The 1000 year Millennium from the Bible

[EarlyActs]

Actually, it isn't present in Luke. So we can't know from Luke if this happened or not. Luke has Him say things on His way to the city. Matthew has Jesus saying things after He leaves. Obviously not the same events. And again, There is one program of redemption, and there are two parts. God's dealings with Israel, and God's dealings with the Gentiles. Paul makes the distinction clear. As I know there are Gentiles and Jews in the church, we also have the nation of Israel, within which God has a remnant. Two groups, distinct. And Paul made the distinction. The Jews of the nation of Israel (as distinct from the church) are our enemies. Do you believe Paul? However, He says they are only our enemies for the sake of the gospel. What would have happened to the Gentiles if Israel had not rejected Christ as their Messiah?

Some of the gospels were not written/compiled until after 70AD. Some as late as the second century. There are arguments over the gospels because it doesn't seem to be the work of particular authors, but the compilation of other manuscripts. It doesn't matter to me. God wrote it, God preserved it, and we have it. How it got to be that way is the least of my concern. What is in it matters.

"3027 lēstḗs – a thief ("robber"), stealing out in the open (typically with violence). 3027 /lēstḗs ("a bandit, briard") is a thief who also plunders and pillages – an unscrupulous marauder (malefactor), exploiting the vulnerable without hesitating to use violence."

There is a difference between a thief and a robber. (also burgler). A thief does not use violence, while robbers do. They could have translated it as bandit, considering den here is the word for cave.

The Revelation is all that is needed to fulfill that prophecy. That and Paul saying that he also saw heaven. He wouldn't talk about it however, beyond what he said.

they are your enemies...
He only meant the unbelieving part. There is black and white about believing. There is not black and white about race, class, gender.

 

[EarlyActs]

they are your enemies...
He only meant the unbelieving part. There is black and white about believing. There is not black and white about race, class, gender.

Actually, it isn't present in Luke. So we can't know from Luke if this happened or not. Luke has Him say things on His way to the city. Matthew has Jesus saying things after He leaves. Obviously not the same events. And again, There is one program of redemption, and there are two parts. God's dealings with Israel, and God's dealings with the Gentiles. Paul makes the distinction clear. As I know there are Gentiles and Jews in the church, we also have the nation of Israel, within which God has a remnant. Two groups, distinct. And Paul made the distinction. The Jews of the nation of Israel (as distinct from the church) are our enemies. Do you believe Paul? However, He says they are only our enemies for the sake of the gospel. What would have happened to the Gentiles if Israel had not rejected Christ as their Messiah?

Some of the gospels were not written/compiled until after 70AD. Some as late as the second century. There are arguments over the gospels because it doesn't seem to be the work of particular authors, but the compilation of other manuscripts. It doesn't matter to me. God wrote it, God preserved it, and we have it. How it got to be that way is the least of my concern. What is in it matters.

"3027 lēstḗs – a thief ("robber"), stealing out in the open (typically with violence). 3027 /lēstḗs ("a bandit, briard") is a thief who also plunders and pillages – an unscrupulous marauder (malefactor), exploiting the vulnerable without hesitating to use violence."

There is a difference between a thief and a robber. (also burgler). A thief does not use violence, while robbers do. They could have translated it as bandit, considering den here is the word for cave.

The Revelation is all that is needed to fulfill that prophecy. That and Paul saying that he also saw heaven. He wouldn't talk about it however, beyond what he said.

not written/compiled until after 70AD
That's a dilly. The verbal account was underway right away; it can be seen in early Acts in Peter's various collections, growing, building. Luke completed his material by the time the hearings of Paul were expected in the early 60s; referred to many other accounts underway.

Based on size, which is safe, we have Mark first, serving Peter, and Peter is early as it gets. Then Matthew, then Luke, as it is hard to see Matthew not starting early, being a bookkeeper, and Luke not starting until Acts 16 when he joins in Paul's band.

 

[EarlyActs]

Actually, it isn't present in Luke. So we can't know from Luke if this happened or not. Luke has Him say things on His way to the city. Matthew has Jesus saying things after He leaves. Obviously not the same events. And again, There is one program of redemption, and there are two parts. God's dealings with Israel, and God's dealings with the Gentiles. Paul makes the distinction clear. As I know there are Gentiles and Jews in the church, we also have the nation of Israel, within which God has a remnant. Two groups, distinct. And Paul made the distinction. The Jews of the nation of Israel (as distinct from the church) are our enemies. Do you believe Paul? However, He says they are only our enemies for the sake of the gospel. What would have happened to the Gentiles if Israel had not rejected Christ as their Messiah?

Some of the gospels were not written/compiled until after 70AD. Some as late as the second century. There are arguments over the gospels because it doesn't seem to be the work of particular authors, but the compilation of other manuscripts. It doesn't matter to me. God wrote it, God preserved it, and we have it. How it got to be that way is the least of my concern. What is in it matters.

"3027 lēstḗs – a thief ("robber"), stealing out in the open (typically with violence). 3027 /lēstḗs ("a bandit, briard") is a thief who also plunders and pillages – an unscrupulous marauder (malefactor), exploiting the vulnerable without hesitating to use violence."

There is a difference between a thief and a robber. (also burgler). A thief does not use violence, while robbers do. They could have translated it as bandit, considering den here is the word for cave.

The Revelation is all that is needed to fulfill that prophecy. That and Paul saying that he also saw heaven. He wouldn't talk about it however, beyond what he said.

'leistes'
I have some 40 years in a literary lexicon (Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich). I wouldn't use a numeric if I was paid. The approach is almost the opposite of what you want. Another acceptable English term is an insurrectionist, as found in the period literature. It would be good if you got familiar with the concept of a literary lexicon. The temple was made a fortress by zealot groups even before John of Gischala took over, butchering the other two leaders.

It is part of being a historian instead of a futurian.

 

[EarlyActs]

Actually, it isn't present in Luke. So we can't know from Luke if this happened or not. Luke has Him say things on His way to the city. Matthew has Jesus saying things after He leaves. Obviously not the same events. And again, There is one program of redemption, and there are two parts. God's dealings with Israel, and God's dealings with the Gentiles. Paul makes the distinction clear. As I know there are Gentiles and Jews in the church, we also have the nation of Israel, within which God has a remnant. Two groups, distinct. And Paul made the distinction. The Jews of the nation of Israel (as distinct from the church) are our enemies. Do you believe Paul? However, He says they are only our enemies for the sake of the gospel. What would have happened to the Gentiles if Israel had not rejected Christ as their Messiah?

Some of the gospels were not written/compiled until after 70AD. Some as late as the second century. There are arguments over the gospels because it doesn't seem to be the work of particular authors, but the compilation of other manuscripts. It doesn't matter to me. God wrote it, God preserved it, and we have it. How it got to be that way is the least of my concern. What is in it matters.

"3027 lēstḗs – a thief ("robber"), stealing out in the open (typically with violence). 3027 /lēstḗs ("a bandit, briard") is a thief who also plunders and pillages – an unscrupulous marauder (malefactor), exploiting the vulnerable without hesitating to use violence."

There is a difference between a thief and a robber. (also burgler). A thief does not use violence, while robbers do. They could have translated it as bandit, considering den here is the word for cave.

The Revelation is all that is needed to fulfill that prophecy. That and Paul saying that he also saw heaven. He wouldn't talk about it however, beyond what he said.

The Rev is all that is needed...
A little confusing here, but so was I. The Rev is not primarily about the distant future (the 'time is at hand' always meant shortly).

"Needed to fulfill that": the event fulfills it not the book "The Revelation." the people who would not taste death until they had seen the Lord come in power is that generation. Certainly part of that is Pentecost but also the destruction. And they did. The meaning of the destruction is a very powerful warning to all rulers everywhere that the Son must be honored. In the early 1800s it affected the leading legal team of Erskine in London! But it is not decisive about the nations' final day of judgement which has not occurred.

 

[TMSO]

The acceptance of the enthronement by Israel has nothing to do with an ‘alternate’ outcome that might have happened if Christ had not been crucified. We see this handled almost immediately by Peter in 2:23 which says that it happened by the predestination and foreknowledge of God. There is no undoing it, and there never was. There is no ‘offering a kingdom to Israel but they rejected Christ and it is on delay.'

A theology of enthronement has nothing to do with the gospel. The acceptance required of Israel is the acceptance of their Messiah. It is clear that he was not accepted, as Paul makes clear in Romans. The Jews rejected Him. The kingdom is included in the package of accepting their King Messiah. As you say, futurism is the path to the kingdom.

This is meant to answer why it is no-one's business to seek a time for a 'kingdom for Israel' 1:8, 9.

Actually, it isn't. Jesus said it is not for them to know the times and seasons established by the Father. In other words, it is not for them to know when the Father will restore the kingdom to Israel. What is it for them to do? To be witnesses of Jesus the Messiah in the local area, and to the whole world. Knowing when God will restore the kingdom to Israel is for the Father to know, and for Him to bring about. What other times and seasons could Jesus be talking about in response to the question of if Jesus will at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?

The concern of the apostles is the after-rejection of Christ. What Israel was supposed to accept now was that the resurrection was the enthronement, v30—33. David did not foresee a ‘millenium;’ he foresaw the resurrection being the enthronment of his offspring, v33. Proof of this was the miracle of the languages to take this message all over the known world.

" 33 Therefore having been exalted [ag]to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear. 34 For it was not David who ascended into [ah]heaven, but he himself says:
‘The Lord said to my Lord,
“Sit at My right hand,
35 Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.”’"

Who is shown as enthroned here? At whose right hand is the Son told to sit? Who is accomplishing "Until I make Your enemies..." His position is subordinate to the Father here, is it not? The most honored position, but does it show the enthronement of which you speak? Consider the scroll with seven seals. The last will and testament (well, the will and testament, the inheritance) the Father has for the Son. The Earth and all creation. A scroll with seven seals is the sign of a legal document in Rome, as some (several?) Roman leaders had scrolls with seven seals that were their last will and testament. This is Jesus taking possession of creation, with the focus on Earth. (The universe is also affected, as some of Revelation shows.) Each seal is a step towards taking possession.

To declare that God had made Jesus both ‘kurios’ and ‘christos’ was now the concern, and it was declared, and the declaration was the resurrection. If you don’t know this, you must start back at Rom 1 again and realize that Paul is saying the resurrection declared Jesus to be the Son of God and of David. I say that because the comments of Peter are so condensed we might miss it, and because Luke wrote quite a bit of his material with Paul’s guidance. It was going to defend him from accusations that he was subversive to Rome.

Yes, but the focus is on Jesus being the Messiah, not on the resurrection. The resurrection, and Jesus status throughout is used to show that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of David. Because He was resurrected, He fulfilled David's prophecies. He didn't decay, He didn't remain in the ground. The prophecy isn't about David, because he did die, and he did face decay. He is the Savior that Abraham looked forward to in faith. (Hebrews). It doesn't say he was looking forward to a resurrection, but to the Savior, to the Messiah, to God become flesh coming to save His creation, from his seed, by whom all the nations of the world will be blessed. But his own salvation, the conclusion/fulfillment of his faith.

Acts 3 relates that Christ is now in a reception-party in heaven and the miracle of the languages was an announcement down here below that this is going on. The verb in 3:21 has nothing to do with ‘keeping’ him or ‘holding him back.’ He made many visits to the young church to keep it moving and supported. It is saying he is the honored one in the reception in heaven right now until the final day of judgement, when he will put his feet up on a cushion made of his enemies.

"19 Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; 20 and that He may send Jesus, the [i]Christ appointed for you, 21 whom heaven must receive until the [j]period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time. "

The context gives it the very meaning you say isn't there. "whom heaven must receive until..." a certain time. If you are just going to ignore context, what discussion can we have? That the Father may send Jesus, the Messiah/Christ/anointed one appointed for you [Jews], whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration. What is this period of restoration? AD 70 was all about destruction.

It also says nothing of some reception-party in heaven. What were the languages of tongues for? It showed the coming of the Holy Spirit in power, and the establishment of the church. When the Gentiles spoke in tongues, it showed that the Gentiles were a part of the same church as the Jews. No separation. They both have the same Spirit. It showed that the disciples of John, those baptized into repentance by John, were also brought into the same church. And some believe the Samaritans also spoke in tongues, though it is not explicitly stated in scripture, showing that they too are a part of the same church. One body, through one Holy Spirit.

 

[TMSO]

Nor is the sending (v20) an interruption of what is going on in the church, but support for it. Again, the apostle is concerned with an after-rejection of Christ and puts it on the level of a rejection of Moses because Moses declared such a new prophet was coming, 3:22. In v25 they are reminded that the Abrahamic promise always was about blessing the Gentiles with Christ. It was never about the land of Israel as such.

As a former linguist this and what you said about verse 21 has left me with a headache. It makes absolutely no sense.

""17 “And now, brethren, I know that you acted in ignorance, just as your rulers did also. 18 But the things which God announced beforehand by the mouth of all the prophets, that His [h]Christ would suffer, He has thus fulfilled. 19 Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; 20 and that He may send Jesus, the [i]Christ appointed for you, 21 whom heaven must receive until the [j]period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time.""

One word here "receive" may not mean keep, but put together "whom heaven must receive until" and it is the idea of the sentence. This "that He may send Jesus" added to that, speaks of His second coming. His bodily/physical return. How did heaven "receive" Him? Bodily/physically. The period of the restoration of all things is in the future.

In ch. 4, the resurrection is set on the level of events as creation, v24. The apostles pray Ps. 2, realizing that the power and plan of God let the crucifixion happen, v28, but now the apostles want signs that will deal with after-rejection and challenge all people, including their own rulers. They can’t undo the past, but they want power to move forward against the after-effects of such rejection. There are good signs: the number of believers in v4 above is already 5000.

That is not what is happening in the context. They are praying to God, and praising Him.
"23 When they had been released, they went to their own companions and reported all that the chief priests and the elders had said to them. 24 And when they heard this, they lifted their voices to God with one accord and said, “O [p]Lord, it is You who made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and all that is in them, 25 who by the Holy Spirit, through the mouth of our father David Your servant, said,

‘Why did the [q]Gentiles rage,
And the peoples devise futile things?
26 ‘The kings of the earth [r]took their stand,
And the rulers were gathered together
Against the Lord and against His [s]Christ.’"

They are praying and calling to God with who He is and what He has done. It is an awesome way to praise. Recognize God for His greatness.

In ch 13 is a summary of Israel’s history and in the 4 quotes from the OT about the meaning of the resurrection, v33. To start with all things promised to the fathers are said to be fulfilled in the resurrection. This doctrine alone should answer why ‘seeking a kingdom for Israel’ was an off-limits concern back in ch 1. Everything has to be resurrection-based and shaped. But in v34, Isaiah 55 is quoted that the oaths sworn to David would be fulfilled this way, validating exactly what 2:30-33 says, through the resurrection. They would be given to the Son in honor of the Son. This is no mystery because of Ps 2. It is simply a mystery or puzzle to modern ‘prophecy-students and -experts’ because way too much attention is put on modern times.

In ch 26 we actually find Paul dealing with the misguided momentum of Judaism all over again. Again, the first rejection of Christ could not be helped, but the apostles worked to deal with the after-rejection. He is on hope because he believes the hope of Israel is fulfilled, v6. You can’t meddle with the central hope of Israel any more explicitly than that! They think (v7) it is something they will attain by temple observances. It is the point of the accusation by the Jews!

The answer is to validate the resurrection (he means of Christ, but knows that resurrection in general is a problem among Sadducees, etc).

But to turn to God, v20, means to believe that the resurrection is the enthronement, which is nothing beyond (!) what the prophets and Moses said would happen: the suffering and resurrection-enthronement of Christ that made him now a mission to the Gentiles. That’s what he was raised up for, from the beginning, to make a mission fulfilled and accomplished.

We can tell this from the exchange with Agrippa, whom Paul wants on his (the Gospel’s) side. Agrippa won’t do it, but Paul says I want all people to be like me, except for the chains, of course. Paul wanted all Israel, all rulers, all people to be in his mission for the Gospel, because that was the objective of the King (Christ) all along.

Now in the letters, we find all this confirmed. First, in Romans 1 we see the son of David by lineage was also the enthroned Son of God, in which the resurrection itself declared this. If this is not essential to your Christian doctrine, you don’t know what the apostles were about.

There is no mistaking that Paul from ch 10-11 envisioned all Israel being missionaries, but it was missed by its leaders.

In the wrap up of ch 16, we find something similar to the resurrection itself declaring the enthroned King. It is a divine order. The divine order (tagma) of v26 is that Gentiles would be reached. This dates back to Genesis of course, but it is necessary to remind the readers how embedded this is. The Gentiles were reached. Paul is saying that fact (which came about through the early mission work) happened because it was a divine order by a King. Thus the phenomenon is “through Jesus Christ” v27.

In Eph 1, all the wonders of things accomplished in Christ are listed and then Paul prays that they will understand that it was the power of God in the resurrection (v20) which brought it all into existence. This is why the fundamental declaration of Christians is truth that is in Jesus (in his events), not other, later, re-doing Judaic/Davidic events). V22 is one rare place where it is said that everything is under his feet, when this is clearly being waited for elsewhere. Part of this is due to how soon this was expected by the early church, to be adjusted after it did not come about after the destruction of Jerusalem.

In Phil 2, we have the utterly astonishing debasement of Christ, v8, turned around in to the ultimate exaltation. It would be ridiculous to think this was something other than the resurrection even though the term is not there. The resurrection was his enthronement, his gaining the name above all earthly names. Every knee and tongue will one day acknowledge this.

In Heb 1, he is seated for accomplishing the atonement, v3. Not substantially different from anything we have read so far. The expression is from Ps 110 of course.

“Of the Son, he says, Your throne O God, is forever…” now that the resurrection has occurred, vs 8 adding to v5, both quotes of Ps 110. In 11, 12 we find that this world is not adequate for his final kingdom, it must be the NHNE. And of course, he is above the angels. The speaker verifies this in 2:5, that we are not talking about this world, once again diminishing any thought that some kind of kingdom on earth would do. Nor do we see that kind of kingdom now on earth, v8, but instead the kind that commands all people on earth in the imperative sense, not the indicative. All people should honor him as King now. Since he was ‘speaking about the world to come’ and ‘this world will be rolled up like old garments,’ there is hardly a place for re-doing such things His resurrection destroyed death and Satan. We share in His victory by believing in Him about this, as the only right response.

Thus we see in the NT that there is not really a satisfactory Christian doctrine if it does not say the resurrection was the kingdom that was coming, that the Davidic passage say this, that Isaiah declared such a transfer (an awareness that Israel thought such oaths were “theirs,”) and that the resurrection fulfills all promises to the fathers. It created a mission to the nations, which was difficult for Israel to accept, given the oaths they were occupied with, but the mission would succeed apart from Israel’s participation.

This is a lot, that I will try to summarize. The enthronement is not the gospel. It is the Father's inheritance to the Son, as identified by the scroll with seven seals in Revelation. The last will and testament (though not last, because He is eternal) of the Father to the Son. The time when the creation is restored to its proper place. However, at the end, since the "works of the earth" that is sin, will be destroyed, There will be a new uncorrupt creation that comes in. (New heavens, new earth, and new Jerusalem.) Perhaps I will revisit some of the finer parts of the above, but as I said, this is giving me a headache.

 

[TMSO]

You don't know your Bible. Luke 13:35 is not at the end of Jesus' ministry but in the middle, meaning, like many similar passages, they likely will not understand what he is actually doing--beyond the crucifixion of course. These things were said for the after-rejection problem.

There was no stopping the resurrection. There is no other alt-outcome on that. The issue of the apostles was stopping the after-rejection that would destroy the country.

I hope you will stop thinking in your futurist mode and become a historian. It is a completely different world.

[I'm out of time and can't get back to normal font. Much more is italiciszed than intended]

I think what you don' t realize is that I am a futurist, and a realist. (Great combo, right?) These things that you speak of as a historian, have a future component, another fulfillment, just like so many prophecies in the Old Testament. There is no denial that some of these prophecies had a fulfillment at or near their time, but there is another component. This is what you are missing, or not understanding. (Perhaps I need to try harder.) Luke 13:35 " Matthew puts it at the end of His final time in Jerusalem. Have you considered that this is because there is a future fulfillment at the time of God's reconciliation with the remnant of Israel? Or have you shown a solid reason not to trust the Bible, as it is not perfect?

 

[EarlyActs]

I think what you don' t realize is that I am a futurist, and a realist. (Great combo, right?) These things that you speak of as a historian, have a future component, another fulfillment, just like so many prophecies in the Old Testament. There is no denial that some of these prophecies had a fulfillment at or near their time, but there is another component. This is what you are missing, or not understanding. (Perhaps I need to try harder.) Luke 13:35 " Matthew puts it at the end of His final time in Jerusalem. Have you considered that this is because there is a future fulfillment at the time of God's reconciliation with the remnant of Israel? Or have you shown a solid reason not to trust the Bible, as it is not perfect?

What possible moral force is there to tell these languishers that X000 years in the future they personally will see him if they declare the line from that Psalm to him? Please be a realist when you are reading the text.

There are studies on the contradiction of seeing but not seeing, if you need to familiarize. It is an extended analogy in John, ch 9 when he heals a blind man. It is a famous line from Isaiah.

