ECT Israel is not the BOC

[tetelestai]

Let's see now...you're an incompetent.

So there is ever that problem in your way.

And your assertions are made up by you and your favorite heretics.

So there is that.

What else?

Let's see...oh yeah; Darby was Acts 2 Dispensational, so he probably held a view on said other sheep different from the one I hold.

But you are also a hack.

So what ever my answer would be, would be bashed by you as Darby's view.

You are also a conniving individual.

So your open ended question is your same old baiting; just so you can prove you are just being a jerk who has no real interest in an answer other than your own vain and profane Preterist babbling.

So there is no point in answering you: a fool; but according to your folly.

Yep; no point in citing passages from a minimum of twelve chapters in Scripture, to start with; that all clearly identify who said "other sheep" is a reference to.

As expected, you can't answer the question.

 

[tetelestai]

Tel himself is a hoax :chuckle:

You guys are hilarious.

Whitey is criticizing me for not catching his fake quote.

Then he wants to know if I did a study before I quoted a real quote.

You Darby Followers never cease to amaze me.

 

[tetelestai]

(John 10:16) I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.

The above verse singlehandedly refutes the OP of this thread.

The Body of Christ is the Israel of God.

The OP cannot stand the test of scripture.

 

[Danoh]

You guys are hilarious.

Whitey is criticizing me for not catching his fake quote.

Then he wants to know if I did a study before I quoted a real quote.

You Darby Followers never cease to amaze me.

In contrast; you never amaze.

But incompetents never do.

Rom. 5:8
Acts 17:11,12.

 

[Danoh]

(John 10:16) I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.

The above verse singlehandedly refutes the OP of this thread.

The Body of Christ is the Israel of God.

The OP cannot stand the test of scripture.

Bait away, incompetent; your conniving is old hat around here.

Rom. 5:8
Acts 17:11,12

 

[whitestone]

LOL....I vet quotes before I post them.

I don't do what the Darby Followers on TOL do, when they desperately try to show Dispensationalism being taught before 1830.

The quotes I gave from Origen are authentic.

In part maybe but not from your own homework they are parrat'ed quotes from preterist sites example notice your exact wording in post #300 "early/latter" parret'ed from http://www.preteristcentral.com/Origen Was a Preterist.html#_ftn12 (unless your the writer of this article).

And then go down to the notes on (17) which is the defence to the statement admitting that he was "futurist in his early days"

Then examine chapter 20 in the "context of his dialogue" and you will see he is not saying "the second coming has already occurred" as highlighted but instead he is stating that the Jews believed his coming was yet future(meaning they did not believe Jesus was the messiah and that a messiah was still coming in the future) but the Christians believed he(Jesus) had already come and fulfilled that.

In context, I gave the exact statement to so anyone who would read it could and make up their own mind. In the end it is apparent that "on Both side"s of the fence" someone is putting things in the www to make the "other camp look bad" preterism vrs. future and I would really like to find who it was from my camp who first began the Houx by misquoting the statements made by Origen to by falsehood discredit preterism in some manner,you should do the same in yours.

In the end though Origen was not as some would say and he did not teach preterism he was futurist.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04164.htm

 

[tetelestai]

In part maybe but not from your own homework they are parrat'ed quotes from preterist sites example notice your exact wording in post #300 "early/latter" parret'ed from http://www.preteristcentral.com/Origen Was a Preterist.html#_ftn12 (unless your the writer of this article).

Wrong again.

That's not where I got Origen's quote from.

In the end though Origen was not as some would say and he did not teach preterism he was futurist.

Here's another valid quote from Origen that advocates Preterism, and refutes Futurism:

"Certain persons, then, refusing the labour of thinking, and adopting a superficial view of the letter of the law, and yielding rather in some measure to the indulgence of their own desires and lusts, being disciples of the letter alone, are of opinion that the fulfilment of the promises of the future are to be looked for in bodily pleasure and luxury; and therefore they especially desire to have again, after the resurrection, such bodily structures as may never be without the power of eating, and drinking, and performing all the functions of flesh and blood, not following the opinion of the Apostle Paul regarding the resurrection of a spiritual body. And consequently they say, that after the resurrection there will be marriages, and the begetting of children, imagining to themselves that the earthly city of Jerusalem is to be rebuilt" - 2.11.2

How could Origen be a Futurist if he didn't believe in rebuilding Jerusalem?

You guys have Jesus sitting on a man made throne in a rebuilt Jerusalem.

I'll even give you the SOURCE

 

[whitestone]

Wrong again.

That's not where I got Origen's quote from.



Here's another valid quote from Origen that advocates Preterism, and refutes Futurism:

"Certain persons, then, refusing the labour of thinking, and adopting a superficial view of the letter of the law, and yielding rather in some measure to the indulgence of their own desires and lusts, being disciples of the letter alone, are of opinion that the fulfilment of the promises of the future are to be looked for in bodily pleasure and luxury; and therefore they especially desire to have again, after the resurrection, such bodily structures as may never be without the power of eating, and drinking, and performing all the functions of flesh and blood, not following the opinion of the Apostle Paul regarding the resurrection of a spiritual body. And consequently they say, that after the resurrection there will be marriages, and the begetting of children, imagining to themselves that the earthly city of Jerusalem is to be rebuilt" - 2.11.2

How could Origen be a Futurist if he didn't believe in rebuilding Jerusalem?

You guys have Jesus sitting on a man made throne in a rebuilt Jerusalem.

I'll even give you the SOURCE

You should scroll down to 11:6 and wonder why he consistently speaks of the resurrection of the dead in future tense(which he does throughout) if he believed it had already occurred. And yes the city that descend’s down from God will not be as the flesh imagines.

 

[tetelestai]

You should scroll down to 11:6 and wonder why he consistently speaks of the resurrection of the dead in future tense(which he does throughout) if he believed it had already occurred. And yes the city that descend’s down from God will not be as the flesh imagines.

You really need to make up your mind regarding Origen.

You said my eschatology was from Origen:

His eschatology is from Origen of Alexandria but he evades it in person

So, how do you on one hand call me a Preterist, say my eschatology is from Origen, and then at the same time say Origen was a futurist?

And, you keep missing my point.

Origen was not a Preterist. However, many things he taught are what Preterists teach. For example, he believed the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD was the fulfillment of the prophecies given by Jesus, and that the destruction was because the Jews killed Jesus.

My point was that Preterism was taught by early church fathers, even if those early church fathers weren't Preterists.

The same cannot be said about Dispensationalism. It was never taught by anyone before the year 1830.

 

[whitestone]

You really need to make up your mind regarding Origen.

You said my eschatology was from Origen:



So, how do you on one hand call me a Preterist, say my eschatology is from Origen, and then at the same time say Origen was a futurist?

And, you keep missing my point.

Origen was not a Preterist. However, many things he taught are what Preterists teach. For example, he believed the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD was the fulfillment of the prophecies given by Jesus, and that the destruction was because the Jews killed Jesus.

My point was that Preterism was taught by early church fathers, even if those early church fathers weren't Preterists.

The same cannot be said about Dispensationalism. It was never taught by anyone before the year 1830.

In chapter 11.2 in your "source" it begins "certain persons" who are they? Here's who they are if you consider Dionysius who was a student of Origen and Heraclas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Dionysius_of_Alexandria

When you examine these things more closely in specific to how they viewed "the Revelation" those who were of the school in Alexandria knew that "certain people" did hold Revelation 20 as valid and that John(apostle) in fact did write it but notice the argument which is not an argument against Rev.20 at all but instead against the entire writing,that is they would have said it was not true at all but they knew that "certian people" held it in high regard.

 

[Danoh]

Wrong again.

That's not where I got Origen's quote from.



Here's another valid quote from Origen that advocates Preterism, and refutes Futurism:

"Certain persons, then, refusing the labour of thinking, and adopting a superficial view of the letter of the law, and yielding rather in some measure to the indulgence of their own desires and lusts, being disciples of the letter alone, are of opinion that the fulfilment of the promises of the future are to be looked for in bodily pleasure and luxury; and therefore they especially desire to have again, after the resurrection, such bodily structures as may never be without the power of eating, and drinking, and performing all the functions of flesh and blood, not following the opinion of the Apostle Paul regarding the resurrection of a spiritual body. And consequently they say, that after the resurrection there will be marriages, and the begetting of children, imagining to themselves that the earthly city of Jerusalem is to be rebuilt" - 2.11.2

How could Origen be a Futurist if he didn't believe in rebuilding Jerusalem?

You guys have Jesus sitting on a man made throne in a rebuilt Jerusalem.

I'll even give you the SOURCE

You really need to make up your mind regarding Origen.

You said my eschatology was from Origen:



So, how do you on one hand call me a Preterist, say my eschatology is from Origen, and then at the same time say Origen was a futurist?

And, you keep missing my point.

Origen was not a Preterist. However, many things he taught are what Preterists teach. For example, he believed the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD was the fulfillment of the prophecies given by Jesus, and that the destruction was because the Jews killed Jesus.

My point was that Preterism was taught by early church fathers, even if those early church fathers weren't Preterists.

The same cannot be said about Dispensationalism. It was never taught by anyone before the year 1830.

Yo, incompetent - by your own words and quotes hereinabove; the teaching held by today's Dispensationalists "that that the earthly city of Jerusalem is to be rebuilt" was a teaching familiar to Origin.

And using your own illogic then; because some things taught by Dispensationalists today were being taught way back then means that Dispensationalism was being taught back then.

That is how incompetent you are.

Using your same illogic, a Dispy could just as easily resort to asserting that because Pseudo-Ephraim (300-600AD) depicts a Rapture of sorts(as does even earlier history); it is teaching Dispensationalism.

But you are both an incompetent, and a desperate fool.

You grasp at what little history remains as to what men taught or not; Scripture alone was never enough for you.

You...are an incompetent.

Plain and simple.

Rom. 5:8
Acts 17:11,12.

 

[tetelestai]

Yo, incompetent - by your own words and quotes hereinabove; the teaching held by today's Dispensationalists "that that the earthly city of Jerusalem is to be rebuilt" was a teaching familiar to Origin.

And using your own illogic then; because some things taught by Dispensationalists today were being taught way back then means that Dispensationalism was being taught back then.

That is how incompetent you are.

Using your same illogic, a Dispy could just as easily resort to asserting that because Pseudo-Ephraim (300-600AD) depicts a Rapture of sorts(as does even earlier history); it is teaching Dispensationalism.

But you are both an incompetent, and a desperate fool.

You grasp at what little history remains as to what men taught or not; Scripture alone was never enough for you.

You...are an incompetent.

Plain and simple.

Rom. 5:8
Acts 17:11,12.

Wrong again Danoh.

Zionism has always been taught.

What has never been taught before 1830 was the premise that God inserted a secret parenthetical dispensation, while He put Israel on "hold", then is going to rapture away all the believers in the secret parenthetical dispensation, and then pick back up with the law and Moses again with Israel.

No one taught that rubbish before 1830.

 

[tetelestai]

Scripture alone was never enough for you.

LOL.....it's you guys who base everything on the teachings of men.

All of your phrases are invented by men " the rapture", "parenthetical dispensation", "Israel's prophetic clock", "millennial reign of Christ", "church age", "age of grace", "The Great Tribulation", etc.

None of these phrases that you guys parrot over and over again are from the Bible. They didn't exist before 1830.

 

[tetelestai]

Those who have faith in Christ Jesus are the Israel of God.

There is no separation of Israel and the church.

 

[Danoh]

Wrong again Danoh.

Zionism has always been taught.

What has never been taught before 1830 was the premise that God inserted a secret parenthetical dispensation, while He put Israel on "hold", then is going to rapture away all the believers in the secret parenthetical dispensation, and then pick back up with the law and Moses again with Israel.

No one taught that rubbish before 1830.

My point, you incompetent; is that Scripture alone should suffice.

It does not for you.

And typical of your kind's myopia (regardless of school of "thought"); you project your over relying on external sources as being the practice of anyone who does not hold your fool views.

Further; by the incompetence of Preterism: it's ever having to seek out some sort of evidence outside the Scripture - Preterism is Watch Tower teaching: they also hold the Lord returned and that the 144,000 were "raptured."

Rom. 5:8
Acts 17:11,12

 

[whitestone]

In the source you gave principles 2 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04122.htm scroll down to 11.6 and notice what The school of Alexandria does they set the saints who are dead "some place on earth,paradise a sort of school for souls" and compare it to Paul 1 Corinthians 15:52 KJV as to in a twinkling of an eye" and notice what they had to do to achieve their manner of thinking because one says in a twinkling of an eye while which they also needed to explain away because they rejected the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

 

[tetelestai]

Further; by the incompetence of Preterism: it's ever having to seek out some sort of evidence outside the Scripture

There are dozens, upon dozens of scripture that confirm Preterism.

One verse by itself, confirms it (Matt 24:34)

You can't stand that the writings of Josephus confirm Preterism. It drives you crazy.

Moreover, when I give you scripture, such as Gen 48:19, you ignore it.

To date, not one MADist has been able to reconcile Gen 48:19 with MAD.

 

[tetelestai]

In the source you gave principles 2 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04122.htm scroll down to 11.6 and notice what The school of Alexandria does they set the saints who are dead "some place on earth,paradise a sort of school for souls" and compare it to Paul 1 Corinthians 15:52 KJV as to in a twinkling of an eye" and notice what they had to do to achieve their manner of thinking because one says in a twinkling of an eye while which they also needed to explain away because they rejected the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

What does that have to do with what we are talking about?

You brought up Origen, not me.

I have already stated that Origen wasn't a Preterist, but taught many Preterist teachings. Especially, his teachings that dealt with the destruction of 70AD, and the prophecies in the Bible that pertained to the destruction in 70AD.

Origen even quoted Josephus, to make his point that the prophecies were fulfilled in 70AD.

Because you're a Dispensationalist, you can't deal with these things, because it ruins your dispensationalism.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Those who have faith in Christ Jesus are the Israel of God.

There is no separation of Israel and the church.

:chuckle:

 

[drbrumley]

Those who have faith in Christ Jesus are the Israel of God.

There is no separation of Israel and the church.

Did the Apostle Paul have faith in the Jesus?