Yes, saw him in person once. By the way, I had Hank Hanagragh removed from the radio here in Honolulu years ago. Pat myself on the back..
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
ECT Fueing the Fire for the Anti-Semites
- Thread starter Jerry Shugart
- Start date
Yes, saw him in person once. By the way, I had Hank Hanagragh removed from the radio here in Honolulu years ago. Pat myself on the back..
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
That alone, does not necessarily invalidate any of Martin's points cited above.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Then why does your Bible study now consist of scouring thousands of commentaries?
Why do you not like commentaries?
(2 Tim 2:2) And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others.
I don't see 2 Tim 2:2 saying: "read the King James, and nothing else".
Actually, he recently cited several (Hybrid) based "commentaries."
No surprise there.
He asserts their same words.
"Commentaries" (in whatever form) though, are not the issue.
Rather, over relying on them for one's reasoning...is.
Start a thread on objective study principles...
Watch it go nowhere...
Unless "the number" give it their one-sided seal of approval :chuckle:
Interplanner
Well-known member
Many, many commentaries teach D'ism... So STP might be on to something. That they need cleaning (scouring). It needs to be dislodged like calcification.
That's the irony for STP.
Almost everything he posts on TOL came from commentaries written by Dispensationalists.
Or audio comments from Les Feldick.
Nope.
What you've been going back and forth with them on about Ephesians 2 is not held by Feldick.
Likewise on some other 20 plus things they hold that are not held by the vast number of Pastor-Teachers out there who study and teach Scripture from the Mid-Acts Perspective of Bible Study clearly taught by the Scripture.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
You can use any commentary you choose and tell us why the Apostles were in error for thinking that the kingdom would be restored to Israel. After the Lord Jesus was resurrected from the dead He spent forty days with His apostle while He personally tutored his Apostles about the things concerning the Kingdom:
"To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God" (Acts 1:3).
Of course anyone spending that much time with the King Himself would certainly know much about the Kingdom, especially the most basic things about it. And after forty days the Apostles knew that the kingdom would be restored to Israel, as witnessed by this question:
"When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" (Acts 1:6).
After being personally tutored by the King for forty days they certainly understood one of the most basic facts about the kingdom, that it would be restored to Israel. If they were in error then certainly the King would correct them. But He did no such thing, only telling them that they were not to know when the kingdom would be restored:
"And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power" (Acts 1:7).
If the kingdom was not going to be restored to Israel then it would make absolutely no sense for the Lord Jesus to say anything at all about its timing. But He did.
Perhaps the person which you follow, the Jesuit Alcazar, has an answer. If not, since your knowledge of the Bible is si vast tell us why the Apostles were wrong.
Last edited:
Well, well, well...TOL's resident wimp, little arms Craigie, admitted Jew hater, arrives to weigh in on his on record, anti-Semitism.
Right, Craigie? Go ahead-tell everyone that you are not an anti-Semite, since you "follow Paul," and no one else does, certainly not those wacko, meanie MAD-ists, that hurt your fragile feelings, years ago, and you've been crying, and pining, ever since. Go ahead, Replacement cult member, Preterist punk. Watch the evasion, from the weasel......Watch....I've been asking him this, for weeks. Watch the spin, non answer...
Well, sweetie?
Everything you post, is plagiarized, straight copy'npaste's from J. Stuart Russell's book, books by Gentry, King, DeMars, Sproul, Dennis........................................................................ and your tack of Preterist commentaries, Preterist websites, Hank Hannegraaf tapes/books, from the Catholic "church," as other members of TOL have evidenced, for years, sweetie.
Why do you "follow the teachings of fallable men," Craigie?
Interplanner
Well-known member
Jerry quoted:
"To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God" (Acts 1:3).
Right! The reign of God, not Israel. They were still Spirit-less and asking questions like zealots about a monarchy. The idea of God reigning was not clear, as it is not clear to you as we speak. That happened at Pentecost, because the Spirit was given because Christ was enthroned. Plus the Spirit would move some of them around and put them with contacts and given them visions.
But you don't even recognize the enthronement (Davidic) of Christ! How can you understand anything else here?
You are also mistaken about Alcazar; that's not what he did for the Counterreformation.