More importantly: not every future tense in the NT is a prediction!!! The future tense can be used to role play, to prod, to compel. The simplistic futurist says everything in future tense is (ca-ching) Christ is popping in a prophecy (a prognostication)--which forgets that the job of prophets is to expose sin, not be Nostradamus-wannabees.

 

[EarlyActs]

I think that about all futurists, no matter the particulars, think that any future tense in the NT is a "prophecy."

 

[EarlyActs]

A theology of enthronement has nothing to do with the gospel. The acceptance required of Israel is the acceptance of their Messiah. It is clear that he was not accepted, as Paul makes clear in Romans. The Jews rejected Him. The kingdom is included in the package of accepting their King Messiah. As you say, futurism is the path to the kingdom.

Actually, it isn't. Jesus said it is not for them to know the times and seasons established by the Father. In other words, it is not for them to know when the Father will restore the kingdom to Israel. What is it for them to do? To be witnesses of Jesus the Messiah in the local area, and to the whole world. Knowing when God will restore the kingdom to Israel is for the Father to know, and for Him to bring about. What other times and seasons could Jesus be talking about in response to the question of if Jesus will at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?

" 33 Therefore having been exalted [ag]to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear. 34 For it was not David who ascended into [ah]heaven, but he himself says:
‘The Lord said to my Lord,
“Sit at My right hand,
35 Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.”’"

Who is shown as enthroned here? At whose right hand is the Son told to sit? Who is accomplishing "Until I make Your enemies..." His position is subordinate to the Father here, is it not? The most honored position, but does it show the enthronement of which you speak? Consider the scroll with seven seals. The last will and testament (well, the will and testament, the inheritance) the Father has for the Son. The Earth and all creation. A scroll with seven seals is the sign of a legal document in Rome, as some (several?) Roman leaders had scrolls with seven seals that were their last will and testament. This is Jesus taking possession of creation, with the focus on Earth. (The universe is also affected, as some of Revelation shows.) Each seal is a step towards taking possession.

Yes, but the focus is on Jesus being the Messiah, not on the resurrection. The resurrection, and Jesus status throughout is used to show that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of David. Because He was resurrected, He fulfilled David's prophecies. He didn't decay, He didn't remain in the ground. The prophecy isn't about David, because he did die, and he did face decay. He is the Savior that Abraham looked forward to in faith. (Hebrews). It doesn't say he was looking forward to a resurrection, but to the Savior, to the Messiah, to God become flesh coming to save His creation, from his seed, by whom all the nations of the world will be blessed. But his own salvation, the conclusion/fulfillment of his faith.

"19 Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; 20 and that He may send Jesus, the [i]Christ appointed for you, 21 whom heaven must receive until the [j]period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time. "

The context gives it the very meaning you say isn't there. "whom heaven must receive until..." a certain time. If you are just going to ignore context, what discussion can we have? That the Father may send Jesus, the Messiah/Christ/anointed one appointed for you [Jews], whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration. What is this period of restoration? AD 70 was all about destruction.

It also says nothing of some reception-party in heaven. What were the languages of tongues for? It showed the coming of the Holy Spirit in power, and the establishment of the church. When the Gentiles spoke in tongues, it showed that the Gentiles were a part of the same church as the Jews. No separation. They both have the same Spirit. It showed that the disciples of John, those baptized into repentance by John, were also brought into the same church. And some believe the Samaritans also spoke in tongues, though it is not explicitly stated in scripture, showing that they too are a part of the same church. One body, through one Holy Spirit.

A theology of enthronement has nothing to do with the gospel
Strictly speaking, this is true, although justification was mentioned in Acts 2 (to blot out sins--bookkeeping!). But it doesn't matter. The "Jewish" thing is that the Davidics were fulfilled. The nation was being told this is their King and the resurrection was His enthronement. It so happened that their King was also their Justifier (Rom 3:24). They were being told to 'honor the Son, lest they be smashed' but then everyone on earth was being told that.

So I consider your first paragraph to be worthless. Try again.

 

[EarlyActs]

A theology of enthronement has nothing to do with the gospel. The acceptance required of Israel is the acceptance of their Messiah. It is clear that he was not accepted, as Paul makes clear in Romans. The Jews rejected Him. The kingdom is included in the package of accepting their King Messiah. As you say, futurism is the path to the kingdom.

Actually, it isn't. Jesus said it is not for them to know the times and seasons established by the Father. In other words, it is not for them to know when the Father will restore the kingdom to Israel. What is it for them to do? To be witnesses of Jesus the Messiah in the local area, and to the whole world. Knowing when God will restore the kingdom to Israel is for the Father to know, and for Him to bring about. What other times and seasons could Jesus be talking about in response to the question of if Jesus will at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?

" 33 Therefore having been exalted [ag]to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear. 34 For it was not David who ascended into [ah]heaven, but he himself says:
‘The Lord said to my Lord,
“Sit at My right hand,
35 Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.”’"

Who is shown as enthroned here? At whose right hand is the Son told to sit? Who is accomplishing "Until I make Your enemies..." His position is subordinate to the Father here, is it not? The most honored position, but does it show the enthronement of which you speak? Consider the scroll with seven seals. The last will and testament (well, the will and testament, the inheritance) the Father has for the Son. The Earth and all creation. A scroll with seven seals is the sign of a legal document in Rome, as some (several?) Roman leaders had scrolls with seven seals that were their last will and testament. This is Jesus taking possession of creation, with the focus on Earth. (The universe is also affected, as some of Revelation shows.) Each seal is a step towards taking possession.

Yes, but the focus is on Jesus being the Messiah, not on the resurrection. The resurrection, and Jesus status throughout is used to show that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of David. Because He was resurrected, He fulfilled David's prophecies. He didn't decay, He didn't remain in the ground. The prophecy isn't about David, because he did die, and he did face decay. He is the Savior that Abraham looked forward to in faith. (Hebrews). It doesn't say he was looking forward to a resurrection, but to the Savior, to the Messiah, to God become flesh coming to save His creation, from his seed, by whom all the nations of the world will be blessed. But his own salvation, the conclusion/fulfillment of his faith.

"19 Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; 20 and that He may send Jesus, the [i]Christ appointed for you, 21 whom heaven must receive until the [j]period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time. "

The context gives it the very meaning you say isn't there. "whom heaven must receive until..." a certain time. If you are just going to ignore context, what discussion can we have? That the Father may send Jesus, the Messiah/Christ/anointed one appointed for you [Jews], whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration. What is this period of restoration? AD 70 was all about destruction.

It also says nothing of some reception-party in heaven. What were the languages of tongues for? It showed the coming of the Holy Spirit in power, and the establishment of the church. When the Gentiles spoke in tongues, it showed that the Gentiles were a part of the same church as the Jews. No separation. They both have the same Spirit. It showed that the disciples of John, those baptized into repentance by John, were also brought into the same church. And some believe the Samaritans also spoke in tongues, though it is not explicitly stated in scripture, showing that they too are a part of the same church. One body, through one Holy Spirit.

What is it for them to do? To be witnesses
True, but the priestly kingdom language is right there (the robes, and the authorization). We agree on the witnessing, it is not as though you have caught me off guard. The witnessing would include the enthronement, of which the Pentecost event was like the cracking of champagne in victory, seen back here on earth, since we can't see heaven.

Once again, you are actually agreeing with me, yet the mood that comes across is "gotcha."

