ECT The essential irrationality of Dispensationalism

[musterion]

Someone do me a favor please and explain this.

How is it that those who insist the Bible cannot be taken literally (which automatically leaves it open to the only other possible option, personal interpretation) are almost always the loudest and most strident about telling you that YOUR interpretation is wrong and THEIRS is correct...which they then try to prove from the very book they say can't be taken literally?

Do they have the first clue how insane that looks?

 

[Interplanner]

Go ahead: take these literally:
David foresaw the resurrection as the enthronement of Christ
2, the resurrection is the completion of what was promised to the fathers
3, the 'raised fallen tent' of David is the incoming Gentiles as the subject of the whole council shows.

What happens Must is that these propositions are said to be insane, non-literal, fantasy, fairy tale, when in fact they are the grammatical truth.

We now have RD insisting that 'Hellenas' in Acts 11 is not Gentiles when the whole chapter and that line it is found in is MEANT to contrast to Jews.

Can someone explain to me how that looks.

Literal, yes; D'ist no; Christocentric, yes.

 

[musterion]

Go ahead: take these literally:
David foresaw the resurrection as the enthronement of Christ
2, the resurrection is the completion of what was promised to the fathers
3, the 'raised fallen tent' of David is the incoming Gentiles as the subject of the whole council shows.

What happens Must is that these propositions are said to be insane, non-literal, fantasy, fairy tale, when in fact they are the grammatical truth.

We now have RD insisting that 'Hellenas' in Acts 11 is not Gentiles when the whole chapter and that line it is found in is MEANT to contrast to Jews.

Can someone explain to me how that looks.

Literal, yes; D'ist no; Christocentric, yes.

See, you're doing it again. You're demanding that we take YOU literally, as literally correct - by citing support from a book you don't even believe.

For you, preterism doesn't serve to prove the Bible correct. The Bible exists solely to prove preterism.

You either have a serious screw loose and are delusional, or you're a troll having a blast as long as MADs keep giving you attention. The crazy act seems to work, so you have ramped it up in recent months.

Troll or nutcase, or both, I couldn't care less. You're still an imbecile.

 

[Interplanner]

See, you're doing it again. You're demanding that we take YOU literally, as literally correct - by citing support from a book you don't even believe.

For you, preterism doesn't serve to prove the Bible correct. The Bible exists solely to prove preterism.

You either have a serious screw loose and are delusional, or you're a troll having a blast as long as MADs keep giving you attention. The crazy act seems to work, so you have ramped it up in recent months.

Troll or nutcase, or both, I couldn't care less. You're still an imbecile.

"A book I don't believe", lol. that's your loose screw.

You do realize those three points are three passages in Acts, right? And that that is what the passages say? And that as long as I have been here and at 2 other forums, it is the D'ist futurists who say that those passages do not mean what they say?

and to top it off, the D'ists don't say what the passages mean. They just criticize the messenger. Never deal with the message, just ridicule and discredit the messenger, like a secular university professor about creation or cataclysm or Christian faith in general. Exactly the same.

You just did it.

 

[Danoh]

See, you're doing it again. You're demanding that we take YOU literally, as literally correct - by citing support from a book you don't even believe.

For you, preterism doesn't serve to prove the Bible correct. The Bible exists solely to prove preterism.

You either have a serious screw loose and are delusional, or you're a troll having a blast as long as MADs keep giving you attention. The crazy act seems to work, so you have ramped it up in recent months.

Troll or nutcase, or both, I couldn't care less. You're still an imbecile.

There is no way around the obvious - that the guy was either dropped as a baby, or more likely attempted to get out of his crib a bit to soon in his development; fell out of his crib, and banged his head something awful :chuckle:

Just as obviously, he appears to be stuck in a ptsd of sorts; forever compelling him to have to continually repeat that trauma to his head.

The guy is...a real riot :chuckle:

Nevertheless, I still get some great benefit or another, from his posts, here and there.

Just a matter of a willingly open, or pure mind, when considering a source, regardless of said source...

Titus 1:12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. 1:13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; 1:14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth. 1:15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled. 1:16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

Rom. 5:8.

 

[Danoh]

"A book I don't believe", lol. that's your loose screw.

You do realize those three points are three passages in Acts, right? And that that is what the passages say? And that as long as I have been here and at 2 other forums, it is the D'ist futurists who say that those passages do not mean what they say?

and to top it off, the D'ists don't say what the passages mean. They just criticize the messenger. Never deal with the message, just ridicule and discredit the messenger, like a secular university professor about creation or cataclysm or Christian faith in general. Exactly the same.

You just did it.

So says the Chafer critic.

Nevertheless, Rom. 5:8.

 

[Right Divider]

you are out of control.
1, "But" in in v20 because they weren't the usual Greek-speaking Jews (Iudaiou) but were Gentiles or 'Hellenes/Hellenistas'. "But" contrasts things. Only to Jews is contrasted with THOSE WHO ARE NOT JEWS, get it?

Nice try.

You're trying to mash things again and it won't fool me or anyone else.

 

[Interplanner]

Nice try.

You're trying to mash things again and it won't fool me or anyone else.

This isn't a matter of words. The text tells us the geography of these people. Not that Jews didn't live all over, but that they spoke to Jews only AND THEN they went to all others.

Why do you think the apostles went down to check on it and say 'wow, the grace of God has come to the Gentiles as well?'

Do you think 'ethnes' is Jews too? lol

How can 'Hellenas' (the name of the Greek nation) be Jews--when there is a term for Greek-speaking by anyone?

Your head is full of mash potatoes.

 

[Interplanner]

And when do Gentiles start to believe anyway? After Acts? One of the 7 deacons of ch 6 was Gentile by birth you know, how about him?

 

[Danoh]

Nice try.

You're trying to mash things again and it won't fool me or anyone else.

One of the first things I learned about this "Grecians" issue early on in my looking into Mid-Acts, is that they were more than merely "Greek speaking Jews."

Heck, Paul spoke Greek, and yet he was not "Grecian."

This is one of those times where IP actually has a valid point of sorts.

But you know how you and yours have been towards such an individual - contrary to the Apostle Paul's own practice, as in the passage below - not only do you never concede any of such an individual's valid points, but have ended up so against such an individual himself that yours has ended up a mind towards such that is so less than pure, that you cut yourselves off from any worthwhile contribution such might nevertheless make here and there to your own further understanding on one thing or another...

Yours is that same arrogance STP often nevertheless manifests in that quiet way of his, whenever one attempts to explore one thing or another he might do well to explore anew.

You and yours are only fooling yourselves.

Titus 1:12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. 1:13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; 1:14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth. 1:15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled. 1:16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

Neverheless, Rom. 5:8.

 

[Danoh]

This isn't a matter of words. The text tells us the geography of these people. Not that Jews didn't live all over, but that they spoke to Jews only AND THEN they went to all others.

Why do you think the apostles went down to check on it and say 'wow, the grace of God has come to the Gentiles as well?'

Do you think 'ethnes' is Jews too? lol

How can 'Hellenas' (the name of the Greek nation) be Jews--when there is a term for Greek-speaking by anyone?

Your head is full of mash potatoes.

You are off on your own principle there - where "ethne" and "ethnes" are concerned - Scripture applies it to both Jew and Gentile - the context determining the intended sense.

Nevertheless, Rom. 5:8.

 

[Right Divider]

This isn't a matter of words. The text tells us the geography of these people. Not that Jews didn't live all over, but that they spoke to Jews only AND THEN they went to all others.

So you continue to reject the LORD's pronouncement in Matthew 10:23?

Why do you think the apostles went down to check on it and say 'wow, the grace of God has come to the Gentiles as well?'

Why would the say "wow" if that was what was supposed to happen?

Do you think 'ethnes' is Jews too? lol

It depends on how it's used:

Luke 7:5 (AKJV/PCE)​

(7:5) For he loveth our nation, and he hath built us a synagogue.
​

Which nation do you think that this refers to? (HINT: Israel)

The word "nation" there is ETHNOS.

