Interplanner
Well-known member
There were people in the OT who knew 'Christ's day' and believed. Some of them had as little as Gen 3, some had Is 53.
ECT MADists don't follow Paul
- Thread starter tetelestai
- Start date
There were people in the OT who knew 'Christ's day' and believed. Some of them had as little as Gen 3, some had Is 53.
Right Divider
Body part
Not ALL of God's interactions with the people in the OT were put into scripture. So they had quite a bit MORE than just those scriptures to lead them.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Yes, but watch out you don't get smacked upside the head by the Mad policeman here who has outside sources on his infrared.
You have reinforced what I was saying. There are mission stories that do the same--the Huron, tribes in Papua, the Naszca.
I'll be really surprised if he believes he is reinforcing those assertions of yours in your last paragragh there :chuckle:
Interplanner
Well-known member
that's for him to say, but if we are talking 2x more material in other sources, then he has your cursing for sure, for referring to other sources. He said 'quite a bit more.'
Sheesh!
My issue is not sources external to the text. Rather your OVER RELIANCE ON THEM.
Sheesh. How many times must I point this distinction out to you.
Would you like it in a "book about"?
:crackup:
Interplanner
Well-known member
Translation: any sources that disagree with MADADD. Because you'd thoroughly enjoy yourself in Scofield's notes or Ryrie's book.
Right Divider
Body part
Your completely illogical anecdote shows that you cannot even think straight.
Yep.
Danoh has no problem reading books about his MAD and/or Dispensationalism (which he completely relies on), but if anyone reads books that differ from his MAD and/or Dispensationalism, then Danoh accuses him or her as "over relying" on said books.
IOW, Danoh is the biggest hypocrite on TOL.
Nope. I study from a Bible that is absent of notes, cross-references, etc.
While, right now I am reading a book by an Amillennialist, and another on the history of China's trade policies.
"Books about" that I do NOT over rely on, as you glaringly do.
You're a fool, Interplanner. Plain and simple.
Interplanner
Well-known member
What specific thing are you referring to?
when is the last time you read Eph 2-3 10x outloud?
Interplanner
Well-known member
To all,
as requested before, quit all contact with those who don't deal in specifics and whose true mission here is to state insults.
When is the last time you read Eph 2-3 10x outloud?
In short, he is saying ignore his posts supposedly "about" MAD.
They all end with his slurs against the perspective itself.
It's called duplicity.
And people would be surprised how much Bible a MAD ends up memorizing simply through time in Scripture.
How many books "about" Ephesians have you read that you now OVER RELY ON, Interplanner :chuckle:
IP is correct, you are not interested in defending your Dispensationalism, you're only interested in attacking the person who points out the errors.
The title of this thread is "MADists don't follow Paul". This thread has shown over and over again, that the title is correct, MADists don't follow Paul.
MADists claim the temple in Ezk 40-48 is a yet future temple. This yet future temple in Ezk 40-48 has animal sacrifices for sin atonement in it.
(Ezk 45:17) It will be the duty of the prince to provide the burnt offerings, grain offerings and drink offerings at the festivals, the New Moons and the Sabbaths—at all the appointed festivals of Israel. He will provide the sin offerings, grain offerings, burnt offerings and fellowship offerings to make atonement for the Israelites.
Christ Jesus made a one time sacrifice for sins forever. To claim God is going to require animal sacrifices for sin atonement in the future, is a direct slap in the face to what Christ Jesus accomplished on the cross, and proves MADists do not follow Paul.
Instead of addressing the passages in Ezk 40-48, you will go on and on about books based blah, blah, blah, or accuse me of baiting, blah, blah, blah, or acting like Jerry Shugart blah, blah, blah, or that I'm not really saved blah, blah, blah......
That's what you do when you can't defend your MAD.
musterion
Well-known member
Question. Does that go for Tet as well?
Look at the previous post. Here is what you'll find:
(Ezk 45:17) It will be the duty of the prince to provide the burnt offerings, grain offerings and drink offerings at the festivals, the New Moons and the Sabbaths—at all the appointed festivals of Israel. He will provide the sin offerings, grain offerings, burnt offerings and fellowship offerings to make atonement for the Israelites.
When's the last time you made a post with scripture in it?
Better yet, explain how Ezk 45:17 happens in your futuristic eschatology?
Anytime you want to stick strictly with scripture, just let me know....cause there's no way your Dispensationalism has a chance.
Lay out the gospel of our salvation...clearly.
Then, give your word you will drop all put downs in connection with Dispensationalism in every way, shape, and form.
THEN I will believe these issues are issues you actually want to discuss.
For it is obvious you have no interest in exploring them.
Rather, in proving you are Mr. Sound himself.
Yep.
When and where do preterists Darby haters place the temple described in Ezekiel?
(This ought to be good.)
It's no more of a slap in the face of Christ to have sacrifices in the future any more than it was to have sacrifices in the past.
Hebrews 10:3-4 KJV
(3) But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
(4) For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
None of the sacrifices ever accomplished what Christ did.
The sacrifices were for a reminder of how mighty and righteous God was, and how weak and unrighteous man was.
That is not slap in the face of Christ.
:mock: preterist Darby hating idiots.
It's a spiritual temple located in the promised land. The promised land is described in Hebrews as "a better land" (Heb 11:16, a heavenly land.
Paul taught that every believer is a temple of God, and that those in Christ are described as a temple. Paul taught that those in Christ are to offer spiritual sacrifices.
Jesus said destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up. Jesus was raised up, as was the temple.
You're wrong.
The sacrifices before the cross were a shadow of what was to come.
Yes, that's the point.
(Heb 10:12) But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God,
The sacrifices were a shadow.
You think the temple in Ezekiel 40-48 is literal. If so, how do you reconcile with the following verse:
(Isaiah 65:25) The wolf and the lamb will feed together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox,
and dust will be the serpent’s food.
They will neither harm nor destroy
on all my holy mountain,”
says the Lord.
The above verse says no animals will be harmed or destroyed, yet you have animals being killed.
(Ezk 44:28) And it shall be unto them for an inheritance: I am their inheritance: and ye shall give them no possession in Israel: I am their possession.
Your'e out of your mind if you think God is going to require animal sacrifices for sin atonement after the cross.
Ezekiel dedicates 3 whole chapters giving detailed measurements.
It wasn't spiritual.
No, I'm not.
Scripture tells us on many occasions that the offerings and sacrifices were a memorial to remind them that the mighty hand of God saves, and remind them of their sin.
The offerings and sacrifices NEVER took away sin, neither in the past or in the future.
Preterist Darby haters love to disagree with scripture and make things up.