I can tell you this, that if you think the Davidics is future, you may as well stop. When I realized what Is 55 was saying and why it was quoted in Paul's sample synagogue sermon, it was all over. That and the actual grammar of 2:30-33.

Raised futurist, no teacher in 6 years at church or 3 at their Bible college mentioned Acts 13 where the Is 554 quote is. Go figure. Then I found out why Is 55 is quoted, the transfer of Davidic oaths to Christ, historical.

 

[EarlyActs]

A theology of enthronement has nothing to do with the gospel. The acceptance required of Israel is the acceptance of their Messiah. It is clear that he was not accepted, as Paul makes clear in Romans. The Jews rejected Him. The kingdom is included in the package of accepting their King Messiah. As you say, futurism is the path to the kingdom.

Actually, it isn't. Jesus said it is not for them to know the times and seasons established by the Father. In other words, it is not for them to know when the Father will restore the kingdom to Israel. What is it for them to do? To be witnesses of Jesus the Messiah in the local area, and to the whole world. Knowing when God will restore the kingdom to Israel is for the Father to know, and for Him to bring about. What other times and seasons could Jesus be talking about in response to the question of if Jesus will at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?

" 33 Therefore having been exalted [ag]to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear. 34 For it was not David who ascended into [ah]heaven, but he himself says:
‘The Lord said to my Lord,
“Sit at My right hand,
35 Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.”’"

Who is shown as enthroned here? At whose right hand is the Son told to sit? Who is accomplishing "Until I make Your enemies..." His position is subordinate to the Father here, is it not? The most honored position, but does it show the enthronement of which you speak? Consider the scroll with seven seals. The last will and testament (well, the will and testament, the inheritance) the Father has for the Son. The Earth and all creation. A scroll with seven seals is the sign of a legal document in Rome, as some (several?) Roman leaders had scrolls with seven seals that were their last will and testament. This is Jesus taking possession of creation, with the focus on Earth. (The universe is also affected, as some of Revelation shows.) Each seal is a step towards taking possession.

Yes, but the focus is on Jesus being the Messiah, not on the resurrection. The resurrection, and Jesus status throughout is used to show that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of David. Because He was resurrected, He fulfilled David's prophecies. He didn't decay, He didn't remain in the ground. The prophecy isn't about David, because he did die, and he did face decay. He is the Savior that Abraham looked forward to in faith. (Hebrews). It doesn't say he was looking forward to a resurrection, but to the Savior, to the Messiah, to God become flesh coming to save His creation, from his seed, by whom all the nations of the world will be blessed. But his own salvation, the conclusion/fulfillment of his faith.

"19 Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; 20 and that He may send Jesus, the [i]Christ appointed for you, 21 whom heaven must receive until the [j]period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time. "

The context gives it the very meaning you say isn't there. "whom heaven must receive until..." a certain time. If you are just going to ignore context, what discussion can we have? That the Father may send Jesus, the Messiah/Christ/anointed one appointed for you [Jews], whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration. What is this period of restoration? AD 70 was all about destruction.

It also says nothing of some reception-party in heaven. What were the languages of tongues for? It showed the coming of the Holy Spirit in power, and the establishment of the church. When the Gentiles spoke in tongues, it showed that the Gentiles were a part of the same church as the Jews. No separation. They both have the same Spirit. It showed that the disciples of John, those baptized into repentance by John, were also brought into the same church. And some believe the Samaritans also spoke in tongues, though it is not explicitly stated in scripture, showing that they too are a part of the same church. One body, through one Holy Spirit.

Who is shone as enthroned here?
To sit at a right hand is simply validation of the tri-unity, because the gift of the Spirit (Pentecost) carried the message to the world. I see no point in what you are saying.

Once again, you sound like you have surprised me, while you are echoing me. Very puzzling.

Remember, Rom 4 and Heb 1-2 confirm for us that the resolution of all the promises are not on this earth.

 

[EarlyActs]

A theology of enthronement has nothing to do with the gospel. The acceptance required of Israel is the acceptance of their Messiah. It is clear that he was not accepted, as Paul makes clear in Romans. The Jews rejected Him. The kingdom is included in the package of accepting their King Messiah. As you say, futurism is the path to the kingdom.

Actually, it isn't. Jesus said it is not for them to know the times and seasons established by the Father. In other words, it is not for them to know when the Father will restore the kingdom to Israel. What is it for them to do? To be witnesses of Jesus the Messiah in the local area, and to the whole world. Knowing when God will restore the kingdom to Israel is for the Father to know, and for Him to bring about. What other times and seasons could Jesus be talking about in response to the question of if Jesus will at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?

" 33 Therefore having been exalted [ag]to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear. 34 For it was not David who ascended into [ah]heaven, but he himself says:
‘The Lord said to my Lord,
“Sit at My right hand,
35 Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.”’"

Who is shown as enthroned here? At whose right hand is the Son told to sit? Who is accomplishing "Until I make Your enemies..." His position is subordinate to the Father here, is it not? The most honored position, but does it show the enthronement of which you speak? Consider the scroll with seven seals. The last will and testament (well, the will and testament, the inheritance) the Father has for the Son. The Earth and all creation. A scroll with seven seals is the sign of a legal document in Rome, as some (several?) Roman leaders had scrolls with seven seals that were their last will and testament. This is Jesus taking possession of creation, with the focus on Earth. (The universe is also affected, as some of Revelation shows.) Each seal is a step towards taking possession.

Yes, but the focus is on Jesus being the Messiah, not on the resurrection. The resurrection, and Jesus status throughout is used to show that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of David. Because He was resurrected, He fulfilled David's prophecies. He didn't decay, He didn't remain in the ground. The prophecy isn't about David, because he did die, and he did face decay. He is the Savior that Abraham looked forward to in faith. (Hebrews). It doesn't say he was looking forward to a resurrection, but to the Savior, to the Messiah, to God become flesh coming to save His creation, from his seed, by whom all the nations of the world will be blessed. But his own salvation, the conclusion/fulfillment of his faith.

"19 Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; 20 and that He may send Jesus, the [i]Christ appointed for you, 21 whom heaven must receive until the [j]period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time. "

The context gives it the very meaning you say isn't there. "whom heaven must receive until..." a certain time. If you are just going to ignore context, what discussion can we have? That the Father may send Jesus, the Messiah/Christ/anointed one appointed for you [Jews], whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration. What is this period of restoration? AD 70 was all about destruction.

It also says nothing of some reception-party in heaven. What were the languages of tongues for? It showed the coming of the Holy Spirit in power, and the establishment of the church. When the Gentiles spoke in tongues, it showed that the Gentiles were a part of the same church as the Jews. No separation. They both have the same Spirit. It showed that the disciples of John, those baptized into repentance by John, were also brought into the same church. And some believe the Samaritans also spoke in tongues, though it is not explicitly stated in scripture, showing that they too are a part of the same church. One body, through one Holy Spirit.

The after-rejection
Do you understand this concept? The actual rejection was the crucifixion, but it happened because of the will and power of God. The apostles can't undo that. They are trying to stop the rejection of what the crucifixion and resurrection mean, their message: justification and enthronement.

You will find this effort all through Acts. It is why the letter to Hebrews was written to the Hebrews--to try to persuade them not to "crucify" Christ again and lose their country.

