Nang's SPOTD is Tet's Hit Out of the Park!

[Delmar]

We did already answer it.

What's telling is that not one Dispie has explained what Paul meant when Paul told believers to offer their bodies as living sacrifices that are Holy and acceptable to God.

OK I'll go along with this "one By bearing one another’s burdens: Galatians 6:2"

What do I win?

 

[john w]

Oh the irony.You, and your fellow John Nelson Darby followers can't tell us ...Yet, you totally ignore what the Apostle Paul tells you do do. Instead you do what John Nelson Darby tells you to do.

To date, habitual liar Craigie, and follower of J Stuart Russell, Hank Hanegraaf, G DeMar, Ken Gentry, RC Sproul, Todd Dennis, Max King, and............................................... .................................................. .......................(Too many to list, as even Craigie admits):

1. Has not explained all the lies that I, and others, have caught him on, ignores them.


2. Has not explained who this "everyone" was that saw this invisible Saviour, that allegedly returned, in AD 70. Wait...that was the Roman army...And explain to us how an invisible, "un physical" Saviour, could be seen. And identify these sources, the documentation, that evidences "every one" seeing Him return in AD 70. Specifics........Names....For one of the greatest events, in human history. Wait..it was "all Jerusalem"...Wait...He was invisible...


Neither do any of your infallible teachers, that you claim teach you.

3..
"According to MAD the above verse isn't for us."-Tet

vs.

"I believe the Apostle Paul's teachings are mostly for those of us who live post 70AD"-Tet.




Has not explained as to what these "mostly for" teachings of Paul, are for us, and why.

4..Has not explained who these infallible teachers are, that he claims teach him.


5. "in the original Greek."

Has not explained as to what this "original Greek" he quotes, is, and why he rebuked Jerry S., for JS's quoting "the Greek," when Tet. alleged JS doesn't know "the Greek," but neither does Craigie sweetie.

6. Has not explained a specfic lie-no explanation-why did you lie here, habitual liar:?

"That's not my argument.

I have never said that dispensationalism was "wrong" because of how old it was. I specifically said that no one taught about Christ coming back twice before Darby did."--habitual liar Wimpy Tet.


vs.

"My argument is that if there is not one single trace of something for 1,800+ years by anyone, then it was invented"-Craigie

Why is that, silly boy Craigie?

7. Has not explained why "land" does not really mean " land, and why you say that the land died for our sins?


8. Has not explained why he rejects figurative language in the book.


9. Has not explained why he wanted his wife to meet me, and did not respond to my acceptance...


"Or, maybe you can dazzle us and give us a new theory"-Craigie

Maybe you can dazzle me, with why you attempted to send your wife, to meet me in Dallas, silly boy?

10. Has not identified anyone before him, that asserts that the Lord Jesus Christ did not teach the law.

11.Has not explained how the "law was nailed to the cross," when he said it wasn't.

12. Has not explained why he deletes 2 Tim. 2:2 KJV from the bible.

13. Has not explained why he bailed in the Hilston "debate," and in 2 threads, that I started, he was a "no show."

14. Has not explained to us what "Paul's gospel" is.


15.“They are deniers of the new covenant….. Dispensationalists deny the New Covenant.Dispensationalists claim Jesus is going to oversee animal sacrifices. Dispensationalists claim God still has a plan with certain fleshly people. These beliefs are a slap in the face to what Christ Jesus accomplished on the cross….You can't deny the New Covenant, and at the same time claim to adhere to Paul's gospel.Denying the New Covenant & Adhering to Paul's Gospel are mutually exclusive…. Denying the new covenant is a MAJOR point in my career.A denial of the New Covenant is a slap in the face to what Christ Jesus accomplished on the cross… If you deny the New Covenant is in place right now, then you deny what Jesus accomplished on the cross… The New Covenant was implemented with the shed blood of Christ Jesus.If you deny the NC, then you deny what Christ Jesus accomplished on the cross.. Why do you deny the New Covenant.(to GM)How can you say you follow Paul, and then deny the NC is in place right now?”- Craigie/Corky Tet. The Clown




I deny that the New Covenant is inaugurated now, and deny that it's provisions are for members of the body of Christ. Do I deny Paul's gospel, and what Christ Jesus accomplished on the cross?


