THE PROMISE

[douge]

On 7/10/2020 at 5:30 PM, David1701 said:

So what?  I've already shown you that the word used in Heb. 9:15 can be translated either way: of course they had to choose one, but it didn't matter which one.

I beg to differ that it did not matter if the word was translated covenant or testament......Look at Hebrews 9:16....this verse designates the proper translation as being testament...a testator need not die for a covenant, nor could be designated a testator, seeing a testator decrees a testament not a covenant.

[douge]

On 7/10/2020 at 5:42 PM, Josheb said:

Yes, and when God said that "He was speaking of the resurrection." Read the whole sentence, not half of it. Read it as written. 

Acts 2:30-31 NAS
"And so, because he was a prophet and knew that God had sworn to him and oath to seat one of his descendants on his throne, he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was neither abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh suffer decay." 

Acts 2:30-31
"Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;  He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption."

The KJV does not read differently. Yes, the KJV translators took liberties with the Greek manuscripts but the point being made by Peter is the exact same point: God, through David, was speaking of the resurrection of His Son, not some earthly throne. 

Acts 2:30-31 Greek transliteration 
"A prophet therefore being and knowing that with an oath swore to him God out of fruit of the loins of him to set upon the throne of him, having foreseen he spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ that neither was he abandoned into Hades nor the flesh of him saw decay."

David was speaking of the resurrection! 
God, through David, was speaking of the resurrection. 

God nor David was speaking of an earthly throne. 

YES, he was speaking of the resurrection....BUT not the resurrection only......Bur, the resurrection of Christ to sit on the throne of David in the thousand year kingdom.

[douge]

13 minutes ago, Josheb said:

The text says otherwise. When God oathed a descendant would sit on his throne He was speaking of the resurrection of Christ. That's what it states. That's what I believe. That is what I teach and I teach it because that is what the text states. 

Wait...are you saying Christ is the descendant to sit on the throne of David???

If so we are in agreement

[douge]

16 hours ago, Josheb said:

Not only am I saying Jesus is the descendant that was promised, and that he is now sitting on the Davidic throne as the man of peace with an eternal reign but when God made that oath or promise to David..... God was speaking of the resurrection. That is what the text states, not what I made it say. Because that is what it states that is what I post. When God oathed to David a descendant would sit on his throne He, God, was speaking of the resurrection of Christ. 

Look at what the text states, and be just as critiquing of what you read folks say about this verse as you are of my post. You'll find many take liberties with it or ignore its specifications. 

Peter was saying the resurrection of Christ assured Israel that he would return and physically sit on the throne of David in the earthly kingdom, as the following verses show:

Isaiah 9:7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

Luke 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:

[Prycejosh1987]

On 7/9/2020 at 12:08 AM, Josheb said:

Is a distinction between the Holy Spirit and the Holy Ghost being asserted?

The holy spirit and holy ghost are one and the same. There is no difference between the two from studying scripture.

Edited July 15, 2020 by Prycejosh1987

[Your closest friendnt]

On 7/15/2020 at 10:09 AM, Prycejosh1987 said:

The holy spirit and holy ghost are one and the same. There is no difference between the two from studying scripture.

Hello Prycejosh1987, I would like to know without prejudice something more about the study of the scriptures that conclude that there is no difference between the two...

"There is no difference between the two from studying scripture".

Because studding the scriptures we come to the same understanding as to what Jesus was saying that there is a difference...

We have the Holy Spirit within the old Covenant "the Sinai Covenant"...

We have the Holy Spirit in John the Baptist from before his birth...

I am not sure if a distinction can be made there, and what the distinction could it be...

If there is a distinction and is an obvious one...is between the circumstances of the conception of Issac the son of Abraham and John the son of Zacharias...

To see the differences between Isaac's and John's conception we must referred to their Father's...we must know a lot about their Father's and note their unique characteristics and see that a rofound distinction can be made between Abraham and Zacharias...who both had the promised that they had offsprings and both were "restrained" by God who had made the promise to them...

As we must see first their similarities and then see their differences as to be able as to where they are in similar circumstances and as to where differences exist that can help us in making the distinction between the two...

Can you make the distinction between Ismael and Isaac...

By studding the similarities of their births and their differences...

As to understand the why Ismael cannot be the promised seed...when everything for a season pointed that he was the one to receive the promise...

I am not testing you...no I am not...

I want to show that a certain skills are required to looked into those things...

Is not difficult to develop those skills...

First one needs a very strong mind, the kind of mind Paul had...who at the time was used to defend his traditional Jewish faith and not only with the Christian he had talked with during the time before he change of mind and heart in an instance he was converted..

First he said "who are you Lord "...Coming to the understanding that he had encountered some great Angel...and not Jesus Christ...

And then "what do you want me to do"...understanding that he was still alive and not punished as the moods from Jesus towards him weren't anger and my time to deal with you for prosecuting me has come...

It's strange that Paul immediately understood that he was spared because he was chosen by Jesus Christ for a mission before he even believe...before this encounter...

Paul experienced the countenance what was projecting from Jesus towards him that was none like threatening or about to be punished by him...

Paul the mind set that could understand with clarity what Jesus was asking him...

Paul understood that when Jesus was telling him go there and do this and that that he quarantining his safety..his protection...even if Paul did something on his own..he was protected as his time had not come yet...