ECT Unshackled: How Darby Stumbled Upon Dispensational Truth

[tetelestai]

Yep, he takes what he misreads a person meant as what they meant. Next thing you know; he is expressing concern where none was called for (though much appreciated) or worse, and much more prevalent, he is spouting slander.

Not true.

If you tell me the temple in Ezekiel is the yet future, and I ask you to explain the Ezk 40 - 48 animal sacrifices for sin atonement, and you don't answer me, then I take it that you believe in future animal sacrifices for sin atonement.

There are lots of questions like these that you Darby Followers never answer because you either can't, or you're too embarrassed to give your answer.

 

[Danoh]

Yes.

It also proves Alcázar didn't invent Preterism.

Wow, we're in agreement - they all got it from the likes of the unreliable historian, Josephus; inventor of chariots in the sky.

Sort of like those fools who sometimes walk up to one and ask "did you know airplanes and automobiles are described in Scripture?"

 

[tetelestai]

And it is big, like your wife's hands.

You're going to upset Danoh.

 

[tetelestai]

As if an wind up toy,another example of Pharaoh,or Nebuchadnezzar,,,once we were divided clean apart in our differences but you have forced us to unite,once we were broken and now thanks to you and your shotgun we are mending,,,,thank you tet for teaching us about Darby,,,,

You're welcome. :chuckle:

Whether pre-tib, mid-trib, post-trib, A2D, A9D, A13D, A28, or even Progressive-Dispensationalist......you all have one thing in common, and that's John Nelson Darby.

For none of the above existed before Darby invented Dispensationalism.

 

[john w]

You're going to upset Danoh.

You are upsetting your "domestic partner."


Does he know that you are unemployed, an infidel, according to Paul? Why don't you believe Paul, leach? Who pays for those cozy candle light dinners, with him, Tellalie?

 

[whitestone]

You're welcome. :chuckle:

Whether pre-tib, mid-trib, post-trib, A2D, A9D, A13D, A28, or even Progressive-Dispensationalist......you all have one thing in common, and that's John Nelson Darby.

For none of the above existed before Darby invented Dispensationalism.

no, really tet your the dispy of all dispies aren't you? You know the difference between us all ,,right? your just pretending to be a preterit and swinging your arms around in a violent rage spilling milk all over us out of your sippy cup right?

 

[john w]

You're welcome. :chuckle:

Whether pre-tib, mid-trib, post-trib, A2D, A9D, A13D, A28, or even Progressive-Dispensationalist......you all have one thing in common, and that's John Nelson Darby.

For none of the above existed before Darby invented Dispensationalism.

That is all the sniveling punk has, with any member-"Darby."


What a mess, loser.


Get a job, obsessed one.

 

[fzappa13]

Nonsense; McPherson supposed research is the research of a rank amatuer at best, an outright hack at worst.

You are certainly free to make any assertion you want … but, at the end of the day it is just that … an assertion … with nothing offered to support it at this point.

Your blinder is that while you do strike me as an above average inteligent individual, you nevertheless, obviously allow said inteligence to be guided by a failure on your part to ask yourself "now how might I look at these things objectively - in fact, what might be objective principles for doing so?"

I was not “churched” so to speak. My parents were agnostic so I came to encounter the Bible much later in life on my own. As time went by I learned to be grateful for this circumstance in that I didn't have to unlearn anything about what the Bible said. My life's circumstance was such that I was blessed to be able to study the Bible and do nothing else but that for three years. That is literally all I did … well, beside eat, drink and bathe. At the end of this time I felt familiar enough with the Bible to begin to brace my fellow man on the subject. I soon encountered the myriad species of denominational thought and my encounters with each drove me back to the Bible to better understand why I agreed or disagreed with what I encountered initially. Inevitably it lead me to try to understand the history of the various points of contention regarding denominational thought.

