ECT Dispensationalism Defined

[Cross Reference]

You have to corroborate this, not just state it. Why would God use sea to describe Gentiles and why would it connote the same in the NT?

"Then thou shalt see, and flow together, and thine heart shall fear, and be enlarged; because the abundance of the sea shall be converted unto thee, the forces of the Gentiles shall come unto thee." Isaiah 60:5 (KJV)

20-20 insight needed here that you might have trouble with:

"Daniel spake and said, I saw in my vision by night, and, behold, the four winds of the heaven strove upon the great sea. And four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from another." Daniel 7:2-3ff (KJV)

 

[StanJ]

"Then thou shalt see, and flow together, and thine heart shall fear, and be enlarged; because the abundance of the sea shall be converted unto thee, the forces of the Gentiles shall come unto thee." Isaiah 60:5 (KJV)

20-20 insight needed here that you might have trouble with:

"Daniel spake and said, I saw in my vision by night, and, behold, the four winds of the heaven strove upon the great sea. And four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from another." Daniel 7:2-3ff (KJV)

Then you will look and be radiant,
your heart will throb and swell with joy;
the wealth on the seas will be brought to you,
to you the riches of the nations will come.

Daniel said: “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me were the four winds of heaven churning up the great sea. Four great beasts, each different from the others, came up out of the sea.

The word you're looking for is eisegesis, NOT insight.

I asked tetelestai, not you, but if you are going to speak for him at least try to give an explanation and not a supercilious response.

 

[Cross Reference]

Then you will look and be radiant,
your heart will throb and swell with joy;
the wealth on the seas will be brought to you,
to you the riches of the nations will come.

Daniel said: “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me were the four winds of heaven churning up the great sea. Four great beasts, each different from the others, came up out of the sea.

The word you're looking for is eisegesis, NOT insight.

I asked tetelestai, not you, but if you are going to speak for him at least try to give an explanation and not a supercilious response.

Naah, I am not answering for him. Your question was obviously asked in ignorance. I just wanted to help you out.

 

[StanJ]

Naah, I am not answering for him. Your question was obviously asked in ignorance. I just wanted to help you out.

Then consider my reply as it NOT being helpful or accurate.

 

[john w]

Are you a preterist?

He is a "partial" Preterist, which, based upon his own "argument" against the MAD approach, makes it false.

 

[john w]

I'm pretty sure it does.

The word "sea" is found in the OT many times referring to Gentiles.

(Psalm 68:22) The Lord says, “I will bring them from Bashan;
I will bring them from the depths of the sea,

(Psalm 65:5) By terrible things in righteousness wilt thou answer us, O God of our salvation; who art the confidence of all the ends of the earth, and of them that are afar off upon the sea:

In the above two verses, the Israelites God was speaking of were neither underwater, nor on the water. They were living in Gentile nations



The new heavens and the new earth is the New Covenant.

It's crazy to claim that God is going to destroy this planet, then create a Xerox copy of it with literally no water on it.

The above is plagiarized, from Hank Hanegraaf.


Knock it off, Craigie.

 

[john w]

Correct, but somehow you add to it by claiming the Disciples meant when He was coming to planet earth.



No they weren't.

They asked Him "what shall be the sign of thy coming". Nothing about planet earth in the question.

Let's look at a similar verse:

(Isaiah 19:1) See, the Lord rides on a swift cloud and is coming to Egypt.....

In the above prophecy, the Lord neither literally rode a literal cloud, nor literally went into Egypt.

That's the same language found in Matt 24, Luke 21, and Mark 13

The Isaiah prophecy was fulfilled when the Assyrian army invaded Egypt.

The Matt 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 prophecies were fulfilled when the Roman army destroyed Jerusalem in 70AD.

Both prophecies speak of coming on clouds



No it doesn't Jerry.

There is nothing in the above verse that even hints of Christ Jesus coming to planet earth.



Just like the Lord did not literally come to Egypt, Christ Jesus literally didn't come to planet earth despite both prophecies saying the Lord was coming, yet both prophecies were fulfilled.



Again Jerry, there is nothing about planet earth in any of the verses. In fact, you won't find one verse in the NT that remotely says a thing about Christ Jesus coming back to planet earth, a third temple, or any of the other nonsense Darby said is going to happen in the future.



I have shown you that the language found in Isaiah 19:1 is the same language found in the NT prophecies about the Lord coming on clouds.

Instead of learning from the symbolism found in the OT, you have chosen to believe Darby instead.

The above is plagiarized, from Hank Hanegraaf.

You have chosen to believe Hank, and plagiarize from him, instead of the bible.


I told you to knock it off.


Am I clear?

 

[Cross Reference]

Then consider my reply as it NOT being helpful or accurate.

Not in my estimation is it inaccurate. You need a little more elementary teaching to begin to grasp what you don't understand. I am only trying to assist in that.

 

[StanJ]

Not in my estimation is it inaccurate. You need a little more elementary teaching to begin to grasp what you don't understand. I am only trying to assist in that.

Apparently you didn't get past elementary as that is all you talk about. I moved on a LONG time ago. Word games don't interest me AT ALL.

 

[Stripe]

Which translations read "land of Israel" at Matthew 5:5?

It's an interesting concept they have. The idea of a new heavens and a new Earth sounds like the entire globe will be replaced, which is what we would expect to be inherited.

Evolutionists use a similar argument about a word meaning "land" to argue for a non-global flood, but neither idea jives with other concepts in the stories.

 

[Cross Reference]

Apparently you didn't get past elementary as that is all you talk about. I moved on a LONG time ago. Word games don't interest me AT ALL.

Moved on? Moving on doesn't mean you are progressing. You are just moving on. I understand the reason for that and am laying across your path in an attempt to keep you from walking off the cliff you are "moving" towards.

BTW: Elementary is where you are by supposing your prideful intellect will carry the day.

 

[tetelestai]

Are you a preterist?

Yes

 

[tetelestai]

The idea of a new heavens and a new Earth sounds like the entire globe will be replaced, which is what we would expect to be inherited..

(2 Cor 5:17) Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

Did you literally become a new creature when you were saved?

Did every old thing in your life literally pass away when you were saved?

Did everything in your life literally become new?

"New heavens and new earth" is not a place. It's a phrase that describes a new beginning, the same way "new creature" in 2 Cor 5:17 describes a believer in Christ Jesus.

 

[john w]

(2 Cor 5:17) Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

Did you literally become a new creature when you were saved?

Did every old thing in your life literally pass away when you were saved?

Did everything in your life literally become new?

"New heavens and new earth" is not a place. It's a phrase that describes a new beginning, the same way "new creature" in 2 Cor 5:17 describes a believer in Christ Jesus.

Straight copy'npaste, plagiarized, from:

...and...

You are a Stuart follower, and Hanegraaf follower.

No one taught your AD 70-ism/Preterism until the late 1800's. Therefore, according to you, it is false.

You are in denial.


Craigie taught us that-we learned that from him.


"New heavens and new earth" is not a place. It's a phrase that describes a new beginning, the same way "new creature" in 2 Cor 5:17 describes a believer in Christ Jesus."-Craigie


NoTetosteone Craigie: "the heaven and the earth" in "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" is not a place. It's a phrase that describes a the old nature in man.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

You are a Stuart follower, and Hanegraaf follower.

Move over Aaron, Hanegraeff is the real Hammerin' Hank.

 

[john w]

"New heavens and new earth" is not a place. It's a phrase that describes a new beginning, the same way "new creature" in 2 Cor 5:17 describes a believer in Christ Jesus.

"(Just what, when and where is the Kingdom of God)

By MS Cheo., Singapore
(12 Jan 2004)



This, I believe, is not exactly correct. I would take “New Heaven and New Earth” as just a colloquial expression understood by the ancient Jews to mean “a new beginning”. No more, no less. As such, while the new beginning may have heralded in a new social, religious and political change, it does not have to carry that meaning."



Knock of the copy'npasting, plagiarizing, from your "AD 70-ism/Preterist" "men teachers," Craigie.

Why do you follow the teachings of "fallable men," Craigie? You follow MS Cheo. You are in denial.


Craigie taught us that spam "argument"-we learned it from him.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

"(Just what, when and where is the Kingdom of God)

By MS Cheo., Singapore
(12 Jan 2004)



This, I believe, is not exactly correct. I would take “New Heaven and New Earth” as just a colloquial expression understood by the ancient Jews to mean “a new beginning”. No more, no less. As such, while the new beginning may have heralded in a new social, religious and political change, it does not have to carry that meaning."

Knock of the copy'npasting, plagiarizing, from your "AD 70-ism/Preterist" "men teachers," Craigie.


Why do you follow the teachings of "fallable men," Craigie?


Craigie taught us that spam 'argument"-we learned it from him.

:jawdrop:

Shocked that Tet is parroting Cheo.

 

[john w]

:jawdrop:

Shocked that Tet is parroting Cheo.

He follows Cheo. He is in denial.

QED.

Nothin' to the Tet. "arguments" of sophistry debating technique.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

He follows Cheo. He is in denial.

QED.

Nothin' to the Tet. "arguments" of sophistry debating technique.

Brainwashed, cockroaches, etc.

 

[john w]

Yes

"MAD can't even agree on.............."-Tet.

"The death knell" of Tet.'s "man made belief system," as Preterist cannot even agree on....., i.e., "Partial preterists," Full Preterists," ...................................


Go ahead, Craigie. Tell everyone that you are a "Partial Preterist."