How can 'Hellenas' (the name of the Greek nation) be Jews--when there is a term for Greek-speaking by anyone?

It easy to understand since we were just told that they preached the word to NONE BUT THE JEWS ONLY.

Your head is full of mash potatoes.

And this from the guy that thinks that the Hebrew word for RESTFUL/PEACEFUL should be translated TOXIC due to his own perverse need to have it so.

 

[musterion]

There is no way around the obvious - that the guy was either dropped as a baby, or more likely attempted to get out of his crib a bit to soon in his development; fell out of his crib, and banged his head something awful :chuckle:

Just as obviously, he appears to be stuck in a ptsd of sorts; forever compelling him to have to continually repeat that trauma to his head.

The guy is...a real riot :chuckle:

Nevertheless, I still get some great benefit or another, from his posts, here and there.

Just a matter of a willingly open, or pure mind, when considering a source, regardless of said source...

Titus 1:12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. 1:13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; 1:14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth. 1:15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled. 1:16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

Rom. 5:8.

He's now also attacking d'ism via Chafer, not directly attacking MAD. I don't think he knows they're rather different. He's quick to distinguish Full P from Partial P, but here? No. Very inconsistent.

 

[Interplanner]

So you continue to reject the LORD's pronouncement in Matthew 10:23?


Why would the say "wow" if that was what was supposed to happen?


It depends on how it's used:

Luke 7:5 (AKJV/PCE)​

(7:5) For he loveth our nation, and he hath built us a synagogue.
​

Which nation do you think that this refers to? (HINT: Israel)

The word "nation" there is ETHNOS.


It easy to understand since we were just told that they preached the word to NONE BUT THE JEWS ONLY.


And this from the guy that thinks that the Hebrew word for RESTFUL/PEACEFUL should be translated TOXIC due to his own perverse need to have it so.

they preached to the Jews only. The next word is BUT some of them... You are toxic, and I hope God will lead people past you.

When ethnes is plural it is the nations, Gentiles. You are toxic and I hope God will lead people past you.

 

[Interplanner]

He's now also attacking d'ism via Chafer, not directly attacking MAD. I don't think he knows they're rather different. He's quick to distinguish Full P from Partial P, but here? No. Very inconsistent.

What difference matters? the land restoration still is the major fail

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

What difference matters? the land restoration still is the major fail

Made up.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

they preached to the Jews only. The next word is BUT some of them... You are toxic, and I hope God will lead people past you.

When ethnes is plural it is the nations, Gentiles. You are toxic and I hope God will lead people past you.

Made up.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Your head is full of mash potatoes.

The irony.
Matthew 10:23 (KJV)

 

[Right Divider]

they preached to the Jews only. The next word is BUT some of them... You are toxic, and I hope God will lead people past you.

When ethnes is plural it is the nations, Gentiles. You are toxic and I hope God will lead people past you.

You poor little baby. The word BUT is NOT there, it is AND.

Acts 11:19-23 (AKJV/PCE)​

(11:19) ¶ Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only. (11:20) And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus. (11:21) And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord. (11:22) ¶ Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch. (11:23) Who, when he came, and had seen the grace of God, was glad, and exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord. ​

Don't tell me, let me guess. The KJV needs to be re-translated by the great IP.

"Some of THEM".... the ones that were preaching to THE JEWS ONLY..... too bad it's so hard for you to understand.

 

[Interplanner]

LIke I just showed in the other thread on this, the contrasting connector 'de' is used, not the continuing connector 'kai.' Stop building your life on 'fav' English versions and see what professionals say. They are in commentaries and you need to at least find the best of three.

It is in the context anyway. It was outreach to non Jews. The apostles came and were amazed that it was all happening--the outreach to non Jews. You are a fool.

The NASB is the most stiffly literal of all trans out there, and has the contrastive But, as it should.

It was also about the speakers--the 'some of them.' THose were locals who could explain the Gospel to those around them who were non-Jews. And so they did.