ECT 10 things D'ists say 1000x to avoid thinking

[john w]

Lk 9's other gospel
There's nothing weird about demonstrating a non-death, non-propitiatory gospel this way, but it is not true that there is a different gospel. there never was a different one. There was a kingdom connected because God 'reign's through this message, but never another Gospel.

Made up. The good news of 1 Cor. 15:1-4 KJV was void the DBR-the 12 knew NADA about it, while preaching the gospel of the kingdom for almost 3 years. Not all of the good news, moron, in the book, pertains to justification/salvation. But you're too steeped in your stack of commentaries, not surveying the details of the book, to see it.

. The Greek grammar....................the level of Greek grammar. The case or sentence slot is indicated in Greek spellings whereas it is not in English; in English you have to go by other things, factors, context and sense. ...........

No such thing as "the" Greek, you fraud, poser, and you can't even construct intelligent sentences, in "the English," so stuff your scam, con game. Wee see right through it.

 

[Stripe]

Yes, D'ist is a dispensationalist and think that there are two completely separate programs for the two people groups, Christians and Jews.

OK.

If you want to have a discussion with a dispensationalist, you have to respect what he believes.

There are not separate programs for Jews and Christians.

Lk 18's lines are used to show that the disciples knew nothing of the death of Christ for sin until then.

This is, at best, an argument from silence. The death of Christ for sin is not mentioned.

I'm glad you don't think it means that. Hard to put "all" and "Israel" in the same time frame, considering the 'birth' of the nation is the birth of Jacob, etc. through to today... By 'saved' they mean the restored theocracy, so I hope you don't think that is happening either.

It looks like you're trying to start an argument five points into someone else's beliefs.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Sorry if the ch was wrong.

If you meant the passage where Jesus said He was sent to Israel, why don't you believe Him?

The saying is said 1000x until nothing else in the account matters, and thinking has stopped.

It would be senseless to continue a conversation with someone who denied the plain meaning of what was said without compelling reasons. :idunno:

Never another Gospel.

The gospel is that which should be taught to show how men can be saved. That obviously changed at least once, ie, with Jesus' resurrection.

He means the same thing each time.

Which would make no sense.

There is no future monarchy restoration.

Sure, there is. Jesus will return as Lord and King.



Sent from my SM-G9250 using TOL mobile app

 

[DAN P]

"Paul's my gospel" is one of my favorites.

heir especially likes to use that one.

In the KJB, Paul used the term "my gospel" a whopping 3 times. Dispies don't like to be told that Paul also used the term "my Lord" 2 times.

You don't see the Dispies claiming there was more than one Lord, but they love to go on and on about how there is more than one gospel because Paul said "my gospel".

Hi and there at least 4 gospels !!

#1 , One called THE GOSPEL OF THE UN-CIRCUMCISION as wtitten in Gal 2:7 !!

#2, One call THE CIRCUMCISION and is NOT called a gospel in Gal 2:7 as Paul's is called a Gospel , just see the Greek text !!

#3. The Gospel that was preached to ABRAM in Gal 3:8 !!

#4 Then the EVERLASTING GOSPEL preached in Rev 14:6 !!

For and Ex -dispensationalist , you did not retain , or had a poor teacher ?

dan p

 

[Interplanner]

Hi and there at least 4 gospels !!

#1 , One called THE GOSPEL OF THE UN-CIRCUMCISION as wtitten in Gal 2:7 !!

#2, One call THE CIRCUMCISION and is NOT called a gospel in Gal 2:7 as Paul's is called a Gospel , just see the Greek text !!

#3. The Gospel that was preached to ABRAM in Gal 3:8 !!

#4 Then the EVERLASTING GOSPEL preached in Rev 14:6 !!

For and Ex -dispensationalist , you did not retain , or had a poor teacher ?

dan p

It is grammatically ridiculous to try for 2 in Gal 2. The others and the Gal 2s are one Gospel.

