Amos 9:14-15 Fulfilled, or not?

[Interplanner]

Keras beliefs make complete sense if you bypass the NT and the apostles. Which is precisely why the member who undercut Peter at Pentecost did so. He had to dump Peter to save 2P2P futurism.

 

[keras]

IP, the way you put the OT prophesies into the bin of superseded, abrogated or past history and how you talk about members 'dumping' Peter, is unworthy of someone as educated as you. Maybe the comment Festus made to Paul in Acts 26:24 applies?

Anyway, you totally fail to convince me of your beliefs, I hold to what Paul and Peter said:
1 Cor. 10:11 All these things happened to the Israelite people as warnings to us, upon whom the end of the age has come.
2 Peter 1:19 All this confirms for us the message of the prophets, to which you will do well to attend....

 

[Interplanner]

It's not abrogated as much as clarified as being Christocentric instead of land or Israel centered. Watch Is 40-66 how "Israel" turns into Messiah. See Acts 13:47. People become the light to the world that Christ is, by being in Him. The prophetic image finds its fulfillment in Christ not in external reality as we know it.

Yes the apostles believed they were living at the end of the ages. This, with the Thess material and Hebrews, is probably Paul factoring in the end of the 490 or the 70 sevens or the 70 ages. That's how he justified using the past tense about wrath on Israel in I Th 1. Along with Mt21-24. The prophesied morning star has arisen as light for the world.

 

[Interplanner]

As for the member who said Peter was mistaken, everyone in D'ism and 2P2P and Futurism needs to sort out what he said. It was classic.

 

[riverrat]

It's not abrogated as much as clarified as being Christocentric instead of land or Israel centered. Watch Is 40-66 how "Israel" turns into Messiah. See Acts 13:47. People become the light to the world that Christ is, by being in Him. The prophetic image finds its fulfillment in Christ not in external reality as we know it.

Yes the apostles believed they were living at the end of the ages. This, with the Thess material and Hebrews, is probably Paul factoring in the end of the 490 or the 70 sevens or the 70 ages. That's how he justified using the past tense about wrath on Israel in I Th 1. Along with Mt21-24. The prophesied morning star has arisen as light for the world.

Can someone translate this post for me. I can make no sense out of it.

 

[Interplanner]

The OT prophecies sound like they are about the land and people as they knew it, but it reaches much further. It even says so:

It is too small a thing for you to be my servant to restore the tribes...
I will also make you a light for the Gentiles...
Is 49

But it is not as though we need it to say this so specifically. It keeps bursting past Israel, and then when the apostles quote these things, they confirm that.

The reason for mentioning Acts 13:47 is that it is how the conflict with Judaism is left. If Judaism doesn't see its new mission in Christ's Gospel, that's unfortunate, but there is conflict, there is no future as they knew it, and the future is the mission of the Gospel, back to what it had been all along with Abraham. There is no 2P2P.

Keras had mentioned 1 Cor 10 (do you read previous posts?). "the end of the ages" was the generation of the apostles. I said when you put/merge that with Heb 9, and Paul in Thess, I believe Paul is saying it is the end of the 490. He even asserts that the final wrath on Israel is past tense.

All this is very, very different from what you've heard in 2P2P.

 

[keras]

Can someone translate this post for me. I can make no sense out of it.

No need to bother, the preterist element on this forum determinedly push their fallacious theory and clog up the threads.
We just have to be patient, because as the Bible says, those who hold to false beliefs, will become locked into them, Isaiah 29:9-2 and it will be only after the Lord's Day of wrath, that understanding will be given. Isaiah 29:24

 

[Yekcidmij]

No need to bother, the preterist element on this forum determinedly push their fallacious theory and clog up the threads.
We just have to be patient, because as the Bible says, those who hold to false beliefs, will become locked into them, Isaiah 29:9-2 and it will be only after the Lord's Day of wrath, that understanding will be given. Isaiah 29:24

Isn't Isaiah 29 about the fall of Judah? I'm not sure how it's about preterists.

 

[KrAZeD]

Can someone translate this post for me. I can make no sense out of it.

It's inter's same defense reworded-
The ot "is not done away with" but instead clarified (better understood) that the "Old Testament is now "all" about Christ". Unlike how before Jesus (the New Testament) was all about the land of or people of Israel.

Isaiah 40-66 "show how the transforming of the ot is becoming about "Christ"" I guess acts 13:47 supports his view.

The prophetic image finds its fulfillment in Christ not in external reality as we know it.

I've got nothing. Since either the "reality" is spiritual or physical, both we somewhat know or perceive. Though this seems to indicate something we are all unaware of.

 

[KrAZeD]

The reason for mentioning Acts 13:47 is that it is how the conflict with Judaism is left. If Judaism doesn't see its new mission in Christ's Gospel, that's unfortunate, but there is conflict, there is no future as they knew it, and the future is the mission of the Gospel, back to what it had been all along with Abraham.

Sorry but this is not accurate. They already had this mission of being the "light unto other nations", in the Old Testament. As well as the future as they knew it; subjectively the same is it not, hence their were looking for the messiah to fulfill prophecy that has yet to happen, not for him to get sacrificed. Those prophecies are still future to us-ok some of us, to you and a few others "fulfilled ~70adish".

Though we can partially agree of the gospel of faith with abraham until our Lords return. Let's not forget Adam blew his faith of doubting he would surely die, nor noah building a ship for a flood, but we can agree with Abraham.

 

[Danoh]

The OT prophecies sound like they are about the land and people as they knew it, but it reaches much further. It even says so:

It is too small a thing for you to be my servant to restore the tribes...
I will also make you a light for the Gentiles...
Is 49

But it is not as though we need it to say this so specifically. It keeps bursting past Israel, and then when the apostles quote these things, they confirm that.

The reason for mentioning Acts 13:47 is that it is how the conflict with Judaism is left. If Judaism doesn't see its new mission in Christ's Gospel, that's unfortunate, but there is conflict, there is no future as they knew it, and the future is the mission of the Gospel, back to what it had been all along with Abraham. There is no 2P2P.

Keras had mentioned 1 Cor 10 (do you read previous posts?). "the end of the ages" was the generation of the apostles. I said when you put/merge that with Heb 9, and Paul in Thess, I believe Paul is saying it is the end of the 490. He even asserts that the final wrath on Israel is past tense.

All this is very, very different from what you've heard in 2P2P.

"In a little wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment; but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee, saith the LORD thy Redeemer," Isaiah 54:8

Okay, IP, lets try this again, since you ignored it the first time, I posted it.

1 Thess. 2:16 "Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them them to the uttermost."

The colon after the word "sins" and the word "for" after the colon indicate a connection betwen 16b and 16c - both are saying something about the other, not about your impending 70 AD notion, either.

Israel filled up its sins in Acts 7. Waaaaaaaay before Acts 28. It did so when it added to its sins against the Father in their killing His prophets, and to that, their killing His Son, the unpardonable act of resisting, in their speaking against, the Holy Spirit. Which they finished off with killing Stephen - all this is right there in Acts 7, per Matt. 12:30-32.

In His wrath, God, as in their past, turned from them once more.

In Acts 13, the chapter you continue to remain clueless of despite your constant harping about how your notions are there to be found, Paul reminds them of God's having turned from them as Israel continues to fill up its sins alway, adding now, their continued blasphemy of resisting God as to His visit among the Gentiles through Paul

The word "alway" is not the word "always." The former speaks of a constant throughout, the latter, of a constant each time.

Paul's sense, in 1 Thess. 2:16, then is that Israel is continuing to fill up their sins against God - the very reason He turned from that nation in His wrath, [at the same time, He turned to the Gentiles, albeit, temporarily once more, for He has sworn a "covenant unto them," Romans 11:25-29].

But, go ahead, either ignore it once more, or gainsay it because your forty years in the commentaries of men has simply rendered you unable to look at things anew.

In this, we perhaps do you a disservice. Calvin was dead wrong about how God hardened Pharaoh's heart. In that, per Exodus, God hardened His heart in the same way our continued dealing with your kind does - each time He spurned God's Word to him through Moses, his heart was hardened more and more, as Israel's would later be, through the decietfulness of sin, of the sin of pride continually allowed its reign over "Nevertheless, what saith the Scripture?," and that, through Scripture itself, not the traditions of men that so has you and your allies on here so unbendingly blind to at least actually putting your notions aside and actually looking at these issues.

Think on these things...

 

[Interplanner]

You are so intent on accusing that I really don't get much material from you. ("the chapter you remain clueless about" ???)

'pantote' in 2 Th 2 is the normal term for always. You cant' make an English distinction out of something that doesn't exist in Greek. And what said didn't end up where you thought anyway. It just wasn't coherent. Maybe read it out loud once before you post it?

