SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Sheer Breenism, wouldn't you say?
ECT 8 Things that sink D'ism
- Thread starter Interplanner
- Start date
Sheer Breenism, wouldn't you say?
Through the Fracturization Principle. Get with the mission, RD!
With a touch of 3 point Hobart Tucker-ism, Boslo.
Right Divider
Body part
Oh contraire, john w....
We must practice the Total Mashism Principle (TM) if we want to agree with IPism and the mission control.
Interplanner
Well-known member
That is exactly how the council used it. Sorry to burst your tidy bubble.
The expression is used to confirm (as it is written) that the Gentiles would believe the Gospel.
I have asked all of you if 'at first' (v14) is somehow supposed to mean as far back as Gen 12 or 3 and you have said nothing. The normal meaning in this situation (trying to resolve what Gentiles should do) is that Peter was referring to his experience with Cornelius.
There aren't any other things to assign the expression to.
Interplanner
Well-known member
D'ism is not even a concept until the actual problems of another awakening of Jews was going to be considered as Murray, Beza, etc thought in the 1600s. See Danoh's thread. It was AFTER trying to sort that out again as though it would be future, that the whole idea of a cluster of events was imagined to take place. That is how Mt24A etc started to be ripped from the 1st century Judea and futurized. That is how knowledge of the Jewish Revolt was buried by these same people haggling over future events.
What I have not seen yet is where the European Jews who got interested in their land again got interested for Christian reason. Everything I've read is simply OT/traditional/sacred grounds kinds of reasons which are not Christian--in Christ-ian.
Interplanner
Well-known member
I assume you are talking about the disciples around the time of the confession. Are we supposed to take you seriously when you shift a discussion to someone else's personality?
Interplanner
Well-known member
That is not why it is used or what the context of James and Peter is about. Nonsense. You are unwilling to absorb what the NT says. Exactly like I have been complaining for 2 years. it's D'ism or hit the road. You will never let the text say what it means, if D'ism will collapse doing so.
Interplanner
Well-known member
did you know it was singular--Christ? But you don't know what it means to be in Christ, so it won't make any difference. btw, Greek has a collective plural and it was not used. It meant Christ.
It is not Israel the race.
Paul meant it was believers in Christ; they go on to do what he did by virtue of the basic message.
As an example of that, see 'God was in Christ, reconciling... and he has given us the ministry of reconciling...' The two are kept that close. Always.
Interplanner
Well-known member
How do you manage to deal with the passage and not the question? The question for you about Acts 2 is do you realize that David was referring to the resurrection when he saw the enthronement of christ? That is why the enthronement of Christ is the resurrection.
re amos 9.
I guess you don't know that the issue is that Amos 9 was quoted by James to show that Peter was correct about the incoming Gentiles, and that that incoming was known for ages, as far back as Gen 12. D'ism generally hates that idea because they want the incoming Gentiles to be a mystery out of nowhere when Israel failed to make Christ their ruler and administrator.
the pairs of 4 quotes:
there is no other topic than the acceptance and incoming of the Gentile believers in the 8 total quotes, and how that they are in 'Israel' as redefined back in 9:6. The quotes are the icing on the explanation.
D'ism:
I have been here 2 years. You may need to do some reading. I grew up in it and attended their Bible college in the NW. All bibles at home were Scofield Reference, more notes than text.
I explain things clearly and the local d'ists here scream their lungs out when the realize what is really going on.
Interplanner
Well-known member
The us turned out not to be Israel as such. A person had to be at work in the mission. They could be either Jew or Gentile. The person who wrote the conversation down was not Jewish. Luke.
In fact, this "us" is precisely how another identity for Israel exists. It's any people who disseminate the apostles teaching:
*God was in Christ settling man's debt
*The resurrection was proof that Christ's work justifies a sinner
*The resurrection was the enthronement David saw; every knee must bow
*The resurrection fulfills all that was promised to the fathers and directs "Israel" into the mission of Christ to the ends of the earth. That would be ANYONE with the Christian message
The cult of D'ism is tone-deaf to these 4 columns that set squarely on the Cornerstone. At least so far, they've acted as though I was saying something that the Naszca indians believed.
Last edited:
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
totally made up
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
:chuckle:
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Interplanner
Well-known member
#111 edited to include the 4 doctrines same as the core NT doctrines
Right Divider
Body part
Baloney.
Right Divider
Body part
You mean these:
Jas 1:1 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:1) James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.
1Pet 1:1 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:1) Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
Guess what? They're TARGETING the same audience and it's the TWELVE tribes of ISRAEL.
Thing is, Dispensationalism is not actually the distinction between Israel and the Body.
Ryrie was simply off on that.
Dispensationalism is actually the issue of Identities - of distinctions in Scripture between things that differ from one another.
Through time in the Scripture, Luther was made aware by the Scripture of a distinction in the Scripture between Law and Grace.
Similarly, Darby's had been the awareness through the Scripture, of the Believer's complete standing in Christ, beyond his having been justified.
It was after much time in comparing the Scriptures on that issue that he began to be made aware through the Scripture of the Israel/Body distinction.
Dispensationalism is actually the issue of the things that differ in Scripture.
A Dispensation being that which is dispensed or doled out, one finds that distinctions between things that differ are an aspect of that.
This that follows is both...is a Dispensational Distinction...is a distinction between things that differ...within that which is dispensed, or doled out.
Genesis 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Dispensationalism is about important distinctions between things that differ within that which is dispensed or doled out.
And it is often also...a distinction between various distinctions within things.
Luke 12:45 But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken; 12:46 The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. 12:47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. 12:48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more. 12:49 I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled? 12:50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!
All that is describing critical distinctions within instructions doled out, and their resulting, intended understandings.
Dispensationalism is the issue of Identities, or things that differ.
Even demons are depicted in Scripture as being aware of this principle.
Matthew 8:28 And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way. 8:29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?
No, IP, Dispensationalism is no more some later concept than Newton's Law of Gravity was, just because he described it as a governing "Law" long, long, long after, God first set said Law in motion.
Romans 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Luke 12:42 And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season? 12:43 Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. 12:44 Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath.
Nevertheless, Rom. 5:8
Hi and DISPENSATIONALIST has been written into the bible by the Holy Spirit , BEFORE TIME began as in Eph 1:4 and in 2 Tim 1:9 that many refuse to believe , and is their choice !!
You , your self refuse to explain Rom 5:13 and 14 , NEVER explain How a person is saved in the MYSTERY ,
Col 1:25 and 26 ESCAPES you !!
dan p
Interplanner
Well-known member
No, I was referring to what James and Peter said right there in Acts 15. I do not flit about the NT electronically or otherwise trying to jumble the passage in front of me.