ECT How is Paul's message different?

[Clete]

If you don't answer the questions to me that is 100% fine. My intention is to get you to think.

Bull. Your intent is to lead me into what you think is some sort of logical condundrum or trap.

I've thought about this stuff my entire adult life. I very likely could argue your doctrine more effectively than you can. I didn't start out as an Acts 9 Dispensationalist and I can guarantee, based on the sorts of things you've said throughout this thread, that you have nothing that will move me an inch from it. If you're attempting to teach me something, you're wasting your time.

For example, what did Peter mean by be converted? You don't have to answer me but do you have an answer for yourself.

You're good at baiting people, I'll give you that.

Why is it that you're unwilling just to tell me what you think he meant and make an argument?

 

[Interplanner]

What?

Which words of Jesus did I make false?

Nothing about Mid-Acts Dispensationalism does any such thing and I think you know that. The only reason to even think such things, never mind say them or allow yourself to be persuaded by them, would be if you had no real argument against Mid-Acts Dispensationalism, nor any real rebuttal to the arguments they make.

Have you completely abandoned attempting to see around your paradigm? If so, this is a waste of both of us.

The actual problem with D'ism as a system is the violation of the Reformation interpretive principles. If I had had the chance back during master's degree studies I would love to have sleuthed how this happened.

"Doctrinal passages must interpret irregular events and statements in the narratives."



In other words, even the name MAD is a mistake because it violates this. It searches way too close, tree to tree to tree for an answer which was meant to be supplied by the teaching of the apostles, not the things that took place throughout the book. Obviously in Acts, there are a few passages that are elaborated teaching--2, 3, 13, 19, and some of the hearings at the end.

But we are not to get to ch 18 and decide that Paul now had an entirely different message from 13 because the tagline supplied by Luke is now 'Jesus is the Christ' and divorce that from everything else we know from 9 or 13 or 14 or 15 or 17 at the Athens funkhole. That is the incoherent mentality of MAD, and we should just ignore that acronym anyway, and refer to Dispensational-ISM as a deviant theology that few dare to call deviant. It's easy to blast Ellen White or Mormonism, but the rub about D'ism is that it has a compartmentalized way of reading the Bible that 'creates' a deviant organized message about the Bible. One line in Heb 8 gets read as though a Judaic state is coming, when the whole passage of 8-10 or 12 is against that entirely, not to mention the momentum of the whole letter.

 

[john w]

Uhhh, he was dead later. When he was alive, I'm sure he got disenfranchised with the Gospel of Christ's death because it isn't really something a zealot can use.

The one gospel is that the Lamb had come who would be slain to take aways sins. (In D'ism, you put the word NOT between 'would' and 'be' TO MAKE SENSE of the Bible, get it? They are NOT-heads.)

Evasion. Non responsive. I did not ask if Judas was dead, later. I asked a simple question, Butch, based upon your argument/"pound the podium" assertion:

It is the one Gospel...

Again-I made this easier for you, Butch: Did Judas preach the 1 Cor. 15:1-4 KJV good news, in light of you, ON RECORD, asserting..."It is the one Gospel."?

Is 1 Cor. 15:1-4 KJV this "It is the one Gospel," and did Judas preach it?


Answer, or once again be exposed as a poser, habitual liar, clown, not having read the book, much less studied it, and it's details, making up this "one Gospel/piece of good news" devil "inspired" trash.

 

[Right Divider]

The actual problem with D'ism as a system is the violation of the Reformation interpretive principles. If I had had the chance back during master's degree studies I would love to have sleuthed how this happened.

:rotfl:

ALL HAIL THE REFORMATION INTERPRETIVE PRINCIPLES!!!

"Doctrinal passages must interpret irregular events and statements in the narratives."

In other words, even the name MAD is a mistake because it violates this. It searches way too close, tree to tree to tree for an answer which was meant to be supplied by the teaching of the apostles, not the things that took place throughout the book. Obviously in Acts, there are a few passages that are elaborated teaching--2, 3, 13, 19, and some of the hearings at the end.

Acts is a book about the fall of Israel. It is NOT a doctrinal discourse, like for example, the book of Romans.

Israel rejected the testimony of:

• The prophets
• Christ
• The twelve
• The many disciples (including Stephen)
• The Holy Spirit
• Paul

That brings us to the end of the book of the Acts of the apostles.

But we are not to get to ch 18 and decide that Paul now had an entirely different message from 13 because the tagline supplied by Luke is now 'Jesus is the Christ' and divorce that from everything else we know from 9 or 13 or 14 or 15 or 17 at the Athens funkhole. That is the incoherent mentality of MAD, and we should just ignore that acronym anyway, and refer to Dispensational-ISM as a deviant theology that few dare to call deviant. It's easy to blast Ellen White or Mormonism, but the rub about D'ism is that it has a compartmentalized way of reading the Bible that 'creates' a deviant organized message about the Bible. One line in Heb 8 gets read as though a Judaic state is coming, when the whole passage of 8-10 or 12 is against that entirely, not to mention the momentum of the whole letter.

That you do not understand all that God was doing with and through Israel is clear.
That you do not understand all that God is now doing with and through the body of Christ is clear.

 

[john w]

The actual problem with D'ism as a system is the violation of the Reformation interpretive principles................

When did "The Reformation" take place, Butch? 1500's? People had to wait 1500 years, until "the Bible made sense"(your words)?

So, you admit that your Dispensationalism is wrong "argument," because it is relatively "recent," was a scam, is sophistry, Butch? If no, then you admit that you're a whited wall, hypocrite, Butch? Which is it?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

When did "The Reformation" take place, Butch? 1500's? People had to wait 1500 years, until "the Bible made sense"(your words)?

So, you admit that your Dispensationalism is wrong "argument," because it is relatively "recent," was a scam, is sophistry, Butch? If no, then you admit that you're a whited wall, hypocrite, Butch? Which is it?

You're too logical, saint john.

 

[john w]

You're too logical, saint john.

I also got that from my mamma, Mayor. She also never let me wear her hats/head coverings, at "Mass" when I was a kid. That's why no one wears my "Darrell Dragon" hat:

 

[Interplanner]

Evasion. Non responsive. I did not ask if Judas was dead, later. I asked a simple question, Butch, based upon your argument/"pound the podium" assertion:





Again-I made this easier for you, Butch: Did Judas preach the 1 Cor. 15:1-4 KJV good news, in light of you, ON RECORD, asserting..."It is the one Gospel."?

Is 1 Cor. 15:1-4 KJV this "It is the one Gospel," and did Judas preach it?


Answer, or once again be exposed as a poser, habitual liar, clown, not having read the book, much less studied it, and it's details, making up this "one Gospel/piece of good news" devil "inspired" trash.

He did before he left the faith intellectually, which was sometime after the Trans and he realized that Jesus was not actually trying to be a zealot Christ warrior figure. The Judaism-raised masses thought Christ was going to set up the kingdom of Israel, Jn 12:34. Christ told them that was darkness, and what he was doing was the light.

 

[lifeisgood]

He did before he left the faith intellectually, which was sometime after the Trans and he realized that Jesus was not actually trying to be a zealot Christ warrior figure.

 

[Interplanner]

When did "The Reformation" take place, Butch? 1500's? People had to wait 1500 years, until "the Bible made sense"(your words)?

So, you admit that your Dispensationalism is wrong "argument," because it is relatively "recent," was a scam, is sophistry, Butch? If no, then you admit that you're a whited wall, hypocrite, Butch? Which is it?

Yes the standard view of Church history is that quite a bit of it was spent in the darkness of the Papacy. this was due to both what was taught, as well as the absence of the availability of Scripture.

It will help if you knew some church history.

No one in the Reformation period had the D'ist beliefs you have except for Alcaraz and Ribera, Jesuits who were hired to protect the Pope from the accusation of being AC. Ribera's scheme is essentially what D'ism came to believe--a coming Jewish AC, in a restored Jerusalem temple, trying to set up a reign over the earth. D'ism took that and said, 'yeah, that's it, but not complete. After he tries to rule the earth, he is defeated by Christ coming down and doing it the right way for 1000 years.'

I don't know if Ribera thought a future Pope was going to do the 1000 years or not, but it is probable.

 

[Right Divider]

Yes the standard view of Church history is that quite a bit of it was spent in the darkness of the Papacy. this was due to both what was taught, as well as the absence of the availability of Scripture.

It will help if you knew some church history.

No one in the Reformation period had the D'ist beliefs you have except for Alcaraz and Ribera, Jesuits who were hired to protect the Pope from the accusation of being AC. Ribera's scheme is essentially what D'ism came to believe--a coming Jewish AC, in a restored Jerusalem temple, trying to set up a reign over the earth. D'ism took that and said, 'yeah, that's it, but not complete. After he tries to rule the earth, he is defeated by Christ coming down and doing it the right way for 1000 years.'

I don't know if Ribera thought a future Pope was going to do the 1000 years or not, but it is probable.

:juggle:

 

[Interplanner]

The dilemma of the disciples 'not knowing what the crucifixion was about' shadowed them all. Peter said it would never happen. Then he said he didn't know who Christ was during the event. Judas is not tracked as closely, but we know he was ticked when he learned that Christ was not going to 'redistribute wealth' but actually spend a lot of money on his burial.

The term 'Iscariot' is based on the curved dagger the 'sicarii.' This was a concealed weapon that plagued Roman troops because they never knew when zealots were wearing them since the shape hid on the body, unlike a full straight sword. Judas, and some others from Galilee, were zealots Jesus wished to convert to missionaries.

 

[Interplanner]

You're too logical, saint john.

I'm not aware of any extensive development of future theology in Papism, because of the perpetuity on earth of the Pope, 'world without end.' It was only when the Reformation accused the Pope of being AC (I've seen a list of about 20 different Reformation teachers from Luther to Ferrell who did so) that the Counter-Reformation came up with a defense.

Of course, the Papacy had an elaborate view of the after life; that's where indulgences to reduce Purgatory were developed. But no 'end times' events.

It is generally held that the Papacy was fraught with mistaken conceptions wherever it spread, making the changes that Luther expounded to be a 'protest' movement. Ie, Protestantism.

 

[Interplanner]

When RD writes a paragraph on who the Zealots were and why and when and how, I might try reading one of his posts again.

That 'woopee' remark the other day was worse than all of JohnnyW's vulgarisms.

 

[Right Divider]

The dilemma of the disciples 'not knowing what the crucifixion was about' shadowed them all.

It was a bit more than just them not knowing. The scripture says that is was HID from them.

Luke 18:34 (AKJV/PCE)​

(18:34) And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken.
​

If this was true, how could THEY ALL be preaching the "one true gospel" starting in Luke 9 if... as WE NOW KNOW... the gospel of the grace of God hinges on the death of Christ for our sin?

 

[Right Divider]

When RD writes a paragraph on who the Zealots were and why and when and how, I might try reading one of his posts again.

That 'woopee' remark the other day was worse than all of JohnnyW's vulgarisms.

Congratulations. You are now the biggest cry baby on TOL.

 

[john w]

He did before he left the faith intellectually, which was sometime after the Trans and he realized that Jesus was not actually trying to be a zealot Christ warrior figure. The Judaism-raised masses thought Christ was going to set up the kingdom of Israel, Jn 12:34. Christ told them that was darkness, and what he was doing was the light.

1. You assert, on record, that Judas preached "Christ died for your sins...Was raised from the dead for our justification...Believe this to be saved," which is satanic, from the pits of hell, Butch.

2. You lied, again, on record, Butch. None of the 12 preached ""Christ died for your sins...Was raised from the dead for our justification...Believe this to be saved," prior to its occurrence, as the death, burial, resurrection, was hid from the 12, until almost 3 years, or so, late in the Lord Jesus Christ's ministry on earth. All the while, the 12, including your saint Judas, were preaching the gospel/good news of the kingdom, which was void of the dbr, as you've been shown. So much for your "just one good news/gospel" made up jazz.


Why did you just lie, and delete the scriptures, that testify to the fact that the 12 had no idea, prior to its occurrence, of the dbr, the good news of 1 Cor. 15:1-4 KJV?

Well, Butch?

 

[john w]

It will help if you knew some church history.

No one in the Reformation period had the D'ist beliefs you have except for Alcaraz and Ribera, Jesuits who were hired to protect the Pope from the accusation of being AC.[ QUOTE]

Deception, irrelevant to your argument, that when you discover objective truth, determines if it is, in fact, objective truth.

When did "The Reformation" take place, Butch? 1500's? People had to wait 1500 years, until "the Bible made sense"(your words)?

So, you admit that your Dispensationalism is wrong "argument," because it is relatively "recent," was a scam, is sophistry, Butch? If no, then you admit that you're a whited wall, hypocrite, Butch? Which is it?


You laughable fraud, deceiver.

 

[john w]

The dilemma of the disciples 'not knowing what the crucifixion was about' shadowed them all. Peter said it would never happen. Then he said he didn't know who Christ was during the event. Judas is not tracked as closely, but we know he was ticked when he learned that Christ was not going to 'redistribute wealth' but actually spend a lot of money on his burial.

The term 'Iscariot' is based on the curved dagger the 'sicarii.' This was a concealed weapon that plagued Roman troops because they never knew when zealots were wearing them since the shape hid on the body, unlike a full straight sword. Judas, and some others from Galilee, were zealots Jesus wished to convert to missionaries.

You lied-again, Butch. The impending, according to prophecy, death, burial, resurrection, was hid from the 12, prior to its occurrence. They had no clue, he was be crucified, and raised from the dead. You've been shown these scriptural facts, chapter, verse, but you waived your magic wand, deleted/dismissed them.


Why, Butch?

 

[Interplanner]

It will help if you knew some church history.

No one in the Reformation period had the D'ist beliefs you have except for Alcaraz and Ribera, Jesuits who were hired to protect the Pope from the accusation of being AC.[ QUOTE]

Deception, irrelevant to your argument, that when you discover objective truth, determines if it is, in fact, objective truth.

When did "The Reformation" take place, Butch? 1500's? People had to wait 1500 years, until "the Bible made sense"(your words)?

So, you admit that your Dispensationalism is wrong "argument," because it is relatively "recent," was a scam, is sophistry, Butch? If no, then you admit that you're a whited wall, hypocrite, Butch? Which is it?


You laughable fraud, deceiver.

You might want to do some church history reading John. the doctrines that inspired the Crusades had nothing 'futurist' about them; they were rather in the category of preserving relics etc. and of just general keeping colonies in the Papacy, and resisting the spread of Islam.

There are a few traces of futurism back in the 2nd century, but not much. There is also some sympathetic feeling for the Jews as a race and a nation, that after Bar Kochba in 135 etc., why not just let them live there if they want. After all they are no threat anymore.

What is most important is the INITIAL reaction to the historic fact that the 2nd coming did not take place right after the destruction of Jerusalem in the wake of Jesus' own generation. The only information I can gather about that is that the apostles just believed we should continue taking the Gospel to every nation.