Interplanner
Well-known member
There isn't any way for a person who has to work full time and has other life to try to keep up at ECT on all the detailed questions.
Here's the upshot of what I notice trying to discuss with you people, with few exceptions.
1, I don't accept the Bible as futurist. It is grounded in its own times and especially in the generation where Israel could have prevented its utter destruction. You generally insist on futurism, and in order to support that you abhor getting to know anything historical. Writing it off as humanism, or commentaries or labels.
2, I don't accept the Bible as prognostication. This is related to the first, but not identical. If you think the Bible is about that you will insist on pegging verses as a sort of chain that has to come out perfect. That is no where in the Bible.
3, you are culturally out of touch, so that a worked out system of belief that differs no more than about 5% of what you believe is called perverse and wicked. This rapes English so that there is no word left to describe Kinsey on sex or Hollywood on Leftist propaganda. Never mind what words you will use, what are you DOING about those sins in our culture?
4, a prophet like Isaiah, Daniel or Christ are not primarily prognosticative. Our interest in them should not be because they know the future, so that we can boast that we know the future. Some of you boast that a lot and have all your personal security wrapped up in it, ruining your ability to learn. They made ethical and behavior warnings and confrontations. In the 1st century setting Christ hoped to change Israel. He was not there primarily to announce what would happen that generation. So any idea of total exactness about things coming is missing the point. For that reason I laugh every time I hear a D'ist tout Zech 14 as some great ad for things in the future, ending with the line, 'there won't be a Canaanite.' But then again, they may never have read Eph 2-3 and Gal 3 on 'there is no longer person x vs person y.'
5, if you have blistering remarks about people today and their dangerous inclination to turn to totalitarianism for answers, great. But please show me anywhere, anytime, a person you have actually talked to who was like that, who was upended because Israel was going to again be in its land. The Bible is not futurist prognostication; I have concluded that over 40 years of study. So forget trying to show that to me, and show what matters: that if dictatorial people are actually the problem (to you!--because they will 'obey' a 'man of sin' you are experts on), then show me immediately how the land promise for Israel changed that person in actual contact with details that you have had. If you are really interested in the problem of dictatorship/ist people, you are wasting your time trying to solidify such a doctrine.
6, STP has only one habit that I know of, and it is totally frustrating and dishonest. Any piece of information or insight or list of passages or details that confronts him is called 'made up' or 'commentary' and he departs from it. Go read any progression of talk with him, it's almost every time.
Since it matters most about Acts 13, I have asked repeatedly how is it that Paul tied together Is 55:3 and Ps 2:7 and the same thing Peter said about the resurrection, that Christ secured forgiveness and Lordship/Kingship through that event--how is that every time STP hears that he departs for any topic, TV show, Mayberry gas station, and turns into an omniscient smartmouth ridiculer? Why does he go back to some non-issue about singular promise when the expression is 'that which was promised' (all of it, plurality treated as one), and when his own fav trans about the resurrection writes '...was fulfilled IN THAT God raised Christ from the dead'? That was in the discussion where RD said there were no Jews present, when in fact it was standard for what Paul taught as his country was going to pieces. I don't think any of you even know what it was turning into anyway!
I'm wicked (raping English again) but he is 'allowed' by the club to bash me for an analogy about crime detection (as though I was quoting scripture) and to quote tons of Mayberry.
No, I can't keep up on all the details, nor need to. I believe I'm called by God to educate you where I can. But these items here are the things that you can't see about yourselves and that make your effort here rancid. Oh, and obsessed with spelling, that is, slivers you can extract while you pound people with your ramrods and destroy truth and knowledge. It's so powerful to be an sliver extractor!
Here's the upshot of what I notice trying to discuss with you people, with few exceptions.
1, I don't accept the Bible as futurist. It is grounded in its own times and especially in the generation where Israel could have prevented its utter destruction. You generally insist on futurism, and in order to support that you abhor getting to know anything historical. Writing it off as humanism, or commentaries or labels.
2, I don't accept the Bible as prognostication. This is related to the first, but not identical. If you think the Bible is about that you will insist on pegging verses as a sort of chain that has to come out perfect. That is no where in the Bible.
3, you are culturally out of touch, so that a worked out system of belief that differs no more than about 5% of what you believe is called perverse and wicked. This rapes English so that there is no word left to describe Kinsey on sex or Hollywood on Leftist propaganda. Never mind what words you will use, what are you DOING about those sins in our culture?
4, a prophet like Isaiah, Daniel or Christ are not primarily prognosticative. Our interest in them should not be because they know the future, so that we can boast that we know the future. Some of you boast that a lot and have all your personal security wrapped up in it, ruining your ability to learn. They made ethical and behavior warnings and confrontations. In the 1st century setting Christ hoped to change Israel. He was not there primarily to announce what would happen that generation. So any idea of total exactness about things coming is missing the point. For that reason I laugh every time I hear a D'ist tout Zech 14 as some great ad for things in the future, ending with the line, 'there won't be a Canaanite.' But then again, they may never have read Eph 2-3 and Gal 3 on 'there is no longer person x vs person y.'
5, if you have blistering remarks about people today and their dangerous inclination to turn to totalitarianism for answers, great. But please show me anywhere, anytime, a person you have actually talked to who was like that, who was upended because Israel was going to again be in its land. The Bible is not futurist prognostication; I have concluded that over 40 years of study. So forget trying to show that to me, and show what matters: that if dictatorial people are actually the problem (to you!--because they will 'obey' a 'man of sin' you are experts on), then show me immediately how the land promise for Israel changed that person in actual contact with details that you have had. If you are really interested in the problem of dictatorship/ist people, you are wasting your time trying to solidify such a doctrine.
6, STP has only one habit that I know of, and it is totally frustrating and dishonest. Any piece of information or insight or list of passages or details that confronts him is called 'made up' or 'commentary' and he departs from it. Go read any progression of talk with him, it's almost every time.
Since it matters most about Acts 13, I have asked repeatedly how is it that Paul tied together Is 55:3 and Ps 2:7 and the same thing Peter said about the resurrection, that Christ secured forgiveness and Lordship/Kingship through that event--how is that every time STP hears that he departs for any topic, TV show, Mayberry gas station, and turns into an omniscient smartmouth ridiculer? Why does he go back to some non-issue about singular promise when the expression is 'that which was promised' (all of it, plurality treated as one), and when his own fav trans about the resurrection writes '...was fulfilled IN THAT God raised Christ from the dead'? That was in the discussion where RD said there were no Jews present, when in fact it was standard for what Paul taught as his country was going to pieces. I don't think any of you even know what it was turning into anyway!
I'm wicked (raping English again) but he is 'allowed' by the club to bash me for an analogy about crime detection (as though I was quoting scripture) and to quote tons of Mayberry.
No, I can't keep up on all the details, nor need to. I believe I'm called by God to educate you where I can. But these items here are the things that you can't see about yourselves and that make your effort here rancid. Oh, and obsessed with spelling, that is, slivers you can extract while you pound people with your ramrods and destroy truth and knowledge. It's so powerful to be an sliver extractor!
