- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Dispensationalism is a Heresy
Posted on 8/20/25 at 7:16 am to Champagne
Posted on 8/20/25 at 7:16 am to Champagne
quote:
I am a very strong supporter of the State of Israel, but, not because of my religion. I strongly support Israel because they are surrounded by Islamic nations, and, Islamic nations are dangerous, violent, unpredictable and very often do the Devil's Own Work.
totally agree Aside from the USA, Israel is my most favorite nation in terms of political issues. Poland and Hungary may be my next most favorites.
GB and France have fallen out of my favored nations list because of their drifting toward muslim ideology.
As far as populations go, I am deeply in sympathy with the Russian people. But their leadership is failing them badly - and they seemingly have no recourse other than physical rebellion - in which they have no hope of success.
0
Posted on 8/20/25 at 7:21 am to Canon951
quote:
In the context of the passage, "it" is referring to the object of the sentence which is the "rock".
No. "It" is referring to Christ's Church.
quote:
If you are irreligious why are you even in this thread?
Uh, what the hell is this supposed to mean?
Posted on 8/20/25 at 7:31 am to Mo Jeaux
You are correct. I told you I haven't had my coffee yet this morning. lol
But to my other question. Why come to a religious thread if you are irreligious? Do you seek to learn?
I don't read threads that have titles that don't interest me.
But to my other question. Why come to a religious thread if you are irreligious? Do you seek to learn?
I don't read threads that have titles that don't interest me.
This post was edited on 8/20/25 at 7:34 am
Posted on 8/20/25 at 7:40 am to Canon951
quote:
But to my other question. Why come to a religious thread if you are irreligious? Do you seek to learn?
The US relationship with Israel is a political issue.
Posted on 8/20/25 at 7:44 am to Canon951
quote:
But to my other question. Why come to a religious thread if you are irreligious? Do you seek to learn?
I don't read threads that have titles that don't interest me.
Why do you assume that an irreligious person isn't interested in religion? I love studying about and discussing religion and related topics. Also, the religious discussion in this thread also relates to politics since many people use religion to justify our Nation's unwavering support of Israel.
Posted on 8/20/25 at 7:48 am to Mo Jeaux
Fair enough. I just was curious if you were actually interested in the topic or just wanted to ridicule. I noticed your comments deriding other posters. 
Posted on 8/20/25 at 7:58 am to shinerfan
quote:
US relationship with Israel is a political issue.
Right? The thread was about how we shouldnt let dumbass evangelicals influence our Middle Eastern foreign policy because of their stupid endtimes prophecy.
Then all the dumbass evangelicals jumped in to tell us how much they love israel and how they think Catholics arent Christians. fricking morons.
Then we have another group of idiots who think they all can translate into perfect english what they think Jesus said. Problem with that is the NT was written long after Jesus wss dead. It was passed on as stories. We dont have anything Jesus wrote. We have stories written 50 years after he lived by people that never met him. And it was mostly written in Greek, even though Jesus didnt speak it. Stop playing semantics with the Bible to try to score political points and justify wars. Maybe, just try to be a good person.
All the bullshite about god's chosen people is just some dumb bullshite made up by assholes. Every group of dumbasses thinks they are god's chosen people. Good for them. Believe whatever you want. But when you use that stupidity to justify killing other people, you should be destroyed.
Posted on 8/20/25 at 7:59 am to Canon951
quote:
I noticed your comments deriding other posters.
There are a couple of posters in this thread and on this board that I deride often. I can't help myself. Posted on 8/20/25 at 8:11 am to SECSolomonGrundy
quote:
Maybe, just try to be a good person.
Posted on 8/20/25 at 9:47 am to SkiUtah420
quote:
Dispensationalism is a Heresy
Lulz
Catholics should embrace it. There is no denying that a new dispensation was created when Jesus was born. There would be no Pope, idols, NEW testament, cathedrals or anything else involving gentiles, without a change in the path to salvation
God would still only allow sins to be rolled forward a year, and animals to be sacrificed, under the guise of Levites only. Even the opposing view admits their philosophy is not found in the Bible
quote:
Covenant theology views the history of God's dealings with mankind, from Creation to Fall to Redemption to Consummation, under the framework of three overarching theological covenants: those of redemption, of works, and of grace. We call these three covenants "theological" because, though not explicitly presented as such in the Bible, they are thought of as theologically implicit
Posted on 8/20/25 at 10:21 am to SECSolomonGrundy
quote:
You are the biggest retard in a thread full of retards. Congratulations.
A thread full of arguments about who are god's chosen people and you are in here with a diatribe about gender studies and feminism.
You really flexed your knowledge of the history of early feminists and the men who influenced them. Problem is, absolutely nobody gives a frick. Now go take your crazy pills.
Well, I can tell that you have a large stake in the question, being that you are obviously striving for holiness and to express the love of Christ and want to get this very important theological question correct, since it will doubtless impact your spiritual life tremendously.
Posted on 8/20/25 at 10:44 am to SECSolomonGrundy
quote:
Problem with that is the NT was written long after Jesus wss dead
Nope.
The best evidence indicates that Mark was probably the first Gospel written and it was likely written 12-15 years after Jesus' resurrection, and it was likely written by John Mark being dictated to by Peter, who was an eyewitness.
So basically like a biographer writing about Obama's administration today. Plenty of eyewitnesses still around.
quote:
We dont have anything Jesus wrote
Jesus didn't write anything, you dolt.
quote:
We have stories written 50 years after he lived by people that never met him.
Wrong. See above. The fact that none of the Gospels mention the destruction of the Temple (which was not just a one-day event, like 9/11, it involved a three year sacking of Jerusalem) indicates that all the Gospels were written before 70 A.D. Google will tell you otherwise, but that's only because secular historians will not accept that Jesus could have prophesied the destruction of the Temple, so despite the evidence, they put the writing of all the Gospels after 70 A.D. That's seriously the only reason they do this...there is no evidence to support it and lots to contradict it.
This pretty much can't be true, however.
Because one of the things that scholars do agree on with a high degree of accuracy is when Paul wrote three of his letters. The letter to the Corinthians is of particular importance because everyone agrees that it was written between 53 and 56 A.D., and it quotes the Gospel of Luke, which means that Luke had to not only be written by then, but copied and widely distributed.
Luke is almost certainly the author of both the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts, and we know that he wrote Luke first because Acts refers to it.
We know that Luke was written after both Mark and Matthew because it directly quotes them both. Around 250 verses from Mark and 350 from Matthew.
There is no evidence to conclude that the authors of the Gospels were not who they have traditionally been attributed to. The early church fathers (some of whom were taught directly by the apostles) were unanimous in their attribution of authorship and there is no historical evidence to dispute it.
So using all of that information to triangulate, there is very little likelihood that your claim is true. What is far more likely is that the Gospels were written beginning with Mark (although a couple of scholars think Matthew) as close as 12-15 years after Christ's resurrection when plenty of eyewitnesses were still around to dispute anything that wasn't true. And Gary Habermass traces the oral history of the recitation of the Gospel (not the Gospels, but the condensed theology referred to as "The Gospel") back to within weeks of His resurrection.
quote:
And it was mostly written in Greek, even though Jesus didnt speak it.
There's also no evidence that Jesus didn't speak Koine Greek. We know He spoke Aramaic, but he was also a tradesman and Koine Greek was the common language that tradesmen (and everybody else) used. It's very unlikely that He wouldn't have spoken it. We also know that he HAD to be fluent in Hebrew or he wouldn't have been able to read the scrolls in the Temple, and some scholars think that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew.
quote:
Stop playing semantics with the Bible to try to score political points and justify wars.
I don't know. Maybe you should stop spouting off about stuff you don't know the first thing about.
quote:
Maybe, just try to be a good person.
Like you're doing right now?
Posted on 8/20/25 at 2:49 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
The fact that none of the Gospels mention the destruction of the Temple (which was not just a one-day event, like 9/11, it involved a three year sacking of Jerusalem) indicates that all the Gospels were written before 70 A.D. Google will tell you otherwise, but that's only because secular historians will not accept that Jesus could have prophesied the destruction of the Temple, so despite the evidence, they put the writing of all the Gospels after 70 A.D. That's seriously the only reason they do this...there is no evidence to support it and lots to contradict it.
This pretty much can't be true, however.
Because one of the things that scholars do agree on with a high degree of accuracy is when Paul wrote three of his letters. The letter to the Corinthians is of particular importance because everyone agrees that it was written between 53 and 56 A.D., and it quotes the Gospel of Luke, which means that Luke had to not only be written by then, but copied and widely distributed.
Luke is almost certainly the author of both the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts, and we know that he wrote Luke first because Acts refers to it.
We know that Luke was written after both Mark and Matthew because it directly quotes them both. Around 250 verses from Mark and 350 from Matthew.
There is no evidence to conclude that the authors of the Gospels were not who they have traditionally been attributed to. The early church fathers (some of whom were taught directly by the apostles) were unanimous in their attribution of authorship and there is no historical evidence to dispute it.
So using all of that information to triangulate, there is very little likelihood that your claim is true. What is far more likely is that the Gospels were written beginning with Mark (although a couple of scholars think Matthew) as close as 12-15 years after Christ's resurrection when plenty of eyewitnesses were still around to dispute anything that wasn't true. And Gary Habermass traces the oral history of the recitation of the Gospel (not the Gospels, but the condensed theology referred to as "The Gospel") back to within weeks of His resurrection.
You are grasping at straws dude. You just believe whatever you want. Thats fine. But dont act like that gobbledygook that you wrote is anything close to logical.
None of the authors of the gospel were with Jesus. Fact.
So stop trying to act like something that was written down years and years later (you say 12, i say ~50) is a perfect quote.
Posted on 8/20/25 at 2:56 pm to SECSolomonGrundy
Solomon, you seem pretty convinced of your position. Curious what you base it on if you don't mind sharing?
Posted on 8/20/25 at 4:04 pm to Mike da Tigah
quote:
I believe that if you put someone who is completely unfamiliar with man’s religions on a desert island with only a bible to form their understanding rather than the Bible used to be twisted around and conformed to a doctrine of mankind, they will inevitably come away with a very clear understanding of scripture to see Jesus as the true way, truth, and life rather than themselves being the key to unlocking the truths of God for mankind.
LOL, that's one of the most ridiculous assertions I have ever heard. If this was true, the Reformation would not have happened. Same for the English Reformation. Same for the first Great Awakening. Same for the second.
Posted on 8/20/25 at 4:14 pm to SECSolomonGrundy
quote:
their stupid endtimes prophecy.
quote:
how they think Catholics arent Christians.
quote:
We have stories written 50 years after he lived by people that never met him.
quote:
All the bullshite about god's chosen people is just some dumb bullshite made up by assholes.
quote:
None of the authors of the gospel were with Jesus. Fact.
This is just a few on this page I read over. You seem solid in your conviction on these things. Just curious.
Posted on 8/20/25 at 4:17 pm to CrimsonJazz
The reformation happened because people started reading the bible for themselves and stopped listening to those who were making it up as they went.
Posted on 8/20/25 at 4:43 pm to Canon951
quote:
The reformation happened because people started reading the bible for themselves and stopped listening to those who were making it up as they went.
Okay then, how it is that none of the reformers were lock-step in agreement on everything? Have you even read the disagreements between Luther and Zwingli? And don't give me that weary old protestant dodge about how they agreed on the "important stuff."
Bonus Question: Why did Luther add the word "alone" to Romans 3:28 (in German: allein) when there is no such word in the original Greek text? The other reformers didn't do that.
Posted on 8/20/25 at 5:17 pm to CrimsonJazz
quote:
Okay then, how it is that none of the reformers were lock-step in agreement on everything? Have you even read the disagreements between Luther and Zwingli? And don't give me that weary old protestant dodge about how they agreed on the "important stuff."
Nobody wants to hear any self righteous crap about the inerrancy of the papacy. They have been disagreeing and adding "traditions" for centuries. You know why? Because human beings are fallible. That's why they have disagreed on things. But the core doctrine of salvation is settled.
Ever heard of the Bereans? They read the scriptures daily to make sure what Paul and Silas was telling them was the truth. That is the test. You should compare everything you are taught against the scriptures. Do you read the scriptures yourself or do you just listen to your Priest?
Page 9 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News