ECT Return to the Land belief in 18th century London

Interplanner

New member
Here's an item recently found in research on Thomas Paine. In London in 1793, David Levi, who was a Anglo-Jewish scholar was alarmed at things Paine wrote in AGE OF REASON because of the following beliefs: that the American and French Revolutions were divine acts of God, and that he (Levi) believed that Jews would return to their land and a triumphant Messiah would appear.

There is no information in the one-line reference to this as to whether there was a connection to Darby. Levi was concerned at the wholesale incrimination of the OT. But it does illustrate something to me: that even outside the modern period Jews have treated the OT as literally as today and think that it's direction is toward a return to their land and a triumphant Messiah (presumed against enemy nations).
 

Danoh

New member
Here's an item recently found in research on Thomas Paine. In London in 1793, David Levi, who was a Anglo-Jewish scholar was alarmed at things Paine wrote in AGE OF REASON because of the following beliefs: that the American and French Revolutions were divine acts of God, and that he (Levi) believed that Jews would return to their land and a triumphant Messiah would appear.

There is no information in the one-line reference to this as to whether there was a connection to Darby. Levi was concerned at the wholesale incrimination of the OT. But it does illustrate something to me: that even outside the modern period Jews have treated the OT as literally as today and think that it's direction is toward a return to their land and a triumphant Messiah (presumed against enemy nations).

There wouldn't be a connection to Darby :chuckle:

Because J. N. Darby was born seven years later; you incompetent "historian."

Duh and uh - big time! :rotfl:

Just goes to show why you are in unbelief - your denial of the fact consistently proven by you that you are simply not suited to this "doing" of "the history" of a thing you are forever deluding yourself into thinking you are good at.

You are NOT a historian.

Even in your reading "about" a thing in "the history" you read INTO it.

What you serve up is sloppy...seconds.

Sloppy...sloppy...sloppy :crackup:
 

Interplanner

New member
There wouldn't be a connection to Darby :chuckle:

Because J. N. Darby was born seven years later; you incompetent "historian."

Duh and uh - big time! :rotfl:

Just goes to show why you are in unbelief - your denial of the fact consistently proven by you that you are simply not suited to this "doing" of "the history" of a thing you are forever deluding yourself into thinking you are good at.

You are NOT a historian.

Even in your reading "about" a thing in "the history" you read INTO it.

What you serve up is sloppy...seconds.

Sloppy...sloppy...sloppy :crackup:



That would be true if Darby was the first Brethren guy EVER. I don't know that circle well enough. The fact is that there were plenty of people in the era who were rather tired of this kind of belief and all the turmoil it generated.

btw, the implication of what you just said about him is that you just "intuit" that he was 7 years later because books to you are as taboo as porn. You just said you don't read any books about things, so where else would you get it? From Abraham Lincoln's quote about the internet?
 

Danoh

New member
That would be true if Darby was the first Brethren guy EVER. I don't know that circle well enough. The fact is that there were plenty of people in the era who were rather tired of this kind of belief and all the turmoil it generated.

btw, the implication of what you just said about him is that you just "intuit" that he was 7 years later because books to you are as taboo as porn. You just said you don't read any books about things, so where else would you get it? From Abraham Lincoln's quote about the internet?

Rotfl

I have NEVER said I do not read books.

I have ALWAYS said one should NOT OVER RELY on them FOR and or AS one's OWN reasoning.

You have proven ONCE MORE my very argument.

You can't get through another's intended sense even when said other repeatedly feeds it to you - as I have repeatedly done as to what I have meant about an OVER RELIANCE ON books "about" FOR and or AS one's OWN reasoning.

Now...either you are dishonest or incompetent as to my INTENDED sense.

For THIS is NOT the FIRST time I have CORRECTED you on this FALSE charge of YOURS.

As WELL as I HAVE CONSISTENTLY PROVEN my being MORE THAN ABLE to read YOUR INTENDED sense in YOUR posts, I'd say yours is JUST PLAIN OLD INCOMPETENCE on YOUR part, ONCE MORE :crackup:
 

Interplanner

New member
Rotfl

I have NEVER said I do not read books.

I have ALWAYS said one should NOT OVER RELY on them FOR and or AS one's OWN reasoning.

You have proven ONCE MORE my very argument.

You can't get through another's intended sense even when said other repeatedly feeds it to you - as I have repeatedly done as to what I have meant about an OVER RELIANCE ON books "about" FOR and or AS one's OWN reasoning.

Now...either you are dishonest or incompetent as to my INTENDED sense.

For THIS is NOT the FIRST time I have CORRECTED you on this FALSE charge of YOURS.

As WELL as I HAVE CONSISTENTLY PROVEN my being MORE THAN ABLE to read YOUR INTENDED sense in YOUR posts, I'd say yours is JUST PLAIN OLD INCOMPETENCE on YOUR part, ONCE MORE :crackup:



I don't know what you are so defensive and high-strung about but it is rather sickening.

Just because Darby was born a bit later does not mean there weren't other winds thinking this same way; my point was that people have 'done Judaism' a lot down through time. (One of the Crusades was trying to do the prep work for a theocracy since the 1000 year mark of AD was coming...) Darwin's father was already at work on evolution before Darwin. So what? I understand it's actually from Bhuddism anyway.

You never get the point, you never give the benefit of the doubt, you are insecure, you only look for a point to score. It's disgusting.
 

Danoh

New member
I don't know what you are so defensive and high-strung about but it is rather sickening.

Just because Darby was born a bit later does not mean there weren't other winds thinking this same way; my point was that people have 'done Judaism' a lot down through time. (One of the Crusades was trying to do the prep work for a theocracy since the 1000 year mark of AD was coming...) Darwin's father was already at work on evolution before Darwin. So what? I understand it's actually from Bhuddism anyway.

You never get the point, you never give the benefit of the doubt, you are insecure, you only look for a point to score. It's disgusting.

No, knucklehead.

Were I being defensive, insecure, or what ever else YOU read into my words, I would not have the wrath of some of the MADS on here for my CONSISTENT defense of YOUR right to YOUR say.

Come on, IP, quit reading INTO a thing.

Oy...and...vay!!!

:crackup:
 

Interplanner

New member
No, knucklehead.

Were I being defensive, insecure, or what ever else YOU read into my words, I would not have the wrath of some of the MADS on here for my CONSISTENT defense of YOUR right to YOUR say.

Come on, IP, quit reading INTO a thing.

Oy...and...vay!!!

:crackup:


But if you were a calm person, you would have said something about whether, doctrinally, believers 'need' to see something happen in Israel. That person did because he was reading the OT as Judaism always has. Other Jewish groups did so throughout northern Europe in the 19th century. The mistaken thing today is that the Bible prophecy people think they are using it rightly when they do that.

That means they think the Crusades were using it rightly then, as well (not the battles perhaps but the 'necessity' of being there; some of them believed there would be intervention from God like in the OT to save them from very much battle).
 

Danoh

New member
Given how many times I have said that most who hold to a MAD Perspective do NOT view THROUGH IT that what is going on in the Middle East today is a fulfillment of Prophecy...

Given how OFTEN I have pointed this out to your deaf ears - to - no - avail - what is the point in doing so again?

Most MADs hold that Grace is UNconditional.

Meaning that NOTHING has to happen or not...for God to bless His people during this AGE of His Grace - IN - HIS - SON - THIS - SIDE - OF - ISRAEL'S - TEMPORARY - HARDENING.

Israel was hardened BASED ON A CONDITION.

And there ISN'T ONE...NOW.

There ISN'T a CONDITION...now.

1948 was no more God's INTERVENTION than 70AD was.

The Crusaders WERE; the Preterists ARE; the Acts TWO Dispys ARE...and YOU ARE...WRONG.

Just as is ANY MAD would be, who might hold to 1948 as God's intervention.

The PROPHETIC Aspect of His TWO-Fold PURPOSE IS CONDITIONAL...

The MYSTERY Aspect is...NOT.

In Acts 3:19, a CONDITION is stressed ON MAN.

In Romans 11:25 the condition is GOD'S - ON HIMSELF.
 

