musterion
Well-known member
So you've been reading Rabbi Tetelestein.
ECT Why preterism can never be taken seriously by Bible believers
- Thread starter musterion
- Start date
So you've been reading Rabbi Tetelestein.
Wick Stick
Well-known member
It's very strange to see an argument that poses that only two theological paradigms as Dispensational and Preterist, since both are minority positions that are basically aberrations according to their eschatology.
"All fulfilled in Christ Jesus."-Craigie pie's "this answers every/any question"
This was fulfilled, when Judas was banned. You are in denial, musty. You must not have the anointing this evening. Send me $666, and I will send you a "Holy Land" anointing apron, that Benny Hinn/Hanna/Hill sent me. Puh-raaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyzzzzzz Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawd!
musterion
Well-known member
Syntax and proper sentence structure. Do look into it.
Wick Stick
Well-known member
About as much as I read yours. I disagree with you both, but your posts at least have humor.
musterion
Well-known member
Yes. It's a emotion-based claim that he cannot substantiate from Scripture, but that very lack of evidence is what PROVES "it's spurtial" and so hardens him against all reason-based attempts to point out it's wrong. Kinda like the Mormon's reverting back to their "burning in da bosom" default setting whenever cornered.
We really have been wasting our time with a programmed cultist. Doubly so, now that he has clarified his belief in another gospel.
musterion
Well-known member
Okay, cowboy. You know what MAD and preterism claim. What are you bringing to the table? Don't stand off in the tall grass and snipe...show your hand.
Your "logic" suffers from the oft illogic of anyone often opposed to a thing due to where they are looking at it from to begin with.
The fact of the matter is that concluding the soundness of a thing based on how old or how new it is, is a sloppy way to approach a thing.
"This new fangled 'telephone' as you call it, will never work; who wants to speak into a black box" - Western Union turning down Alexander Graham Bell.
"Not interested - we seriously doubt there is a world market for even five of those 'personal computers" IBM turning down Steve Jobs and his Apple Computer.
I could list hundreds of turn downs like that.
THIS IS WHY I haven't any patience for the likes of you and your kind.
God only knows how many new developments have never seen the light of day due to your exact kind of half-baked "wisdom."
You actually post that under the light in your home that was once some new development in progress and was therefore unacceptable?
On a computer? On a smartphone once some fool's illogical pipe dream.
Mark 1:27 And they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among themselves, saying, What thing is this? what new doctrine is this? for with authority commandeth he even the unclean spirits, and they do obey him.
John 18:19 The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine.
Acts 5:28 Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us.
Acts 17:19 And they took him, and brought him unto Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is?
"You oughta go back tuh drivin a truck, son; you have no future in this business" - a Nashville Music producer turning down a young man named Elvis Aaron Presley.
No "His" servant, keep your illogic.
Wick Stick
Well-known member
I have a tendency towards run-on sentences, and I'm ok with that. I also hang participles and mismatch my nouns to my verbs in number sometimes.
As long as you can understand what I'm saying... ist mir egal.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Sounds like you've got it all figured out.
I'm historical. That means you've missed most of what I've been saying here for 2 years now. You haven't touched on the either/or of Mt24A vs B--the don't mix rule.
You've mentioned none of the 10 propositions that I can see.
I have consistently referred to the 'delay' matter--that all the NT is written as though the worldwide judgment would happen right after Israel's, with an allowance for delay. I see no where you've dealt with that.
So, I'm happy to report, I'm historical and unscathed by what you think you have found.
btw, D'ism is too inconsistent for a thinking person to bother with. I waited all weekend for one of them to realize that the Gospel of the Lamb was preached in the 1st century setting before Jesus even got started, and all I heard about was other protogospels.
And see the new thread on Eph 3:5. It is bone-crushing.
Wick Stick
Well-known member
I don't organize my theology around 7 dispensations or a dozen+ covenants. Let's see if I can summarize systematically:
Theology proper – The study of the character of God
I believe that God is a God of Order, and that he works through slowly to effect changes. I believe that God acts in the physical world through union with believers. The rest of my theology rests on those concepts.
Biblical theology – The study of the bible
I believe that the (in-or-out-of-context) application of Scripture to our lives, as it is inspired in real-time, is the proper use of the Bible. I do not hold plenary or verbal inspiration, except for those places where it actually says, "God said..."
Christology – The study of Christ
I hold the Classical Greek formulation, where Christ is the hypostasis of "all the fulness" of the Godhead.
Pneumatology – The study of the Holy Spirit
I envision the Spirit as being the nerves that link the brain (God) to the body (the church). My views are mostly charismatic - God's Spirit is also a seal on the believer certifying their adoption settling the issue of assurance of salvation. I don't require that the evidence of filling be tongues, but I do require an evidence of some sort.
Soteriology – The study of salvation
I believe those who repent are regenerated, which is the beginning of a lifetime journey of walking out one's salvation. I am not Calvinist, because I believe that (a) men are permitted free will. I am not Arminian, in that I do not believe salvation can be lost. Indeed, I believe salvation is a state of being, rather than a thing, that could be given/taken/lost.
Theological anthropology – The study of the nature of humanity.
I believe man has a tendency to sin, but that he is not entirely absent of good.
Hamartiology - The study of sin
I put a difference between trespass and sin. I believe that the 'sins of the father' are passed down through environmental "nurture" factors, rather than in a "nature" sense.
Angelology – The study of angels
I believe in Seraphim, Cherumbim, and regular old angels, the former 2 being always heavenly, while the latter is often earthly. I believe in 2 classes of demons, the former being fallen angels, and the latter being spirits. I do not believe demons possess men, but I do believe some men possess demons (the latter sort).
Ecclesiology – The study of the church
I believe the church is the actual physical body of Christ, which continues to suffer and intercede for the sins of the world.
Eschatology – The study of the end times
Panmillennial - meaning whatever happens it will all pan out in the end. I don't believe in a secret rapture, but I'm open to the post-trib / pre-mil position, as well as the post-mil and a-mil positions. Whichever way it turns out, I do believe there is a future event in which Christ "delivers up" his kingship to the father, and time is no more. That's definitely future. I would have noticed if that happened.
HisServant
New member
Jesus and the Holy Spirit delivered scripture and all revelation during their lifetimes. If you think they revealed something so key 1700 years later, then you doom the first to 1700 years of christendom. Think on that. New doctrinal develops are ALL heretical, without exception.
This is also borne out in that we are called to be witnesses as to way actually happened. Witnesses are not permitted to interpret things differently, or their witness is worthless and they are bearing false witness against the Holy Spirit.... the only unforgivable sin.
You are in denial. Tellalie taught us that-we learned that from him.
musterion
Well-known member
What is the Gospel of our salvation? What must we do to be saved?
There you go again with your half-baked cake of a logic taken out of the oven of your reasoning before you have actually checked and double-checked things.
I am Cessasionist in my view of such things.
Meaning, I hold there has been no inspired revelation this side of the "that which is perfect."
That the traditions of men refused to heed the warning of Romans 11:25 is why such things ended up, and remained hidden to so many.
Why you are blind to it, as well.
Yours is the school of "what makes sense to me."
Which you then post on devices of technology once considered beyond the realm of possibility, even by so great a towering giant of a genius like few as Tom Watson; the founder of IBM.
If you actually had any sense, you'd reread my above post and ask 'what's he getting at?'
Instead, you read it, and respond from the same old parroted reasoning of your "mentors" once more.
Translated:"Thus saith the LORD, and "It is written," only applies, if it agrees with my doctrine, and the LORD God, who created the universe, warms the heart of a mother, from the smile of her "little one," and raises the dead, cannot, and did not, convey his "is given by inspiration" scripture, in any other way, except by where it is written, "God said...", which means that most of the "volume of the book" does not apply.
Thanks for checkin' in, rummy.
Take your seat.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Danoh wrote:
That the traditions of men refused to heed the warning of Romans 11:25 is why such things ended up, and remained hidden to so many.
'why such things ended up': what things? Revelation? You must not be aware that what Paul did was disclose what was hidden, not hide it.
The verb in Rom 11:25 is hardened, not hidden or blinded. The mystery is that people enter or are on the olive tree by faith, not by ethne. Israel the ethne, thought it was all due to ethne, which Paul has been laboring to show is not true and why it would not be true. By faith other ethnes come into the new 'ethne' (cf the play on the word in Mt 21) Israel. "Come in" in 11:25 has that object--the same as Eph 3:5, to come into the inheritance, the fellowship, the body. Not to displace or take turns but to join the ones from ethne Isreal who have faith.
That the traditions of men refused to heed the warning of Romans 11:25 is why such things ended up, and remained hidden to so many.
'why such things ended up': what things? Revelation? You must not be aware that what Paul did was disclose what was hidden, not hide it.
The verb in Rom 11:25 is hardened, not hidden or blinded. The mystery is that people enter or are on the olive tree by faith, not by ethne. Israel the ethne, thought it was all due to ethne, which Paul has been laboring to show is not true and why it would not be true. By faith other ethnes come into the new 'ethne' (cf the play on the word in Mt 21) Israel. "Come in" in 11:25 has that object--the same as Eph 3:5, to come into the inheritance, the fellowship, the body. Not to displace or take turns but to join the ones from ethne Isreal who have faith.
You always end up in your own fog, for your failure to follow context.
I was responding to "HisServant's" tradition based attempted rebuttal - I was relating those traditions that were arising against Pauline truth even as the Apostle Paul was warning against them.
I was relating the traditions of men arising after the mystery was revealed, and that continued to arise from that point forward.
You're hilarious. You insist we read a 2P2P into things, all the oblivious to what you read into things.
:doh:
Darby followers prove over, and over again, how clueless they are with Rom 11:25
(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;
(Gen 48:19 YLT) 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;'
Another verse the Darby followers never can explain is Gen 48:19
Danoh the Darby follower claims Rom 11:25 is the prooftext for the "prophetic clock" theory, but in reality, Danoh the Darby follower is clueless when it comes to Rom 11:25.