ECT Tet and IP: so what's the bottom line, really?

[musterion]

This is not a call out thread, as such. It's just time for Tet and IP to be blunt and honest with us and answer a question I've been wondering about a lot lately. Perhaps others have as well, I dunno.

Question: In the view of you preterists, what is the bottom line behind your never-ending opposition to disp'ism in general and MAD in particular?

The reason I ask: if I'm not mistaken -- correct me if I am -- both Tet and IP have accepted we MADs as saved based upon our clear articulation of 1 Cor 15:1-4.

If my understanding there is correct, what exactly is the bottom line here for you preterists? What drives this endless crusade you have against MAD? "Disp'ism is false!" isn't good enough, and we know you believe that. But assuming you accept us as saved based on our belief of the Gospel of grace, our salvation isn't the issue here.

Besides...you don't go out of your way disputing every false doctrine on TOL, not NEARLY the way you do MAD.

So what is it? What drives you to keep trying to convince us preterism is true?

More to the point: EXACTLY what is at stake for us if we won't believe it?

This is a dead serious, no set-up question. I can't see a reason I'd need to dispute your responses. Just be blunt and as honest as you like with your answers...and try to keep them brief and to the point.

 

[Interplanner]

This is not a call out thread, as such. It's just time for Tet and IP to be blunt and honest with us and answer a question I've been wondering about a lot lately. Perhaps others have as well, I dunno.

Question: In the view of you preterists, what is the bottom line behind your never-ending opposition to disp'ism in general and MAD in particular?

The reason I ask: if I'm not mistaken -- correct me if I am -- both Tet and IP have accepted we MADs as saved based upon our clear articulation of 1 Cor 15:1-4.

If my understanding there is correct, what exactly is the bottom line here for you preterists? What drives this endless crusade you have against MAD? "Disp'ism is false!" isn't good enough, and we know you believe that. But assuming you accept us as saved based on our belief of the Gospel of grace, our salvation isn't the issue here.

Besides...you don't go out of your way disputing every false doctrine on TOL, not NEARLY the way you do MAD.

So what is it? What drives you to keep trying to convince us preterism is true?

More to the point: EXACTLY what is at stake for us if we won't believe it?

This is a dead serious, no set-up question. I can't see a reason I'd need to dispute your responses. Just be blunt and as honest as you like with your answers...and try to keep them brief and to the point.

I don't know how you have read as many posts as we have done so far and not understood the answers to these things already.

Let's try this: D'ism is sort of a way of bringing Judaism back into the Christian message.
Try #2: D'ism has almost no idea of the significance of Ps 2.

Stop the expression you preterists, because he and I have differences and I have rejected enough things I've heard called Preterism not to bother learning about it. My master's level of study was on the history of the NT, especially Luke-Acts and the Jewish revolt. Neither futurism nor preterism as such matter enough to be seriously considered when studying that.

 

[patrick jane]

My master's level of study

So you studied and read material that is considered "Master's level" ? Because you don't have a Master's degree do you?

 

[Danoh]

So you studied and read material that is considered "Master's level" ? Because you don't have a Master's degree do you?

A Master's Level refers to Master's.

Not that it matters...

As one of their own (Academia) once put it:

A BS = the obvious.

An MS = more of the same.

A PHD = piled higher and deeper.

:chuckle:

 

[Danoh]

I don't know how you have read as many posts as we have done so far and not understood the answers to these things already.

Let's try this: D'ism is sort of a way of bringing Judaism back into the Christian message.
Try #2: D'ism has almost no idea of the significance of Ps 2.

Stop the expression you preterists, because he and I have differences and I have rejected enough things I've heard called Preterism not to bother learning about it. My master's level of study was on the history of the NT, especially Luke-Acts and the Jewish revolt. Neither futurism nor preterism as such matter enough to be seriously considered when studying that.

Nope, the reemergence of Dispensationalism was the result of the completeness in Christ distinction the Reformers had only begun to recover/see, only to end up back at looking at things from the traditions of men.

As for the other...you have some nerve - you are ever one sizing fits all Dispies :chuckle:

 

[andyc]

Eschatology is mostly based on interpretations of visions and prophecies, and so to be dogmatic in this area makes me suspicious.
Each person can have an opinion regarding end times, but it shouldn't be a dogmatic subject.
I have no self interest regarding end times, and so my *opinion* is that there will be no pre tribulation rapture, no pre millennial reign of Christ, there will be an anti Christ who will be given power to overcome the saints, and there will be a great tribulation that the church will go through.

Believing these things shouldn't be the cause of division. Some of the people I admire most are pre tribers. Not a big deal.

