ECT uh oh Another verse where Paul says he destroyed the church of God !

Danoh

New member
Where those in Christ before Paul part of the Building?

(Eph 2:19-21) Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord.

The above passage completely proves MAD's "two people" theory wrong.

Sure, Tel; if you say so - two departments of one agency both residing in a same building have a right to take mail adressed to the other as being instructions to and about their own department, merely because both reside in that same building.

Fact is, yours is the very mis-fire of every inconsistency out there, be it from the lost; the saved; Protestant or not, Reformed or not, Dispensational or not, and so on - including when an inconsistency is that of one who holds to the Acts 9 Position.

It's a sobering thought; this...

That all mis-fires are basically the result of the failure to re-study out each time anew, every word, and or every phrase in a passage, not only in it's own right, but also: as to what it's possible connection to the whole might, or might not, actually be..

You?

You're still stuck in the blind alley that is your notion that one is "just being a Darby follower..."

For the fact of the matter is, that to the extent that ANYONE has proven having consistently followed the above rule, there is no "Darby" nor "Russell" nor what ever other "one size fits all" notion only the unlearned ever conclude.

Yours is nothing more than the result of your particular hybrid, or fusing together of that - of your having fused together one thing with another, incorrectly, rather than...correctly...in your own obviously consistent failure in the consistent practice of the above rule...

1 Corinthians 3:13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.

Rom. 5:8
Pro. 27:17
 
Last edited:

dodge

New member
No, it does not!

You cannot find the "body of Christ" anywhere but Paul's epistles.

The church in Jerusalem is never referred to that way.

The believing church in Jerusalem was the remnant of Israel.

Continue on your deaf, dumb and blind journey.


Paul said they were in Christ before him, and no matter how you twist what Paul said it is what it is.


Rom 16:7
Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.
 

Right Divider

Body part
Paul said they were in Christ before him, and no matter how you twist what Paul said it is what it is.

Rom 16:7
Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.
I don't have to twist anything dodge.

Your narrow minded religious zealotry will not allow you do see what the Bible really teaches.
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Sure, Tel; if you say so - two departments of one agency both residing in a same building have a right to take mail adressed to the other as being instructions to and about their own department, merely because both reside in that same building.

Now you're talking as silly as STP.

He claims that "kingdom believers" sat side by side with "Body believers" in the same church.

What happened if one of the "kingdom believers" married a "Body believer"?

Also, when two "kingdom believers" had children after Mid-Acts, did they raise the children as "kingdom believers", or "body believers"?
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
THAT in the dispensation of the fullness of times.... did NOT occur in 70 AD or before.

The fullness began at the cross.

It was prophesied hundreds of years beforehand.

(Gen 48:19 YLT) 9 And his father refuseth, and saith, `I have known, my son, I have known; he also becometh a people, and he also is great, and yet, his young brother is greater than he, and his seed is the fulness of the nations;

As we see above, it was the descendants of Ephraim who became "the fullness of the nations". Ephraim was an Israelite, and all his descendants were Israelites.

Paul explains that secret in Romans 11

(Rom 11:25 YLT) For I do not wish you to be ignorant, brethren, of this secret -- that ye may not be wise in your own conceits -- that hardness in part to Israel hath happened till the fulness of the nations may come in;

If you weren't brainwashed by Darby's false teachings, you would understand the secret that Paul is explaining in Romans 11.
 

7Spirits

BANNED
Banned
The fullness began at the cross.

It was prophesied hundreds of years beforehand.

(Gen 48:19 YLT) 9 And his father refuseth, and saith, `I have known, my son, I have known; he also becometh a people, and he also is great, and yet, his young brother is greater than he, and his seed is the fulness of the nations;

As we see above, it was the descendants of Ephraim who became "the fullness of the nations". Ephraim was an Israelite, and all his descendants were Israelites.

Paul explains that secret in Romans 11

(Rom 11:25 YLT) For I do not wish you to be ignorant, brethren, of this secret -- that ye may not be wise in your own conceits -- that hardness in part to Israel hath happened till the fulness of the nations may come in;

If you weren't brainwashed by Darby's false teachings, you would understand the secret that Paul is explaining in Romans 11.

You quote about the tribe of Ephraim to answer this? You're so convoluted! With your reasoning, we are still under the old covenant.

I can't even begin to express how dishonest you are being.
 

Danoh

New member
You quote about the tribe of Ephraim to answer this? You're so convoluted! With your reasoning, we are still under the old covenant.

I can't even begin to express how dishonest you are being.

More like his usual mis-fires in his attempted sorting out of one thing or another due to his obvious violation of the following....

All mis-fires are basically the result of the failure to re-study out each time anew, every word, and or every phrase in a passage, not only in it's own right, but also; as to what it's possible connection to the whole might, or might not, actually be...

The result of his obvious failure in that is the hybrid of things that are not the same, that he has ended up erroneously concluding...are.
 

Danoh

New member
Now you're talking as silly as STP.

He claims that "kingdom believers" sat side by side with "Body believers" in the same church.

What happened if one of the "kingdom believers" married a "Body believer"?

Also, when two "kingdom believers" had children after Mid-Acts, did they raise the children as "kingdom believers", or "body believers"?

You continue to prove you left the Dispensationalism you supposedly once held to not due to seeming inconsistencies, but due to the obvious incompetence on your part when attempting to solve for them.

So here you are, asking questions in an attempt to prove a hole where there isn't one, but in fact, all you are doing once more, is proving yourself incompetent at solving for such questions.

I challenge you to answer those two questions.

Their answer is a simple one that does not violate the Scripture, but in your obviously consistent inability to solve for such.

You should have stuck with Darby's more often than not fine example of attempting to solve for things through Scripturally sound study principles, you obviously never got very far in the proper understanding of (if you were actually ever Dispensational, to begin with).
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
You quote about the tribe of Ephraim to answer this?

It's not my fault you don't understand what happened to the Israelites whom God divorced from the 10 tribes.


You're so convoluted!

Prove me wrong.

Let's use the King James Version:

(Gen 48:19 KJV) And his father refused, and said, I know it, my son, I know it: he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great: but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of nations.

Just tell us what multitude of nations the descendants of Ephraim became?

Please list the nations?

With your reasoning, we are still under the old covenant.

Nope. Christ Jesus joined the stick of Ephraim with the stick of Judah when He made the New Covenant. That's how all of Israel was saved.

I can't even begin to express how dishonest you are being.

It only appears that way to you because you have been brainwashed by Darby's false teachings.
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
You should have stuck with Darby's more often than not fine example of attempting to solve for things through Scripturally sound study principles

LOL.....LOL....LOL.....

Like when Darby fell off his horse, and claimed that's what made him believe that the kingdom in the OT was different than the Christian church?

Or maybe you mean that time when a teenage girl told Darby she had a "vision" that Jesus returned twice, and that that "vision" was how Darby came up with his rapture theory?

Those things are NOT my idea of "scripturally sound study principles"
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
So far the most I have heard from MAD are "3" churches to neatly divide up the B.O.C..

Some MAD's have 3 churches, some MAD's have 2 churches.

It keeps getting crazier, the more they try and make the Bible fit MAD.

Ask STP about his upside down pyramid that comes out of the sky and touches planet earth with its tip, and how the one group of people who live in the upside down pyramid go back and forth between the upside down pyramid and planet earth.

I kid you not, that he believes this.
 

Danoh

New member
LOL.....LOL....LOL.....

Like when Darby fell off his horse, and claimed that's what made him believe that the kingdom in the OT was different than the Christian church?

Or maybe you mean that time when a teenage girl told Darby she had a "vision" that Jesus returned twice, and that that "vision" was how Darby came up with his rapture theory?

Those things are NOT my idea of "scripturally sound study principles"

Nope.

All he claimed was that the resulting rest from that fall had allowed him some time to study things out in the Scripture.

And he did not hold that Prophecy had continued.

Thus, he would not have believed McDonald's supposed visions - which were actually POST; NOT Darby's PRE-Trib view - had been inspired.

All these issues have long been debunked, over and over, and over.

But you and yours continue to spread your misinformation about it all.

For one reason out of others also obviously evident but to your kind.

That yours is store bought "wisdom."

Yours is your over reliance on the often just as incompetent labor of others, who also had relied on the incompetence and misinformation of those who had parroted the same in books "about" before them...

And because you subscribe to that as the way to learn "about" the Bible, you project that as being everyone else's basis also.

Your kind are ever completely unable to fathom that a person could actually sit down, look at a chapter in Scripture from scratch, asking only 'what general rules of thumb might I gather here in this chapter of Scripture, this writer here in Scripture appears to be following and or basing things on, from how he is using words, ad so on; here in this chapter in my Bible?'

Should that result in a conclusion that you also happen to hold to, that, you books based incompetent, does not mean I follow you.

Should it result in a conclusion the RCC Pope also asserts about the Trinity: that, you books learned incompetent; does not mean I follow the RCC.

It is fascinating this incompetence you and your kind are ever stuck in - all this time on TOL, I still find that posting to your kind is far too often the issue of having to talk down to your poor level of understanding of the actual source behind a thing.

I continue to find that your kind have not grown to where you can see the difference between studying out a thing from scratch in Scripture itself for what principles it might reveal what it is asserting is based on - that there is a difference between that - and having gotten a thing out of a book "about."