 

[DAN P]

It is grammatically ridiculous to try for 2 in Gal 2. The others and the Gal 2s are one Gospel.

Hi and since you can not reply , this means you can not debunk , what Paul has written and you also do not see tha Greek ARTICLE ( THE ) before Un-circumcision OR before CIRCUMCISION and this leaves you BANKRUPT !!

dan p

 

[Interplanner]

Hi and since you can not reply , this means you can not debunk , what Paul has written and you also do not see tha Greek ARTICLE ( THE ) before Un-circumcision OR before CIRCUMCISION and this leaves you BANKRUPT !!

dan p

The article has nothing to do with it. it would be there anyone. Preaching the Gospel 'euangelizo' is saying the one gospel was preached to both targets.

 

[Interplanner]

So you now agree that the gospel preached in Luke 9:6 is different, since it did NOT include the "cross/suffering of Christ alone".

You're getting somewhere now.

No, it was preached all through Christ's work. Lamb of God to sign of Jonah to the Conf/Trans and then it had to be hidden because the zealot instincts to have a monarchy would have made the apostles prevent him from being killed, like Peter.

There is either forgiveness through Christ or not. There is either being pregnant or not. There is only one Gospel. Your position is ludicrous.

 

[Interplanner]

OK.

If you want to have a discussion with a dispensationalist, you have to respect what he believes.

There are not separate programs for Jews and Christians.

This is, at best, an argument from silence. The death of Christ for sin is not mentioned.

It looks like you're trying to start an argument five points into someone else's beliefs.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

If you meant the passage where Jesus said He was sent to Israel, why don't you believe Him?

It would be senseless to continue a conversation with someone who denied the plain meaning of what was said without compelling reasons. :idunno:


The gospel is that which should be taught to show how men can be saved. That obviously changed at least once, ie, with Jesus' resurrection.

Which would make no sense.

Sure, there is. Jesus will return as Lord and King.



Sent from my SM-G9250 using TOL mobile app

I can't respect D'ism but I do know what they believe. 'The sine qua non of D'ism is that Israel and the church are totally separate programs'--Charles Ryrie, Dallas Seminary, in D'ISM TODAY, ch title: "Two Peoples, Two Programs"


Lk 18's argument that they knew nothing of his death for sins before is the argument from silence because of how much was said about it before.

re all Israel
there is no future point when all israel will be restored. But all who are God's Israel will be justified from their sins, yes. 'Saved' must be defined per Romans, not D'ism.

'only to Israel'
the compelling reasons are in that story and in several others. He always hints at and starts some contact with non-Jews. But he wanted them as missionaries. it is the belief in the restored monarchy that makes nonsense out of the NT. Because as Acts shows, all the movement of God was toward the mission of the Gospel.

Gospel
the only Gospel is that it is Christ's work that saved. It was mentioned many times all through the accounts, from the Lamb of God on.

Gal 2
Yes, he meant the same thing: one power or message was sent to both groups. That's the same thing each time. There was no preaching a different Gospel to Israel.

monarchy on earth?
Nope not this earth. It's toast. The kingdom Christ reigns now endures unshakeably. It occupies the NHNE. That's why the city comes down once this earth is gone. rev 21.

 

[northwye]

"I can't respect D'ism but I do know what they believe. 'The sine qua non of D'ism is that Israel and the church are totally separate programs'--Charles Ryrie, Dallas Seminary, in D'ISM TODAY, ch title: "Two Peoples, Two Programs""

What is Israel to the dispensationaloists? They appear to mean by Israel all of the physical bloodline.

And what do they mean by the church? Do they mean the English word church translated from the Greek ekklesia?

What they may mean by the church is that it is the Body of Christ, all the elect. But then they make a separation between those of the physical bloodline and the Gentiles, so saved Jews, for them, are not part of their church.

Dispensationalism starts from postulates, man made postulates, and not clearly from a set of scriptures. In a theory began by postulation, you cannot have contradictions. You cannot say that Israel is an elect group of God separate from the church, as the Body of Christ in which all are saved, unless you postulate also that all Jews are of the elect because they are of the physical bloodline. Saying that God has two peoples implies both peoples are of the elect, but of separate groups. This implication has been understood to be what dispensationalism teaches.

Dispensationalists will often deny that they teach that all Jews are saved by being of the physical bloodline, which leaves their system with a fundamental problem, that they are implying all Jews are saved by belonging to the bloodline and contradicting that claim by admitting that some Jews are not saved.. They could teach that Jews who are saved are of the church, but do they do this? John Hagee seemed to say Jews are saved by being of the bloodline and then deny he said that if closely questioned.

If by all Israel - the multitude and not the remnant - being an elect group of God because of their physical DNA, then the Pharisees of Christ's time are also of God's elect. The Dispensationalists are then acting as surrogates for the Pharisees and their doctrines.

Of course, they will deny they are surrogates for the Pharisees, which is not entirely rational to do, if they honor the multitude of the physical bloodline as Israel. So they are the surrogates of "all Israel," of the bloodline.

 

[Stripe]

I do know what they believe.

Two out of eight ain't good.

Lk 18's argument that they knew nothing of his death for sins before is the argument from silence because of how much was said about it before.

:chuckle:

You're the one making the argument.

there is no future point when all israel will be restored.

Nobody said there was.

the only Gospel is that it is Christ's work that saved.

Which is obviously false.

This wasn't preached before the resurrection.

There was no preaching a different Gospel to Israel.

Then the passage is meaningless.

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TOL mobile app

 

[Right Divider]

If it does not preach the cross/suffering of Christ alone, it is entirely different, don't you see?

When THEY (the twelve) preached the KINGDOM, they were NOT "preaching the cross/suffering of Christ alone". You poor ignorant one.

No, it was preached all through Christ's work. Lamb of God to sign of Jonah to the Conf/Trans and then it had to be hidden because the zealot instincts to have a monarchy would have made the apostles prevent him from being killed, like Peter.

There is either forgiveness through Christ or not. There is either being pregnant or not. There is only one Gospel. Your position is ludicrous.

There is more than ONE good news in the Bible.

You and SOOOO many others have a man-centered view of all that God is doing. You think that everything is about YOUR redemption. ME, ME, ME.... that's you.

 

[Interplanner]

Two out of eight ain't good.

:chuckle:

You're the one making the argument.

Nobody said there was.

Which is obviously false.

This wasn't preached before the resurrection.

Then the passage is meaningless.

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TOL mobile app

You're a real non-discussion Stripe.


I have validated all 10 propositions of D'ism. They are mistaken.

Jerry repeatedly argues that lk 18 is the first time they knew there would be a death. In the bottom of your list above, you say it wasn't preached before the Res. Same thing. It is a totally mistaken idea. From the Lamb of God in the launch of his ministry, to the sign of Jonah midway between the launch and the Confession, it's there, so is forgiveness in Christ.

All Israel:
All D'ism says this means at one point after this "Gentile" age (note the race based thinking of that!), all of Israel will be 'saved.' Whether they can be clear on what 'saved' means there, or why it would have nothing to do with the Isaiah context just quoted, is another issue.

Gal 2
It is not meaningless, but the English layer is meaningless. All over TOL are D'ists who go with the English grammar because they think they found a gospel just for Gentiles. It is not saying that. The greek grammar shows why, both the verb and case system. To top it off, the next verse is structured the same way about the power at work, instead of the Gospel, and says the same thing: one thing was at work in both, through two leaders. It is really simple.

The reason your answers are so curt is that you don't know the material. You don't discuss, you just have concluded you are on God's side, or God is on yours, and you are therefore by being in that position the right one.

 

[Interplanner]

When THEY (the twelve) preached the KINGDOM, they were NOT "preaching the cross/suffering of Christ alone". You poor ignorant one.


There is more than ONE good news in the Bible.

You and SOOOO many others have a man-centered view of all that God is doing. You think that everything is about YOUR redemption. ME, ME, ME.... that's you.

Christ did not offer that kind of kingdom to Israel. For one thing, it would have triggered a Roman response because of so many zealots. You are totally mistaken. For another, he clarified it was not that kind. The Gospel of his sacrifice went with it. It was mentioned the first day and many times. Jonah was the sign of him--the sacrifice of Jonah to save the ship. You simply have a preset belief system that you are scared to leave.

It is OK to say that the redemption focuses on us frail humans. It is not man centered because the glory goes to God. It happens to involve man. Whether God will redeem other celestial creatures, I don't know. But the angels who are good are enraptured to look into our salvation, because it is the most amazing thing to them, 2 Pet 1. Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, and has redeemed those from all nations by his blood--that's the hit song of heaven. Christ-glorifying and Christ-centered. Poor me.

What we don't have is any Israelolatry that I can see. Do you see any?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Christ did not offer that kind of kingdom to Israel. For one thing, it would have triggered a Roman response because of so many zealots. You are totally mistaken. For another, he clarified it was not that kind. The Gospel of his sacrifice went with it. It was mentioned the first day and many times. Jonah was the sign of him--the sacrifice of Jonah to save the ship. You simply have a preset belief system that you are scared to leave.

It is OK to say that the redemption focuses on us frail humans. It is not man centered because the glory goes to God. It happens to involve man. Whether God will redeem other celestial creatures, I don't know. But the angels who are good are enraptured to look into our salvation, because it is the most amazing thing to them, 2 Pet 1. Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, and has redeemed those from all nations by his blood--that's the hit song of heaven. Christ-glorifying and Christ-centered. Poor me.

What we don't have is any Israelolatry that I can see. Do you see any?

Oh.

 

[Right Divider]

Christ did not offer that kind of kingdom to Israel. For one thing, it would have triggered a Roman response because of so many zealots. You are totally mistaken. For another, he clarified it was not that kind. The Gospel of his sacrifice went with it. It was mentioned the first day and many times. Jonah was the sign of him--the sacrifice of Jonah to save the ship. You simply have a preset belief system that you are scared to leave.

It is OK to say that the redemption focuses on us frail humans. It is not man centered because the glory goes to God. It happens to involve man. Whether God will redeem other celestial creatures, I don't know. But the angels who are good are enraptured to look into our salvation, because it is the most amazing thing to them, 2 Pet 1. Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, and has redeemed those from all nations by his blood--that's the hit song of heaven. Christ-glorifying and Christ-centered. Poor me.

What we don't have is any Israelolatry that I can see. Do you see any?

:rotfl:
You are simply too blind to see.

 

[DAN P]

The article has nothing to do with it. it would be there anyone. Preaching the Gospel 'euangelizo' is saying the one gospel was preached to both targets.[/QU NOT OTE]


Hi and FIRST the Greek word in Gal 2:7 is NOT EUANGELIZO and it is EUAGGELION , a noun !!

It is obvoiuse , that do not Understand the IMPORTANCE of the Greek ARTICILE really means and the Greek ARTICILE , POINTS to a SPECIFIC THING 11

It is say in verse 7 and called the gospel of THE UNCIRCUMCISION the word THE is there !!

The other reads , just as Peter ( was ) of THE CIRCUMCISION and NLOTICE that the Greek for gospel / EUAGGELELION IS LEFT OUT , WHY ?

Tell me why INTERPLANNER ??

You can not OR you do not know < do you ??

dan p

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

:rotfl:
You are simply too blind to see.

Commentary overload.

 

[Danoh]

Commentary overload.

So put yours away; already :chuckle:

 

[Right Divider]

So put yours away; already :chuckle:

You should be arrested for attempted humor :french:

 

[Interplanner]

:rotfl:
You are simply too blind to see.

To see what?