ECT Notes on D'ism this week

[patrick jane]

the opposite of that Ktyou and STP. it's years finding ways to resolve questions of meaning of the text using tools like this:


Resource List
LUKE-ACTS AND THE COVENANT REVOLT
Marcus Sanford 1984

Lexical, reference and commentary:

_____. The Jewish Encyclopedia.
Brown. New Int’l Dictionary of NT Theology.
Goldingay. “The Book of Daniel; Three Issues” THEMELIOS 1977.
Kasemann. Commentary on Romans.
Kittel. Theological Dictionary of the NT.
Marshall. New Int’l Greek Text Commentary: Luke.
Same. Apostolic Preaching.
Newell. Romans.
Nineham. Mark.
Odendaal. “The Eschatological Expectations of Isaiah 40-66” Int’l Library of Biblical and Theological Studies.
Orr. Int’l Standard Bible Encyclopedia.
Taylor. Mark.
Tasker. Matthew.
Young. Daniel.





There needs to be 2-3 witnesses to establish a fact. The exact opposite is STP declaring himself an undebatable source and crapping on all commentary, not realizing he is full of D'ist commentary.

What would you do without dispensationalism?

 

[Interplanner]

What would you do without dispensationalism?

I have many interests PJ, thanks. But it is a cult that disables the spread of the apostle's teaching, which is the power of God. So I will do my best to demolish strongholds, arguments and pretentions so that all of these people will be busy with the ministry of reconciling the debt of man by being absorbed with the glory of the grace of God in the face of Christ.

There is no value to the pursuits of D'ism.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

the opposite of that Ktyou and STP. it's years finding ways to resolve questions of meaning of the text using tools like this:


Resource List
LUKE-ACTS AND THE COVENANT REVOLT
Marcus Sanford 1984

Lexical, reference and commentary:

_____. The Jewish Encyclopedia.
Brown. New Int’l Dictionary of NT Theology.
Goldingay. “The Book of Daniel; Three Issues” THEMELIOS 1977.
Kasemann. Commentary on Romans.
Kittel. Theological Dictionary of the NT.
Marshall. New Int’l Greek Text Commentary: Luke.
Same. Apostolic Preaching.
Newell. Romans.
Nineham. Mark.
Odendaal. “The Eschatological Expectations of Isaiah 40-66” Int’l Library of Biblical and Theological Studies.
Orr. Int’l Standard Bible Encyclopedia.
Taylor. Mark.
Tasker. Matthew.
Young. Daniel.





There needs to be 2-3 witnesses to establish a fact. The exact opposite is STP declaring himself an undebatable source and crapping on all commentary, not realizing he is full of D'ist commentary.

:rotfl:

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

I have many interests PJ, thanks.

Do you like Australian Rules Football? Or ping pong?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

There is no value to the pursuits of D'ism.

Yes, believing that God meant exactly what he said, to who he said it, has no value in your eyes.
We know that.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

In STP's world 7x70 = 497, so hang on folks, it's a rough ride.

Not very 'sacred' numero-symbology either.

Made up.

Why are the weeks grouped as 7,62,1?

 

[Right Divider]

He's into make up.

Your attempts at humor are as bad as your knowledge of the Bible.

 

[Interplanner]

The way to understand a person is to see what he frequently criticizes, and how. His world is made up.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

The way to understand a person is to see what he frequently criticizes, and how. His world is made up.

You made that up.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

The way to understand a person is to see what he frequently criticizes, and how. .

You must be a dispy, then.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Your attempts at humor are as bad as your knowledge of the Bible.

I actually feel sorry for him when he tries to be cute.

 

[Right Divider]

I actually feel sorry for him when he tries to be cute.

I feel sorry for us every time that he posts.

 

[Tambora]

IP takes so little of the Bible at it's word.

 

[Danoh]

:rotfl:

hah - your laugh is as much on you as it is on him.

Just one of the books on that excellent list of external resources - when not OVER relied on - is the book by William R. Newell, one of the best commentaries yet written on Romans to this day - from a highly Pauline Dispensational perspective (though still relying a bit on the Acts 2 Perspective).

https://www.bereanbiblesociety.org/...ther-authors/paperback-romans-verse-by-verse/

Newell also wrote the great little booklet " Peter vs Paul."

https://www.bereanbiblesociety.org/...rks-by-other-authors/paperback-paul-vs-peter/

Rom. 5:8

 

[Tambora]

I feel sorry for us every time that he posts.

In August alone, he started at least 17 threads against dispies.

 

[steko]

In August alone, he started at least 17 threads against dispies.

On th' flip side it implies that he is partial to dispies.

 

[Right Divider]

In August alone, he started at least 17 threads against dispies.

Clearly a case of OCD.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Clearly a case of OCD.

:rotfl:

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Your attempts at humor are as bad as your knowledge of the Bible.

Interplanner on the weekends? {I'm plugging in to his "makeup" reference)

 

[Interplanner]

IP takes so little of the Bible at it's word.

D'ism presses so much onto the Bible that is not there, it makes me puke.

The four core doctrines of the apostles say so much about all these things that your club is pretty much speechless and evasive. They are exactly at its word. And each time (maybe not on #1 God was in Christ) there is this huge uproar about some kind of reading disorder!

There is nothing worse in the interpretive world than listening to D'ists handle Amos 9 in Acts 15. They bend over upsidedownover to make it meaningless--I mean to make the ACTUAL COUNCIL SITUATION meaningless, not just Amos 9. The apostles found a solution and said it was in Amos and said it was known to be coming for long ages. That is taking Amos at his word.