 

[EarlyActs]

A theology of enthronement has nothing to do with the gospel. The acceptance required of Israel is the acceptance of their Messiah. It is clear that he was not accepted, as Paul makes clear in Romans. The Jews rejected Him. The kingdom is included in the package of accepting their King Messiah. As you say, futurism is the path to the kingdom.

Actually, it isn't. Jesus said it is not for them to know the times and seasons established by the Father. In other words, it is not for them to know when the Father will restore the kingdom to Israel. What is it for them to do? To be witnesses of Jesus the Messiah in the local area, and to the whole world. Knowing when God will restore the kingdom to Israel is for the Father to know, and for Him to bring about. What other times and seasons could Jesus be talking about in response to the question of if Jesus will at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?

" 33 Therefore having been exalted [ag]to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear. 34 For it was not David who ascended into [ah]heaven, but he himself says:
‘The Lord said to my Lord,
“Sit at My right hand,
35 Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.”’"

Who is shown as enthroned here? At whose right hand is the Son told to sit? Who is accomplishing "Until I make Your enemies..." His position is subordinate to the Father here, is it not? The most honored position, but does it show the enthronement of which you speak? Consider the scroll with seven seals. The last will and testament (well, the will and testament, the inheritance) the Father has for the Son. The Earth and all creation. A scroll with seven seals is the sign of a legal document in Rome, as some (several?) Roman leaders had scrolls with seven seals that were their last will and testament. This is Jesus taking possession of creation, with the focus on Earth. (The universe is also affected, as some of Revelation shows.) Each seal is a step towards taking possession.

Yes, but the focus is on Jesus being the Messiah, not on the resurrection. The resurrection, and Jesus status throughout is used to show that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of David. Because He was resurrected, He fulfilled David's prophecies. He didn't decay, He didn't remain in the ground. The prophecy isn't about David, because he did die, and he did face decay. He is the Savior that Abraham looked forward to in faith. (Hebrews). It doesn't say he was looking forward to a resurrection, but to the Savior, to the Messiah, to God become flesh coming to save His creation, from his seed, by whom all the nations of the world will be blessed. But his own salvation, the conclusion/fulfillment of his faith.

"19 Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; 20 and that He may send Jesus, the [i]Christ appointed for you, 21 whom heaven must receive until the [j]period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time. "

The context gives it the very meaning you say isn't there. "whom heaven must receive until..." a certain time. If you are just going to ignore context, what discussion can we have? That the Father may send Jesus, the Messiah/Christ/anointed one appointed for you [Jews], whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration. What is this period of restoration? AD 70 was all about destruction.

It also says nothing of some reception-party in heaven. What were the languages of tongues for? It showed the coming of the Holy Spirit in power, and the establishment of the church. When the Gentiles spoke in tongues, it showed that the Gentiles were a part of the same church as the Jews. No separation. They both have the same Spirit. It showed that the disciples of John, those baptized into repentance by John, were also brought into the same church. And some believe the Samaritans also spoke in tongues, though it is not explicitly stated in scripture, showing that they too are a part of the same church. One body, through one Holy Spirit.

The resurrection fulfilled the prophecies of David.
lol, exactly! The Davidics are fulfilled! You think you are opposing what I'm saying but you echo it. It doesn't mean like the ride on the colt. It means he was enthroned. That is exactly what 2:30-33 are arguing--that David saw the res as the enthronement per Ps 2 and 110.

 

[EarlyActs]

A theology of enthronement has nothing to do with the gospel. The acceptance required of Israel is the acceptance of their Messiah. It is clear that he was not accepted, as Paul makes clear in Romans. The Jews rejected Him. The kingdom is included in the package of accepting their King Messiah. As you say, futurism is the path to the kingdom.

Actually, it isn't. Jesus said it is not for them to know the times and seasons established by the Father. In other words, it is not for them to know when the Father will restore the kingdom to Israel. What is it for them to do? To be witnesses of Jesus the Messiah in the local area, and to the whole world. Knowing when God will restore the kingdom to Israel is for the Father to know, and for Him to bring about. What other times and seasons could Jesus be talking about in response to the question of if Jesus will at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?

" 33 Therefore having been exalted [ag]to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear. 34 For it was not David who ascended into [ah]heaven, but he himself says:
‘The Lord said to my Lord,
“Sit at My right hand,
35 Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.”’"

Who is shown as enthroned here? At whose right hand is the Son told to sit? Who is accomplishing "Until I make Your enemies..." His position is subordinate to the Father here, is it not? The most honored position, but does it show the enthronement of which you speak? Consider the scroll with seven seals. The last will and testament (well, the will and testament, the inheritance) the Father has for the Son. The Earth and all creation. A scroll with seven seals is the sign of a legal document in Rome, as some (several?) Roman leaders had scrolls with seven seals that were their last will and testament. This is Jesus taking possession of creation, with the focus on Earth. (The universe is also affected, as some of Revelation shows.) Each seal is a step towards taking possession.

Yes, but the focus is on Jesus being the Messiah, not on the resurrection. The resurrection, and Jesus status throughout is used to show that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of David. Because He was resurrected, He fulfilled David's prophecies. He didn't decay, He didn't remain in the ground. The prophecy isn't about David, because he did die, and he did face decay. He is the Savior that Abraham looked forward to in faith. (Hebrews). It doesn't say he was looking forward to a resurrection, but to the Savior, to the Messiah, to God become flesh coming to save His creation, from his seed, by whom all the nations of the world will be blessed. But his own salvation, the conclusion/fulfillment of his faith.

"19 Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; 20 and that He may send Jesus, the [i]Christ appointed for you, 21 whom heaven must receive until the [j]period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time. "

The context gives it the very meaning you say isn't there. "whom heaven must receive until..." a certain time. If you are just going to ignore context, what discussion can we have? That the Father may send Jesus, the Messiah/Christ/anointed one appointed for you [Jews], whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration. What is this period of restoration? AD 70 was all about destruction.

It also says nothing of some reception-party in heaven. What were the languages of tongues for? It showed the coming of the Holy Spirit in power, and the establishment of the church. When the Gentiles spoke in tongues, it showed that the Gentiles were a part of the same church as the Jews. No separation. They both have the same Spirit. It showed that the disciples of John, those baptized into repentance by John, were also brought into the same church. And some believe the Samaritans also spoke in tongues, though it is not explicitly stated in scripture, showing that they too are a part of the same church. One body, through one Holy Spirit.

It doesn't say he was looking forward to a resurrection,

"...an oath to seat one of his descendants[be] on his throne,[bf] 31 David by foreseeing this[bg] spoke about the resurrection of the Christ"

The reason the oath is mentioned here is because of the Is 55 quote that would be used as they taught Israel. It was that oath that was fulfilled in the resurrection.

 

[EarlyActs]

A theology of enthronement has nothing to do with the gospel. The acceptance required of Israel is the acceptance of their Messiah. It is clear that he was not accepted, as Paul makes clear in Romans. The Jews rejected Him. The kingdom is included in the package of accepting their King Messiah. As you say, futurism is the path to the kingdom.

Actually, it isn't. Jesus said it is not for them to know the times and seasons established by the Father. In other words, it is not for them to know when the Father will restore the kingdom to Israel. What is it for them to do? To be witnesses of Jesus the Messiah in the local area, and to the whole world. Knowing when God will restore the kingdom to Israel is for the Father to know, and for Him to bring about. What other times and seasons could Jesus be talking about in response to the question of if Jesus will at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?

" 33 Therefore having been exalted [ag]to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear. 34 For it was not David who ascended into [ah]heaven, but he himself says:
‘The Lord said to my Lord,
“Sit at My right hand,
35 Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.”’"

Who is shown as enthroned here? At whose right hand is the Son told to sit? Who is accomplishing "Until I make Your enemies..." His position is subordinate to the Father here, is it not? The most honored position, but does it show the enthronement of which you speak? Consider the scroll with seven seals. The last will and testament (well, the will and testament, the inheritance) the Father has for the Son. The Earth and all creation. A scroll with seven seals is the sign of a legal document in Rome, as some (several?) Roman leaders had scrolls with seven seals that were their last will and testament. This is Jesus taking possession of creation, with the focus on Earth. (The universe is also affected, as some of Revelation shows.) Each seal is a step towards taking possession.

Yes, but the focus is on Jesus being the Messiah, not on the resurrection. The resurrection, and Jesus status throughout is used to show that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of David. Because He was resurrected, He fulfilled David's prophecies. He didn't decay, He didn't remain in the ground. The prophecy isn't about David, because he did die, and he did face decay. He is the Savior that Abraham looked forward to in faith. (Hebrews). It doesn't say he was looking forward to a resurrection, but to the Savior, to the Messiah, to God become flesh coming to save His creation, from his seed, by whom all the nations of the world will be blessed. But his own salvation, the conclusion/fulfillment of his faith.

"19 Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; 20 and that He may send Jesus, the [i]Christ appointed for you, 21 whom heaven must receive until the [j]period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time. "

The context gives it the very meaning you say isn't there. "whom heaven must receive until..." a certain time. If you are just going to ignore context, what discussion can we have? That the Father may send Jesus, the Messiah/Christ/anointed one appointed for you [Jews], whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration. What is this period of restoration? AD 70 was all about destruction.

It also says nothing of some reception-party in heaven. What were the languages of tongues for? It showed the coming of the Holy Spirit in power, and the establishment of the church. When the Gentiles spoke in tongues, it showed that the Gentiles were a part of the same church as the Jews. No separation. They both have the same Spirit. It showed that the disciples of John, those baptized into repentance by John, were also brought into the same church. And some believe the Samaritans also spoke in tongues, though it is not explicitly stated in scripture, showing that they too are a part of the same church. One body, through one Holy Spirit.

"whom heaven must receive until..." a certain time.
You will find that this is not the meaning at all. Once again the obsession of futurists is their downfall.

First, you will want to check a few translations; about 50% use accept or keep for no reason at all. It is inexplicable. You check the literary lexicons and you will never find the sense of confine or restrain. And anyway, he pays several visits to his church to help them.

It is saying the celebration will go on until the final (earth) day and the subjection of all. Meanwhile we pray that things on earth will be as they are in heaven: that the party will extend to all the earth. The language already knew that the kingdom would not be perfectly empirically established by saying 'until your enemies are your foot cushion.' But that does not mean it is not an imperative sense: this is what all people should do.

2nd, all terms meaning starts with a concrete usage. Being in heaven, this is abstract. Go to 2 Cor 11 and you will find that the false apostles were happily welcomed by the Corinthians which vexed Paul:
4 For if someone comes and proclaims[h] another Jesus different from the one we proclaimed,[i] or if you receive a different spirit than the one you received,[j] or a different gospel than the one you accepted,[k] you put up with it well enough![l] 5 For I consider myself not at all inferior to those “super-apostles.”[m]
Those false apostles were not "kept" or "confined". I have worked in the lexical material for decades and I do not know any concrete place where the verb is about restraining or a time-limit.

Here is a nuance where "keep" could work: a person is given an ultimate title in a domain; no matter what anyone else does there, that person will "keep" that title. But the verb tense is active: heaven is celebrating, welcoming, holding a reception.

There is a celebration going on in heaven at the accomplishment of Christ, and may I be personal here: if you don't think there is a celebration going on, I don't think you know Christ. When we open the Rev after the letters, there is a resounding celebration going on in heaven like many waterfalls! That is why you seat people at the right hand--to honor their work as what you would do or as what you wanted done! It is stupid to say there is no reception party happening. God was honoring Christ through the resurrection and the hero-songs of heaven!

3rd, the text explicitly tells us why we see the outpouring of the Spirit, a form of celebration when in the concrete form. The Spirit was promised to Christ to declare his glory around the known world, to extend the celebratory party in heaven to every corner of earth. It was God's gift to Christ! Prob from Isaiah 53. But also the Ps 110 final line: "[God] will lift up his head." This is what the launch of the church is about. If you don't know this you don't really know Christianity. "We teach the sufferings of Christ and the glory to follow." Well, a chunk of that glory is the 'automatic' proclamation of the victory of Christ--the Pentecost event was so unusual, you'd be talking as you traveled home.

 

[EarlyActs]

A theology of enthronement has nothing to do with the gospel. The acceptance required of Israel is the acceptance of their Messiah. It is clear that he was not accepted, as Paul makes clear in Romans. The Jews rejected Him. The kingdom is included in the package of accepting their King Messiah. As you say, futurism is the path to the kingdom.

Actually, it isn't. Jesus said it is not for them to know the times and seasons established by the Father. In other words, it is not for them to know when the Father will restore the kingdom to Israel. What is it for them to do? To be witnesses of Jesus the Messiah in the local area, and to the whole world. Knowing when God will restore the kingdom to Israel is for the Father to know, and for Him to bring about. What other times and seasons could Jesus be talking about in response to the question of if Jesus will at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?

" 33 Therefore having been exalted [ag]to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear. 34 For it was not David who ascended into [ah]heaven, but he himself says:
‘The Lord said to my Lord,
“Sit at My right hand,
35 Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.”’"

Who is shown as enthroned here? At whose right hand is the Son told to sit? Who is accomplishing "Until I make Your enemies..." His position is subordinate to the Father here, is it not? The most honored position, but does it show the enthronement of which you speak? Consider the scroll with seven seals. The last will and testament (well, the will and testament, the inheritance) the Father has for the Son. The Earth and all creation. A scroll with seven seals is the sign of a legal document in Rome, as some (several?) Roman leaders had scrolls with seven seals that were their last will and testament. This is Jesus taking possession of creation, with the focus on Earth. (The universe is also affected, as some of Revelation shows.) Each seal is a step towards taking possession.

Yes, but the focus is on Jesus being the Messiah, not on the resurrection. The resurrection, and Jesus status throughout is used to show that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of David. Because He was resurrected, He fulfilled David's prophecies. He didn't decay, He didn't remain in the ground. The prophecy isn't about David, because he did die, and he did face decay. He is the Savior that Abraham looked forward to in faith. (Hebrews). It doesn't say he was looking forward to a resurrection, but to the Savior, to the Messiah, to God become flesh coming to save His creation, from his seed, by whom all the nations of the world will be blessed. But his own salvation, the conclusion/fulfillment of his faith.

