Arial
Active member
If you are able to talk about yourself like that, why don't you do something about it?
KNOCK IT OFF!! You are acting like a teenager.
The Book of Revelation: Mystery Or Profitable?
- Thread starter Arial
- Start date
KNOCK IT OFF!! You are acting like a teenager.
Right Divider
Body part
You have made no valid argument to speak of.
The passage NAMES twelve LITERAL tribes of Israel. The natural reading is that it's talking about twelve literal tribes of Israel.
Nonsense. The book is completely saturated with Jewishness.
If you cannot see the difference between 'the "Gospels", the Hebrew epistles and the book of Revelation' and Paul's epistles, it's simply blindness on your part.
Right Divider
Body part
Nonsense... you are simply continuing the smear campaign.
There are MORE than two gospels. You can read all about them in the Bible.
Paul's letters are for everyone that wants to be saved by grace through faith. Paul makes NO distinction between Jews and gentiles in the body of Christ. Galatians 3:28
Are you unable to READ THAT?
Nope... you are a liar. I've already said that it's TO the Jews (i.e., Israel) but FOR EVERYONE.
Right Divider
Body part
You need to take a break from posting nonsense.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Why don't you stop for a minute and read what YOU write. Instead of mocking people who speak of dispensations, why can't you at least give them the consideration you do from what you read on the internet. It's like you set yourself up as an enemy and plug your ears to whatever we say. I didn't learn what I know from the internet. I learned it by listening to reason from brothers and sisters in the Lord. I had so many unanswered questions (just like you do), but when I saw those questions being answered, I was happy. Yes, happy that those questions I had finally had an answer. God has different plans for different times with different people. What do you think Paul is talking about here?
- 1 Corinthians 9:17
For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.
- Ephesians 1:10
That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
- Ephesians 3:2
If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
- Colossians 1:25
Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;
Arial
Active member
I have given nothing but valid arguments. Valid is not determined by what you believe and don't believe.
If it were a normal everyday natural type of literature, you would be right. But it isn't. It is apocalyptic/poetic literature. That means it is a type of writing that reveals things that are unseen using visions and symbols. The same thing we see in Dan, Ez. Joel, parts of Isiah.
Try reading what I said about this that you are responding to.
The difference us in who is saying what to who, why they are saying it, why they use the particular words they use, what the subject is etc. Not least of which is individual personalities and ways of expressing ideas. All the truths in them are the same and are all for the believer, whether Jew or Gentile. If what you say is true, then why are they in a Bible that is given to and for all believers? Why not have a separate NT for Jews only? Or do you not think that God was in control of what ended up in the Bible, just as He was in control of what truths were given?
Right Divider
Body part
Arial
Active member
We went over those eons ago in another thread. I do not recall you responding but that would all be mute anyway. I have nothing against dispensationalists or people believing whatever they want to. It is some sort of hostile, unforgiving group of dispensationalist that have come into this thread and made it all about dispensationalism. When that is not what it is about at all. It was not me that began that it was that little band of rigid, dispensationalist who did and are doing it. I am merely responding to it, but I am not going to anymore. You are giving dispensationalism a VERY BAD NAME. Not to mention casting shame on the name of God. I deeply repent and am ashamed of my participation. Are you?
glorydaz
Well-known member
You doubt Jesus would be happy to hear He is NOT the true Israel? Do you have a scripture that says He is?
Why would you say that? It doesn't even make sense.
I did think it through, so you're actually falsely accusing me. Why would you do that.?
I actually thought it made total sense. Which is why I posted it. If Jesus is the root...all things come from Him.
John 1:3-4
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
Ah, such resentment and quite unwarranted, I assure you. I knew we didn't agree on many things when I first met you, but you seemed like an alright person at the time. You forget that I've watched your interactions with others here on this board, so that may be why I'm not as friendly as I was to begin with. It doesn't have to be this way. Just relax and don't take things so personally.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Me? No, it's my job to preach the gospel. What do I have to repent of?
There is no other way to make Paul's teaching, including the Gospel of Grace, line up with the rest of scripture without first figuring out that God had different plans for different people and times. It's basic 101 Bible. Until you realize that, you'll continue to go around teaching false doctrine.
Says the fool who has nothing to contribute.
False.
This is, at minimum a drastic over statement. Dispensationalism simply teaches that the previous dispensation was still in effect during the events and teachings that took place in those books and that this must be taken into account when reading them and attempting to apply them. Failure to do so will inevitably lead to legalism because Jesus and the Twelve not only obeyed the Law of Moses by taught their followers to do the same.
Again, false.
This simply has to be an intentional mischaracterization. The book of Acts is a history book that lays out the transition from one dispensation to another. Without the book of Acts there would be no way to reconcile the books written by Paul with the rest of scripture. No one would even accept his writings as scripture and we'd all be believing and practicing our faith in manner basically identical to today's Messianic Jews.
There are some dispensationalists that believe this. I am not one of them nor are any of the dispensationalist that I know. The vast majority of dispensationalists believe the church age began in Acts 2. I believe the evidence supports something closer to Acts 9 (i.e. with Saul's conversion on the road to Damascus). I've seen arguments for the church age starting as late as Acts 28 but they are all quite stained and are quite unconvincing in my view. The Acts 28 people are the only one who think that only the prison epistles apply directly to the BoC. They are a tiny minority of Dispensationalists.
Well, duh! That's what the book of Revelation itself plainly states. A point I've already made on this very thread back when discussing dispensationalism was against your rules.
No, on the contrary, it is quite completely the opposite. I didn't start out as a Mid-Acts Dispensationalists. What brought me to it was very simply the most thorough treatment of the biblical material I've ever seen presented by anyone on any topic along with the most eloquently brilliant theological argument that I think is possible to make in defense of the systematic theology.
A bit of both but even that which I hold to that was taught to me, I do not believe BECAUSE it was taught to me. I've never been that guy. I was tossed out of my sixth grade Sunday school class because I refused to be convinced that it was necessary to be dunked in water to be saved. I am persuaded by arguments, not people. That has been true of me since I was literally a child.
Stop trying to deny it, Arial. You found a comment about the meaning of the number twelve somewhere on the internet and decided to slightly reword it and had no idea that the guy you were basically quoting was a major figure in the brand of doctrine you most like to despise.
E.W. Bullinger's original - " Twelve is a perfect number, signifying perfection of government, or of governmental perfection." (First published in 1894)
Arial's rewording - ""It is a perfect number and represents God's power and authority as well as a perfect governmental foundation."
Pretty obvious.
My response to him is the same as it would be had you said it (or anyone else for that matter).
Saying it doesn't make it so.
In fact, I've learned from long experience that people who talk about "Satanic perversion of the truth" or "doctrines of demons" or some similar comment have run out of substance and have had to resort to emotionalism. Their hope is that people won't want to be associated with "Satanic perversions" and go running like scared rabbits from the doctrine they are trying to discredit with such baseless claims.
Regardless, it doesn't touch me or my doctrine in the slightest because what Ironside is railing about is a form of dispensationalism that I reject and that not 1% of dispensationalists actually believe. Ironside is doing little more than chasing windmills.
What would keep me from using the exact same verse of scripture against you and you Amillennialism?
Nothing!
Then please, by all means, put me on ignore you stupid moronic fool!
All you know how to do is parrot nonsense that you find online from sources you aren't the slightest bit familiar with and repeat baseless nonsense like this last idiotic sentence. If anything it is the Calvinist who denies what God says about Himself. He is, after all, the author of the whole book. You blasphemous Calvinists want an immutable god while the bible states flatly that the real God not only Created the universe but that this same Creator BECAME a man and then died and then rose from the dead with a new glorified human body that He hadn't ever had before.
Clete
Last edited:
Which doesn't inherently make us ultra-dispensationalists.
Or can't you take us at our word when we say "We're not ultra-dispensationalists"?
As mentioned before: The ENTIRE BIBLE is FOR everyone, regardless of Jew or Gentile.
However, some parts of the Bible are written TO specific groups of people.
You're making what is known as a "guilt by association" fallacy.
  |
Association fallacy - Wikipedia
Sorry, that's not how this works.
When someone makes a false accusation (aka bearing false witness) against us, as you have done, then of course we're going to call the person out on that.
Supra.
Last edited:
Hypocrite.
More than that, she's lying. She doesn't even know what any of those things are! She doesn't know what she's talking about with dispensationalism either and she knows that everyone here can tell! She's grasping at straws trying to justify her exit in her own mind.
Revelation records a 1st resurrection but not a 2nd resurrection.
Revelation records a 2nd death but not a 1st death.
How many gospels does scripture record from Genesis to Revelation for eternal salvation?
Right Divider
Body part
Most gospels are not about eternal salvation.
OK.
Just list the ones that are for eternal salvation.