ECT Why I Stopped Thinking Acts 3:19-21 Were Futurist

DAN P

New member
More like shooting down your sacred cows :Grizzly: :cow:


Hi and the only thing sacred to me is the bible RIGHTLY DIVIDED or Nothing will do !!

If you new about the GAP between Gen1:1 and 2 you will tells us what it is !!

You call it a Theory and look forward to your LIGHT !!

DAN P
 
Last edited:

Interplanner

New member
The expression about dividing had to do with what to say in various church leadership situations. It was not about D'ism, or had anything to do with 2P2P which is not in the Bible.

The relation between Gen 1:1 and 2 is first a literary question. Do you want to go into that? If so, make a new thread, not here. The title for this thread is in your address bar...
 

Danoh

New member
The expression about dividing had to do with what to say in various church leadership situations. It was not about D'ism, or had anything to do with 2P2P which is not in the Bible....

You have just revealed once more why you do not know of what you speak on that issue.

For you just now contradicted yourself...

You see this that you said - "The expression about dividing had to do with what to say in various church leadership situations."

What you actually said, oblivious to your having done so, is this - The expression about dividing had to do with [dividing between] what to say in various [different] church leadership situations.

You asserted the very thing you have consistently denied - that the passage is reffering to a need for a distinction between things...that differ from one another.

Talk about the bliss of ignorance to the obvious.
 

Interplanner

New member
You have just revealed once more why you do not know of what you speak on that issue.

For you just now contradicted yourself...

You see this that you said - "The expression about dividing had to do with what to say in various church leadership situations."

What you actually said, oblivious to your having done so, is this - The expression about dividing had to do with [dividing between] what to say in various [different] church leadership situations.

You asserted the very thing you have consistently denied - that the passage is reffering to a need for a distinction between things...that differ from one another.

Talk about the bliss of ignorance to the obvious.


NO, it is not about various gospels, ages, messiahs, ethnes, races.

He was talkign about the argumentative person out of Judaism. It is more likely he was speaking AGAINST division lines like D'ism cooked up.

The D'ists who made the phrase apply to doing D'ism were infected with making the Bible fit 2P2P.
 
Last edited:

Danoh

New member
No. They were attempting to make the passage fit the Dispensationalism so many other passages point to without needing to make any of them do that.

Every once in a while; try going up one more level of abstraction :chuckle:
 

Interplanner

New member
You could however, take up a real question like STP's or GM's limiting the 'shadow vs reality' of Heb 10 so that it doesn't 'touch' prophecy. lol, that's about as arbitrary and artificial as it gets. Meanwhile the PROPHECY of the new covenant is right there being exegeted by the writer right in front of their faces. So they say what they are reading their is ONLY for Jews and is about things X000 years from that time.

And because the 'set aside' language is there, they are adamant that it has not been (set aside).

Modern Bible study!
 

Danoh

New member
You could however, take up a real question like STP's or GM's limiting the 'shadow vs reality' of Heb 10 so that it doesn't 'touch' prophecy. lol, that's about as arbitrary and artificial as it gets. Meanwhile the PROPHECY of the new covenant is right there being exegeted by the writer right in front of their faces. So they say what they are reading their is ONLY for Jews and is about things X000 years from that time.

And because the 'set aside' language is there, they are adamant that it has not been (set aside).

Modern Bible study!

Again, bro - Every once in a while; try going up one more level of abstraction...
 

Interplanner

New member
No. They were attempting to make the passage fit the Dispensationalism so many other passages point to without needing to make any of them do that.

Every once in a while; try going up one more level of abstraction :chuckle:


My apology: I had a domestic topic list in mind, from I Tim 4. I edited the above post. No, in 'rightly handle' he was more likely speaking against rancid Judaism which thought up divisions like D'ism. And avoiding them.

The other passages that organize the major themes of the Bible do have a scheme to them ,but it is not 2P2P and I don't understand why you can't see that. They do not go that direction, they do not break your brain trying to have things go multi directions at once. They are harmonious, unified, coherent. And like 2 Tim 2:8 JUST SAID: the resurrection and the enthronement on David's throne ARE THE SAME THING!!!

That's just 10 verses back. But so 'awful' that the average Judaizer wanted to destroy it by arguing, arguing, arguing about terminology.
 

TweetyBird

New member
Hi and the only thing sacred to me is the bible RIGHTLY DIVIDED or Notihng will do !!

If you new about the GAP between Gen1:1 and 2 you will tells us what it is !!

You call it a Theory and look forward to your LIGHT !!

DAN P

It's not my theory. I think it's stupid. :kookoo:
 

DAN P

New member
It's not my theory. I think it's stupid. :kookoo:


Hi and just prove it STUPID and you say it si just a Theory , should be easy for you !!

I do not debate Gen 1:1-2 , because I will have to study up a STUPID THEORY !!

So try if you want to AND stop calling it STUPID

dan p
 

TweetyBird

New member
Hi and just prove it STUPID and you say it si just a Theory , should be easy for you !!

I do not debate Gen 1:1-2 , because I will have to study up a STUPID THEORY !!

So try if you want to AND stop calling it STUPID

dan p

It's stupid. I can say it again if you want, or maybe you would prefer, ignorant? :dunce: I don't want to talk about it either. You seem to have an affinity for Gap theories, so have fun with it.
 

DAN P

New member
It's stupid. I can say it again if you want, or maybe you would prefer, ignorant? :dunce: I don't want to talk about it either. You seem to have an affinity for Gap theories, so have fun with it.


Hi and I mentioned all the Gaps in the bible OFF the top of my head and then you were the one who called it STUPID , and since you can debate it YOUR STUPID is STUPID , there that looks better !!

It looks like the Interplanner more than what you call STUPID !!

dan p
 
Top