Talk:Dispensationalism

Hank Hanegraaff is probably the most well known bible scholar who doesn't subcribe to dispensationalism or dispen"sensationalism" as I call it.

IM not sure waht to do about hoppers edit
Basicly if you look at this edit i am not sure waht to do, that has been there for a long time, and the edit looks a bit fishy, also hopper reated an account made that edit, and never made another one, any consensus on what we should do here, because the edit makes no sense to me and is a bit whitewashy, it may be a good faith edit, but it looks a bit off to me. Bubba41102is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike an editor 19:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I saw it and didn't worry about it. The stuff he deleted was rather sketchy in any rate.  No strong opinions if someone wants to restore it. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 01:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

dispensationalism and higher criticism of the bible
higher criticism holds that Paul knew very little of Jesus and his teachings...he repackaged them entirely for the gentile audience. Dispensationalists understand the Pauline scriptures are written to the gentiles, and supersede Jesus teachings to the nation of Israel. They draw a strict distinction between the two. Although they account for the difference by ascribing it to God's plan, they are closer to the truth than the Gospel centric versions of Christianity.&mdash; Unsigned, by: 119.224.14.128 / talk / contribs21:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Who is this "they", who decides what is closer to the truth, and why are Paul's taken over Jesus's when Jesus was supposedly the son of God where Paul was just a person? -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

- From the perspective of a secular historical investigation, Paul writes a completely different tale to Jesus. Dispensational thinking would have it Paul's epistles are an entirely new revelation to the gentile church (the mystery hidden before the world began mentioned in Ephesians 3). This is closer to the truth than the mainstream understanding the gospels and the epistles divinely compliment each other. As an ex-dispensationalist myself, I know what I'm talking about. There's varying degrees of course. 'Acts 28' dispensationalism is more pronounced than an 'Acts 9' version. The basic idea boils down to this. After the Jews killed their messiah, God dusted off his secret plan to defeat the forces of darkness kept secret since the beginning of time. This involved stopping the prophetic clock and interpolating an 'Age of Grace' until the rapture takes the Church out, and the Nation of Israel once again becomes God's primary concern on earth. Because Jesus was fulfilling prophesy related to the Jews, that was a separate dispensation. Ergo, nothing he says in the gospels is binding on believers today. Paul is considered just as authoritative because all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and he received his teaching by the direct revelation of the risen Jesus Christ.