As fate would have it one of my first such encounters was with a friend of mine whom I had played in a couple of bands with and who considered himself a Christian. His father was a Methodist preacher. He spoke to me of the notion of a pretrib rapture and I was completely taken aback. I could not understand where he could have gotten such a notion and, without thinking, immediately had him read Matt 24. Several months later he abandoned the notion of a pretrib rapture. Then he went to work on his dad. It would have been fun to have been a fly on that wall. Suffice to say, if I am deceived in what I came to believe, as they say here in Texas, “I came by it honest.”

It's an extremely important question in helping one to arrive at an actually objective means of coming to understand what the Apostle Paul had meant by the words "prove," "all," "things," "hold fast" "that which is good" - each of which is a distinction in itself as a part of the whole.

It happens that some instinctively do that sort of thing unaware they are doing so.

The rest do not; thus the need for noting towards separating out this distinction behind actual objectivity, and in fact, the person who does separate out it consciously is bound to end up seeing even sharper distinctions than the person who just does that unaware that is what he is doing.

I understand that a branch of dispensationalism has come to hang their hat on Paul at the expense of the rest of the Bible as each successive step in the development of dispensational thought carries it's adherents further and further away from any notion that non-pauline writings are pertinent to them. Obviously I think this notion mistaken and have spent no small amount of time offering scripture that I think argues against this notion. Most, but not all of it, to no avail. To me, offering Paul's words as preeminent over Jesus' in any application you should choose has the tail wagging the dog. I would also suggest that, just because a person has reached a different conclusion than you is not evidence, a priori, that they are not objective.

The rest out there, well, they forever remain in a combination of their own ideas, together with a steady overdose of an endless stream of the writings of men; most of who are merely parroting the same manner of supposed "thinking a thing through" they themselves were weaned on via their own OVERRELIANCE on the writings of men, and or words of others, all the way back to the dark ages that followed after Paul's words...

2Tim 1:15 This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.

In EVERY single attack against Dispensationalism and its various distinctions - even at times by some Dispensationalists themselve THAT kind of an objectivity is EVER missing.

Parrots parroting parrots...

… and there are those that would suggest that you have done the same … I guess you could say one man's parrot is another man's sage.

 

[john w]

You're welcome. :chuckle:

Whether pre-tib, mid-trib, post-trib, A2D, A9D, A13D, A28, or even Progressive-Dispensationalist......you all have one thing in common, and that's John Nelson Darby.

For none of the above existed before Darby invented Dispensationalism.

To this day, the mutt cannot shake this lie, one of his over 10 "I have never said" lies:

"I have never said that dispensationalism was "wrong" because of how old it was."-Tellalie


Poor,little devil boy Craigie.

 

[fzappa13]

Not true.

If you tell me the temple in Ezekiel is the yet future, and I ask you to explain the Ezk 40 - 48 animal sacrifices for sin atonement, and you don't answer me, then I take it that you believe in future animal sacrifices for sin atonement.

There are lots of questions like these that you Darby Followers never answer because you either can't, or you're too embarrassed to give your answer.

All ordinances are prophetic in nature. Those that are missing in the observances listed in Eze 40-48 are a key to understanding which had their final fulfillment and which yet await fulfillment at that point in time.

 

[john w]

You're going to upset Danoh.

You are not going to upset your daddy, the devil, as he taught you this:


"Johnny W and the rest of the MADists/Bullingerites like doing nothing. It's a really easy belief system."-Tellalie

And no slander, here, eh, perverter of the gospel of Christ, punk?

 

[Danoh]

Not true.

If you tell me the temple in Ezekiel is the yet future, and I ask you to explain the Ezk 40 - 48 animal sacrifices for sin atonement, and you don't answer me, then I take it that you believe in future animal sacrifices for sin atonement.

There are lots of questions like these that you Darby Followers never answer because you either can't, or you're too embarrassed to give your answer.

:rotfl: how about that now - your take on how you take things to mean other than what the other party had meant by them.

That has to have been your mistake of your take, lol

Look, Tet, you do this with every single accusation you make and or attempt to prove valid.

That is exactly how you ended up in your mess.

You ask a simplistic question in your off-base conclusion that you are asking a simple one.

But as with your school of thought, so with Mid Acts - you are dealing with an entire theology you simplistically expect one of your endless attempts at proving wrong by isolating one or another piece from its whole via your incessant "oh, yeah, well, what about this, what about that?"

I swear you are like The Three Stooges all in one - ever attempting to solve via simplistic ways the problems they bring on themselves by their simplistic ways, to begin with.

But as Einstein well noted, more or less, "One cannot solve a problem by the same thinking that's creating it."

 

[john w]

All ordinances are prophetic in nature. Those that are missing in the observances listed in Eze 40-48 are a key to understanding which had their final fulfillment and which yet await fulfillment at that point in time.

His slander, being an accuser of the brethren, per his daddy the devil's orders:

"Not to mention, Darby followers deny that Christ Jesus' one time sacrifice for sin was good enough. They claim people in the future will have to sacrifice animals for sin atonement."-Craigie Tet.

 

[john w]

"Thanks Godrulz, my friend and brother in Christ.Grace and Peace to you!!!It is preposterous to think that people are going to one day in the future observe the feast of Tabernacles again." -Tellalie Craigie.

Vs.

"And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles. And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain." Zech 4:16-17 KJV


Tellalie: Darby....You are in denial...Bullinger....Figurative....A metaphor.....Hyperbole....Fulfilled AD 68,70, 72-close enough.....Don't you believe the bible?..............Darby....

 

[Lazy afternoon]

Dispensation is not truth, it has been propagated by false prophecy teachers that believed something that is not in the bible.

If you mean--

The Jews are Gods people,

The pre-trib rapture,

More than one return of Christ,

More than one resurrection before the Kingdom is established,

Yes all porkies from the give me your money, men.

LA

 

[Lazy afternoon]

"Thanks Godrulz, my friend and brother in Christ.Grace and Peace to you!!!It is preposterous to think that people are going to one day in the future observe the feast of Tabernacles again." -Tellalie Craigie.

Vs.

"And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles. And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain." Zech 4:16-17 KJV


Tellalie: Darby....You are in denial...Bullinger....Figurative....A metaphor.....Hyperbole....Fulfilled AD 68,70, 72-close enough.....Don't you believe the bible?..............Darby....

It is kept, but not as it was given under the law.

LA

 

[john w]

It is kept, but not as it was given under the law.

LA

Made up. Sit.

 

[john w]

"I'm sure she believes in her heart that she knows the truth about the word of God, and I'm sure you think the same thing. Each of you believes that you are "assured" that you know the truth. So how do you convince her you are right, or how does she convince you she is right?One of you is right, and one of you is wrong, and each of you are 100% sure the other is wrong. So what do you do?... . I just don't understand… Yes, John, but you are not Paul, and none of us are able to determine what “Sound” doctrine is since it is subjective....... You John W are not an apostle, and may or may not be inspired by God the Holy Spirit as to what the objective truth of the Bible is.Therefore, when I say “You are not Paul”, it does not mean that we are not supposed to abide by Paul’s epistles, it means that YOU are unable, on your own, to know which believer is speaking the objective truth of God’s word, and which believer is speaking the subjective truth of God’s word.”-Tellalie

 

[john w]

"Nick M, Butterfly, John W, and STP (maybe others) have all said that Godrulz is not saved because he doesn’t understand the Gospel the way it is supposed to be understood."-Tellalie

=any understanding of the gospel of Christ will work=Sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss..............

 

[musterion]

"Nick M, Butterfly, John W, and STP (maybe others) have all said that Godrulz is not saved because he doesn’t understand the Gospel the way it is supposed to be understood."-Tellalie

=any understanding of the gospel of Christ will work=Sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss..............

That Paul and his Gal 1:8-9, what did he know anyway? Hmf.