ECT The essential irrationality of Dispensationalism

[Interplanner]

After sampling a few STP's today, I notice:

An arrogant person, totally absorbed in himself. I have talked with 100 pagans over the past 2 months and no thanks, I'd rather speak with them any day than STP.

I find him totally DQ'd on Hebrews based on responses so far. How people cannot see what is taking place with the land in Hebrews borders on hilarious. I don't need to hear anything further from a person who knows 8:8 only, end of discussion. Nor that 1:8 says the Son is on God's thrown--as though there were several. who has time or interest in chasing down forced, abstrusities that he invents to protect Chafer and D'ism and 2P2P.

He still thinks the promise verse in Acts 13 is the one about Abraham earlier. Talk about a person who does not know a punchline when he see it.

then he thinks I Cor 10 is about the ends of the world, another grammatical FLOP on the WRONG verse.

Aaaaaah, the internet, where you can dictate to people that you are the only one who knows! No proof, no reasons, just bit-space!

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

After sampling a few STP's today, I notice:

An arrogant person, totally absorbed in himself. I have talked with 100 pagans over the past 2 months and no thanks, I'd rather speak with them any day than STP.

I find him totally DQ'd on Hebrews based on responses so far. How people cannot see what is taking place with the land in Hebrews borders on hilarious. I don't need to hear anything further from a person who knows 8:8 only, end of discussion. Nor that 1:8 says the Son is on God's thrown--as though there were several. who has time or interest in chasing down forced, abstrusities that he invents to protect Chafer and D'ism and 2P2P.

He still thinks the promise verse in Acts 13 is the one about Abraham earlier. Talk about a person who does not know a punchline when he see it.

then he thinks I Cor 10 is about the ends of the world, another grammatical FLOP on the WRONG verse.

Aaaaaah, the internet, where you can dictate to people that you are the only one who knows! No proof, no reasons, just bit-space!

All made up.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Note the trap that was sprung once again.

He rejected more than one literal cite from the Bible -- primarily, that Christ is not at this time seated on David's throne. It nowhere says nor suggests He is, yet.

Yet he rejects this literal take and substitutes his own white area of the page eisegesis AND expects it to be taken as the final authority.

THE UNMITIGATED ARROGANCE.

Be he troll or tard?

He is still attempting to figure out the Bible with his intellect (carnal mind), without actually believing it first.

 

[Interplanner]

Your post lacks any content. Try again.

It has a context RD, go back and read. Then when you are wide awake and full of fresh air ask yourself: is the word throne or sit in the sermon? Is anything at all said about Christ in heaven? That kind of thing. I try to overestimate my audience and assume they are quite able to: find bibles, find Acts, find Acts 7, find a concept in Acts 7.

Wow you sure got praised for being brilliant!

 

[Interplanner]

Note the trap that was sprung once again.

He rejected more than one literal cite from the Bible -- primarily, that Christ is not at this time seated on David's throne. It nowhere says nor suggests He is, yet.

Yet he rejects this literal take and substitutes his own white area of the page eisegesis AND expects it to be taken as the final authority.

THE UNMITIGATED ARROGANCE.

Be he troll or tard?

So there are green lights in some bibles that say a throne is David's? Or was David mistaken in the enthronement psalms that Peter referred to and didn't really see Christ on a throne? Or has 2P2P invaded heaven itself like so many other twots so that there are two thrones to keep track of?

If the NT says what's going on with this stuff, I take that, over internet D'ists, every time.

There are many, many places that declare him to be reigning, to have what was promised to David, through David's enthronement psalms. It seems there is just as much rejection today as back then for 'believing the book' about this.

 

[Interplanner]

Like the rookie detective said in FOYLE'S WAR, 'the weapon was in the room where the suicide was with his blood on it.'
Foyle: 'how do you know it's his blood?'

This is how 'just believe the book' comes across. Just mindless. Especially with the usual D'ist hatred or dismissal of history and background.

That is the most dangerous thing I've heard today, because it does take some work to put together what it is saying, and your work will be rewarded. The book clearly does not go toward on 2P2P D'ism on hundreds of places.

Like this week's protests: you want things to conclude your way instead of be handled in the 'court' of research and background.

