Nothing you believe existed before John Nelson Darby.
Proof that Paul didn't preach a different gospel than Peter
- Thread starter tetelestai
- Start date
Nothing you believe existed before John Nelson Darby.
That is so untrue that it is laughable with a laugh you would not understand.
Act 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
Act 11:17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?
Act 11:18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.
Act 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
Act 15:8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
Act 15:9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
Act 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
Act 15:11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
All other doctrine to come out of that dispensational school is suspect at best.
They have deceived the church world and you along with them.
LA
that's preposterous - it's been written for nearly 2000 years, and i believed it before i ever heard of MAD or TOL -
i have never read Darby so maybe he partially agrees with me -
and now for LA -
sad -
atrol:
John Nelson Darby invented Dispensationalism and taught it to Cyrus Scofield.
Cyrus Scofield taught Lewis Sperry Chafer
Lewis Sperry Chafer founded the Dallas Theological Seminary.
IOW, before John Nelson Darby, there was no such thing as Dispensationalism.
What's preposterous is believing there will be animal sacrifices for sin atonement in the future.
Yet, that's what Dispensationalism teaches.
Shasta
Well-known member
This is a very myopic and egocentric view - as if you in a vacuum came up with this doctrinal system all on your own. You think that what you believe comes straight out of the Bible but it is the presuppositions intrinsic to your pre-existing system of interpretation that leads you to your conclusions and you are so immersed in it you cannot see how it works. Now we all have presuppositions but we at least ought to know where they come from.
His habitual lying continues-the above, which he satanically spams on every fourth post, vs.:
"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."--con artist Catholic Preterist Craigie Tet.
1.Thanks again, sweetie, for spamming, for over the 666th time, your "argument" that when you discover objective truth, determines if it is, in fact, objective truth. And, of course, thanks again, for giving me the opportunity to provide evidence, again, that you are so obsessed with MAD, and me, that you will habitually lie, and expose yourself for the con artist, and scammer, that you are. More lies:..
vs.
"My argument is that if there is not one single trace of something for 1,800+ years by anyone, then it was invented.”--con artist Catholic Preterist Craigie Tet.
2. Craigie, again, "argues," on record, that:
-the LORD God, as revealed in the bible, was not the LORD God, until he was revealed as such to Moses, Pharaoh... as it was not until recently, relatively speaking, that we discovered Him, and His respective name, as when you discover objective truth, determines if it is objective truth, according to Craigie.
-the earth is actually flat, as it was not until recently, relatively speaking, that most have agreed(the consensus) that it was discovered to be spherical, as when you discover objective truth, determines if it is, in fact, objective truth.
-Pluto is still a planet, despite what Tet's authority, "Wiki," states, as it was just recently, that we discovered that it was not.
-as STP points out, if no one taught, or even heard that Jesus is the Christ until 1830, it would prove him to be an invention and a fraud, according to noTettosterone.
Satanic, as your father the devil, the father of all lies, taught you well, Craigie.
Spam.
Name one person, citing the references/name(s), that taught what you now teach, re. "Preterism/AD 70-ism," before you.
I've asked this punk to identify these teachers, for over 3 years, and he will not respond.
Deceiving punk.
Vs.
"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."--con artist Catholic Preterist Craigie Tet.
Satanic liar.
What's preposterous is your having concluded you know what Dispensationalism because you supposedly "studied it for twenty five years."
Never mind the countless times throughout history you status quo types and your "listen to me, I have twenty-five years in this," have been proven wrong, wrong, wrong, in fact, dead wrong.
The world is flat... who'd want one of them automobile contraptions when horses can graze anywhere...man will never travel to space... the four minute mile will never be broken... who'd want to talk into a box in a wall...
And my personal favorite - "I doubt there is a world market for five of these personal computers of yours..." - BM Founder and genius business man bar none, to a long haired, blue jeans wearing, Steve Jobs....
Your, kind Tel, have maligned man's progress and understanding as far back as recorded history.
Just look at how you one-size fit everyone as having read Darby, or whatever.
And you - the very individual who one size fits all - understood Dispensationalism?
Yeah, okay, nice delusion you have there.
Explain the animal sacrifices, as depicted in Ez., Hosea.............as I've asked you for over 3 years. You won't. noTetosterone Craigie, on record, asserts that the following passages, amongst scores, should not be in the bible:
-All the passages re. animal sacrifices,in Ez., Hosea.............
-Galatians 3:24 KJV
Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Romans 3:20 KJV
Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin
2 Timothy 2:2 KJV
And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
His father the devil taught him how to delete scripture, way back in Genesis.
He won't touch this post-he won't deny it. Watch...
He is a deceitful punk, Danoh, so obsessed in allegedly disproving the dispensational approach to interpreting the book, that he habitually lies, misquotes what others believes, and engages in "arguments" of sophistry, such as "No one taught dispensationalism before......Darby...Bullinger...Animal sacrifices deny......Fulfilled in Christ Jesus......Hyperbole....You deny the New Covenant....I was a dispensationalist for....You can't even agree....Why don't you believe God/'Jesus'/Paul/the bible?................."
It is satanic.
nope, i invented it - and the innernet - you might as well go for soda, nobody hurts, and nobody cries ! ! !
God's Truth
New member
There is only one gospel, which is the one about the one, and only inheritance, which is the reward, and the gift, which is eternal life.
Acts 13:48 When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.
sure we did - about 1000 posts ago, and since - btw, in response to your myopic and presupposing statements; i say, there is nothing new in the Bible, no phd in divinity, seminary, rank, title, philosopher or theologian has a special ability or deeper understanding than possibly a guy on the corner. anything i've read from anyone else is nothing we can't see ourselves. i'm not boasting, no need;
all praise and glory to God. don't sell yourself short and everyone else too. how do you think any theology, denomination or doctrine started ? by reading the Word of God - i don't have to convince you what i knew before i got here, but i assure you it wasn't from Darby -
go for soda - look it up, good song - :carryon:
NoTettosterone Craigie's "invented" spam/stumper, which he eventually throws up, after "Darby...," and he is embarrassed, biblically.
"Dispensationalism was invented by John Nelson Darby....Darby is the undisputed inventor of dispensationalism...."
Tet., again, "argues" that God can invent, as this deceiving punk has only one motive, for including this "inventor/invented" ploy of sophistry, and deceit-he is so obsessed with MAD, that he will use any deceitful tactic, to allegedly "disprove" MAD.
He does not need to employ these spam/con artist qualifiers,""inventor/invented," as all false doctrine, is/was "invented" by man, by definition, and that does NADA for his "argument," or anyone's argument. All he has to say is, MAD is a false doctrine, and here is why...lay it out, for us. "Inventions of men," Craigie? Are not all inventions, by men?(rhetorical q). And he knows this, and most of TOL knows this, or should know this. But that does not stop him, being so wacked out/obsessed, that he can't think straight, and lies, and cons people.
He employs the same sophistry/deceit, with his "teachings of men" argument, i.e., as, asserting, "following the teachings of men" does nothing for his, or anyone else's argument. As if he had "the teachings of God." Whom should we follow, Craigie? Your teachings? Are you not a "man?" Should we follow the teachings of women? Aliens?
He won't touch this post, either-spineless, obsessed, habitual liar, promoter of deceptive "arguments."
Perhaps, but it is just as myopic and egocentric to suppose that said presupposition was in place going in. It can just as well be the case that your supposition that his is/was presupposition, is now your presupposition.
Fact is that best students within Mid-Acts constantly challenge the Mid-Acts Perspective.
Because it reemerged as a result of what could be called Recurrent Same-Distinct Patterns that could not but be noted, the better students within the movement are ever aware of that as they study.
As a very simple example of this Recurrent Same-Distinct Patterns Principle, in Romans 6:14, the Apostle Paul relates, "For sin shall not have dominion over you; for ye are not under the Law, but under Grace," Rom. 6:14.
He is relating Distinct Systems, Viewpoints, Intents, Results, etc., that those who do not understand either, will one size fit both, even as they assert they are not doing that.
At one point, the Principle is the same - God's will as to both systems. At another, this same Principle differs - in application, etc.
That right there is Dispensational at its most basic level.
That right there is this here - Luke 12:42's "And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season?"
Dispensationalism actually being; as that passage relates: nothing more than Distinctions in Identities.
The rest is the details in each's recurrent patterns that led to the reemergence of each's distinctions.
For, view the following passage how one will, the need keep certain distinctions in mind, is nevertheless the issue - note the words asserting distinctions...
Romans 11:
25. For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
The real issue being, the extent of those distinctions where, when, why, how, as to who and what - not - that there are none.
The very basis of elementary school reading comprehension, not only in reading, but in math, "science" and "history."
So what's new - you're a Calvinist, while either asserting you are not, or unaware you are...
Admit it, GT, you read, or have read books on all these things you talk about, outside just reading the Bible.
:bang: