ECT A Preterist Time Chart

W

Wick Stick

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
D'ism was defined by Ryrie in D'ISM TODAY. I had to read it at Bible college: "The single essential definitive doctrine is that there are two separate programs going on in the Bible."

That is a D'ist. If you don't practice with that, good for you. It is the most tortured concoction parading as a system there ever was. Because it dishonestly never says 'you have to read Ellen White, or the Book of Mormon.' Yet their system is as foreign as you can get but insists it is correct.
Click to expand...
That is not historically correct, though it fits some modern groups.

Dispensational doctrine started out with the paradigm that the 7 letters to the 7 churches of Asia Minor (in Revelation) stood as a metaphor for believers throughout history, and each "church" there was representative of believers in 7 different dispensations. That viewpoint had sequential dispensations - there was no belief originally that 2 programs were going simultaneously.

The development of multiple simultaneous programs is usually attributed to Bullinger, and is variously known as hyperdispensationalism, ultradispensationalism, or Bullingerism. The latter term is considered pejorative.

But why am I still talking to you, really?
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Wick Stick said:
That is not historically correct, though it fits some modern groups.

Dispensational doctrine started out with the paradigm that the 7 letters to the 7 churches of Asia Minor (in Revelation) stood as a metaphor for believers throughout history, and each "church" there was representative of believers in 7 different dispensations. That viewpoint had sequential dispensations - there was no belief originally that 2 programs were going simultaneously.

The development of multiple simultaneous programs is usually attributed to Bullinger, and is variously known as hyperdispensationalism, ultradispensationalism, or Bullingerism. The latter term is considered pejorative.

But why am I still talking to you, really?
Click to expand...





No, it was about the entire spread of the Bible: why were there different laws before the Flood than between the testaments? "Because God had different dispensations." But all this pales compared to the Israel as a race/nation as a separate program from the Gospel and believers. Ryries' book says it is the irreducible difference.

When the Enlightenment know it alls of the 1800s (Scofield, etc) said the Bible now made sense because of their system, that is when this trouble started, but they had people thinking they were the informed ones instead of the 200 year wealth of teaching before them that broke from Papism.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
john w said:
There you go, folks...Add that magic trick to "Jesus is the New Covenant!!!!," as the magician just makes things appear, and disappear.


Next up: "Jesus" is the new and 2nd Paul!!!!!!!


You poser, clown, Basil.
Click to expand...





He was made a covenant for the nations. He did what Israel could not--perfect obedience. 'A body you have prepared for me; I have come to do Thy will.' That quote is smack in the middle of your new covenant interpretation by Hebrews that you reveal each day you ignore or defy or otherwise no nothing about. Every day. All of you. Everything affirmed in Heb 9-10 about the new covenant is butchered daily by the D'ists here.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
SaulToPaul said:
Covenant for the people, and a light of the nations.
You've been corrected a million times. Why do you continue to pervert it?
Click to expand...





Because Hebrew parallelism in poetry is EQUATED not DISCREPANT. Which I have shown you a million times. Even so the translators have often made this the final rendering: Is 42:6 and 49:8 are both saying so--Messiah himself was the covenant. You don't even know enough about features of Hebrew to know that you can't say what you are saying, yet you go around every day with an UNEXPRESSED belief system that differs significantly with what Hebrew translators say.

You're referring to your pet objection because you can't deal with the 'package' of Dan 9.

Nor does your 'gotcha' position answer the model in Matthew that Christ was a new Israel: 'Out of Egypt I called my son' 'It is necessary to get baptised to fulfill all righteousness.' etc. 'The virgin will concieve a son' etc.
 
john w

john w

New member
Hall of Fame
Interplanner said:
He was made a covenant for the nations. .
Click to expand...

Made up. You lied, you scammer. No scripture asserts that he was "made" "a" covenant, as you, in a state of demonic intoxication, butcher the meaning of words, corrupt the book, all the while posing as some type of "the Greek"(which in itself, is a scam by you) "scholar." You're the 'but" of jokes on TOL-did you know that, Corky the Clown?

Fraud. Scammer.
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
Because Hebrew parallelism in poetry is EQUATED not DISCREPANT. Which I have shown you a million times. Even so the translators have often made this the final rendering: Is 42:6 and 49:8 are both saying so--Messiah himself was the covenant. You don't even know enough about features of Hebrew to know that you can't say what you are saying, yet you go around every day with an UNEXPRESSED belief system that differs significantly with what Hebrew translators say.

You're referring to your pet objection because you can't deal with the 'package' of Dan 9.

Nor does your 'gotcha' position answer the model in Matthew that Christ was a new Israel: 'Out of Egypt I called my son' 'It is necessary to get baptised to fulfill all righteousness.' etc. 'The virgin will concieve a son' etc.
Click to expand...
:chuckle:
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
john w said:
Made up. You lied, you scammer. No scripture asserts that he was "made" "a" covenant, as you, in a state of demonic intoxication, butcher the meaning of words, corrupt the book, all the while posing as some type of "the Greek"(which in itself, is a scam by you) "scholar." You're the 'but" of jokes on TOL-did you know that, Corky the Clown?

Fraud. Scammer.
Click to expand...

The days of literalism and non-Hebrew parallelism are over...don't you know that, fella?
 
D

Danoh

New member
Interplanner said:
Because Hebrew parallelism in poetry is EQUATED not DISCREPANT...
Click to expand...

Very good point.

Truth be told - Scripture OFTEN repeats itself in different words, in a same or near passage - as a means of both over emphasizing, and of bringing out just a bit more, its intended point, sense, or meaning.

And this is a governing principle often missed by some, thus, their resulting errors in interpretation.

Such end up seeing more than one thing, where only one had been intended.

And thus, their blindness, no matter what "obvious" is pointed out to them, nor how.

But Rom. 5: 6-8.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
john w said:
Made up. You lied, you scammer. No scripture asserts that he was "made" "a" covenant, as you, in a state of demonic intoxication, butcher the meaning of words, corrupt the book, all the while posing as some type of "the Greek"(which in itself, is a scam by you) "scholar." You're the 'but" of jokes on TOL-did you know that, Corky the Clown?

Fraud. Scammer.
Click to expand...






You are welcome to comment on the two Isaiah texts, but the rest of what you do just discredits you.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Wick Stick said:
Your posts always either make me angry, or else want to stand on my chair and clap. You don't do middle ground much, do ya?
Click to expand...





The main feature of D'ism is to add NOT to the text. If it says twice that He was to be made a covenant for the nations, D'ism says NOT belongs between 'was' and 'to.' They consistently do this with all passages that conflict with two peoples--two programs. It is a 19th century cult, that does not realize it is a cult.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top