To you. I get it.The entire notion is contemptuous...
<chuckles> No, I'm just saying that regarding what they are saying, and what you are saying about it. So, specifically what you narrowed it to.You're treating blasphemy as though it only exists when someone consciously sneers at God. That is absurdly narrow.
I think that is just, really, how some folks try to paint it.A 130 year old manmade system that takes the Jerusalem Christ named, the Temple He identified, the Judea He addressed, the armies He foretold, and the generation He said would not pass away until they saw the prophecy fulfilled.. and then performs the theological equivalent of ripping Christ’s words out of the mouths of the people standing before Him, hurling them two thousand years into the future, constructing a magical second Temple He never pointed to, inventing another audience He never addressed, and announcing that everyone present during the original prophecy was merely scenery for a message supposedly meant for modern prophecy addicts.
That is not interpretation.
That is scriptural abduction.
That is contempt for the authority of His words whether the people repeating it intend contempt or not.
Right, I agree, but some don't see any contradiction... and it may not even be that, but even if it is, they are not intentionally contradicting.Good intentions don't baptize contradiction... especially when the contradiction is this spiritually dangerous.
Goodness gracious... "theological insubordination"... <chuckles> I mean that's just ridiculous. Insubordination is an intentional thing, TGOC, so you're making my point for me. <smile>Sincerity doesn't make theological insubordination holy...
It's just a misunderstanding, TGOC. Not to minimize it, or say it's insignificant, but yeah, dispensationalists are just wrong., nor does it erase the fact that the system places Christ’s own testimony beneath a later human scheme that no apostle...
Okay, do what you want. Whether that's the effect or not is debatable, but in any case, that's not the intent. They're just wrong....I call it blasphemous because the entire structure treats the plain words of Christ as disposable whenever it interferes with their doctrine.
<eye roll> It's not blasphemy.If you don't think that's blasphemy, then to me, that's terrifying.
Grace and peace to you.