ECT Why literalism cannot be Biblical--Isaiah 55

[Danoh]

Nope, you're wrong.

I can show many, many quotes supporting Preterism before Alcasar.

Alcasar lived from 1554 to 1613

Over a thousand years before Alcasar was even born, Eusebius said the following:

"If any one compares the words of our Saviour with
the other accounts of the historian concerning the
whole war, how can one fail to wonder and to admit
that the foreknowledge and the prophecy of our
Saviour were truly divine and marvelously strange." Chp 3, The Predictions of Christ HERE

I'm just messing with you on that as I could care less about external assertions.

Tam went back and forth with you along that line as to ECF mentions of ideas very similar to Dispensational distinctives.

She got nowhere with you.

Why? Because you have picked your preferred external sources over those she cited and which you twisted.

In this you remain foolish. You rely more on external sources over the Bible you only claim is your final authority.

You will now debate all this. Have at it; you miss the point of having access to God's thoughts on the things of God through His Word.

You are a fool; you live for arguements based on your external sources read into and or made to harmonize with, the Scripture.

 

[tetelestai]

Tam went back and forth with you along that line as to ECF mentions of ideas very similar to Dispensational distinctives.

Tambora, like a lot of Darby followers have tried.

But no matter how hard you guys want it to be, no ECF's taught Darby's secret rapture and the other false teachings of Darby.

 

[Danoh]

I read through that link, Tet.

Interesting to say the least - as any history on one thing or another in history, often is.

Problem with the assertions on that link - that they are "desired to make one wise" - is that: as old as Eve's interpretation in Genesis three now is; it was wrong.

All your link actually proves is what I have been pointing out; that how old an interpretation is does NOT prove it sound.

Yours is the very opposite of that - HOW OLD an interpretation is, IS the very basis of your assertion that it is sound.

Talk about irony, you've been asserting that very error - that the oldest is the soundest - for years.

In this, you are right that Hilston's attempt at debate with you on these issues five years ago failed - but only because in you he was dealing with an individual who subscribes to the blinding false positive that "oldest is soundest."

This is why you and those who subscribe to your same "oldest is soundest" are so often mocked.

This is why all the so often, short, to the point :chuckle:

For to paraphrase that old song - you started a joke...and the joke was on you.

But...it is your idol; your religion.

And we all know how men cling to their religion.

 

[tetelestai]

This is why you and those who subscribe to your same "oldest is soundest" are so often mocked.

I never said "oldest is soundest".

I have stated many times that Dispensationalism was not taught before Darby invented it in 1830. Prior to 1830, there are no traces of Dispensationalism ever being taught.

The same is not true with Preterism. Preterism cannot be traced to one man like Dispensationalism can, and Preterism can be found being taught in every century since the first century.

You may not like these facts, but it's the truth.

 

[Nick M]

I believe there are attempts at brainwashing in the public school system. The millennial posters on this board are evidence.

The millennials are proof in all ways, not just here. It is like Reagan used to say about Democrats in the Congress. 'It isn't so much that millennials are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.'

 

[Nick M]

Prior to 1830, there are no traces of Dispensationalism ever being taught.

Ephesians 3

2 if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you,

Preterism can be found being taught in every century since the first century.

It is older than that. False teaching is older than that, is what I mean. And it is all traced to one being.

4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

 

[tetelestai]

Ephesians 3

2 if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you,

Nice try Nick, but the Apostle Paul didn't teach John Nelson Darby's false belief system.

All you do is prove you are in denial.

 

[Crucible]

King David didn't seem to take the Flood of Noah as worldwide. In Psalms, when he is running through the Creation event and the Deluge, there is an interesting thing he says about the waters.

I'll just let whoever wants to go take a looksy :idunno:

 

[Nick M]

Nice try Nick, but the Apostle Paul didn't teach John Nelson Darby's false belief system.

All you do is prove you are in denial.

:chuckle:

 

[patrick jane]

King David didn't seem to take the Flood of Noah as worldwide. In Psalms, when he is running through the Creation event and the Deluge, there is an interesting thing he says about the waters.

I'll just let whoever wants to go take a looksy :idunno:

Cuz you can't find it

 

[patrick jane]

Psalm 104:6-9 KJV -

 

[Crucible]

Cuz you can't find it

Actually, he's not talking about the Deluge at all, but rather the Creation event. In Psalm 104.

It's apparent that David believed the Flood was local, or not as literal as it is stated in Genesis.

When speaking of Day 3, he says: "You set a boundary they cannot cross; never again will they cover the earth."

 

[Danoh]

I never said "oldest is soundest".

I have stated many times that Dispensationalism was not taught before Darby invented it in 1830. Prior to 1830, there are no traces of Dispensationalism ever being taught.

The same is not true with Preterism. Preterism cannot be traced to one man like Dispensationalism can, and Preterism can be found being taught in every century since the first century.

You may not like these facts, but it's the truth.

Which is it - your "I never said "oldest is soundest"....or "Preterism can be found being taught in every century since the first century."

You have to be either incredibly stupid, in denial, or both, to actually believe you can attempt to sell others - and that, within the same fool post in which you yourself prove false your assertion - that you do NOT assert that "oldest is soundest."

Your warped sense of self-awareness apparantly has no limits beyond your obvious vanity.

And you wonder why so few hold your obvious inability to be objective about your own conclusions in such low regard.

Fool - over time, recurrent patterns within one's assertions begin to reveal the very basis of said assertions.

Its called trying the things that differ, you fool - by those made well versed in trying those things that differ, through much time in the word of truth allowing It to teach it to them.

It is how Mid-Acts reemerged out from the darkness your "oldest and external to Scripture is soundest" long ago buried it under.

Keep your "oldest, external to Scripture, is soundest."

 

[tetelestai]

Which is it - your "I never said "oldest is soundest"....or "Preterism can be found being taught in every century since the first century."

Try to concentrate Danoh.

Dispensationalism can be traced to one man, and cannot be found before that one man invented it in 1830.

Preterism cannot be traced to one man, and can be found in every century since the first century.

It has nothing to do with "oldest is soundest", it proves Preterism wasn't invented by one man like Dispensationalism was.

 

[Danoh]

Try to concentrate Danoh.

Dispensationalism can be traced to one man, and cannot be found before that one man invented it in 1830.

Preterism cannot be traced to one man, and can be found in every century since the first century.

It has nothing to do with "oldest is soundest", it proves Preterism wasn't invented by one man like Dispensationalism was.

No. That only proves you strongly believe in and fully subscribe to the fool notion that "heavily over relying on sources external to Scripture, the older the sounder, together with" your "own fool notions, all of which" you "then read into Scripture, are how one solves for any assertions one disagrees with others on."

Interplanner does the exact same thing. As does I Am A Berean.

But I am relating this picture of your actual mind, not to you, for that was proven an absolute waste of time, by Hilston FIVE YEARS AGO.

Rather; I am actually relating this to others, toward our mutual amusement at your expense, since you are so insistent on being such a clown as to this issue.

 

[tetelestai]

No. That only proves you strongly believe in and fully subscribe to the fool notion that "heavily over relying on sources external to Scripture, the older the sounder, together with" your "own fool notions, all of which" you "then read into Scripture, are how one solves for any assertions one disagrees with others on."

No it proves I don't subscribe to recently new doctrines like Dispensationalism.

Dispensationalism was invented the same time Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventism, and Christian Science.

All of these belief systems were invented during "the age of the cults", and none of their teachings existed for 1,800 years before they all were invented.

IOW, you follow the teachings of a man that cannot stand the test of scripture.

 

[ClimateSanity]

What difference does it make how many people a certain set of doctrines can be traced to?

 

[tetelestai]

"heavily over relying on sources external to Scripture,

Everything about Dispensationalism is external to scripture.

That's why it didn't exist for 1,800 years, and until Darby invented it.

 

[ClimateSanity]

Is the idea of Israel being different than the Body of Christ external to scripture?

 

[Interplanner]

Save your communication for those who don't insult.