ECT Dispensationalism Defined

[john w]

No, it just appears that way to you because you're a Darby follower.

Spam.

Your Dispensationalism has only been around since the mid 1800's.

Vs.



"That's not my argument. I have never said that dispensationalism was "wrong" because of how old it was. I specifically said that no one taught about Christ coming back twice before Darby did."--habitual liar Wimpy Tet.

Vs.

"My argument is that if there is not one single trace of something for 1,800+ years by anyone, then it was invented.”-Tet.

Craigie Tet-the habitual liar of TOL.

 

[john w]

I'm not the first person to claim the new heavens and the new earth are the New Covenant. People have been saying it for hundreds of years.

"the old and elementary system passed away with a great noise; ...... EUSEBIUS, The Theophania, circa 300AD

So, you are claiming that EUSEBIUS is an infallible women,Craigie?

Is that what you are claiming, spineless one?


So, you spam, "Darby," over 666 times, the last 4 weeks.

You are a EUSEBIUS-ite, besides being a Josephus-ite, and Wiki-ite, eh, punk?

 

[Cross Reference]

Because we are lively stones being built into a spiritual house while the Saints reign with Christ Jesus.

(1 Peter 2:5) you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

Who do mean by "and the saints". Are they not to be understood to be the "lively stones"?

 

[john w]

Someone-said-something-before-someone-else-said-something-else arguments do not hold sway in a rational debate.

Go somewhere else and be a troll. :up:

And, in hypocrisy, and sophistry, the punk spams, on every third post, as one of his "arguments" against the dispensational approach, "You follow the teachings of men...Darby....Bullinger....no one taught that before ...................."

He is a deceiving punk, engaged in sophistry, habitual lying.

 

[tetelestai]

Someone-said-something-before-someone-else-said-something-else arguments do not hold sway in a rational debate.

Go somewhere else and be a troll. :up:

You're a Darby follower.

You wouldn't know what the word "rational" means.

Tell me Mr. Darby Follower, is there literally no sea on your new planet earth?

(Rev 21:1) Then I saw "a new heaven and a new earth," for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.

 

[tetelestai]

Who do mean by "and the saints". Are they not to be understood to be the "lively stones"?

Of course.

The Saints are those who have been reigning with Christ Jesus since 70AD.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

.The Saints are those who have been reigning with Christ Jesus since 70AD.

When did the Lord Jesus return to the earth and begin to reign? Here are the words of the Lord Jesus:

"But when the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit down upon his throne of glory" (Mt.25:31).​

 

[tetelestai]

Darby followers claim there will literally be no literal sea on their brand new planet earth.

The word "sea" is used in the OT to symbolically describe Gentile nations.

(Daniel 7:3) Four great beasts, each different from the others, came up out of the sea.

The above is describing the Gentile nations Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome rising up against Judah.

The word "sea" in Dan 7:3 simply refers to the Gentile nations.

In the New Covenant (new heavens and new earth) there is no more "sea", meaning there is no more Gentile nations rising up against the Israel of God because both Jew and Gentile are one in Christ Jesus, and it's a kingdom that cannot be shaken.

However, Darby followers like Stripe think Dan 7:3 describes the following:

 

[tetelestai]

When did the Lord Jesus return to the earth and begin to reign? Here are the words of the Lord Jesus:

"But when the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit down upon his throne of glory" (Mt.25:31).​

The Lord Jesus sat down and began to reign in 70AD.

The Lord Jesus did not return to planet earth. The kingdom is not of this world.

 

[john w]

You're a Darby follower.



Tell me Mr. Darby Follower, is there literally no sea on your new planet earth?

Satanic spam, from the Christ rejecting Josephus follower, Wiki follower, J. Stuart Russell, Hank Hanegraaf, Max King, Ken Gentry....................................................................................................................... follower.

 

[john w]

...Tell me Mr. Darby Follower, is there literally no sea on your new planet earth?

(Rev 21:1) Then....

Copy'npaste/plagiarism, from:

http://revelationrevolution.org/revelation-21-a-preterist-commentary/

http://www.preteristarchive.com/Hyper/0000_preston_no-death.html

http://preterism101.blogspot.com/2013/09/there-is-no-sea.html

http://eschatology.com/heavenearthsea.html

.............and hundreds of others.


Fraud.

Why do you follow the inventions/teachings of men, plagarizer Craigie?


You taught us that spam, "argument."

 

[john w]

Darby followers claim there will literally be no literal sea on their brand new planet earth.

Spam.

The word "sea" is used in the OT to symbolically describe Gentile nations....


The above is describing the Gentile nations Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome rising up against Judah.

The word "sea" in Dan 7:3 simply refers to the Gentile nations.

In the New Covenant (new heavens and new earth) there is no more "sea", meaning there is no more Gentile nations rising up against the Israel of God because both Jew and Gentile are one in Christ Jesus, and it's a kingdom that cannot be shaken].

You plagiarized that, Craigie, which is against TOL rules.


Delete it.

However, Darby followers like Stripe think Dan 7:3 describes the following:

Spam.

 

[john w]

The Lord Jesus sat down and began to reign in 70AD.

The Lord Jesus did not return to planet earth. The kingdom is not of this world.

Spam.

You plagiarized that, Craigie, which is against TOL rules.


Delete it.

 

[john w]

The Lord Jesus sat down and began to reign in 70AD.

The Lord Jesus did not return to planet earth. The kingdom is not of this world.

"Tet: "The LORD Jesus Christ returned in the form of a Roman Army." "-STP

"Never said that."-Tet.


Lie-

"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.


Vs.

"Jesus never physically returned, and never will physically return to planet earth after He ascended to Heaven"-Preterist deceiver Tet.

According to this Preterist con job, in this "man made" AD 70-ism "belief system," he returned "un physically," but everyone saw Him, and signs are invisible.

“And that is what happened. The Lord came in a way that everyone could see Him. However, He never touched planet earth, and when this event was over, He then sat on the throne in Heaven NOT on planet earth.”-Tet.

Ascended up physically, never returned physically in AD 70, just as some disembodied spirit, everyone saw Him, even though he did not return physically in AD 70.

Wait....it was the Roman army.


Scam artist.

"I am not here to teach........anyone....I am here to learn."-Craigie Tet.

We know. Sit down, shut up, and learn.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The Lord Jesus sat down and began to reign in 70AD.

The Lord Jesus did not return to planet earth. The kingdom is not of this world.

He was asked about the signs of His coming by the disciples:

"And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?" (Mt.24:3).​

They were asking Him about His coming to the earth. And here he is speaking about "coming" to the earth:

"But when the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit down upon his throne of glory" (Mt.25:31).​

However, you cannot even understand His simple words and you assert that His coming was not speaking about coming to the earth.

The disciples asked Him a question about His coming to the earth but you say that His words were not answering their question about His coming to the earth!

I do not see that you have any respect for what the Scriptures say because you are ready at a moments notice to twist them in order to make them fit the ideas promoted by the preterists!

 

[StanJ]

Darby followers claim there will literally be no literal sea on their brand new planet earth.
The word "sea" is used in the OT to symbolically describe Gentile nations.
(Daniel 7:3) Four great beasts, each different from the others, came up out of the sea.
The above is describing the Gentile nations Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome rising up against Judah.
The word "sea" in Dan 7:3 simply refers to the Gentile nations.
In the New Covenant (new heavens and new earth) there is no more "sea", meaning there is no more Gentile nations rising up against the Israel of God because both Jew and Gentile are one in Christ Jesus, and it's a kingdom that cannot be shaken.

I'm pretty sure Dan 7:3 has nothing to do with Rev 21:1
Whether Daniel does use sea to refer to the Gentiles, which I doubt, IMO it refers to Nebuchadnezzar's last dominion, the word in Rev 21:1 refers to literal bodies of water as obviously there will be Gentiles in the NEW earth.

 

[tetelestai]

He was asked about the signs of His coming by the disciples:

"And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?" (Mt.24:3).​

Correct, but somehow you add to it by claiming the Disciples meant when He was coming to planet earth.

They were asking Him about His coming to the earth.

No they weren't.

They asked Him "what shall be the sign of thy coming". Nothing about planet earth in the question.

Let's look at a similar verse:

(Isaiah 19:1) See, the Lord rides on a swift cloud and is coming to Egypt.....

In the above prophecy, the Lord neither literally rode a literal cloud, nor literally went into Egypt.

That's the same language found in Matt 24, Luke 21, and Mark 13

The Isaiah prophecy was fulfilled when the Assyrian army invaded Egypt.

The Matt 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 prophecies were fulfilled when the Roman army destroyed Jerusalem in 70AD.

Both prophecies speak of coming on clouds

And here he is speaking about "coming" to the earth:

"But when the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit down upon his throne of glory" (Mt.25:31).​

No it doesn't Jerry.

There is nothing in the above verse that even hints of Christ Jesus coming to planet earth.

However, you cannot even understand His simple words and you assert that His coming was not speaking about coming to the earth.

Just like the Lord did not literally come to Egypt, Christ Jesus literally didn't come to planet earth despite both prophecies saying the Lord was coming, yet both prophecies were fulfilled.

The disciples asked Him a question about His coming to the earth but you say that His words were not answering their question about His coming to the earth!

Again Jerry, there is nothing about planet earth in any of the verses. In fact, you won't find one verse in the NT that remotely says a thing about Christ Jesus coming back to planet earth, a third temple, or any of the other nonsense Darby said is going to happen in the future.

I do not see that you have any respect for what the Scriptures say because you are ready at a moments notice to twist them in order to make them fit the ideas promoted by the preterists!

I have shown you that the language found in Isaiah 19:1 is the same language found in the NT prophecies about the Lord coming on clouds.

Instead of learning from the symbolism found in the OT, you have chosen to believe Darby instead.

 

[tetelestai]

I'm pretty sure Dan 7:3 has nothing to do with Rev 21:1

I'm pretty sure it does.

The word "sea" is found in the OT many times referring to Gentiles.

(Psalm 68:22) The Lord says, “I will bring them from Bashan;
I will bring them from the depths of the sea,

(Psalm 65:5) By terrible things in righteousness wilt thou answer us, O God of our salvation; who art the confidence of all the ends of the earth, and of them that are afar off upon the sea:

In the above two verses, the Israelites God was speaking of were neither underwater, nor on the water. They were living in Gentile nations

Whether Daniel does use sea to refer to the Gentiles, which I doubt, IMO it refers to Nebuchadnezzar's last dominion, the word in Rev 21:1 refers to literal bodies of water as obviously there will be Gentiles in the NEW earth.

The new heavens and the new earth is the New Covenant.

It's crazy to claim that God is going to destroy this planet, then create a Xerox copy of it with literally no water on it.

 

[StanJ]

I'm pretty sure it does.

The word "sea" is found in the OT many times referring to Gentiles.

(Psalm 68:22) The Lord says, “I will bring them from Bashan;
I will bring them from the depths of the sea,

(Psalm 65:5) By terrible things in righteousness wilt thou answer us, O God of our salvation; who art the confidence of all the ends of the earth, and of them that are afar off upon the sea:

In the above two verses, the Israelites God was speaking of were neither underwater, nor on the water. They were living in Gentile nations



The new heavens and the new earth is the New Covenant.

It's crazy to claim that God is going to destroy this planet, then create a Xerox copy of it with literally no water on it.

Are you a preterist?

 

[StanJ]

I'm pretty sure it does.

The word "sea" is found in the OT many times referring to Gentiles.

(Psalm 68:22) The Lord says, “I will bring them from Bashan;
I will bring them from the depths of the sea,

(Psalm 65:5) By terrible things in righteousness wilt thou answer us, O God of our salvation; who art the confidence of all the ends of the earth, and of them that are afar off upon the sea:

In the above two verses, the Israelites God was speaking of were neither underwater, nor on the water. They were living in Gentile nations



The new heavens and the new earth is the New Covenant.

It's crazy to claim that God is going to destroy this planet, then create a Xerox copy of it with literally no water on it.

You have to corroborate this, not just state it. Why would God use sea to describe Gentiles and why would it connote the same in the NT?