:rotfl:
ECT Acronyms for those debating MAD
- Thread starter Interplanner
- Start date
musterion
Well-known member
Through Paul. Not before.
whitestone
Well-known member
lol, would it make much sense for me,an D'ist,who believes that to be future to spend much time looking for it in the past?
lol,No really in the early 90's we were hashing out the Azazel thing on a forum and I noticed the preterits there were really touchy about the mark of the beast part so I just kept poking it at them to see why.
After a gillion subject change attempts I realized they had no answer for it,makes sense if you think about it seeing that alcazar used a different copy of the text(616 instead of 666) when he came up with his defense.
But no, either way you look at it whether Rome or Zealot it wont match up with the scriptures. I ask the question because it does a couple of things,one it makes people realize that neither of the two will work,again if their are new converts who are following along on the www they will realize that you/they don't have an answer although you should if telling people these things are fulfilled.
Ive ask this to many preterits across the years and none of them have resolved it,lol, some of them guess(just to say something)most do go back and forth from Caesar to the Zealot's trying to resolve it with no luck. I do admire that your not just trying to put something in this spot just to get me to hush(shows me your honest)so I'll be honest with you in that I already know what you'll find if you look at it long enough,thats why I ask you.
Last edited:
Interplanner
Well-known member
Interplanner
Well-known member
I don't know. What I believe does not stand or fall on this item. In the same way, I don't know the details of the harlot riding on the back of the beast either. My hunch is the co-opting of Roman power by Jews found in so many cities through the area, and afflicting the apostles with law enforcement powers when they got to those towns, a half dozen times in Acts.
musterion
Well-known member
Yes, NOAH did, and his family. No one else.
Today, those who hear and refuse...get more grace. How long that will last, no one knows. But a dispensation of grace for ALL is not the same as grace to ONE in a dispensation where wrath was outpoured. I don't expect you to understand a word I just wrote.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Sure. he was the only one who believed. Lots of other people down through time did too, if they believed, Heb 11. I've known your view since I was a teenager. Nothing new started in the NT, but Judaism was being set aside and dissolved, unwillingly. they thought they were the conduit. Gal 3:17. Who voided and replaced?
Paul makes examples of Abraham and David as having faith, recipients of grace and having righteousness imputed to them.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Yes, for entertainment value perhaps, but a few nuggets within bring us back to the DofJ and remind us our spiritual duty of Gen 24:64, so we cannot write off the apocalypse entirely as stringent permeative doctrine still abides, but we must handle it in a way that promotes the gospel event and not in a way that creates subsidiaries of thoughts not captive to Gal 3:17A, Gal 3:17B, or Gal 3:17C.
Interplanner
Well-known member
One key to the Rev's immediate purpose is to notice that two of the 7 churches have to be warned about 'those who call themselves Jews but are not.' Again, this carries the usual theme of the new or other Israel that the apostles spoke of. But what difference did it make then? It was dangerous to be in Judea as a Christian once the revolt was official, but you could also be in danger from Judaizers elsewhere in the Roman empire as they sought to eliminate Christians.
Most of it is pastoral help to those who had been ripped away from their roots, to see that the marriage will happen after awful events and after the harlot is stoned and all nations are invited to the marriage feast.
It will help any christians in persecution of course, but apart from exact details. It will help christians who are harrassed by the 'little rebellion' of ch 20, but apart from exact details that were about the destruction of Jerusalem.
Most of it is pastoral help to those who had been ripped away from their roots, to see that the marriage will happen after awful events and after the harlot is stoned and all nations are invited to the marriage feast.
It will help any christians in persecution of course, but apart from exact details. It will help christians who are harrassed by the 'little rebellion' of ch 20, but apart from exact details that were about the destruction of Jerusalem.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
I believe you have been introduced to Antipasian thoughts in the books you read, you will notice that the 7 churches neither downgrade nor upgrade the NHNE event without causificiation, reconciling meats for the belly with things offered to idols, and as saint john wrote, keep thyself from idols. Agreed?
whitestone
Well-known member
well if you don't know it's good to just say it.
It's interesting you bring up the co-opted government of Israel there are not many who realize that the government of Israel existed until around 425ce. It was in decline though after 313ce when Christianity became the religion of Rome. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Patriarchate its odd that you would speak of it most who adhere to pre-type-thinking completely deny it.
Hi and Jude 18 is NOT in th AORISY/or PAST TENSE !!
#1 , The first gtense , THEY TOLD is in the IMLPERFECT TENSE and in the INDICATIVE MOOD !!
#2 , The second verb is THERE SHOULD BE is in the FUTURE TENSE and in the INDICATIVE MOOD !!
#3 , The third verb is WHO SHOULD WALK is in the PRESENT TENSE and Middle or PASSIVE VOICE and kin is a Participlke !!
Are you sure you mean Jude 18 ??
dan p
Interplanner
Well-known member
I'm not seeing the aorist in 2 Pet 3:3.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
I agree, Musty.
We are the Body of the High Priest, not priests below him, nor subjects to that priesthood.
Wrong.
Are you one of the stones of the building, or are you the Cornerstone?
(Eph 2:20 KJV) And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
Hi MarleneJ,
Also known as Acts 9 Dispensationalism, A9D, and MAD, this latter is an acronym that stands for Mid Acts Dispensationalism.
The basic premise of which is that the Body of Christ actually began with the saving of its' first Body member: the Apostle Paul.
It is a position that was arrived at through study of the Scripture as to who the Believer is in Christ - which greatly differs from God's relationship with the nation Israel (the nation back then, not now).
Men like Martin Luther, way back in the Middle Ages, began to see that distinction but it soon gave way to their own reasoning into a thing.
Likewise others in between then and now.
The result?
Two major schools of thought: the Reformed and the Dispensational - each with the various denominations those two have resulted in, as men continue to assert they alone have the truth.
If you attempt to read about MAD online from its opponents, you will consistently find its' opponents all attempt to look at the position in the same erroneous way by which they have continued to look at both Scripture and Dispensationalism in general - through the same error they have been looking at things from all along.
Where one runs off to endless books supposedly based on the Scripture that are actually no more than a constant retread of men parroting what they themselves read about in earlier books "about" all the way back to when such first picked up a writing instrument.
Even some Mads end up not too well convinced of the need to go by the example of a passage like Acts 17:11-12's three fold principle - being willing to receive a thing with all readiness of mind, searching the Scriptures daily whether those things being asserted are so, and only thetefore believing the Word of God on an issue is actually what is being preached.
Not to mention that it not only takes time to both properly learn first, and apply the principles needing to be applied as one studies the Scripture, but time applying them properly before one should consider taking on the study of any subject in Scripture on one's own.
For the fact of the matter is that the Scripture was meant to be taught by one proven "apt to teach" it.
No other profession on the planet is populated by so many expert amateurs as the world of the so called Bible "expert."
In the end, each individual is left with just the individual, the Book their your lap (Scripture) and the hope that each has enough sense to conclude "this Bible is not that easy to comprehend; I wonder what GENERIC principles might its various assertions be based on and where in Scripture might those be found?"
As good a state of mind to be in...as not.