"If D'ism has a different eschatology than Judaism had 2000 years go"
This is the scriptural eschatology, the true eschatology.
I don't know what D'ism is, it's not scriptural.
And you are not the only one on TOL who does not believe scripture.
ECT Request for Clarity about Judaism and D'ism
- Thread starter Interplanner
- Start date
- Status
"If D'ism has a different eschatology than Judaism had 2000 years go"
This is the scriptural eschatology, the true eschatology.
I don't know what D'ism is, it's not scriptural.
And you are not the only one on TOL who does not believe scripture.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Jamie, I think you've mistaken some players in the picture:
D'ism is Dispensationalism. That is the belief that there are two programs in the Bible, one for Israel the race, and one for believers by faith. D'ism does not believe that the one for Israel drops out of the picture. As you might guess, it is extremely close to Judaism itself.
The eschatology that Judaism had 2000 years ago is not the truth. The NT is quite different. A new order or reformation of all things took place, says heb 9-10, and obviously from that passage you can see that Judaism's role is not retained by Christian faith; there is conflict.
Or you can check places like Jn 12:34. The Law = Judaism. It thought a kingdom was coming forever. But Paul says that that view is veiled and that only in Christ do we truly grasp what the OT was saying.
To be clear, as you may have seen from many posts here, D'ists like RD, STP, PJ, Musterion, Tam, don't believe that 'in Christ' is a doctrine or concept that shifts anything in the NT. They retain Judaism in many ways and things. STP said this week that "believers" in the old covenant have an eternal place like Christians do! So they end up saying there are other ways to be saved, or that 'saved' means many things, all to avoid conflict with Judaism, which, you must see, is not how the early church did things.
what on earth does your last line mean? You say you don't believe D'ism. You have been talking about a D'ist eschatology and since I don't accept it you say I don't believe scripture.
I believe in dispensations. Scripture says there are three.
1) the world that then was, 2) this present evil age, 3) the world to come.
In post 19 you said, "But I can't accept another 1000 years after a 7th day even if I believed that. We are in christ's sabbath right now, through faith in the Gospel, see Hebrews."
What you said is not scriptural.
Interplanner
Well-known member
The previous dispensation that matters was the Law, not the pre-flood world, if that's what you meant. (There are a few lines in Rom 5 where that world matters, but not much). The previous/law dispensation is what is meant in Gal 3-4, Eph 1.
On Christ's sabbath from 'work': Heb 4, that's the only topic there in that chapter.
Most of the NT is written with the post-exilic Judaism as the background. Law usually means that kind of Judaism, and the old covenant is usually that kind of mistakes and misconceptions that it had, for ex., that God dealt with the race not with those who have faith; cp Jn 1:12. But there are many passages where Paul explains that as well. It never was to be about one race; post-exile Judaism thought so, however. D'ism shares that view and has turned the Bible into a two-headed puzzle.
On Christ's sabbath from 'work': Heb 4, that's the only topic there in that chapter.
Most of the NT is written with the post-exilic Judaism as the background. Law usually means that kind of Judaism, and the old covenant is usually that kind of mistakes and misconceptions that it had, for ex., that God dealt with the race not with those who have faith; cp Jn 1:12. But there are many passages where Paul explains that as well. It never was to be about one race; post-exile Judaism thought so, however. D'ism shares that view and has turned the Bible into a two-headed puzzle.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Too bad God did not consult you first.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Jamie,
going back to your first comment here, it is still a bit confusing. Could you re-read and see if it how you meant to say?
Who said there are? We tell you there isn't. You are one blithering idiot.
They don't have the same benefits, but there is one giant overlapping thing that binds us together. Eternal life with Christ.
Last edited:
Interplanner
Well-known member
STP, RD, Steko, Tam and Must say that first one just about every day. STP is slightly more detailed in having three kinds of "believers" with three kinds of benefits in 3 locations.
Corresponding to that is the beliefs about the letters. They've got the NT chopped into various compartmented messages. They hit the ceiling if you say Paul used a temple analogy or Peter said that we believers are a kingdom of priests, because it ruins their artificial categories which "made sense" of the Bible.
Their thinking is so much muck that it is very possible they have never heard any feedback about what they sound like or how contradictory it is.
There is incessant denial about what Gal 3 means, or Acts 13, or 26, or Heb 9-10, or even that the gospels and both Corinthians refer to the current new covenant ministry--all because it would bust D'ism if they agreed.
But as the OP says, the main question is: do they realize they are doing what Judaism did, and actually come down on the side of Judaism most of the time?
That's why it was so strange when PJ gave his corny 'well (there's no conflict, really), those people in Judaism just didn't 'accept Christ as personal Lord and Savior.' Talk about pounding history to smithereens with 20th century soundbytes!
Scripture defines three dispensations (three different periods in history).
However, people can add as many as suits them, and do.
It doesn't change what is stated in scripture.
The OT was about Israel, the NT is about converted Israel.
Two different periods.
Pre-evangelism and evangelism.
The first period pointed towards Golgotha and the acceptable sacrifice. The second was the reaping of the benefits of the sacrifice.
In the OT everything points symbolically, poetically, prophetically, historically and from the Torah to a single event.
In the NT we have the confirmation and coming fulfillment.
Pre-evangelism and evangelism.
The first period pointed towards Golgotha and the acceptable sacrifice. The second was the reaping of the benefits of the sacrifice.
In the OT everything points symbolically, poetically, prophetically, historically and from the Torah to a single event.
In the NT we have the confirmation and coming fulfillment.
Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
Ought not Messiah to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
Ought not Messiah to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
Hi and testing me again ??
Acts 8:1 says that the apostles stayed in Jerusalem and the rest were scattered !!
dan p
No, that's just you - repeatedly proving you not only never understood, and still do not understand even the simplest of the very basics of Dispensationalism, but do not understand what various Dispys on here post in response to your various incompetencies.
Give up the farce already, Interplanner.
Nevertheless, Rom. 5:8 towards you and yours.
So the apostles didn't stay forever in Jerusalem, did they?
They do no such thing. Go and quote them.
- Status