ECT Why preterism can never be taken seriously by Bible believers
- Thread starter musterion
- Start date
That wasn't my point.
My point was that you Darby followers keep claiming there were Christians teaching Dispensationalism before John Nelson Darby.
THERE WASN'T !!!!!!!
Dispensationalism didn't exist before 1830.
You live in denial Clete !!!!!!!
ClimateSanity
New member
If there isn't a resurrection, you are dead in your sins. Resurrection demands a body by definition. If your Ghost comes around haunting people, it doesn't mean you have resurrected.
There would have to be two more for your false teachings to work.
First you would have to have one destroyed with not one stone standing upon another, then you would have to have the one described in Ezekiel 40-48 that has Jesus sitting on a throne overseeing the animal sacrifices.
But thanks for pointing out how ridiculous Dispensationalism really is when tested with scripture.
ClimateSanity
New member
Everyone has a belief system and they are "invented" daily. My belief system is not the belief system I had in 1997 when I first heard the word dispensationalism.
ClimateSanity
New member
The principles upon which it was built were known and believed at various times and never all at once in a cogent, systematic way.
The same can be said for dispensationalism.
Last edited:
Clement (A.D. 80-140): "So all of them received honor and greatness, not through themselves or their own deeds or the right things they did, but through his will. And we, therefore, who by his will have been called in Jesus Christ, are not justified of ourselves or by our wisdom or insight of religious devotion or the holy deeds we have done from the heart, but by that faith by which almighty God has justified all men from the very beginning." - Clement, Clement's First Letter, 32.3-4
Yes, there was, yes, it did. You are in denial, little arms "man."
ClimateSanity
New member
There was great change going on in the western world philosophically in the 19 the century. It literally set the world on fire with Marxism being the most powerful idea in terms of changing things. Religion is just one facet of that. Good ideas came out of that period too. It takes a desperate mind to see things such as the philosophical explosion of the 1800's as a reason to reject an idea .
ClimateSanity
New member
This is before it became lost in Catholic doctrine in the 300's.
I would also dare you to look for consistency in all of clements writings. I don't think you will see Grace through faith taught consistently and certainly not in a systematic way.
The big fish to fry in those days was Gnosticism and Arianism and the understanding of the nature of Christ. Things like salvation by Grace through faith and eschatology took a back seat and were re "invented" at aater date.
:rotfl:
You are a compulsive liar.
And you're the one who lost the only debate I was engaged in when I pointed out that the date of invention has nothing to do with why Mormonism (your very own "analogy") is false.
You really need to try to remember that the posts are all still there for everyone to read, Tellalie!
The punk uses that "invented" sophistry, deceitful debating tactic,on every third post.
All false doctrine, by definition, is "invented." His deceptive "invented" "descriptor," does NADA, for his "belief system, or mine/others, nor does it disprove his/mine/others. All this pathetic, obsessed, twit has do to, is make his case, as to why a paricular doctrine is false, and others is not, and be done with it. But he doesn't, being the obsessed loser, that he is. This "invented" jazz is a deceptive ploy, on his part, and the punk knows it. But that is his MO on TOL-deceit, sophistry, hypocrisy. He does the same tactic with his "teachings of men....man made" stumper/sophistry.
And the punk, being the "dense dummy" that he is, does not realize, that, unless he is going to claim that all of his doctrine, is infallible, has "invented" doctrine.
Wait...the sweetie does claim that he has infallible teachers...on record...
Yes, he asserts that dispensationalism is a "false belief system," since it is "taught by fallable(sic) men"(his exact words), and he talks like a Roman, as pertaining to "end time" doctrine.
He is a closet Roman Catholic. He's in denial.
Then 20 minutes later:
:rotfl:
Gotta love the logic of a Darby follower.
Clete says he put me on ignore, then 20 minutes later Clete replies to my post, and calls me the liar.
Such is the life of a Darby follower.
I believe them. I believe they were already fulfilled.
However, not one of those verses says that Jesus comes back bodily to planet earth.
You guys make that up in your attempt to make the Bible fit Darby's false teachings.
Little Johnny W lies about me. He also claims I believe in a flat earth, am unemployed, divorced, bankrupted, short, bald, etc.
I have made it crystal clear that the only infallible man to ever walk planet earth was Christ Jesus.
Interplanner
Well-known member
It may help to define terms a bit. Does 'return to this planet' automatically mean 'return and restore a kingdom to Israel as found in the old covenant'?
Or does it mean 'return in judgement to do with the nations what he did to Israel, and to make a new heavens and earth.'? That's closer to 2 Pet 3, the longest and most complete explanation.