ECT The Mystery: What and Why
- Thread starter Danoh
- Start date
heir, does MUD stand for Messed Up Doctrine ? Those that aren't MAD may actually be in the MUD - :chuckle:
Right Divider
Body part
No, it does not. And your REASSERTING this without even the tiniest shred of evidence continues to show everyone that you are a completely clueless drone.
Paul is telling them to believe ASAP. There is no indication from scripture that the Lord Jesus Christ revealed when the dispensation of the grace of God would come to an end.
Rom 13:10-14 KJV Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. (11) And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. (12) The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light. (13) Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying. (14) But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.
There is NOTHING in the entire book of Romans (or in ANY of Paul's epistles) to confirm your "70 AD" story. If there was, you would have surely show us by now.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Do you not understand 1, that the NT was written as though the 2nd coming would happen that generation or 2, the reasons why?
No he is not.
Paul is talking to believers who were already saved.
Paul said "our salvation is nearer than when we first believed"
"WHEN WE FIRST BELIEVED".
The "dispensation of the grace of God" isn't a time period. It doesn't have an end.
You have been brainwashed by Dispensationalism into thinking it's a time period.
Paul tells his audience that they are living in the "culmination of the ages".
(1 Cor 10:11) These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the culmination of the ages has come.
Right Divider
Body part
A dispensation is something dispensed. It is not defined by a period of time, but does occur in time.
You're a deceiver that will say ANYTHING to "prove" your "theory".
Yes, he did. Did he say what year this culmination would be complete?
You are just so full of hot air, Mr. CloseEnough.
And this return, according to this habitual liar, was seen by everyone, although this alleged "Jesus" that returned, Tellilie asserts, did not return physically, as He lost his glorified "flesh and bone", yes, physical body, somewhere between the earth, and the third heaven, of which this punk has no scripture to back up this "man made" "invention"(he taught us this-we learned it from hi), but actually, it was the Roman army in AD 70, that was the second coming/'the second time."
You fraud, Craigie, just winging it, to support your "man made" "invention," of satanic Preterism.
The snake oil sales"man"(loosely employed here) still will not explain the above, after being adsked about it, for over 2 years, by myself, other TOL members.
Craigie Tellalie:
Silence.
I have already addressed the Preterist Punk's satanic interpretation of Romans 13:11 KJV, which perverts 1 Cor. 15 ff, based upon his satanic assertion that denies the future, by definition, physical resurrection, of "OT saints," and denies, again, by definition, the physical redemption of the body, to wit, the adoption, promised to members of the boc. To protect the sheep/babes, from wolfie Tellalie, again:
Slower, punk-
Saved-to be delivered from, preserved, from a danger.
If the punk would study, and survey the book, instead of his Hank Hanegraaf cassette tapes, J. Stuart Russell book, he'd know that we are saved from the penalty of sins(justification), are being saved from the power of sin(sanctification), and will be saved from the presence of sin(glorification). This is Paul's reference above. The Roman saints were already saved in the justification context. He was talking about their future glorification, to wit, "the redemption of the body." Paul speaks of this in Romans 8 KJV:
18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. 19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. 20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, 21 because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. 23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. 24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? 25 But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.
Read it, Wimp:
because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
The salvation here is our(not yours)glorification, being delivered/saved from these vile bodies, the presence of sin-"the redemption of the body."
Tellalie: Darby.....You are in denial...Bullinger....Dispensationalism was invented at the same time others denied that the earth was flat.....Don't you believe the bible/Paul?.......Darby....Fleshly....Fulfiled AD 70/during the time of "The Flintstones"..........................................................................................................................Darby....
We accept Acts 2 dispies
The habitual liar of TOL, Craigie Tellalie, can't keep his story straight, as he said previously that he was a dispensationalist for 27 years. But, heh, what the heck-"close enough"-that is how he "studies"/interprets his stack of bibles.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Just like when you tell Wally to filler up, and he only puts 3/4 tank.
A might curious.
Oh, you just love to pick at me, don't you, Mayor? Why don't you head on over to the local skeet shooting exhibition, to impress them Daphne types you dig, and put Pez dispensers and "Super Glue" in the guns. Wouldn't that be funny?
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Like Ange, I don't go for girls who can shoot skeet better than me, or come from high fluting families.
Am I getting through to you fella?
