ECT Studying how the NT uses the OT

[john w]

I can very easily prove Darby followers (Dispenationalists) wrong just using the KJV.

Dispensationalism can be proven wrong with any Bible translation.

As I said earlier, you deny the words of the King James Bible in the following verses:

(Heb 1:2 KJV) Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

(Rev 22:10 KJV) And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.

(Rev 1:1 KJV) The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

(1 John 2:18 KJV) Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come,

I told you to stop your "Darby" spam, which has now totaled 708 times in the last 3 months.

Do you want me to notify your "man made" church leaders, Craigie? or, did you get kicked out of it, for your satanic "teachings?"


Did you understand my order to you, spineless punk Craigie?


"Not to mention, Darby followers deny that Christ Jesus' one time sacrifice for sin was good enough. They claim people in the future will have to sacrifice animals for sin atonement."-Craigie Tet.

Tell us, punk, that one can:

Deny that Christ Jesus' one time sacrifice for sin was good enough.,..

And still be saved.


Go ahead, Craigie. Grow some spine, and show it.


Tet: Er, no.....Darby......You're in denial....Don't you believe the bible/'Jesus'/Paul?.....AD 70...


Demon, false accuser.

 

[heir]

Do you want me to notify your "man made" church leaders, Craigie? or, did you get kicked out of it, for your satanic "teachings?"

He's a man without the pure and preserved words of the Lord and is reduced to his "Darby" cry because he has no gospel to be set in defence of.

 

[tetelestai]

He's a man without the pure and preserved words of the Lord

Let's look at Matt 26:36 in the King James

(Matt 26:36 KJV) Then cometh Jesus with them unto a place called Gethsemane, and saith unto the disciples, Sit ye here, while I go and pray yonder.

Now, let's look at what the 1611 King James Bible Second Edition/Impression puplished in 1613 says:

(Matt 26:36 KJV) Then cometh Judas with them unto a place called Gethsemane, and saith unto the disciples, Sit ye here, while I go and pray yonder.

Which King James Bible is correct?

Was it Jesus or Judas?

My guess is you will keep ignoring this, and pretend it doesn't exist.

 

[tetelestai]

because he has no gospel to be set in defence of.

I have the gospel of Christ.

It's the gospel that proclaims that Christ Jesus made a one time sacrifice for sins for all time.

You defend a man and his false teachings that proclaims people will sacrifice animals in the future for sin atonement.

There's a big difference between the gospel of Christ and the false teachings of John Nelson Darby.

You have decided to choose Darby.

 

[Interplanner]

Well, following Darby is not just believing this odd thing about animal sacrifices. it is believing that a whole set of business needs to be conducted with "Israel" all over again. Needs to. There is no needs to in the NT. One reading of Acts 26's presentation by Paul should clear that up. Judaism was busy trying to have their hope fulfilled; Paul taught it was fulfilled in the resurrection. A huge difference and irreconcilable.

 

[john w]

I have the gospel of Christ.


It's the gospel that proclaims that Christ Jesus made a one time sacrifice for sins for all time.

Give us the scriptural references, punk.

You defend a man and his false teachings that proclaims people will sacrifice animals in the future for sin atonement.

You defend a man and his false teachings that proclaims everyone is saved, and that Jesus Christ is not a man today.


Why did you add "a man," you punk? Should it be a woman, alien?

There's a big difference between the gospel of Christ and the false teachings of John Nelson Darby.

You have decided to choose Darby.

There's a big difference between the gospel of Christ and the false teachings of J. Stuart Russel, and Hank Hanegraaf, whom you plagiarize.You have decided to choose them, and satanic "doctrine."

You have decided to choose satan.

You demon.

 

[john w]

Jesus made a one time sacrifice for sins for all time.

You defend a man and his false teachings that proclaims people will sacrifice animals in the future for sin atonement.

"Not to mention, Darby followers deny that Christ Jesus' one time sacrifice for sin was good enough. They claim people in the future will have to sacrifice animals for sin atonement."-Craigie Tet.

Tell us, punk, that one can:

Deny that Christ Jesus' one time sacrifice for sin was good enough.,..

And still be saved.


Go ahead, Craigie. Grow some spine, and show it.


Tet: Er, no.....Darby......You're in denial....Don't you believe the bible/'Jesus'/Paul?.....AD 70...


Demon, false accuser.

He won't touch this post-I've asked him over 20 times.


You vile Preterist fraud, perverter.

 

[Totton Linnet]

Well, following Darby is not just believing this odd thing about animal sacrifices. it is believing that a whole set of business needs to be conducted with "Israel" all over again. Needs to. There is no needs to in the NT. One reading of Acts 26's presentation by Paul should clear that up. Judaism was busy trying to have their hope fulfilled; Paul taught it was fulfilled in the resurrection. A huge difference and irreconcilable.

For the millionth time Darby was not Mid Acts Dispensation, he was a Dispensationalist plain and simple. Nor wa he the father of Dispensationalism, the church has ALWAYS believed that God deals differently in different ages. If you believe in Covenants you believe in Dispensations full stop.

Darby WAS the father of the secret rapture doctrine.

 

[tetelestai]

For the millionth time Darby was not Mid Acts Dispensation, he was a Dispensationalist plain and simple.

Darby made the distinction between "the church" and "Israel" and was very "Pauline" in doing so.

Wikipedia says the following:

"If Darby appears to be followed more closely by hyper-dispensationalism, it is because Darby's dispensationalism and hyper-dispensationalism is more consistent than American Acts 2 dispensationalism in marking Scripture's distinction between national Israel with its earthly kingdom from the church which is Christ's heavenly body."

Nor wa he the father of Dispensationalism,

Yes he was.

the church has ALWAYS believed that God deals differently in different ages. If you believe in Covenants you believe in Dispensations full stop.

That's not what makes someone a Dispensationalist.

Darby WAS the father of the secret rapture doctrine.

Correct.

 

[Interplanner]

Paul did not believe that there was justification by any other basis than Christ for anyone. He did believe that Judaism replaced this basis with the law, and dealt with it in Gal 3:17.

 

[Totton Linnet]

Darby made the distinction between "the church" and "Israel" and was very "Pauline" in doing so.

Wikipedia says the following:

"If Darby appears to be followed more closely by hyper-dispensationalism, it is because Darby's dispensationalism and hyper-dispensationalism is more consistent than American Acts 2 dispensationalism in marking Scripture's distinction between national Israel with its earthly kingdom from the church which is Christ's heavenly body."



Yes he was.



That's not what makes someone a Dispensationalist.



Correct.

You are wrong about what Dispensationalism is, it is the belief that God deals with man according to various covenants.

Mid Acts Dispensation says that God ushered in an entirely new dispensation through Paul. Darby did not believe so...we ALL ought to regard Paul as the appointed apostle to the Gentiles.

Mid Acts Dispensationalism is Hyper Dispensationalism

 

[Interplanner]

TottonL:
if your definition is correct, it goes against Gal 3:17 which is the true question of replacement. Paul is straining to show that God has not been dealing different ways. Therefore the presupposition of D'ism is mistaken. So is 2P2P.

 

[Totton Linnet]

TottonL:
if your definition is correct, it goes against Gal 3:17 which is the true question of replacement. Paul is straining to show that God has not been dealing different ways. Therefore the presupposition of D'ism is mistaken. So is 2P2P.

God's covenants are not annulled they are superceded [not replaced] by new covenants.

God still deals with the Jews as under the dispensation of the law, they are still under the final sanction of disobedience to the law which is "I will remove you from this land"

But under the gospel dispensation we receive God's blessing by grace through faith.

You are denying that Paul taught dispensations

 

[tetelestai]

God still deals with the Jews as under the dispensation of the law

Nope

Christ Jesus fulfilled the Law and Prophets.

There is no longer a difference between Jew and Gentile.

Zionism is contrary to the New Covenant.

 

[Interplanner]

He does mention the one that came in Christ, but what Gal 3:17 and then the 'child-trainer' analogy of Gal 4 say is that no one (granted, that audience was mostly the person in Judaism) is under the supervision of the law any longer. 3:17 actually made it out to be a misunderstanding of Judaism, which is why it is possible to find rather advanced beliefs in the OT here and there. 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 'You shall not covet.' Not to mention all the prophets.

But Judaism had a 'trinity' (Yahweh--torah--'eretz') and this prevented them from accepting the prophets as divine. That idolizing the law was the veil. It made it nearly impossible to think that the prophets were speaking of Messiah's own acts and person; instead it sounded to Judaism like the Law was going to solve everything, ie, their own perfect obedience. That is what created the 'Parush'--Pharisaism, or the Purified, after the exile.

 

[john w]

Nope

Christ Jesus fulfilled the Law and Prophets.

There is no longer a difference between Jew and Gentile.

Zionism is contrary to the New Covenant.

I deny that the new Covenant is in place today.

For over the 60th time, Craigie:

Am I lost?


Oh, yes:

"Not to mention, Darby followers deny that Christ Jesus' one time sacrifice for sin was good enough. They claim people in the future will have to sacrifice animals for sin atonement."-Craigie Tet.

Tell us, punk, that one can:

Deny that Christ Jesus' one time sacrifice for sin was good enough.,..
And still be saved.


Go ahead, Craigie. Grow some spine, and show it.

You, on record, stated, repeatedly, that, if one denies the NC, you "deny that Christ Jesus' one time sacrifice for sin was good enough,' and are "slapping 'Jesus'."(your cute little saying, you think is impressing everyone).


I deny that the NC is in place today.


Do I "slap" "Jesus,"deny that Christ Jesus' one time sacrifice for sin was good enough," and am therefore lost?

Can I "deny that Christ Jesus' one time sacrifice for sin was good enough," . "slap 'Jesus'," and, while doing it, asserting it, still be saved?


Tet: Er, no.....Darby......You're in denial....Don't you believe the bible/'Jesus'/Paul?.....AD 70...


Demon, false accuser.




Your "Replacement" "theology" of Preterism/AD 70-ism, is anti semitic, "invented," and satanic, from the pits of hell.


So there.

 

[Interplanner]

John W,
Then you owe us a treatment of 2 Cor 3-5.

 

[john w]

John W,
Then you owe us a treatment of 2 Cor 3-5.

Oh.

Get saved-Genesis-Revelation.

"it's common sense"


So there.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You are wrong about what Dispensationalism is, it is the belief that God deals with man according to various covenants.

No, dispensationalism is the belief that God deals with man according to different stewardships.

 

[Interplanner]

Both are mistaken by being multiple. All there is is Gal 3:17. Judaism voided and replaced the Promised Gospel (expressed between the lines all through Gal 3) with the Law, the child-trainer phase. God introduced the law but it was supposed to testify of Christ as well, to lead to him, to be a tutorial. It was not supposed to become a thing in and of itself.