But hey, if that means you will continue to unwittingly promote Bible students like Darby, then by all means, mention him often, and call me a "Darby follower" - at every opportunity your obvious incompetence compels you to.

As one who ever approaches the Scripture based on the above question, I have concluded that Darby had often also asked a similar question.

As had Baker; Stam; and O'Hair - in case you fail to remember to knock those three men.

It is crystal clear obvious to me by many of their assertions, that they too had obviously asked my above study question.

The more astute will not only ignore your obvious bias, but will go on to look into their writings to see for themselves what such had actually asserted.

The less sincere will not, no matter their claim of sincerity otherwise; as your kind continue to prove.

Your loss, as always.

Rom. 5:8
Prov. 27:17.
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Nope.

All he claimed was that the resulting rest from that fall had allowed him some time to study things out in the Scripture.

And he did not hold that Prophecy had continued.

Thus, he would not have believed McDonald's supposed visions - which were actually POST; NOT Darby's PRE-Trib view - had been inspired.

All these issues have long been debunked, over and over, and over.

But you and yours continue to spread your misinformation about it all.

For one reason out of others also obviously evident but to your kind.

That yours is store bought "wisdom."

Yours is your over reliance on the often just as incompetent labor of others, who also had relied on the incompetence and misinformation of those who had parroted the same in books "about" before them...

And because you subscribe to that as the way to learn "about" the Bible, you project that as being everyone else's basis also.

Your kind are ever completely unable to fathom that a person could actually sit down, look at a chapter in Scripture from scratch, asking only 'what general rules of thumb might I gather here in this chapter of Scripture, this writer here in Scripture appears to be following and or basing things on, from how he is using words, ad so on; here in this chapter in my Bible?'

Should that result in a conclusion that you also happen to hold to, that, you books based incompetent, does not mean I follow you.

Should it result in a conclusion the RCC Pope also asserts about the Trinity: that, you books learned incompetent; does not mean I follow the RCC.

It is fascinating this incompetence you and your kind are ever stuck in - all this time on TOL, I still find that posting to your kind is far too often the issue of having to talk down to your poor level of understanding of the actual source behind a thing.

I continue to find that your kind have not grown to where you can see the difference between studying out a thing from scratch in Scripture itself for what principles it might reveal what it is asserting is based on - that there is a difference between that - and having gotten a thing out of a book "about."

But hey, if that means you will continue to unwittingly promote Bible students like Darby, then by all means, mention him often, and call me a "Darby follower" - at every opportunity your obvious incompetence compels you to.

As one who ever approaches the Scripture based on the above question, I have concluded that Darby had often also asked a similar question.

As had Baker; Stam; and O'Hair - in case you fail to remember to knock those three men.

It is crystal clear obvious to me by many of their assertions, that they too had obviously asked my above study question.

The more astute will not only ignore your obvious bias, but will go on to look into their writings to see for themselves what such had actually asserted.

The less sincere will not, no matter their claim of sincerity otherwise; as your kind continue to prove.

Your loss, as always.

Rom. 5:8
Prov. 27:17.

Blah...Blah....Blah...Blah.

All that rhetoric means absolutely nothing when you can't answer questions.

I'm not afraid of questions like you are.
 

Danoh

New member
Blah...Blah....Blah...Blah.

All that rhetoric means absolutely nothing when you can't answer questions.

I'm not afraid of questions like you are.

The answers to which you only prove you have no real interest in.

In this, you are no more honest than others on here ever engaged in that sort of "answer this question of mine so I can show how much I know more than you, and correctly..."

Only to prove anything but.

It is why it is so rare that you and I find that we happen to agree on one thing or another.

Because you are as much a fraud in the actual hit and miss external source of your understanding as you are in your phoney questions.

Plain and simple.
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
your phoney questions.

You call them phoney because you can't answer them.

For example, I have asked over and over again what "multitude of nations" the descendants of Ephraim became.

None of you MADists can give an answer. STP was the only one who did, and his answer was "I don't know".

Gen 48:19 proves MAD wrong. It also proves MAD's understanding of Romans 11 wrong.

You MADists like to be all cocky, and shout "rightly divide", but when it comes down to defending your MAD, you guys can't do it.
 

Danoh

New member
You call them phoney because you can't answer them.

For example, I have asked over and over again what "multitude of nations" the descendants of Ephraim became.

None of you MADists can give an answer. STP was the only one who did, and his answer was "I don't know".

Gen 48:19 proves MAD wrong. It also proves MAD's understanding of Romans 11 wrong.

You MADists like to be all cocky, and shout "rightly divide", but when it comes down to defending your MAD, you guys can't do it.

I posted my answer over a year ago.

But an answer is not what you are actually after.

That is not why you are actually on here.
 
Top