ECT Israel's Prophetic Clock stopped in 70AD, not in Mid Acts

[tetelestai]

If so, then why were prophecies for Israel fulfilled from 66AD to 70AD - please tell us, so that Tel-a-lie can do just that - Tel-a-lie.

"Israel's prophetic clock stopped" are your words.

You are so angry because this thread has made you look like a fool.

You made a statement, and now you can't defend it.

So, because you're a Darby follower, you're now doing what most Darby followers do.

You Darby followers are so predictable.

 

[tetelestai]

There is no fool like a Dispensational fool.

Yep!

So far in this thread Danoh is Exhibit A when it comes to Dispensational fools.

 

[Interplanner]

"Israel's prophetic clock stopped" are your words.

You are so angry because this thread has made you look like a fool.

You made a statement, and now you can't defend it.

So, because you're a Darby follower, you're now doing what most Darby followers do.

You Darby followers are so predictable.

So far as I know, Danoh has not yet truly compared his fav Darby quote with Jn 12:34. In Jn 12:34's context, light is the mission of the Gospel; darkness is a 'messiah' who rules in Israel forever, much pursued by the crowds.

 

[Danoh]

So far as I know, Danoh has not yet truly compared his fav Darby quote with Jn 12:34. In Jn 12:34's context, light is the mission of the Gospel; darkness is a 'messiah' who rules in Israel forever, much pursued by the crowds.

There is your problem - as far as YOU know...

Apparantly not very far...

I've yet to read more than three short articles by Darby.

Your guess is as good as mine as to what Darby may or may have not believed on most issues.

In this, you remain as incompetent as your buddies on here as to how I approach looking at one thing or another.

Where most read a thing and base their acceptance or rejection of it on whether or not it fits how they normally apply reason throughout most aspects of their life, I always seek out to first trace it back to what principles it appears to be following - I do not buy into anything right off the bat that I do not first submit to said root origin.

You - you go by what jibes with your long ago bought into illogic.

As a result; more often than not, you can't even make out where I am coming from.

I think in abstract principles, not in your black and white.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Very interesting. Where do you think your error lies, since you have no belief in God manifesting Himself in a 3 Person Godhead? I am sure you will correct me if I have misjudged you.

You have misjudged me, but it's understandable based on my previous history of being so overtly anatgonistic in too general a manner toward Trinitarianism.

My valid contention is that the English term "person" is a horrific means of translating "hypostasis" from Greek. It leaves modern hearts and minds thinking and believing that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all "persons" as individual sentient beings rather than any representation of the authentic historical and orthodox Trinity doctrinal formulaic.

I previously aligned myself passively with any who opposed Trinitariansim for this reason. Then I realized I was positioning myself in league with Arians, Unitarians, Sabellians, and others. I've since made great effort to distance myself from those heretics.

My "beef" is with Opera Ad Intra and Opera Ad Extra relative to phenomenality and noumenality; and the Filioque false binary, etc.

And as a simple reminder example... Your reference above to God "manifesting" Himself in a 3 person Godhead could be easily mistaken for some form of Modalism, and is not really a correct representation of the Trinity doctrine.

 

[Interplanner]

There is your problem - as far as YOU know...

Apparantly not very far...

I've yet to read more than three short articles by Darby.

Your guess is as good as mine as to what Darby may or may have not believed on most issues.

In this, you remain as incompetent as your buddies on here as to how I approach looking at one thing or another.

Where most read a thing and base their acceptance or rejection of it on whether or not it fits how they normally apply reason throughout most aspects of their life, I always seek out to first trace it back to what principles it appears to be following - I do not buy into anything right off the bat that I do not first submit to said root origin.

You - you go by what jibes with your long ago bought into illogic.

As a result; more often than not, you can't even make out where I am coming from.

I think in abstract principles, not in your black and white.

You were the one who posted it!

 

[Cross Reference]

There is your problem m.

I think in abstract principles, not in your black and white.

No! There is YOUR problem. Stop thinking in abstract principles. One only does so to cover up wilful ignorance/obstinacy.

 

[Cross Reference]

You have misjudged me, but it's understandable based on my previous history of being so overtly anatgonistic in too general a manner toward Trinitarianism.

My valid contention is that the English term "person" is a horrific means of translating "hypostasis" from Greek. It leaves modern hearts and minds thinking and believing that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all "persons" as individual sentient beings rather than any representation of the authentic historical and orthodox Trinity doctrinal formulaic.

Question: When God spoke in the OT, Who was doing the speaking? When the Holy Spirit fell on varius people in the OT to prophecy, Who was doing the "falling upon"? When Jesus was doing the speaking in the NT, was He man or God? [Not trying to trick anyone in this.]

My "beef" is with Opera Ad Intra and Opera Ad Extra relative to phenomenality and noumenality; and the Filioque false binary, etc.

????

And as a simple reminder example... Your reference above to God "manifesting" Himself in a 3 person Godhead could be easily mistaken for some form of Modalism, and is not really a correct representation of the Trinity doctrine.

So what? Everyone has a responsibility same as you and I. Sort out such issues by first letting the passage of scripture say what it says. I trust the KJV for this because of where it came from. By doing so you establish some absolutes that can't change. From there let scripture susport itself. Eventually it will if one hungers and thirsts after rightousness in the prescribed way..

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

PPS: You have misjudged me, but it's understandable based on my previous history of being so overtly anatgonistic in too general a manner toward Trinitarianism.

Question: When God spoke in the OT, Who was doing the speaking?

The Father.

When the Holy Spirit fell on varius people in the OT to prophecy, Who was doing the "falling upon"?

The Holy Spirit.

When Jesus was doing the speaking in the NT, was He man or God? [Not trying to trick anyone in this.]

Both. Theanthropos.

????

Internal doctrinal minutiae, as I said. I take issue with one main aspect of the Cappadocian Fathers' formulaic leading up to Constantinople in 381AD. And I take issue with the Filioque and the succeeding squabling over it between East and West leading to the 1054AD Schism.

So what?

It was just a casual mention of how you or anyone could subtly misrepresent the Trinity and be presumed a Modalist or something else.

Everyone has a responsibility same as you and I. Sort out such issues by first letting the passage of scripture say what it says. I trust the KJV for this because of where it came from. By doing so you establish some absolutes that can't change. From there let scripture susport itself. Eventually it will if one hungers and thirsts after rightousness in the prescribed way..

I prefer the KJV myself. Not in a rabid KJV-Only manner, but it's a very strong preference related to Erasmus and the Textus Receptus, etc.

I'm not sure I can concur with the last part. I see hoards of individuals adhering to only their own false autonomy with no sense of ever budging from error and heresy in many different ways.

Few hunger and thirst after righteousness, even though many hunger and thirst for their own thoughts and desires as theology.

 

[Cross Reference]

Both.

Theanthropos.

OK, if I am understanding the word correctly.

Internal doctrinal minutiae, as I said. I take issue with one main aspect of the Cappadocian Fathers' formulaic leading up to Constantinople in 381AD. And I take issue with the Filioque and the succeeding squabling over it between East and West leading to the 1054AD Schism.



It was just a casual mention of how you or anyone could subtly misrepresent the Trinity and be presumed a Modalist or something else.

I am none of that unless someone wishes to say that what I believe coincides with 'whatever' label anyone wishes to pin on me. What brings me comfort is my pursuit to know Him as He knows me. He is both my reward and rereward.

I prefer the KJV myself. Not in a rabid KJV-Only manner, but it's a very strong preference related to Erasmus and the Textus Receptus, etc.

Ditto, but, not for those reasons. Insight is mine.

I'm not sure I can concur with the last part. I see hoards of individuals adhering to only their own false autonomy with no sense of ever budging from error and heresy in many different ways.

Ignore them and move on. Stand opposed when under fire.

Few hunger and thirst after righteousness, even though many hunger and thirst for their own thoughts and desires as theology.

That is their misfortune. We can do nothing about that. Where you [me] stand in relationship to God and Jesus Christ is ALL that matters. cf John 17:3.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

OK, if I am understanding the word correctly.

I am none of that unless someone wishes to say that what I believe coincides with 'whatever' label anyone wishes to pin on me. What brings me comfort is my pursuit to know Him as He knows me. He is both my reward and rereward.

Ditto, but, not for those reasons. Insight is mine.

Ignore them and move on. Stand opposed when under fire.

That is their misfortune. We can do nothing about that. Where you [me] stand in relationship to God and Jesus Christ is ALL that matters. cf John 17:3.

Press ever on.

 

[Danoh]

You were the one who posted it!

Too many holes in just these seven words of yours here to even bother with. It'd be to no avail once more.

 

[Danoh]

No! There is YOUR problem. Stop thinking in abstract principles. One only does so to cover up wilful ignorance/obstinacy.

So says the very individual ever asking one and all what they meant by this, that, the other...

Yeah, you know what I meant alright :chuckle:

 

[Cross Reference]

Another self portrait . . in the keeping of the "abstract", to be sure.

 

[john w]

Yep!

So far in this thread Danoh is Exhibit A when it comes to Dispensational fools.

Slick, greasy Craigie's "oh what he thinks is so cute/original" "Exhibit A" spam/stumper, that he employs with every dispensationalist, eventually.


Clown. We laugh at your boring cliches.

 

[john w]

Yep!

So far in this thread Danoh is Exhibit A when it comes to Dispensational fools.

"fools...buffoon..."-greasy Craigie here, last week

vs. last week:"personal attacks"-Craigie wimpering, crying, whining, about those meanie dispies "attacking" him

Actress-take a bow, again. Boo, hoo, weasel.

 

[patrick jane]

Yep!

So far in this thread Danoh is Exhibit A when it comes to Dispensational fools.

You spent 27 glorious years as a dispy fool

 

[john w]

You spent 27 glorious years as a dispy fool

He's in denial.

 

[Danoh]

He's in denial.

He continually proves he was no more clear on Dispensationalism than Interplanner appears to have been, back when he too had supposedly believed he had understood Dispensationalism, and thus rejected it.

A2D (Acts 2 Dispensationalism) is not A9D.

A9D, for example, at least my own understanding of it, does not view modern Israel as a fulfilling of Prophecy.

Interplanner has had this pointed out to him more than once. Yet, he continues to rail against that as if still unaware of this distinction.

Must be some kind of a built in stopped ears feature common to both their respective shade of Preterism.

While to his own unique discredit like few on TOL, Tet has remained unable to ask any question about what we hold in an actually honestly intended inquiry.

For years now - no matter what question he has asked or how it has been answered, his actual intent, has ever ended up betraying itself for what it actually is once more - his having sought to disrupt a thread and or rant against his own self-delusion once more.

There comes a point where such a dishonest individual has to be walked away from.

A walking away from such an individual will only absorb into the service of their obvious delusion.

Reminds me of a movie I once saw.

Where a man in a criminal organization is ordered to take someone out into the woods and kill him, but spares him.

Only to have to be confronted with the ingrate; who now wants to kill him becauae he cannot bear that this man who spared his life saw him wet his pants as he'd begged for his life.

That is Tet; indulge him, only to have it backfire on you by his own hand.

As the Lord had noted concerning Tet and his kind...

John 10:24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.

Luke 7:32 They are like unto children sitting in the marketplace, and calling one to another, and saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned to you, and ye have not wept.

I sincerely doubt the Lord continued to deal with such.

Not if, as Interplanner often puts it, He was about getting on with the mission...

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Israel's prophetic clock stopped when the LORD made the sun stand still.
:noid: