How Do You Ride a Horse, a Cloud, and a Throne?

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Well, that turned out interesting. I was trying to get YOU to explain YOUR understanding of these things.

Which I did.

Originally Posted by Esaias

No matter, I've learned all I need to know about preterist hermeneutics from you the last couple of days: it's like pulling teeth getting you to answer very simple questions. Likely because you can see where those questions lead, and you don't want to go there and face the reality: You have no sound, rational, consistent basis for thinking ANYTHING in the Bible actually applies to anybody today.

So, your questions about Acts 2 is “all I need to know about preterist hermeneutics”?

Seriously?

How exactly does that equate to discovering “all” you “need to know about preterist hermeneutics”?

Originally Posted by Esaias

I also didn't see a clear explanation of what Acts 2:38 is supposed to save people from. I know brother Burk said "from their sins" but what does that mean? If a person back then did not respond favorably to Peter's message about repentance, baptism, and the Spirit, what would happen to them? And since Peter was speaking TO that crowd, how do we know which part(s) of his message are "for us"? How do we know his whole message wasn't just for them, back there?

“What Acts 2:38 is supposed to save people from”? What being saved “from their sins” means? What would “happen to them” if they “did not respond favorably to Peter's message about repentance, baptism, and the Spirit”? Those are questions about soteriology, not eschatology. You were asking these questions in sincerity, weren't you? If you were, then I answered you accordingly.

Concerning how we know what was “to” them and what was “for us,” I already explained that.

Originally Posted by TK Burk

I never said that rebellious generation had anything to do with us today. They wouldn't have anything to do with us today any more than the 3,000 baptized has anything to do with us today. The Bible is not written to us but for us. Peter's message was spoken to the listeners that day, but his message is for all mankind, as confirmed in Acts 2:39. Thus, the 3,000 were saved that day by obeying Acts 2:38, and everyone since that time until now is saved by obeying that same Acts 2:38 message. Today, reading 3,000 were baptized after hearing what Peter preached helps us see the necessity of Acts 2:38 for salvation. But, that same Acts 2 message included Peter delivering a warning to the people that day that they should escape the judgment coming against their crooked generation. Since it was a warning to that audience, we know that judgment is now past and not for us today.

If that was not to your liking, you should have answered and explained why.

I told you that knowing where you were would help me better answer your questions. That is why I asked for your view of Acts 2:40. You said you refused. So, now you hang me out to dry because I was unable to respond with what you wanted to hear? I showed you where I did respond. In an honest discussion, you would respond with a positive response, or you would explain how you saw what I said differently.

Originally Posted by Esaias

Notice the bolded part. You certainly DO think various parts apply to us today. The problem is your hermeneutic is essentially "pick what you like here, drop what you like there". In other words, inconsistent and random, no SOUNDNESS to it. And rather than just admit you don't want to face the implications of your preterist scheme of interpretation, you wave it all away with "Bah! I don't have to explain such deeeeep thoughts to a little theologicall girly man like you!" No, you'd rather hit the gymn and pump some preterist iron with the guys and stare at yourselves in the mirror.

That's is a lot of creative jargon. I'm sure you felt some tinge of delight when you used it to stretch the truth of what I said and misrepresent me.

Let me share with you a very basic study of Acts 2.

What I believe about Acts 2 is what I was first taught in my Bible Study right after I was Born Again. Within the first week or two I was sharing it with everyone I could. Many of them saw it and came to church with me. So, this is a very basic lesson.

In Acts 2, Peter preached the message of salvation under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, which he had just received (Acts 2:1-4). Jesus prophesied this message would take place (Luke 24:47). Peter preached this in the upper room after tarrying in Jerusalem as commanded by Jesus (Luke 24:49). There were also pious Jewish men at that Feast of Pentecost who came from different countries of the Jewish diaspora (Acts 2:5-11). These men did not believe Jesus to be the Messiah. Peter preached to them prophecies that spoke of Jesus and told them they were among those guilty of the crucifixion of their “Lord and Messiah” (Acts 2:14-37). When they saw this, they asked what they should do because of their sin (Acts 2:37), Peter responded with Acts 2:38.

My Bible teacher was very knowledgeable of the scriptures. He was also a great soul winner and very wise in answering the arguments against Apostolic doctrines. So, to help me, he taught me about Acts 2:39. There it says (I am adding bracketed comments to help you better understand]: "For the promise is unto you [those there that day], and to your children [the next generations], and to all that are afar off [the Samaritans and the Gentiles], even as many as the Lord our God shall call [all who would be saved in future generations]." (Act 2:39)

And I already told you that same thing in much shorter way.

Originally Posted by TK Burk

Peter's message was spoken to the listeners that day, but his message is for all mankind, as confirmed in Acts 2:39. Thus, the 3,000 were saved that day by obeying Acts 2:38, and everyone since that time until now is saved by obeying that same Acts 2:38 message.

I did earlier tell you I would not assume you knew anything. Yet, I assumed you already knew this is how Acts 2:39 is commonly taught by Apostolics. I also assumed you were familiar enough with Bro. Benincasa’s stance on Acts 2:38 to know I would share his same position. Did I assume too much? I don’t think so.

Originally Posted by Esaias

lol

All good and well. Just another reason I reject preterism. No answers to really basic, fundamental questions.

Later gator!

Tell the elder in Florida I hope all's doing well. And that you, brother Burk, lost your seat on the road trip. He'll understand.

Ahh, there it is—now we see your sheep suit.

I told Bro. Benincasa last Monday you were playing this game. He assured me you were too kind for that. But as he is famous for saying, “time proves all things.”

If you were serious about getting answers, you would have given me your view of Acts 2:40. I told you your response would better gauge my response to you. But now we see you really did not care what I said. You were just looking for excuses to refuse what you’re perhaps afraid to admit. If you needed me to disprove what you see about Fulfilled Eschatology, then you need to crack open your Bible more. I do not need Futurists to prove what I believe about Eschatology, any more than I need Trinitarians to prove what I believe about Theology.

So, you’re not secure enough in your eschatological position to reply where I’m wrong. But instead, you’re so insecure you need me to make you feel you’re right? I am humbled by your confidence but trust me, I am not the proof you need.

Then you allege I did for not answer your questions (which I did) to your satisfaction (though you never explained why), yet you refused (which you admitted) to answer my questions, and somehow that confirms your own prophetic position is biblical? Hey, if it makes you sleep at night, knock yourself out….

As far as seeing you afterwhile, Crocodile, I won’t lose one speck of my identity in Christ by not being invited on your road trip.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by houston

Harsh. He’s asking how you determine what is relevant only to the audience and what is for us today.

SMH

He asked me questions about soteriology. I answered him accordingly. How is that harsh?

I had already explained how Acts 2:38 was for both those of the First Century as well as every century after. He never explained how he did not agree. He also did not explain how I was in error in what I said in Acts 2:40.

So, I'm harsh? I'm sorry you see it that way.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by JamesGlen

I suppose this is all apocalyptic language ....:
https://www.blueletterbible.org/sear...=s_primary_0_1


And the end result of trying to put a square peg in a round hole, because of preconceived notions, removes all hope. Judgement, nope that’s past. Resurrection, nope that’s past, a last day, nope done happened... A world without sin and heartache, nope not there...10,000 years from now, nothing different.... Zero hope. What about hope in the cross? Nope, Jesus didn’t even do that, not until AD 70 did.

What a sad painful thing to see such a genuine intellectual scholar of a man go from one position of false doctrine(editor for E.T.) to be so very objective, to move to the extreme opposite position of NO HOPE in anything....

And too prideful it seems, to genuinely purposefully answer straight forward questions, but instead replying with sarcasm.
What spirit is that of? Holy Spirit?



And now abideth faith in the past, no hope in the future, and love?


Sam Frost escaped its clutches when he started seeing the end result of AD70 repainting EVERYTHING from the gospel of the the cross to a disciple’s hope in basically anything.

No hope? I had no hope when I was a Futurist and was told the Church was so weak and anemic that it would need rescuing. No, I have hope.

I know Sam Frost. He is from my hometown and his cousin was my best friend in elementary school. He and I have talked before. He is no Apostolic, so we do not agree on much. I'm sure he'd be happy to know he's your hero.

[Esaias]

See? Anything but an answer to the question.

Sheep suit? That's a good one. People who ask you to actually demonstrate the veracity of your doctrine are just wolves in sheep suits, I guess? Well, when trying to fleece a sheep who balks I guess it's best to play sour grapes and say "Meh, he's got no wool to begin with."

Carry on.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Esaias

See? Anything but an answer to the question.

Sheep suit? That's a good one. People who ask you to actually demonstrate the veracity of your doctrine are just wolves in sheep suits, I guess? Well, when trying to fleece a sheep who balks I guess it's best to play sour grapes and say "Meh, he's got no wool to begin with."

Carry on.

I have answered what you asked me about Acts 2 so many times now. Maybe now you could explain what is not meeting your satisfaction?

Did you like that sheep suit? I came up with it today. I did not use it because you asked me questions. I enjoy talking Bible. I just do not enjoy being misrepresented, which you did again by claiming I do not like people asking me questions.

My answers may not have satisfied your inquiry, but you cannot--honestly--say I did not try--which you did.

So, again with the, I did not answer your question? I've already answered so many of your questions. Please, ask that one question I still have not answered you.