You "thought" you were.
Fact is that an "ist" who is one as a result of an OVERRELIANCE ON books supposedly "about" or supposedly "based on" the Bible, does not a Bible student make.
As the Ironside-O'Hair debates proved, A2D (Ironside) had long ceased from CONTINUING TO rely on "the Bible" before you were even born.
Where O'Hair (eventually Mid-Acts) had refused to OVER RELY ON "books about" the Bible, A2D's Ironside and the Academia "books based" box that men had made of Dispensationalism, were now in the "books based" business - any further light would just have to take a back seat.
You come along years later, buy into that mess, what little ability to reason on your own finds a hole in said books based fiasco, but then you attempt to solve for that in the worst possible way - more books "about."
And with that, what little remaining ability you may have had to reason outside of any box...first atrophied, and then died.
Its why, off you go to purchase the next book "about" that your Preterist school puts out.
You and yours have turned yourselves into absolute fools.
In your case, fact is you never really were Dispensational - you only thought you were because your endless OVERRELIANCE ON books led you to believe you were.
You even had all the catch phrases down; didn't you?
Now, you spout off your "25 years in A2D" in your own prop up version of all those hacks as writers that you even now continue to OVER RELY on.
One can learn MUCH from books. In fact, all sorts of highly useful information.
Nevertheless, the way to learn "about the Bible" is to get...in...the...Bible...
Won't stop me from defending you when that is just, but other than that; where knowing Scripture is concerned, you are just one more, books based hack. Plain and simple.
Your posts are a joke.
You're a follower of men. You're a follower of Darby, Scofield, Chafer, Bullinger, Stam, O'Hair, Anderson, Ryrie, etc.
You may read the Bible, but you read it how the above men tell you how to read it.
You disgusting punk, with your "argument" of sophistry, whih you spam on every thread, eventually, as your Catholic "Hail Mary," when you are getting picked apart-"You're a follower of men."
Whom should we follow, sweetie? You? Are you a man? Rhetorical question. Women? Aliens?
Let me guess: God, who you, of course, follow.
You weasel.
Tell us that you are not a follower of men, Wimpy, and that you are a God follower, following infallible men, who teach you, directly from God. Go ahead. Tell us you have never been taught by men, punk.
Identify these infallible men, that you claim, on record, teach you.
I thought so. Fraud-sophistry.
Tellalie, once again, asserts that there is no teaching ministry, that God ordained, for men, within the boc today, and, on record, asserts that this verse, and all others, re. "teach....teachers....teaching...." should not be in the bible:
2 Timothy 2:2 KJV
And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
Demon.
Nope. I am what what is known in the world of Behavioral Psychology as a Modeler.
I build models of things. I take them apart, towards uncovering their underlying principles based on how their various parts interact that I might better understand their whole.
I do that with ideas, words, ideologies, behavior, etc.
All have recurrent patterns that can be taken apart and dissected for what they reveal about their whole.
I agree with anyone and everyone - including you - to the extent that my modeling of what they are talking about reveals a sound basis for their assertions.
This, at the same time that I am aware of the principles of how I do that even as I apply them.
That is one of my God given talents in Adam. As piano playing, or some other talent is "a natural" in other people, I was born with this curiosity about models.
Including, curiosity about the modeling process itself.
In fact I began to note Mid-Acts in Scripture as a result of this modeling ability.
Later, when I encountered some Mid-Acts Based Bible Students, I knew they were on the right track.
Further, that is what Mid-Acts is. It is both a model of the internal structure of the Bible, as well as a model of how to make one's way through said model itself.
No one is able to appreciate this outside of the true Mid-Acts Based Bible student. He alone is able to rely on Scripture alone whenever he has a question.
Store bought "books need not apply." They are welcome to contribute what little they might, but all is well in their absence.
Some fool mentioned "a decoder ring." Well, there - it - is.
As for you, Dr. Russellite - I have read - you - like one of your endless "books about." Every aspect of your presence on here - your words, their structure, what you leave out, include, you name it...
I have read you right and you know it. You are a "books based" hack. Through, and through.
Nope.
Your a follower of John Nelson Darby, and Darby's proteges.
Your Dispensationalism and MAD didn't exist before Darby invented it.
You live in denial, just like all the other Darby Followers.
Went right past your books based blindness.