 

[Danoh]

Eschatology is mostly based on interpretations of visions and prophecies, and so to be dogmatic in this area makes me suspicious.
Each person can have an opinion regarding end times, but it shouldn't be a dogmatic subject.
I have no self interest regarding end times, and so my *opinion* is that there will be no pre tribulation rapture, no pre millennial reign of Christ, there will be an anti Christ who will be given power to overcome the saints, and there will be a great tribulation that the church will go through.

Believing these things shouldn't be the cause of division. Some of the people I admire most are pre tribers. Not a big deal.

Always - the divisions (divisiveness) are never the result of any other view but one - hypocritical, one-sided legalism.

Galatians 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

Galatians 5:15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.

Plain and simple.

 

[Interplanner]

Nope, the reemergence of Dispensationalism was the result of the completeness in Christ distinction the Reformers had only begun to recover/see, only to end up back at looking at things from the traditions of men.

As for the other...you have some nerve - you are ever one sizing fits all Dispies :chuckle:

There is no such thing as reemergence of D'ism. It started in the 1800s. "The completeness in Christ distinction" was not its emphasis. If you meant that (prophetic) things were fulfilled in Christ, the Reformation was all over that.

 

[Danoh]

There is no such thing as reemergence of D'ism. It started in the 1800s. "The completeness in Christ distinction" was not its emphasis. If you meant that (prophetic) things were fulfilled in Christ, the Reformation was all over that.

Obviously, you do not know what I am talking about.

Last year, I thought I'd apply my approach of tracing the origin of another's assertions through the recurrent patterns in their words to their mind to Darby.

I wanted to peak into his mind through his own words, in contrast to what most do - read "about" him and or the origin of his thought in books "about" by parrots merely parroting earlier parrots.

That incompetent: BAB2 was good for that kind of stupidity - all he ever did in his knocks of Dispensationalism was parrot the so called history of the origin of Dispensationalism that incompetents just like him have been handing down to their fellow parrots all the way back their first, incompetent, fellow parrot.

Turned out, I had not had to look very long, nor very far, nor even have to apply my method much.

Turned out that Darby was crystal clear as to the development of his thinking and how he ended up recovering Dispensationalism...

He wrote of his having come to his awareness of His completeness in Christ...

“. . . I was in Christ, accepted in the Beloved, and sitting in heavenly places in Him. This led me directly to the
apprehension of what the true church of God was, those that were united to Christ in heaven:” (Letters, 1:515)

From that higher level abstraction (actually unaware that THAT is Dispensational distinction as that was not Israel's relationship) he was then able to see the following...

“In my retreat, the 32nd chapter of Isaiah taught me clearly, on God's behalf, that there was still an economy to come, of His ordering; a state of things in no way established as yet. The consciousness of my union with Christ had given me the present heavenly portion of the glory, whereas this chapter clearly sets forth the corresponding earthly part. I was not able to put these things in their respective places or arrange them in
order, as I can now; but the truths themselves were then revealed of God, through the action of His Spirit, by reading His word.” (Letters, 3:299)

“But I must, though without comment, direct attention to chapter 32 of the same prophet; which I do the rather, because it was in this the Lord was pleased, without man's teaching, first to open my eyes on this subject, that I might learn His will concerning it throughout - not by the first blessed truths stated in it, but the latter part, when there shall be a complete change in the dispensation, the wilderness becoming the fruitful field of God's fruit and glory, and that which had been so, being counted a forest, at a time when-the Lord's judgments should come down, even great hail, upon this forest; and the city, even of pride, be utterly abased. That the Spirit's pouring out upon the Jews, and their substitution for the Gentile church, become a forest, is here adverted to, is evident from the connection of the previous verses.” (Collected Works, 2:108)

Reading that, I was struck by how this man studied things out in a manner not much different from my own - through the recurrent patterns of a thing.

Patterns that together begin to form an image of what it is one is looking at.

Regretabbly, this post will go right past the head of some.

It is what it is.

Some people are just...stupid.

 

[musterion]

I don't know how you have read as many posts as we have done so far and not understood the answers to these things already.

Because you fail at brevity to the point of seeming to obfuscate points you don't actually know how to make. Tet just disappears or spams repetitive talking points; you throw up meandering text walls that glaze the eye, bore the mind and numb the interest. None of that is my fault.

Let's try this: D'ism is sort of a way of bringing Judaism back into the Christian message.
Try #2: D'ism has almost no idea of the significance of Ps 2.

That's better. Okay, let's try that.

