ECT A big part of what went wrong
- Thread starter musterion
- Start date
"deactivated Judaism" :rotfl:
The people you are criticizing in your OP were smart enough to know that God didn't "deactivate Judaism". They made many mistakes, but subscribing to "deactivated Judaism" wasn't one of them, like you do.
Not one person in all of Christendom ever taught such nonsense until John Nelson Darby in 1830.
This, of course, is a false claim but even if it were true, does Tet actually believe that it would prove dispensationalism false?
I think he does!
I bet he's not a Catholic though! (I wonder whether he'll understand the point there?)
Interplanner
Well-known member
lol including its deactivated eschatology!
It is very difficult for the church to 'remain in Christ' as it should.
Interplanner
Well-known member
btw, Luther's table talks and music were about as un-RCC as you could get in his day, so the quote missed that badly as well. The paragraph is rust, dust and cobwebs.
It's not a false claim. The only people who subscribed to "deactivated Judaism" were the Jews themselves. If you think I'm wrong, show us a Christian writer before Darby who wrote that one day God would restore Israel and the Mosaic law on planet earth again?
It proves MAD wrong, because Dispensationalism is built around the rapture, which has Jesus removing His church, and then picking back up again with the "deactivated Judaism".
Without it, there is no rapture, no Trib, no second coming, no "two gospel" theory, etc.
It's very important for MADists to have God still looking at the flesh.
Interplanner
Well-known member
But the 'picking up again' with Judaism is the re-activation, as they see it. Gal 3:17 is entirely missed again.
It's so simple. The New Covenant has replaced the Old Covenant. We live in the NC, and the OC is gone for good.
MADists deny the NC is in place, claim the OC has been "deactivated" (and will one day be reactivated), all while claiming there is a secret parenthetical time period inserted into history.
Again, none of this nonsense existed until Darby invented it in 1830.
Hi and will show a verse where GENTILES are in the New Covenant and with a verse !!
Can you do that ??
dan p
andyc
New member
Erm
In order to show where gentiles are in a new covenant, you'd have to show where they're in an old covenant.
Where's the old covenant to gentiles?
The old covenant was to Israelites, and gentiles were included if they wanted to be.
The new covenant is to Israelites, and gentiles are included if they want to be.
Read Romans.
Also see below....
2 Corinthians 3:6 who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
So the new covenant is about life in the Spirit, not observance of the law. That's the life I live, so the new covenant is for me.
andyc
New member
It's not really a new covenant they're looking for. They want a Paco Rabanne Versace Creed covenant LOL
A designer covenant that fits the flesh like a glove.
Argument from silence. It is not my burden to prove your claim false. It is for you to prove your claim true.
The fact that you won't be able to get around is that no one uses Darby as an argument to support dispensational teaching. No one appeals to Darby as their doctrinal authority, no one claims to be a Darbian nor is there any such thing as Darbianism. All dispensationalist, including Darby, make their arguments from a reasoned analysis of the scriptures and nothing else. Not that every argument ever made by any dispensationalist was sound or that every conclusion correct but that, on the whole, the arguments supporting dispensational teaching are not based on who taught it or when it was taught as your argument suggest, but rather the arguments are biblical in nature, and as such, they cannot be assaulted by making a big deal about who published the ideas or when they published them.
This was a stupid thing to say. I'm beginning to remember now why I have you on ignore. People who say stupid things annoy me.
NO ONE that is a dispensationalist has built their doctrine around the rapture - NO ONE! The rapture, if anything, is a doctrine that results from dispensational teaching, not the other way around.
You know, there are lots of details that dispensationalism actually teaches that are debatable. Why not debate one of those issues? Why spend so much time and effort erecting men made of straw?
Without what, the rapture? You're not making any sense. In one sentence you seem to say that dispensationalism is predicated on the rapture and in the very next sentence you seem to be saying that the rapture is predicated on dispensationalism.
Dispensationalism is not predicated on any of the doctrines you mentioned here. It is the other way around. Those doctrines follow logically from the premises upon which dispensationalism is based. You're attacking the leaves as though they were the root, which, incidentally, is all I've ever seen you do besides make the "Dispensationalism is too young a doctrine to be true." argument.
Once again, a stupid thing for you to have said. The strongest refutation of your nonsense is the fact that you either don't know or intentionally avoid debating what dispensationalism actually teaches.
Resting in Him,
Clete
No one taught auto repair before the automobile was invented.
No one taught "deactivated Judaism" before Darby invented it.
Unless you can show someone teaching it before Darby, the claim stands.
That's because you guys live in denial. Your previous post proves it.
Darby invented Dispensationalism around the rapture. A teenage girl had a "vision" that Jesus returned twice. Darby took the "vision", and built Dispensationalism around it.
I've debated all of them.
They are very easy to refute with scripture and history.
See above.
Clete utterly destroyed your last post !!
Clete's a Darby follower.
No Darby follower can ever stand the test of scripture.
musterion
Well-known member
One problem is that the Rapture doctrine has been borrowed by non-disps, along with little if anything else, so it ends up irreconcilable with everything else they believe. The same has happened with Unconditional Eternal Security in Christ...they want to believe it but it won't fit with their adherence to The burden and threat of Law. But that's not the doctrine's fault and it's not disps' fault.
musterion
Well-known member
He does avoid it because he doesn't actually know it. Ex-disp, my eye.
Once again, you Darby followers do anything you can in order to avoid trying to defend your Dispensationalism.
First you deny Darby invented it, then you attack the person who points out the errors, and when those don't work, you ignore the questions.
Your OP contained the phrase "deactivated Judaism". As I pointed out, this kind of teaching didn't exist before Darby. I challenged Clete, and I challenge any Darby follower out there to show one Christian who wrote about "deactivated Judaism" before Darby.
Dispensationalism isn't hard to understand. Darby taught that God put Israel on hold, inserted a secret parenthetical dispensation, Jesus then raptures away the church age believers, an anti-christ comes, there's a tribulation, then Jesus comes again, then an earthly kingdom for exactly 1,000 years.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Paul did teach 'deactivated Judaism'. But he never taught the re-activation of it. That's what D'ism started doing. They didn't seem to realize they were doing the same thing as Jews in northern Europe in their same generation: cultivating a resurgence of Judaism apart from the Christian message and the progression toward it.
Towards your above.
Back in 1543, a Reformed Protestant translated and printed some 500 copies of what was then the first New Testament in Spanish.
Thrown in prison to await his death at the hands of Rome's infamous Inquisition, he managed to escape, only to die a horrible death while in hiding; the result of one of the many plagues of that time.
Rome's infamous Inquisition caught his brother, though, and burned him alive.
Of those original 500 copies, 7 have survived; all in museums or in private collections.
They are a fascinating, first hand glimpse into that era.
At the back of their pages is found a several page listing of all the various RCC based rituals the Protestants were still very much into.
Another aspect of that fascinating document is its many, many references in between its margins showing what was believed way back then as to which passages went with which.
In another section there is an account of the various Bible translations he had come in contact with in his travels.
Another thing that stands out is that it is barely even mentioned, more often not, in every major work in favor of the manuscripts the KJV is supposedly based on that I have ever looked into.
A document that important.
Of course, an idiot like Tet would right off conclude "this proves it did not exist before now."
Anyway, I've ended up rambling again :chuckle: