Not one verse posted in your "explanation". You only tried to say it doesn't mean what it says.
ECT If you want out of the deceptions of MAD read the rebuttal of Bullinger by Ironside.
- Thread starter dodge
- Start date
- Status
Not one verse posted in your "explanation". You only tried to say it doesn't mean what it says.
You need to be more like Tet, and get on board with "drive by media" disinformation campaign.
And you have yet to prove you ever actually learned the very basics of arriving at, and or communicating intended sense or meaning...through the proper reading and or use of words...by how they are used.
Those are neither Darby, nor Bullinger quotes; you incompetent.
They are Tet quotes.
You remain as obtuse as you have always proven yourself being.
A :chuckle: AT your language "skills."
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
The Danohianic Principle seems rather vague. Can you be more specific?
Interplanner
Well-known member
It's the system in the intertestament period and on into the NT period with its desperation to perform for God to prevent another exile. By doing what the ceremonial and dietary and sabbath law said, Israel would be insured its place. It had an eschatology as well. But the promise of the land eclipsed the other important thing (the suffering Messiah) and suffocated it. Even today, it is still said that the trinity of Judaism is 'Elohim--torah--eretz Israel.'
To find the features as the setting of the NT opens, just notice the anticipation for a permanent monarchy, the many verses about what they thought the law said, like Jn 12:34, and Paul's own reflective comments about growing up in it, like Phil 3, or 'his former way of life in Judaism' in Gal 2, Acts 24, 26.
In its worst form (enforced violently) there are the zealots. They accepted back during the Tiberius census that they would have to fight for 'eretz Israel.' They were mostly in Galilee, and differed sharply on this with the upper classes of Jerusalem who were happy to 'rent sacred space' from Rome even though, to Rome, that meant that they worshiped their deified man (emperor) as well. The zealots could not accept this, and the temple was ipso facto defiled for doing so.
And then there are those declarations about it later as being/seeing veiled rather than seeing the OT in Christ. People who do that confuse Heb 8 with the land promise. What he meant is explained quite well in chs 9-10, but if you are stuck in the mindset of Judaism, you will not see what chs 9-10 say. You will only see a land promise, and you will truncate the new covenant to be about something only happening in Israel, about Israel.
Interplanner
Well-known member
There's always the chance that the 12 or even the 70 started well but drifted toward monarchism or miracle-Messiasm. Both of those show themselves before the Confession/Transfiguration, when the declaration by Jesus was so shocking that they didn't absorb it.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
More amateur psychology.....thanks Dr Phil.
What makes you think I am talking to you? Imbecile....
They are. It is called purging, to keep the server working faster. Those are all one time posts of yours. Let me show you how, by changing the quote tag.
And because you have to be such a retard, let me show others just how stupid you are.
If you're going to quote me (or anyone else) do it the correct way. That way people can see the context of the post.
And, the server will not slow down by doing so.
I never said you were, o clueless one as to basic rules of grammar for communicating and or understanding intended meaning - through - HOW- words - are - used - WHERE- they - are - found - being - used.
That slow enough for ya?
Fact is, I was addressing the very incompetence you have just now once more demonstrated :chuckle:
To you, obviously.
For I stated what I was referring to.
And that it'd be Danoist - a compound word (a word comprised of aspects of two or more words).
Just as your other poor use of rules of grammar end you up at writing "dodgeism" rather then the sound "dodge-ism," and or "dodgism."
Dear Brother, Google yourself a "Basic Rules of Grammar pdf" already :chuckle:
And then start with the various uses of a simple phrase like Acts 15:11's "shall be"
Like when I quoted you, when you asserted that you follow "infallable men," or that you follow Paul, and thus, that you are an anti-Semite,a Jew hater, sweetie? Want to see your own words, and the link, and "the context," admitted Catholic/Jew hater/anti-Semite?
No, you don't, little arms/chin weasel.
Go ahead, you don't know how to quote....LOL
That's it, admitted sodomite, infidel? Want to see your exact words, link, where you admitted, since you allegedly, follow Paul, and no one else does, that you are an admitted anti-Semite, and thus Jew hater?
Will you leave TOL, if I can provide you the link, "un purged?"
Go ahead, weasel Craigie-accept my challenge. Show some vertebrae/backbone, for a change, you wimp/weasel?
You won't.
And you don't know how to quote, and spell "the English grammer(your words)," and any "the Greek," you greasy, no chin weasel.
"LOL," eh, Craigie? That's real cute, wimp. And you are going to spam, "The Greek says................," on TOL? Flap those shoes, Craigie the Preterist clown, fraud.
And get a job, if you really do follow Paul, as you claim.
Want to see your exact words, link, where you admitted, since you allegedly, follow Paul, and no one else does, that you are an admitted anti-Semite, and thus Jew hater?
- Status