1. In one sentence, how does MAD seek to reintroduce Judaism today? Give examples.

2. In one sentence, explain the MAD understanding of Psalm 2 as you've seen it expressed by MADs. Cite your sources.

 

[Interplanner]

Must wrote:
Because you fail at brevity to the point of seeming to obfuscate points you don't actually know how to make. Tet just disappears or spams repetitive talking points; you throw up meandering text walls that glaze the eye, bore the mind and numb the interest. None of that is my fault.


lol, I walked you through Lk 23 10x and it is your fault you can't do the generation-long math. You have certain things you don't want to believe, and some homework you don't want to do.

 

[Interplanner]

Because you fail at brevity to the point of seeming to obfuscate points you don't actually know how to make. Tet just disappears or spams repetitive talking points; you throw up meandering text walls that glaze the eye, bore the mind and numb the interest. None of that is my fault.



That's better. Okay, let's try that.

1. In one sentence, how does MAD seek to reintroduce Judaism today? Give examples.

2. In one sentence, explain the MAD understanding of Psalm 2 as you've seen it expressed by MADs. Cite your sources.

1, see Mr Dan-Oh! In his two-fold Mystery and Prophecy Programs, he said today that Judaism will be brought back in the land of Israel, and this is God's work. At least I assume you've seen the 'de-activated' Judaism discussion going on, right?

2, There are no sources. No MAD people deal with Ps 2 that I know of. It is the most quoted in the NT and they don't do NT quotes so they don't refer to it. Every answer I get about this is their own OT passage which is NOT used by Christ or the apostles, usually from Zech. Sometimes Ps 83.

But that does not mean it is not an 'understanding' of it! That's my point. If they would truly see how powerfully it is being proclaimed AND PRAYED (ch 4) they might see what is going on in early Acts, namely:

Christ has been resurrected and this is the enthronement referred to by David.
Christ is to be preached in the forgiveness of his own death and therefore all other sins of mankind, and this is to be preached to all nations.
All the earth is his, all rulers are to pay homage to him.

Instead D'ists throw back that a theocracy was offered to rule all nations from Jerusalem, but Israel declined, but Israel will accept later. Meanwhile we have the mystery, unplanned, Plan B, church thing (they yawn). They are very creative at their insults of the preached reign of Christ!

 

[TweetyBird]

1, see Mr Dan-Oh! In his two-fold Mystery and Prophecy Programs, he said today that Judaism will be brought back in the land of Israel, and this is God's work. At least I assume you've seen the 'de-activated' Judaism discussion going on, right?

2, There are no sources. No MAD people deal with Ps 2 that I know of. It is the most quoted in the NT and they don't do NT quotes so they don't refer to it. Every answer I get about this is their own OT passage which is NOT used by Christ or the apostles, usually from Zech. Sometimes Ps 83.

But that does not mean it is not an 'understanding' of it! That's my point. If they would truly see how powerfully it is being proclaimed AND PRAYED (ch 4) they might see what is going on in early Acts, namely:

Christ has been resurrected and this is the enthronement referred to by David.
Christ is to be preached in the forgiveness of his own death and therefore all other sins of mankind, and this is to be preached to all nations.
All the earth is his, all rulers are to pay homage to him.

Instead D'ists throw back that a theocracy was offered to rule all nations from Jerusalem, but Israel declined, but Israel will accept later. Meanwhile we have the mystery, unplanned, Plan B, church thing (they yawn). They are very creative at their insults of the preached reign of Christ!

In reference to #1 - Judaism is not the Jewish Gospel, but Talmudic Rabbinic Judaism. That is full on and complete rejection, betrayal, and denial of Christ. That "Judaism" is the ONLY "true Judaism" of the Jews which "came to the "Land" today and will remain so until Christ returns [except for those Jews who believe on Christ, the remnant referred to throughout the Bible].

 

[Interplanner]

In reference to #1 - Judaism is not the Jewish Gospel, but Talmudic Rabbinic Judaism. That is full on and complete rejection, betrayal, and denial of Christ. That "Judaism" is the ONLY "true Judaism" of the Jews which "came to the "Land" today and will remain so until Christ returns [except for those Jews who believe on Christ, the remnant referred to throughout the Bible].

Are there any differences between your 'true Judaism' and what Paul had to address?

 

[TweetyBird]

Are there any differences between your 'true Judaism' and what Paul had to address?

Not "my true Judaism". The "true Judaism" Rabbinic Talmudic Judaism is a replacement of the Law of Moses. It has nothing to with Jesus Christ, never has, never will. RTJ claims, by tradition only, an "oral Torah" from Mt Sinai aka the Mishnah/Talmud [150-500AD], etc. That is their superior Law. It has nothing to do with Paul or what he addressed.

 

[musterion]

Now, IP, please tell MADs exactly what is at stake if we do not renounce disp'ism.

 

[Interplanner]

Now, IP, please tell MADs exactly what is at stake if we do not renounce disp'ism.

*You'll celebrate a resurgence of Judaism.
*You might cause a massive war.
*It's bad enough to contradict Paul about two gospels. (Hint: did he use 'anathema' about anything else?)
*It turns Christ in Mt24A in to a space case, talking on and on 'urgently' about things X000 years in the future.
*It has already resulted in an unbelievable amount of ridicule of an evangelist who used the facts of the DofJ correctly, and confused the issue of whether it is a good thing to defeat a destructive skeptic like Payne in the public arena.

 

[tetelestai]

This is not a call out thread, as such. It's just time for Tet and IP to be blunt and honest with us and answer a question I've been wondering about a lot lately. Perhaps others have as well, I dunno.

Question: In the view of you preterists, what is the bottom line behind your never-ending opposition to disp'ism in general and MAD in particular?

There are many.

I'll list some for now:

1) Denial of the New Covenant, and that the NC is in place today. This false teaching is contrary to what Paul preached, and what Christ Jesus accomplished.

2) Rapture heresy. I won't mention names, but I have seen certain TOL Dispies say "I wish the rapture would happen today" because said Dispy can't deal with the pressures of life. Other Dispies chimed in and said "so do I". This kind of reasoning is contrary to what the Apostle Paul taught.

3) Spiritual Schizophrenia. Dispies start threads about abortion, homosexuality, transgenders, etc. and go on and on about how perverted, corrupt, and evil the world has become, and how they want to rid the world of these evils; while at the same time saying "see, see, see...this is all prophesied...these things have to happen.....the rapture is near...." So, on one hand Dispies want to rid the world of evils, but on the other hand they claim these evils have to take place in order for their rapture theory to take place. Again, this is contrary to what Paul taught.

4) Dispensationalism sends Jews to hell. Dispensationalism tells the Christ rejecting Jews that God still looks to the flesh, that they are still a chosen people, and that God still has a plan for them. Again, contrary to what Paul taught.

5) Anti-Christ. Because of Dispensationalism, every world leader and politician has been called "the anti-Christ" since Darby invented Dispensationalism. Because of Dispensationalism we have: Hitler, Mussolini, Gorbachev, Reagan, Nixon, Bush, Clinton, Obama, Kissinger, Sadat, etc. all portrayed at the time by Dispensationalists as the anti-Christ.

6) Date Setting. From Hal Lindsay to Harlod Camping, Dispensationalists have never stopped date-setting.

7) Judaism.Dispensationalism teaches that the Mosaic Law will one day be in place again. This is contrary to what Jesus and Paul taught.

8) Future Animal Sacrifices For Sin Atonement. This is the biggest slap in the face to what Christ Jesus accomplished on the cross, and what the Apostle Paul preached. Dispensationalists claim that in the future animal sacrifices for sin atonement will once again take place. All because Darby taught that Ezk 40-48 is the yet future.

9)Two Gospels, Two Peoples. A false teaching that is contrary to what Christ Jesus and Paul taught. Eph 2:15 specifically says: "one new humanity out of the two".

10)Denial of what Jesus said in the Olivet Discourse. Christ Jesus made it crystal clear that the temple would be destroyed, not one stone standing upon another, that the Christians would flee to the hills, and that His contemporaries would not all pass away before it happened.

That's it for now. There are many more I'll list later.

 

[Danoh]

All false, one size fits all, charges.

But yeah, turn off your computer and go spend time with your wife and children while you still have them, you obviously obssessed loser.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

This is not a call out thread, as such. It's just time for Tet and IP to be blunt and honest with us and answer a question I've been wondering about a lot lately. Perhaps others have as well, I dunno.

Question: In the view of you preterists, what is the bottom line behind your never-ending opposition to disp'ism in general and MAD in particular?

The reason I ask: if I'm not mistaken -- correct me if I am -- both Tet and IP have accepted we MADs as saved based upon our clear articulation of 1 Cor 15:1-4.

If my understanding there is correct, what exactly is the bottom line here for you preterists? What drives this endless crusade you have against MAD? "Disp'ism is false!" isn't good enough, and we know you believe that. But assuming you accept us as saved based on our belief of the Gospel of grace, our salvation isn't the issue here.

Besides...you don't go out of your way disputing every false doctrine on TOL, not NEARLY the way you do MAD.

So what is it? What drives you to keep trying to convince us preterism is true?

More to the point: EXACTLY what is at stake for us if we won't believe it?

This is a dead serious, no set-up question. I can't see a reason I'd need to dispute your responses. Just be blunt and as honest as you like with your answers...and try to keep them brief and to the point.

Excellent OP.