 

[Interplanner]

The real kicker is how many people worship STP's knowledge, and so when you list 4 passages about something, and he says 'made up', he gets thanked by the 2P2P D'ist goons.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

The real kicker is how many people worship STP's knowledge, and so when you list 4 passages about something, and he says 'made up', he gets thanked by the 2P2P D'ist goons.

Most posters here can see that you're full of hot air.

 

[Interplanner]

And then STP calls Foyle the 'humanist' for asking the most necessary question, which is also the one that upsets the rookies cart! lol

 

[JudgeRightly]

If they are good answers, I'm sure some one will quote them.

Perhaps you could use the QUOTE function yourself?...

GeorgeA wrote:

Spoiler

It is true that some of the disciples had early misunderstandings about Jesus' mission and as it related to how historical events would unfold, but I don't know of any scripture that states that the end of the world was planned to happen at a specific time except as known only to the Father.

re misunderstanding the mission:
Well, yeah! They didnt' even think it was going to happen! In Lk 24, they still expected the 'redemption' of Israel in the upper-class Jerusalem sense of a painless, miraculous removal of Roman admin. At least I think they knew he was not going to be a captain in bloody battle; he had made that clear. The upper classes of Jerusalem with their compromised comfortable lives under Rome did not want battle either. Only the zealots and Galileans did, and God was going to appear in the middle of it and make them victorious.

But the mission? I don't think even the shock of what is said in Lk 24 or Acts 1 sunk in until the Spirit actually came, and even then not all of them. See how slowly and skeptically they welcome Gentiles. Dude, where's my throne over Israel? Christ turned the conferring of kingdom power...into a force for successful proclamation.

re the end of the world
The 490 years were nearly up. Christ had said they'd see the AofD in the temple making a mess. (When your group is expecting to see God fight for you and you are the general, it's easy to claim to be god.) The expectation from Isaiah was that the NHNE would come on the heals of the DofJ. The immediacy of the end of the world is in many, many places in the NT, and the NHNE was expected right after.

This is where the insertions of D'ism are such a waste and bombast. 1900 years later they come along and say that there's going to be another round of Judaism all over again. It dangles from a few passages poorly, Mt 23's 'blessed is he...', Rom 11:26 'all Israel will be saved...' acts 3's 'restoration.' Yet the places that have a paragraph or more on the 2nd coming in judgement are without reference to Israel at all. I've listed them 1000x.

Steko wrote:

Spoiler

Christ had already showed them that the kingdom would be taken away from the then ruling class of Israel and be given to them, the little flock and that they would reign from 12 thrones over the 12 restored tribes of Israel.

But STeko, this is certainly mixing up a lot of traffic! The guy had announced that his mission was to the whole world, which everyone should have known from 'In your Seed (one person) all the world will be blessed.' So when the new employees of the vineyard are hired, they are the missionaries who will produce the fruit of the Gospel.

This guy announced that his kingdom was NOT like those of the earth, especially at the moment when they were asking about which (literal) seat they were going to sit in. He told them instead they most of them would face martyrdom! Are you not aware of the string of verses in Luke that makes the difference between the world's kingdom and the kingdom of God about as vast as it can be?

You are quite mistaken to try to preserve a kingdom for Israel all through the material; the kingdom that was to come was not by might, nor by power, but by His Spirit.

The Mt 21 parable ends with a superb play on words: he's going to make a 'people' (ethne) which is not a legal entity with buildings and offices, but a new kind of man, a new kind of race--one that exists by its faith in the Gospel and nothing else.

The depth of your forcing the usual kind of kingdom on the NT is totally mistaken.

In Lk 24 they are dismayed to find out he did not 'redeem' Israel--while they had missed the actual message. In Acts 1 they stupidly ask about it one more time, and he says the power of his kingdom is just about to impact planet earth. After that, finally, the question is gone, as it should be.

Steko wrote:

Spoiler

The so-called 'great commission' of immediate post-resurrection was to be accomplished through the salvation of Israel and the return of her Messiah, according to prophecy

No, this is again way off. It always was there, as the Psalm says: 'the Lord gave the word, and there was a huge number of those who proclaimed it,' and Isaiah: 'it is too small a thing to restore the fortunes of Israel; I will make you a light to the nations.' Nothing so-called about it.

I've actually never heard anyone put the great commission label on a restored Jewish kingdom. No, it was not gonig that way at all.

Where did this locating the rejection of Messiah in Acts come from? Ever read Luke 13:34, sheesh.

The refreshing was taking place through the mission and Spirit of God, and the restoration of all things (all, as in all) was the NHNE. The end of the world was expected right after the destruction of Jerusalem, in many, many places in the NT.

The mission work did start with them, obviously, but was constantly burgeoning out, as we see in Lk 7:1-10.

The 'Israel' of Christ was those missionaries and their impact on the world. they turned it upside down, Acts 22.

Steko wrote:

Spoiler

Yes, they would remember as the Spirit would bring to memory whatsoever He had said unto them, but what He said and what they believed was in perfect harmony with prophecy for the nation of Israel.




Not at all. Acts 26. They kept at the worship services, but Paul said it was already here in the preaching of the resurrection.

As a historical note, the zealots believed the same as the leaders of Judaism about the sacrificial system finally bringing Messiah's reign (Judaism and D'ism are the same on this), but the zealots believed the current temple to be defiled. Sometimes they solved this by worship out at other places. As if that would make any difference relative to Christian belief.

Steko wrote:

Spoiler

In Mt 24, the term 'elect' refers to GOD's chosen/bachir/eklectos nation and the final believing elect being gathered back to the land, again...all in harmony with what the OT prophets said.

But again there are distinctions to make that you are missing. Who is Christ's elect now? It's not Israel. Their place/house is desolate. ('House' meant more than a building; it was an identity). Paul said the new elect is both Jew and Gentile in Christ in Rom 9:24 with 4 OT passages supporting that.

this is where in its massive confusion D'ism often finds the solution to be two--of-everything. One for Israel only, one for Christians. 'Never the twain meet.' The most recent was this past weekend where David's throne is separate from Christ/God.

The vision is not in harmony with such 2P2P. It is in harmony with the way the NT uses the OT. To which the D'ists usually say they are both true, lol (the OT by itself and the NT using it). this misses the doctrine which Paul explained that there are things embedded in the OT, missed by post-exilic Judaism, that God has now opened back up clearly in Christ and the Gospel. That is why we have the beautiful Eph 3 with the sharing of Israel's inheritance 'through the Gospel.'

Steko wrote:

Spoiler

Nope, lots to happen on this earth after the Lord returns. Acts 3:21
Then much later in the NHNE there will be a sequence of events, thus the passage of time.

This is where things get quite flimsy for D'ism. It just isn't there. I have listed the NT non-symbolic passages about the return in judgement, and none of them have anything happening in Israel as such (separate, millenial). Even the brief reference in Rev 20 is slight and without detail.

How did Christ forget all this when saying that he covered ALL that the prophets spoke on the Emmaus road? which is the same limitation Paul put on himself in Acts 26:22 'saying nothing beyond.'

The NHNE is never detailed as far as a sequence of events. It is a state of bliss in the next life in Christ, where evil cannot happen again, unlike the long reign of Christ right now.

Steko wrote:

Spoiler

That was the finality of the fig tree/the religion of Israel.
It wasn't the finality of the vine/the nation of Israel.

When the Lord said that, He also said, 'Jerusalem(the center of Israel), you shall not see me henceforth until you[Jerusalem] say unto me, "Baruch haba b'shem Adonai", thus fulfilling Ps 118.
Then put Acts 3 with it where Peter says, "You men of Israel, repent and He shall send Jesus".
Israel will be pressed until a remnant repents and calls on the name of YHVH/Yeshua.

More two-of-everything. 'House' in Hebrew does not have such a distinction. You cannot fracture it into such separation.

You have missed the fact that a few chapters later after Mt 23, he was sung to from Ps 118; they were the ones who believed his sacrifice was the power driving the new kingdom. The event was so small it did not trigger a dispatch of the Antonia guard who patrolled the temple. They probably saw the colt and chuckled.

It is very important to avoid 100% categories. Many of Israel believed. Enough to launch the mission. It all succeeded. But not enough of Israel believed to abandone their stupid fight with Rome, Lk 14:31.

There is no outstanding 'Israel will be pressed' to be dealt with. Of course, it would be great if lots of them became evangelists, even today.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

And then STP calls Foyle the 'humanist' for asking the most necessary question, which is also the one that upsets the rookies cart! lol

Anything but scripture for IP...

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

The real kicker is how many people worship STP's knowledge, and so when you list 4 passages about something, and he says 'made up', he gets thanked by the 2P2P D'ist goons.

:chuckle: @ worship
And I thought you did not make personal attacks (goons)?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

That is the most dangerous thing I've heard today,

Yea, hath God said?
This is your MO. Did you learn it from your father?

 

[john w]

lol

Please pepper your oh so brilliant "posts" with another "lol," "The Greek" expert...Please....Teach us?

 

[Interplanner]

I read somewhere where STP wants to know why I keep quoting 'what the fathers were promised has been fulfilled...' Acts 13:32. What an evasion.

It is central to understanding the apostles, and it belongs with the completion of the promises of David, just like Acts 2:30 does.

The fact that D'ism is in greatest denial of these three points is the biggest clue about what is mixed up about D'ism.

STP has never properly answered the singularity. It is collective. It is about everything promised. Otherwise he needs to speak on what it was about the res of Christ that was so encompassing, so exciting, so defining, so climactic? He has said nothing, because I don't think he has a clue what this means. I still meet people who believe they are well-versed on what the NT is saying about the OT, and they don't even know this sermon exists.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

I read somewhere where STP wants to know why I keep quoting 'what the fathers were promised has been fulfilled...' Acts 13:32. What an evasion.

It is central to understanding the apostles, and it belongs with the completion of the promises of David, just like Acts 2:30 does.

The fact that D'ism is in greatest denial of these three points is the biggest clue about what is mixed up about D'ism.

STP has never properly answered the singularity. It is collective. It is about everything promised. Otherwise he needs to speak on what it was about the res of Christ that was so encompassing, so exciting, so defining, so climactic? He has said nothing, because I don't think he has a clue what this means. I still meet people who believe they are well-versed on what the NT is saying about the OT, and they don't even know this sermon exists.

It means exactly what it says. Stop perverting it.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I read somewhere where STP wants to know why I keep quoting 'what the fathers were promised has been fulfilled...' Acts 13:32. What an evasion.

And we declare to you glad tidings—that promise which was made to the fathers.God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm: ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.’ - Acts 13:32-33 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts13:32-33&version=NKJV

That's the promise talked about in verse 32. Seems pretty clear to me. Not sure how you can't see it.

It is central to understanding the apostles, and it belongs with the completion of the promises of David, just like Acts 2:30 does.

The fact that D'ism is in greatest denial of these three points is the biggest clue about what is mixed up about D'ism.

STP has never properly answered the singularity. It is collective. It is about everything promised. Otherwise he needs to speak on what it was about the res of Christ that was so encompassing, so exciting, so defining, so climactic? He has said nothing, because I don't think he has a clue what this means. I still meet people who believe they are well-versed on what the NT is saying about the OT, and they don't even know this sermon exists.

As I stated above, the singular "promise" in question in verse 32 is the promise of raising of Jesus Christ in verse 33.

 

[Right Divider]

And we declare to you glad tidings—that promise which was made to the fathers.God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm: ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.’ - Acts 13:32-33 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts13:32-33&version=NKJV

That's the promise talked about in verse 32. Seems pretty clear to me. Not sure how you can't see it.

Commentarian cancellationist blinders.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Yes, Interloper's Acts 13 dilemma is nothing but smoke and mirrors.
Here it is in plain English.


Acts 13
22 And when he had removed him, he raised up unto them David to be their king; to whom also he gave testimony, and said, I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all my will.

23 Of this man's seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus:




Acts 13
32 And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers,

33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.




Interloper warps and perverts the passage beyond recognition, to fulfill his agenda.
It's sad.

 

[Right Divider]

Yes, Interloper's Acts 13 dilemma is nothing but smoke and mirrors.
Here it is in plain English.

Acts 13
22 And when he had removed him, he raised up unto them David to be their king; to whom also he gave testimony, and said, I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all my will.

23 Of this man's seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus:

Acts 13
32 And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers,

33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

Interloper warps and perverts the passage beyond recognition, to fulfill his agenda.
It's sad.

Clearly, he's speaking to and about gentiles :dizzy: