:chuckle:
ECT What is the true root objection to MAD?
- Thread starter musterion
- Start date
:chuckle:
Nope.
"But now" means something different than what was originally thought.
(Rom 3:21 KJV) But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
Is the above temporary?
The kingdom is NOT of this world, and will never be of this world no matter how hard you Futurists/Dispensationalists/Zionists try to make it so.
Word for word spam, plagiarized.
But, remember, the Law of Moses was still in place."-Tettie
I asked for you to show us:
Who taught the law of Moses, punk? Who "put it in place?"
Still waiting, slick Craigie.
"Craigie folds again.
Leave TOL, loser.
"the second time" means something different than what was originally thought, according to Tetties teachers, whom Tettie Claims, are "infallable."
"The kingdom is NOT of this world, and will never be of this world no matter how hard you Futurists/Dispensationalists/Zionists try to make it so"
=Tettie's father, the devil, taught him to "diminish"/delete scripture.
"Tet is a preterist that believes Christ already returned in 70 AD via the Roman Army."-Tambora, on another TOL thread
"Correct, and thanks for making it clear that it was the Roman army that was His return."-stupid Craigie
"The Roman army destroyed Jerusalem in 70AD. That is what Jesus meant when He said He will return."-Gomer Tet.
Flap them big shoes, Tettie the Clown.
Um.....Moses
If so, then why is the word "remain" in the sentence?
Aren't you English? Wouldn't proper English be "We who are alive will be caught up...."?
If the alleged rapture comes out of nowhere, how do those who are alive also "remain" before being raptured?
Last edited:
There are two kinds of Dispensationalists:
1) Dispies who pretend they have no idea who John Nelson Darby was (i.e. Nick M, heir, GM)
2) Dispies who desperately try to link Dispensationalism to someone who lived before John Nelson Darby (i.e. John W, musterion, Right Divider, steko)
Catch that, TOL?
I ask this mut:
"Who taught the law of Moses, punk? Who "put it in place?"
And the loser says, with his cute little "Um," that he thinks is so "cool:"
"Um.....Moses"
No, you loser, the LORD God put it in place, not Moses, you biblical fool/moron. The LORD God gave the law, put it in place, and instructed his servant Moses to teach it. You satanically assert that the LORD God did not teach the law.
You demonic shill. Clueless, and satanic, are you, punk.
Wow, Craie pie. That "Darby" stumper impresses everyone.
Go back to your Catholicism, and Preterism, you closet Catholic/Jebbie.
And spend time with your family, punk, on Friday nights, instead of satisfying/feeding your obsession.
Mut.
There are 2 types of obsessed people on TOL: Stupid Craigie, and "blow off my family"" Craigie.
So there, clown.
"Tet is a preterist that believes Christ already returned in 70 AD via the Roman Army."-Tambora, on another TOL thread
"Correct, and thanks for making it clear that it was the Roman army that was His return."-stupid Craigie
"The Roman army destroyed Jerusalem in 70AD. That is what Jesus meant when He said He will return."-Gomer Tet.
Flap them big shoes, Tettie the Clown.
"Correct, and thanks for making it clear that it was the Roman army that was His return."-stupid Craigie
"The Roman army destroyed Jerusalem in 70AD. That is what Jesus meant when He said He will return."-Gomer Tet.
Flap them big shoes, Tettie the Clown.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Someone (maybe you) made the connection of Preterism's origin to a Jesuit from the Counter-Reformation period; insisting Futurism isn't from that same era. Modern Futurism also is credited to a Jesuit from the same period, Francisco Ribera.
This contrasts to the early Chilaism view, which was actually similar to Preterism. It also contrasts to Dispensationalism, which is a 19th century innovation.
I was just looking for a MAD perspective on the historicity of origins for Futurism relative to Ribera.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Musterion indicated it was a fair question. Since it was a cordial query for information, there's no need for you to obfuscate. Every differing doctrinal perspective claims what you indicate above.
My intent is to be conversational rather than adversarial. I was asking about the Jesuit Ribera and the origins of modern Futurism.
i am sorry for my abrubtness. i really can't control it yet. PpS, you seem to be over qualified for this forum. i sense, that you are looking for dialogue, that you will not find here. the terms you use, the words, are generalizations. in a nutshell, Jesus appeared to Paul on he road to Damascus. Christ spoke to Paul, AFTER the Crucifiction and Resurrection. i'm pretty sure, with your big brain, you understand what we think. why play coy ? why act like you don't know. can you read ? english ? Swahili ? read it, and stop asking dumb questions :yoshi:
futurism ? chllaism preterism ? riberia ? are you kidding ? historical futurism ? MAD ? dispensationalism ? would you believe us if we told you ? get real
study your own interests. why are you asking questions about other people's philosophies and beliefs. you ask and "inquire" about subjects you have already formed opinions on. if i'm the only one that sees this, i apologize to everyone. i am tired of phony pretenders that waste MY time, not to mention everyone elses
oh, umm - duh - uh what happened 1,999 years ago ? i.e., you have nothing
the perspective is Christ appearing to Paul. that was the dispensation, not a 19th century "innovation". preterism, chilaism and fransisco ribera are irrelevant. afterthoughts
The problem I have with you is, you kinda attack almost everybody,
including myself! What's going on with you anyway? You attacked
Tambora earlier! She's one of the better posters on TOL? What's
your problem? You appear to be a pal to somebody then, go
to another thread and back stab them! I caught ya! You're
running a game! Some kind of Troll, in my opinion!
Some, like yourself, enjoy making it sound like you believe a
certain way then, you go off causing disruption and trouble
somewhere else. I think you enjoy playing "devil's advocate?"
(Google the term?) You're just causing trouble in my opinion?
Last edited: