Interplanner
Well-known member
"God settles things with ex-wife Judai
I get the vineyard equipment.
you get the property"
--Dip-sensationalism
I get the vineyard equipment.
you get the property"
--Dip-sensationalism
ECT How D'ism wrote the divorce settlement
- Thread starter Interplanner
- Start date
Interplanner
Well-known member
Part 2:
You get the crappy workers for your property
I get just a few honest ones and a ton of new ones from other companies
You get the crappy workers for your property
I get just a few honest ones and a ton of new ones from other companies
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Your obsession groweth daily...seek help.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Those are transformational Marxist tactics. Avoid questions, impose the so-called doctrine, ridicule the opponent as mental.
This abuse of Hebrews is a huge issue to me. The fact that it is in Hebrews where you are so derailed makes it doubly sinister. OR Gal 4 for that matter.
The fact that it is all based on a guy who said the Bible doesn't make sense, after 250 years of Luther, Zwingli, Farrel, Calvin, Fox, Knox, shows it is historically ridiculous.
The fact that people like you can't explain things make you sound like prorgrammed robots with a max capability of 15 sentences. Thus the love for 'simple.'
Yours is the obsession with the property which never was the promise, Heb 11's center paragraph.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
You are one of the chief abusers, however.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Ezekiel
37:24 And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.
37:25 And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children's children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever.
37:26 Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore.
Where did the fathers dwell? Hebrews 11 does not alter Ezekiel. Yours is a problem of unbelief.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Huh?
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
:idunno:
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
"Wherein your fathers have dwelt...."
Interplanner
Well-known member
But what was promised to David was given to Christ, already. Acts 13.
We cannot read the OT directly or we miss what God has done in Christ. We must follow the NT template on the use of the OT first.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Interplanner
Well-known member
It is NOT divided, and that expression is an abuse of that verse. It's about what to tell different people in a church administratively, and not using Scripture for 'logomacheia'--worthless debate.
The Bible is not some reposit of soundbytes to make D'ism seem to be true.
The Bible is not some reposit of soundbytes to make D'ism seem to be true.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Is it okay with God if you eat pork?
Nope.
Luther's recovering for himself of the truth of the issue he had set out to solve for himself through his Bible, was and resulted in, a Dispensational Distinction.
That thing that differs between Law and Grace that soon set all Europe on fire.
The issue of faith plus works for salvation or faith, eternal salvation, and works only then following.
The fire of the Word on that issue, the fire of...
1 Corinthians 3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
It was that Dispensational Distinction between Law and Grace that destroyed or exposed before all men (with ears to hear), the RCC for the fraud it was, and still is to, this very day.
Whether he knew it or not, (where he was consistent) Luther's basic study approach had been the same one basically applied by Darby, centuries later (where he was consistent, that is).
The same one basically applied by Stam (where he was consistent).
The same one applied by STP, where he is consistent.
The same applied by me, when I am consistent.
The same one applied by you, where you are consistent.
We are all fools not to see this distinction.
ALL assertions forensically point back to the approach that resulted in them to begin with.
Always.
Being that you write screen plays, IP, which came first - the screen writers art, or the screen writers craft as a science?
Ask that of some ancient individual drawing stick figures of an animal hunt on some cave somewhere, several thousand years ago.
The fact that the craft as a science "came way later" does not negate its having existed in a much, much earlier, much more primitive form, those thousands of years earlier.
Perhaps you are simply to old now, and thus too set in the myopia through which you so obviously look at things and conclude your same old same old from.
Rom. 5: 6-8.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Danoh wrote:
Whether he knew it or not, (where he was consistent) Luther's basic study approach had been the same one basically applied by Darby, centuries later (where he was consistent, that is).
The same one basically applied by Stam (where he was consistent).
The same one applied by STP, where he is consistent.
This is a stupid thing to say because Darby started from the premise that the Bible didn't make any sense until his system came along. He didn't know he was reading the OT without the NT; he didn't know the OT was veiled and was only truly and retroactively understood in Christ.
Darby is the epitomy of coming into the Bible with a foreign system so that it makes sense. He is the epitomy of not looking for and magnifying the Bible's own self-organizing passages, which by necessity must be in the doctrinal chapters of NT letters.
Whether he knew it or not, (where he was consistent) Luther's basic study approach had been the same one basically applied by Darby, centuries later (where he was consistent, that is).
The same one basically applied by Stam (where he was consistent).
The same one applied by STP, where he is consistent.
This is a stupid thing to say because Darby started from the premise that the Bible didn't make any sense until his system came along. He didn't know he was reading the OT without the NT; he didn't know the OT was veiled and was only truly and retroactively understood in Christ.
Darby is the epitomy of coming into the Bible with a foreign system so that it makes sense. He is the epitomy of not looking for and magnifying the Bible's own self-organizing passages, which by necessity must be in the doctrinal chapters of NT letters.
Interplanner
Well-known member
The people I deal with here are not historical-grammatical method like the reformers. They do it unless it conflicts with D'ism. Then everything is trumped by D'ism.
If the normal sense of 'David foresaw the resurrection of Christ as the enthronement' conflicts with D'ism, then Acts 2:30 does not mean that.
If the normal sense of 'hoti tautan ho Theos' is anything/whatever God promised, but it conflicts with D'ism, then Acts 13:33 does not mean that and just means one promise. Which is linguistic rape, of course, but who cares.
If the normal sense of 'David foresaw the resurrection of Christ as the enthronement' conflicts with D'ism, then Acts 2:30 does not mean that.
If the normal sense of 'hoti tautan ho Theos' is anything/whatever God promised, but it conflicts with D'ism, then Acts 13:33 does not mean that and just means one promise. Which is linguistic rape, of course, but who cares.