"19 Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; 20 and that He may send Jesus, the [i]Christ appointed for you, 21 whom heaven must receive until the [j]period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time. "

The context gives it the very meaning you say isn't there. "whom heaven must receive until..." a certain time. If you are just going to ignore context, what discussion can we have? That the Father may send Jesus, the Messiah/Christ/anointed one appointed for you [Jews], whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration. What is this period of restoration? AD 70 was all about destruction.

It also says nothing of some reception-party in heaven. What were the languages of tongues for? It showed the coming of the Holy Spirit in power, and the establishment of the church. When the Gentiles spoke in tongues, it showed that the Gentiles were a part of the same church as the Jews. No separation. They both have the same Spirit. It showed that the disciples of John, those baptized into repentance by John, were also brought into the same church. And some believe the Samaritans also spoke in tongues, though it is not explicitly stated in scripture, showing that they too are a part of the same church. One body, through one Holy Spirit.

the various parts
Yes there is one church, body, etc. It has lots of parts. This btw is a reason for not speaking of 2 parts, because it is many parts but all in Christ. I don't know where we disagree here. But to have another program, worship, atonement, temple, etc., no can do. And then there's the guys who say 'the Bible doesn't make sense until you have our system.' No can do neither.

 

[EarlyActs]

As a former linguist this and what you said about verse 21 has left me with a headache. It makes absolutely no sense.

""17 “And now, brethren, I know that you acted in ignorance, just as your rulers did also. 18 But the things which God announced beforehand by the mouth of all the prophets, that His [h]Christ would suffer, He has thus fulfilled. 19 Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; 20 and that He may send Jesus, the [i]Christ appointed for you, 21 whom heaven must receive until the [j]period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time.""

One word here "receive" may not mean keep, but put together "whom heaven must receive until" and it is the idea of the sentence. This "that He may send Jesus" added to that, speaks of His second coming. His bodily/physical return. How did heaven "receive" Him? Bodily/physically. The period of the restoration of all things is in the future.

That is not what is happening in the context. They are praying to God, and praising Him.
"23 When they had been released, they went to their own companions and reported all that the chief priests and the elders had said to them. 24 And when they heard this, they lifted their voices to God with one accord and said, “O [p]Lord, it is You who made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and all that is in them, 25 who by the Holy Spirit, through the mouth of our father David Your servant, said,

‘Why did the [q]Gentiles rage,
And the peoples devise futile things?
26 ‘The kings of the earth [r]took their stand,
And the rulers were gathered together
Against the Lord and against His [s]Christ.’"

They are praying and calling to God with who He is and what He has done. It is an awesome way to praise. Recognize God for His greatness.

This is a lot, that I will try to summarize. The enthronement is not the gospel. It is the Father's inheritance to the Son, as identified by the scroll with seven seals in Revelation. The last will and testament (though not last, because He is eternal) of the Father to the Son. The time when the creation is restored to its proper place. However, at the end, since the "works of the earth" that is sin, will be destroyed, There will be a new uncorrupt creation that comes in. (New heavens, new earth, and new Jerusalem.) Perhaps I will revisit some of the finer parts of the above, but as I said, this is giving me a headache.

The restoration of all things is the whole world. Did you think for some reason it would just be Israel? All the visions of Isaiah reach the whole earth, "to the distant shores" in the NHNE.

So the reception festivities continue until then.

 

[EarlyActs]

As a former linguist this and what you said about verse 21 has left me with a headache. It makes absolutely no sense.

""17 “And now, brethren, I know that you acted in ignorance, just as your rulers did also. 18 But the things which God announced beforehand by the mouth of all the prophets, that His [h]Christ would suffer, He has thus fulfilled. 19 Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; 20 and that He may send Jesus, the [i]Christ appointed for you, 21 whom heaven must receive until the [j]period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time.""

One word here "receive" may not mean keep, but put together "whom heaven must receive until" and it is the idea of the sentence. This "that He may send Jesus" added to that, speaks of His second coming. His bodily/physical return. How did heaven "receive" Him? Bodily/physically. The period of the restoration of all things is in the future.

That is not what is happening in the context. They are praying to God, and praising Him.
"23 When they had been released, they went to their own companions and reported all that the chief priests and the elders had said to them. 24 And when they heard this, they lifted their voices to God with one accord and said, “O [p]Lord, it is You who made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and all that is in them, 25 who by the Holy Spirit, through the mouth of our father David Your servant, said,

‘Why did the [q]Gentiles rage,
And the peoples devise futile things?
26 ‘The kings of the earth [r]took their stand,
And the rulers were gathered together
Against the Lord and against His [s]Christ.’"

They are praying and calling to God with who He is and what He has done. It is an awesome way to praise. Recognize God for His greatness.

This is a lot, that I will try to summarize. The enthronement is not the gospel. It is the Father's inheritance to the Son, as identified by the scroll with seven seals in Revelation. The last will and testament (though not last, because He is eternal) of the Father to the Son. The time when the creation is restored to its proper place. However, at the end, since the "works of the earth" that is sin, will be destroyed, There will be a new uncorrupt creation that comes in. (New heavens, new earth, and new Jerusalem.) Perhaps I will revisit some of the finer parts of the above, but as I said, this is giving me a headache.

"recieve until..."
A libation (pouring out) is a celebration of a victory, an accomplishment... That is the excitement of these lines. He's building on 2:30-33.

 

[EarlyActs]

As a former linguist this and what you said about verse 21 has left me with a headache. It makes absolutely no sense.

""17 “And now, brethren, I know that you acted in ignorance, just as your rulers did also. 18 But the things which God announced beforehand by the mouth of all the prophets, that His [h]Christ would suffer, He has thus fulfilled. 19 Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; 20 and that He may send Jesus, the [i]Christ appointed for you, 21 whom heaven must receive until the [j]period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time.""

One word here "receive" may not mean keep, but put together "whom heaven must receive until" and it is the idea of the sentence. This "that He may send Jesus" added to that, speaks of His second coming. His bodily/physical return. How did heaven "receive" Him? Bodily/physically. The period of the restoration of all things is in the future.

That is not what is happening in the context. They are praying to God, and praising Him.
"23 When they had been released, they went to their own companions and reported all that the chief priests and the elders had said to them. 24 And when they heard this, they lifted their voices to God with one accord and said, “O [p]Lord, it is You who made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and all that is in them, 25 who by the Holy Spirit, through the mouth of our father David Your servant, said,

‘Why did the [q]Gentiles rage,
And the peoples devise futile things?
26 ‘The kings of the earth [r]took their stand,
And the rulers were gathered together
Against the Lord and against His [s]Christ.’"

They are praying and calling to God with who He is and what He has done. It is an awesome way to praise. Recognize God for His greatness.

This is a lot, that I will try to summarize. The enthronement is not the gospel. It is the Father's inheritance to the Son, as identified by the scroll with seven seals in Revelation. The last will and testament (though not last, because He is eternal) of the Father to the Son. The time when the creation is restored to its proper place. However, at the end, since the "works of the earth" that is sin, will be destroyed, There will be a new uncorrupt creation that comes in. (New heavens, new earth, and new Jerusalem.) Perhaps I will revisit some of the finer parts of the above, but as I said, this is giving me a headache.

That is not what is happening in the context.
I have no idea what you mean by your context, but they lament the opposition that is continuing, the after-rejection. They accept that the power and will of God let the murder happen. You are being complicated, opposing for opposing sake.