Am I lost then, if I do the above?Am I lost? Over 15 times requested.




16.

"I, the other hand, don't even have to invoke any alleged affiliation between Satanists and Dispensational doctrine.
Dispensationalism is antichrist. Crowley and LeVay are irrelevant.”- PneumaPsucheSoma


“I agree.However, since the topic of the thread is the linking of Dispensationalism and Satanists, I'll show more.Next[B] I'll show the connection between the Plymouth Brethern/John Nelson Darby/Dispensationalism and the occultist[/B] Helena Blavatsky… That's the point of the OP. Aleister Crowley came from John Nelson Darby and the Plymouth Brethren….Crowley was a satanist and an occultist. Anton LaVey was an admirer of Aleister Crowley. LaVey wrote the Satanic Bible, and relied heavily on Crowley's teachings. Crowley based his aeons on Darby's Dispensations. Darby based his dispensations on a vision by a teenage girl. It's an ugly tangled web Delmar. .. C.U.L.T(Naggie)… Exactly.Darby was no different than Joseph Smith and Charles Taze Russell. In fact they all invented their false teachings right around the same date (the age of the cults)…. That's why I like to show the roots and origin of Dispensationalism,.. Darby's teachings were rooted in the occult long before Crowley was even born….I gave you a side by side comparison of the occult terms that Darby and Helena Blavatsky used.Darby used the same exact occult terms Helena Blavatsky used."-Clown Craigie





You spam, over and over again, that you were a "dispie" for 25 years, as if, in deceit, and sophistry, that proves anything, you punk. Now, as STP asked you, and I asked you, were you satanic, antichrist, occult-ic, and lost in the 25 years that you were a dispensationalist?


There you go, Craigie. Answer the questions, you hypocrite.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Oh the irony.

You, and your fellow John Nelson Darby followers can't tell us what the Apostle Paul meant when the Apostle Paul told believers in the BOC to offer their bodies as living sacrifices that are Holy and acceptable to God.

(Rom 12:1 KJV) I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.

You're a King James Onlyist, you should know what the word "beseech" means.

Yet, you totally ignore what the Apostle Paul tells you do do. Instead you do what John Nelson Darby tells you to do.

But, what about "John Nelson Calvin?"

 

[john w]

Yet, you totally ignore what the Apostle Paul tells you do do. Instead you do what John Nelson Darby tells you to do.

Tell us what Paul says to do, re. his teachings:

"I believe the Apostle Paul's teachings are mostly for those of us who live post 70AD"-Tet.

What are these"mostly for" teachings, and why?

What is Paul's gospel.



He won't answer. He does not know.

 

[john w]

We did already answer it.

What's telling is that not one Dispie has explained what Paul meant when Paul told believers to offer their bodies as living sacrifices that are Holy and acceptable to God.

Glorydaz was the only Dispie that even attempted to explain it. Glorydaz gave a really bad explanation, but at least he attempted it.

Since you appear to have missed my post, and Nangs, that explains what Paul meant, here are our posts:

What is Paul's gospel, clown?



So Delmar,

You see Nangs, and my examples of what living sacrifices are that are Holy and acceptable to God.

Would you please tell us what you think Paul meant in Rom 12:1 regarding living sacrifices believers are supposed to make with their bodies that are Holy and acceptable to God?

Would you please tell us what is Paul's gospel, clown?

 

[john w]

Again, as is serpent Craigie's MO, he slithers in here, late at night, after getting pounded during the day, licking his wounds, when more members are here to pick him apart,thinking he can get away with asking questions, and then feigning, "See!!!No dispie can answer that...!"

You deceiving punk.

 

[Delmar]

Again, as is serpent Craigie's MO, he slithers in here, late at night, after getting pounded during the day, liclking his wounds, when more members are here to pick him apart,thinking he can get away with asking questions, and then feigning, "See!!!No dispie can answer that...!"

You deceiving punk.

Reminds me of a Sunday school teacher I had when I was in Jr High. He repeatedly asked the question "what is God" When we gave answers like "King of Kings or creator of the Universe" he would say "no, what is God?" After much frustration because we were not giving him the answer he was looking for, he shook his head and said "The Bible says God is Love"


OK, who knew the answer was that simple? :idunno:

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Did you not see my reply that showed posts by musterion about the rapture?

What you are asking for is subjective. How many posts does someone have to make on a particular topic before you deem them to have an obsession?



The fact that on one hand you have stated you are a Mid-Acts Dispensationalist, but on the other hand claim to have never heard of John Nelson Darby, is even more incentive to me to show the history of who invented Dispensationalism.

IOW, you are proving my point.

What do you think of "John Nelson Calvin?"

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Again, as is serpent Craigie's MO, he slithers in here, late at night, after getting pounded during the day, liclking his wounds, when more members are here to pick him apart,thinking he can get away with asking questions, and then feigning, "See!!!No dispie can answer that...!"

You deceiving punk.

Ignored the entire context of Isaiah 61, as I expected he would in declaring his priestness.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

What do you think of "John Nelson Calvin?"

Hank Nelson Hanegraeff is the best.


The Bible is "66 love letters written to me, etched in heavenly handwriting"

 

[tetelestai]

Ignored the entire context of Isaiah 61, as I expected he would in declaring his priestness.

I didn't ignore the context.

The passage is about priests in the NC.

You're trying to make the passage fit your Dispensationalism.

Speaking of ignore, you ignored Rom 12:1 every time I asked you to explain it.

 

[tetelestai]

What do I win?

If anyone else on TOL would say that after salvation, believers are supposed to bear one another burdens, your fellow Dispies would accuse them of preaching a works based religion.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

I didn't ignore the context.

The passage is about priests in the NC.

You're trying to make the passage fit your Dispensationalism.

Speaking of ignore, you ignored Rom 12:1 every time I asked you to explain it.

 

[tetelestai]

Your meaning the Church which started @ Pentecost, right?

Dipensationalism is all over the place, when it comes to when the church started.

Some Dispies say Acts 2, some say Acts 7, some say Acts 9, and some say Acts 28

So, your guess is as good as mine for when they think the church started.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Dipensationalism is all over the place, when it comes to when the church started.

Some Dispies say Acts 2, some say Acts 7, some say Acts 9, and some say Acts 28

So, your guess is as good as mine for when they think the church started.

What church or denomination are you/have you, been associated with?
Lutheran? Methodist? None?

 

[tetelestai]

But, what about "John Nelson Calvin?"

I was a Dispensationalist for 25 years, not a Calvinist.

Therefore, I don't know Calvinism like I know Dispensationalism.

I'm familiar with Calvinism.

Calvinists are historicists, and they're amillennial,

However, it's their teachings on predestination that come under the biggest scrutiny from non-Calvinists.

They believe the 10 Commandments are still in place.

They adhere to the Westminster Confession of Faith, and make the acrostic "TULIP" a five point outline of what they believe.

 

[Delmar]

If anyone else on TOL would say that after salvation, believers are supposed to bear one another burdens, your fellow Dispies would accuse them of preaching a works based religion.

We are not saved by works. But we are His workmanship created for good works. Ephesians 2:10 You won't find a dispie that has a problem with that.

 

[tetelestai]

What church or denomination are you/have you, been associated with?
Lutheran? Methodist? None?

Non-Denominational all my life.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

We are not saved by works. But we are His workmanship created for good works. Ephesians 2:10 You won't find a dispie that has a problem with that.

Yep!

 

[tetelestai]

We are not saved by works.

Correct

But we are His workmanship created for good works. Ephesians 2:10

Correct

You won't find a dispie that has a problem with that.

Do you bear other's burdens with your free volition, or is it the Holy Spirit within you that causes you to do so?