Jerry,
you show that the shear bulk of presumptions is all you need to know to keep asking the same information over and over. The bulk is mistaken. Just the fact that you can write it out does not make it true.
Power was conferred by christ (0 about Israel, but you will receive power) and that was the 'reign of God' happening. He said so back in Lk 24, if not earlier (like Jn 13-17 about the coming of the Spirit). That's prob why you avoid John; it blasts your pet theory apart.
"To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God" (Acts 1:3).
Right! The reign of God, not Israel. They were still Spirit-less and asking questions like zealots about a monarchy. The idea of God reigning was not clear, as it is not clear to you as we speak. That happened at Pentecost, because the Spirit was given because Christ was enthroned. Plus the Spirit would move some of them around and put them with contacts and given them visions.
But you don't even recognize the enthronement (Davidic) of Christ! How can you understand anything else here?
You are also mistaken about Alcazar; that's not what he did for the Counterreformation.
Jerry,
you show that the shear bulk of presumptions is all you need to know to keep asking the same information over and over. The bulk is mistaken. Just the fact that you can write it out does not make it true.
Power was conferred by christ (0 about Israel, but you will receive power) and that was the 'reign of God' happening. He said so back in Lk 24, if not earlier (like Jn 13-17 about the coming of the Spirit). That's prob why you avoid John; it blasts your pet theory apart.
Do you consider yourself a 'cultist' since you are a dispensationalist?
Jerry thinks the disciples would not have asked Jesus the question during the 40 days,about when the Kingdom would be restored to Israel, if that was the subject of their teaching.
Jesus teaching concerning the Kingdom of God was confined to the immediate task they were about to be engaged in beginning at Pentecost.
They did not need any further teaching of the Kingdom which would be set up after the resurrection of the saints.
LA
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Interplanner
Well-known member
Jerry "thinks?"
I think not . . .
The kingdom was already active. Christ was enthroned says Acts 2 quoting David, and the royal power was conferred to the apostles in the Spirit's work at Pentecost and after.
I posted "That alone, does not necessarily invalidate any of Martin's points cited above."
I'd meant "That ALONE, does not NECESSARILY invalidate ANY of Martin's points cited above."
One of those points was the following:
"The identification of opposing beliefs with the individual in the framework of antagonism leads the cultist almost always to reject the individual as well
as the belief, a problem closely linked with closed-mindedness and one that is extremely difficult to deal with in general dialogue with cultists."
That is a description of the very elitist; consistent; club/cult-like behavior on the part of some on here, towards anyone who dares queston their supposedly "Mid-Acts Dispensationally" based views.
I've run accross that very behaviour in some MADs here and there, over the years.
But it is not the norm within MAD.
It is the norm on...TOL.
While to point it out to such, is to set it off in such; once more.
But "ye have not so learned Christ" - you each know you are being hypocrites.
Condone away, steko.
Proverbs 27:17.
Last edited:
Other than some "party-line" answer?
For that mattter- would such ALWAYS be the case with ANYONE?
Is there not ever some point wherein in people will not be able to give an answer to the satisfaction of another?
All the time.
In the above, I could just as easily have asked you your question to me.
:think:
Last edited:
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
You can use any commentary you choose and tell us why the Apostles were in error for thinking that the kingdom would be restored to Israel. After the Lord Jesus was resurrected from the dead He spent forty days with His apostle while He personally tutored his Apostles about the things concerning the Kingdom:
"To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God" (Acts 1:3).
Of course anyone spending that much time with the King Himself would certainly know much about the Kingdom, especially the most basic things about it. And after forty days the Apostles knew that the kingdom would be restored to Israel, as witnessed by this question:
"When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" (Acts 1:6).
After being personally tutored by the King for forty days they certainly understood one of the most basic facts about the kingdom, that it would be restored to Israel. If they were in error then certainly the King would correct them. But He did no such thing, only telling them that they were not to know when the kingdom would be restored:
"And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power" (Acts 1:7).
If the kingdom was not going to be restored to Israel then it would make absolutely no sense for the Lord Jesus to say anything at all about its timing. But He did.
Perhaps the person which you follow, the Jesuit Alcazar, has an answer. If not, since your knowledge of the Bible is si vast tell us why the Apostles were wrong.