The covenant of Rom 11 is not future. It was future to Isaiah, but that's Christ and his Gospel. Paul is using that verse historically. It had come. The Redeemer to Zion, taking away sins, the covenant--that is the Gospel. All of the believing Israel will be saved because they believe that. Rom 11 is not about a future state government at all.

 

[KrAZeD]

The covenant of Rom 11 is not future. It was future to Isaiah, but that's Christ and his Gospel. Paul is using that verse historically. It had come. The Redeemer to Zion, taking away sins, the covenant--that is the Gospel. All of the believing Israel will be saved because they believe that. Rom 11 is not about a future state government at all.

Not future........26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

Care to show when Israel/Jews, historic or present "all" were saved?

25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

Show me when this blindness started and actually ended.

Also inter, are you a "Jew" genetically through blood? If not, how are you and I saved, if this covenant was not also "future"?

Explain then how the government/state of current Israel (the one in headlines fighting Hamas) is either "all" saved or not still currently blinded to the sion deliver who has already "came".

 

[Zeek]

Amo 9:14 "Also I will restore the captivity of My people Israel, And they will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them; They will also plant vineyards and drink their wine, And make gardens and eat their fruit.

Amo 9:15 "I will also plant them on their land, And they will not again be rooted out from their land Which I have given them," Says the LORD your God.

What if the "land" they were expecting after exile was not of this earth? after all heb 11 says the members of the "hall of faith" were not looking for anything on this earth anyway!

It is very common for the prophets to express a future day in terms people could understand in the 6th or 4th century BC, but didn't realize that it would take on another fulfillment in Christ, as had the prior verses, which are officially interpreted by the apostles in Acts 15.

If the NT doesn't say how a passage was used, move on. There are 2500 uses of the OT by the NT, so there is plenty of material to work with.

I know this was right at the beginning and things have moved on, but it did make me chuckle.....

Here you have the prophet talking about rebuilding the cities, and later talking about 'their land' (an obvious reference to the land in which their cites were in ruins...aka Israel), and someone is trying to make out it was some other place or a spiritual reference....still laughing now.

Carry on, no need for any response, just an observation.

 

[Interplanner]

If you like to chuckle, then try Acts 15's use of Amos 9. The "raised up fallen tent of David" is the Gentiles coming to faith in the Gospel!

lol?

 

[Interplanner]

Look at what Mt 4 says is fulfilling Is 9...

 

[riverrat]

If you like to chuckle, then try Acts 15's use of Amos 9. The "raised up fallen tent of David" is the Gentiles coming to faith in the Gospel!

lol?

You are wrong as usual. The "raised up fallen tent of David" is clearly the 2nd coming of Christ.

 

[Yekcidmij]

You are wrong as usual. The "raised up fallen tent of David" is clearly the 2nd coming of Christ.

But he is right about Acts 15.

 

[Interplanner]

There is nothing about the 2nd coming of Christ at the Jerusalem conference. You're afraid of this passage because the plan of the Lord is said to be known for ages past, and that includes the Gospel to the nations, which Paul says everywhere.

for ex, just check Rom's intro again. God promised his gospel beforehand through his prophets in the Scriptures. It is the one gospel about his Son who is also the son of David. His son would be declared by the event of the resurrection to be the Lord Jesus Christ. This is the one Gospel for all time according Rom 1.

It completely wastes your D'ist theory of multipile gospels down through time.

 

[riverrat]

There is nothing about the 2nd coming of Christ at the Jerusalem conference. You're afraid of this passage because the plan of the Lord is said to be known for ages past, and that includes the Gospel to the nations, which Paul says everywhere.

for ex, just check Rom's intro again. God promised his gospel beforehand through his prophets in the Scriptures. It is the one gospel about his Son who is also the son of David. His son would be declared by the event of the resurrection to be the Lord Jesus Christ. This is the one Gospel for all time according Rom 1.

It completely wastes your D'ist theory of multipile gospels down through time.

In Acts 15:13-17 James is saying that after the calling out of the church Christ would return and set up the earthly kingdom. He uses Amos 9:11-15 as the basis for saying this.

Paul clearly says in his epistles that the gospel of the grace of God was a mystery (a secret) until God revealed it to him. This is what you are afraid to face.

There are many references to the coming of Christ in the OT but nowhere in the OT does it say that salvation is by believing that Christ died for our sins, was buried and was raised the third day. This was a secret until God revealed it to Paul. Absolutely nowhere in Romans 1 does it say that there has never been but one gospel. All it takes is a casual reading of Gal. 3:8 to prove that there has been more than one gospel down through the ages.