SaulToPaul

New member
Silver Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Here's an item recently found in research on Thomas Paine. In London in 1793, David Levi, who was a Anglo-Jewish scholar was alarmed at things Paine wrote in AGE OF REASON because of the following beliefs: that the American and French Revolutions were divine acts of God, and that he (Levi) believed that Jews would return to their land and a triumphant Messiah would appear.

There is no information in the one-line reference to this as to whether there was a connection to Darby. Levi was concerned at the wholesale incrimination of the OT. But it does illustrate something to me: that even outside the modern period Jews have treated the OT as literally as today and think that it's direction is toward a return to their land and a triumphant Messiah (presumed against enemy nations).

We must cogently deny such allegations of the London bridge falling down, and circumspectly focus on the NHNE event, and Sanford & Son reruns, wherein the righteousness of God is put on display as in Mt24A and Eph 2B, propelling us forward and no longer looking back to turn into the proverbial pillar of salt. Agreed?
 

Interplanner

New member
Danoh wrote:
1948 was no more God's INTERVENTION than 70AD was.


That's ridiculous about 70 AD. You'll never understand unless you delete that stilt from your view. It's in Daniel, other prophets, Christ and Paul.
 

Interplanner

New member
We must cogently deny such allegations of the London bridge falling down, and circumspectly focus on the NHNE event, and Sanford & Son reruns, wherein the righteousness of God is put on display as in Mt24A and Eph 2B, propelling us forward and no longer looking back to turn into the proverbial pillar of salt. Agreed?


Grow up.
 

whitestone

Well-known member
Given how many times I have said that most who hold to a MAD Perspective do NOT view THROUGH IT that what is going on in the Middle East today is a fulfillment of Prophecy...

Given how OFTEN I have pointed this out to your deaf ears - to - no - avail - what is the point in doing so again?

Most MADs hold that Grace is UNconditional.

Meaning that NOTHING has to happen or not...for God to bless His people during this AGE of His Grace - IN - HIS - SON - THIS - SIDE - OF - ISRAEL'S - TEMPORARY - HARDENING.

Israel was hardened BASED ON A CONDITION.

And there ISN'T ONE...NOW.

There ISN'T a CONDITION...now.

1948 was no more God's INTERVENTION than 70AD was.

The Crusaders WERE; the Preterists ARE; the Acts TWO Dispys ARE...and YOU ARE...WRONG.

Just as is ANY MAD would be, who might hold to 1948 as God's intervention.

The PROPHETIC Aspect of His TWO-Fold PURPOSE IS CONDITIONAL...

The MYSTERY Aspect is...NOT.

In Acts 3:19, a CONDITION is stressed ON MAN.

In Romans 11:25 the condition is GOD'S - ON HIMSELF.


I agree to the way you have worded this.
I think that I might be an elephant in the room on the issue of 1948 though so I should explain this more in depth.

The nation created in 1948 (if) it is the kingdom on earth created by (God's intervention) then should have been surrounded by other scriptural events (Christ return, 1'st resurrection,caught up ect.) but those events are not preceding the formation of the state of Israel in 1948.

On the other hand though can Gods kingdom be set up on earth and then "afterward" the kingdom that the beast rises up in unfold? To word it another way if the beast and the false prophet are cast into the lake of fire burning with brimstone Revelation 19:20 KJV and then after this the mill.kingdom then the beast must then rise first.

Now every detail of these events are captive to one another(temporary hardening) comes to mind because as of 2016 this seems to be ongoing.

So when the beast rises who would believe he is either Christ returned(Christians) or the promised Messiah(Judaism) if there is no nation called Israel? If he is to stand in the Holy place and say he is God,then an temple would need be built first? So what would the beast kingdom look like and be called if the intention is to deceive the world,Israel?

I say this because of the things I have said in other threads about 1948 which might to some see me as an "48'er",lol which I am not. If,this is an event "permitted by God"(1948) then it may be that that beast is about to rise(letteth),and then those events that follow afterward will unfold. I don't see 1948 as the kingdom on earth that we expect,but that it very well may be that "other" one that deceives rising as an image of Gods kingdom.
 

SaulToPaul

New member
Silver Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Danoh wrote:
1948 was no more God's INTERVENTION than 70AD was.


That's ridiculous about 70 AD. You'll never understand unless you delete that stilt from your view. It's in Daniel, other prophets, Christ and Paul.

Do you think Fred was correct in his assessment that Lamont was a "big dummy"?
 

Danoh

New member
I agree to the way you have worded this.
I think that I might be an elephant in the room on the issue of 1948 though so I should explain this more in depth.

The nation created in 1948 (if) it is the kingdom on earth created by (God's intervention) then should have been surrounded by other scriptural events (Christ return, 1'st resurrection,caught up ect.) but those events are not preceding the formation of the state of Israel in 1948.

On the other hand though can Gods kingdom be set up on earth and then "afterward" the kingdom that the beast rises up in unfold? To word it another way if the beast and the false prophet are cast into the lake of fire burning with brimstone Revelation 19:20 KJV and then after this the mill.kingdom then the beast must then rise first.

Now every detail of these events are captive to one another(temporary hardening) comes to mind because as of 2016 this seems to be ongoing.

So when the beast rises who would believe he is either Christ returned(Christians) or the promised Messiah(Judaism) if there is no nation called Israel? If he is to stand in the Holy place and say he is God,then an temple would need be built first? So what would the beast kingdom look like and be called if the intention is to deceive the world,Israel?

I say this because of the things I have said in other threads about 1948 which might to some see me as an "48'er",lol which I am not. If,this is an event "permitted by God"(1948) then it may be that that beast is about to rise(letteth),and then those events that follow afterward will unfold. I don't see 1948 as the kingdom on earth that we expect,but that it very well may be that "other" one that deceives rising as an image of Gods kingdom.

Some thoughts you might consider...

Where was your above possibility all those centuries prior to 1948?

Said centuries being within this...sign-less...Mystery Age.

To look to signs for that kind of a thing during this...sign-less...Mystery Age..is inconsistent with this...sign-less...Mystery Age.

There is ever the need to be willing to examine just where one is actually looking at a thing from...in contrast to where one only thinks - or worse - only asserts - one is looking at a thing from.
 

Danoh

New member
Do you think Fred was correct in his assessment that Lamont was a "big dummy"?

Lamont was never one unwilling to hear what he needed to.

Due to that, his father: in his one-sided duplicity...concluded him the dummy, and Esther: who was ever direct with him; his enemy.

As humorous as that was; it was humorous because we can all relate to having known someone as duplicitously one-sided, my way alone, or the highway, as Fred was.

People who, the moment a thing is pointed out to them; immediately conclude one their enemy.

I'm not really sure who is worse - those who are like that; or those who actually appear to condone such one sided duplicity.

The stuff of comedy...the stuff of life...too often...ignored.

:)
 

SaulToPaul

New member
Silver Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Lamont was never one unwilling to hear what he needed to.

Due to that, his father: in his one-sided duplicity...concluded him the dummy, and Esther: who was ever direct with him; his enemy.

As humorous as that was; it was humorous because we can all relate to having known someone as duplicitously one-sided, my way alone, or the highway, as Fred was.

People who, the moment a thing is pointed out to them; immediately conclude one their enemy.

I'm not really sure who is worse - those who are like that; or those who actually appear to condone such one sided duplicity.

The stuff of comedy...the stuff of life...too often...ignored.

:)

What is your assessment of Grady and Raul?
 

Danoh

New member
What is your assessment of Grady and Raul?

Grady just went along with whomever.

At the same time, he had a way with Fred when he needed to.

Raul was just busy livin his life..much like Rolo.

In the end, they each had their way towards making Fred come around.

Fred was one guilt prone individual, lol.

Great, great show. Funny as all heck :chuckle:
 

SaulToPaul

New member
Silver Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Grady just went along with whomever.

At the same time, he had a way with Fred when he needed to.

Raul was just busy livin his life..much like Rolo.

In the end, they each had their way towards making Fred come around.

Fred was one guilt prone individual, lol.

Great, great show. Funny as all heck :chuckle:

Didn't Fred have a long lost son, Marcus?
 
Top