I showed using a plethora of scripture.

So to post within in the context of the throne and then deny every saying anything about the throne is at best a mistake, if not obtuse, and at worst dishonest.

Why would I collaborate with that?

Semper-Fi said:

Other verses tells us when , where , and how,
many I have posted you ignore or miss apply.

Click to expand...

Fail.

I am trying to get you to look at everything you've posted.... one verse at a time and having great difficulty because of the lack of collaboration. I'm on record stating I'll gladly look at the next verse once you address the first and you are on record failing to look at the first.

Then, in spite of your own failure you have the temerity to accuse me of ignoring scripture, mis-applying scripture (the two accusations are self-contradictory because if something is ignored it can't then be misapplied), and told I have to build precept upon precept as you avoid the first precept. That's a log not speck issue, Semper Fi.


In the specific verse of Matthew 25:31... where is Jesus coming to in that verse? What does the verse state?

Josheb said:

Asked you, "Where's he coming to in that verse, Semper Fi? What does the verse state?"

I shouldn't have to ask thrice.

Click to expand...

You need to learn patience- Revelation 14:12

It is very plan that verse does not answer
that specific question by itself like I said.

The Angeles come with Him, so this is an
event that Christ comes with his Angeles.
Christ will come [with-in] all his splendid Glory.

The Angeles do not come [into glory] with Christ
like you are bound to claim.

Matthew 25:32 tells us Christ then will gather
[before him] all the nations. This would be
[on this earth].

Matthew 25:33 the Saints inherit the kingdom.
verses put this at our resurrection or [change].
We will then rule with Christ for 1000 years on earth.
But you might not even believe in that event.

And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

"Jesus has been given rule over everything,"

Click to expand...

The bible says the devil is God of this age,
and he deceives the nations still. When Christ
returns he will then have Satan locked-up. Then
Christ will rule the nations with a rod of iron on
earth, from King Davids Throne in Jerusalem.


precept upon precept
here a little , there a little

Some Background verses, where Jesus was
discussing parables here in Matthew 24, and 25.
Christ only spoke plainly to the disciples alone.

44 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.

46 Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.

47 Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his goods.

48 But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming;

13 Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.

30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
-
when the Son of man cometh

Luke 21:27 (KJV)
And then shall they see the Son of man coming
in the clouds with great power and glory.

Mark 8:38 (KJV)
Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.

Mark 14:62 (KJV)
And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Luke 18:8 (KJV)
I tell you that he will avenge them speedily.
Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh,
shall he find faith on the earth?

Luke 18:8 (KJV)
I tell you that he will avenge them speedily.
Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh,
shall he find faith on the earth?

Matthew 16:27 (KJV)
For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

Matthew 24:30 (KJV)
And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Matthew 24:37 (KJV)
But as the days of Noah were, so shall also
the coming of the Son of man be.

Semper-Fi said:

You need to learn patience

Click to expand...

Posts, not posters.


I've asked one question and one question only. I've asked it four times without a single answer. In doing so I have shown great patience. Here's what scripture says about what happened:



The question asked was quite plain and simple: To what does Matthew 25:31 state Jesus is coming? The verses states the answer.

Jesus coming in his glory. When did Jesus come in his glory? The verse doesn't say he will be coming to earth, does it? That's a common interpretation, especially among dispensationalists, but that's not actually what the verse anywhere states. It simply states when he comes in his glory he'll take his throne. It doesn't say he's coming to earth, nor does it say his throne is on earth. That would be another interpretation many impose upon the text.

And the appeals to Revelation? Revelation begins and ends with "bookends" that tell us the things described would then be happening quickly because the time was then near or at hand. 2000+ years is not near.

Read what's actually written. If the patience is taken to read what is actually stated in what is written it will be understood the oath promised David that one of his descendants would have a never-ending reign is about the resurrection.

So one last chance, Semper Fi. You've already proven yourself culpable of Titus 3:9-11 but despite your judgments to the contrary I am a patient person. Engage the verses cited, one at a time beginning with Acts 2:29-36,


God "spoke of the resurrection of the Christ." That is what the text actually states. The promise of an unending throne was about the resurrection and Jesus is now already enthroned and he will remain there until his enemies are made a footstool. That too is what the text actually states. Peter is quoting from Joel 2; saying that Joel 2 prophesy has been fulfilled. Peter is referencing Psalm 16 saying that prophesy has been fulfilled. He is quoting 2 Samuel 7 saying that prophesy has been fulfilled and he is explaining its fulfillment, reporting it has literally happened. He is referencing Psalm 89 and 132, saying that prophesy has been fulfilled. He is quoting from Psalm 110 to inform the converts at Pentecost the Davidic throne prophesies have been fulfilled.

Now I'll either read some engagement of those verse or I won't. If I don't then we're done because you've already demonstrated a lack of ability to provide parity and answer even the plainest and simplest of questions; questions directly related to your own posts.

Semper-Fi said:

Other verses tells us when , where , and how, many I have posted you ignore or miss apply.

Click to expand...

My posts preceded yours, Semper. It was you who first did the ignoring and misapplying. This all started with Acts 2 and you have not addressed that passage first.

Semper-Fi said:

You are stuck on Acts 2 which says Christ is on the right hand of God the Fathers Throne over the universe. Other verses talk about [When] He [Christ] takes over King Davids Throne.

Click to expand...

No, not stuck. Simply patiently waiting on you. No, Acts to doesn't simply state Jesus is on the right hand of his Fathers throne; it states when God was speaking of David's descendant being seated on the throne God was speaking of the resurrection. All the other verses talking about Jesus "takes over David's Throne" are about the resurrection.

Can you, will you engage Acts 2 or not? You came to the party late and failed to address what was already posted. When asked to do so personal attacks started. Titus 3:9-11; warped, sinful, and self-condemning.

Don't be that guy.

Last chance.

Semper-Fi said: ↑
You need to learn patience

Josheb said:

Posts, not posters.

What's this op about?

Click to expand...

You demanding an answer for the third time

Semper-Fi said:

Semper-Fi said: ↑
You need to learn patience

You demanding an answer for the third time

Click to expand...

Which would be completely unnecessary if the question asked was answered when asked. We'd be much further along in the conversation. It is not me holding it up. It's not me making this about a poster's patience.

The fact is the verse you cited doesn't say anything about David's throne and it doesn't say he's coming to earth and it doesn't say the throne is on earth. It simply says he's coming in glory.

And if you cannot acknowledge these simple facts of the verse you yourself cited then the problem is not one of impatience.