ECT Calling All Confused "MADs"

[Danoh]

I don't think Paul would have referred to them as pagans, because they did not subscribe to one of the cults of the area. And such people would not have been in a synagogue; they were in the agora. The god-fearing would have been non-jewish who respected what they heard in synagogues...

"Nevertheless, what saith the Scripture?" Gal. 4:30A.

Earlier, Paul had preached at Pisidian Antioch (in Galatia)...

Acts 13:38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: 13:39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

In other words, the Law had concluded "the whole world under sin" (both Jew and Gentile) but Christ died for our sins, Rom. 3.

Galatians 2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? 2:15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. 2:17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. 2:18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. 2:19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

That is also the actual context of the following...

Acts 17:1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews: 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, 17:3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ. 17:4 And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few.

Reminding them later, of the actual spiritual state he had found them in, when he first met them (because worship via the Law was now idolatry, 2 Cor. 3; Heb 10), Paul wrote the following about them...

1 Thessalonians 1:8 For from you sounded out the word of the Lord not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place your faith to God-ward is spread abroad; so that we need not to speak any thing. 1:9 For they themselves shew of us what manner of entering in we had unto you, and how ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God; 1:10 And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.

So, no, neither those religious Jews, nor those God-fearing Gentiles were in the right anymore.

Both were now no better off, this side of the Cross, then the Pagan worshipping Gentile.

Both were now considered "sinners of the Gentiles" or heathen...

Galatians 1:15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, 1:16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: 1:17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

Romans 11:30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief: 11:31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. 11:32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

Might as well have quoted Ephesians 2, by the way. It is the exact same thought.

Acts 17: 11, 12.

 

[patrick jane]

Is a Jewish sorcerer pagan enough for you? Can Jews be pagans? Acts 13:8. That's the first encounter Paul has after being sent out from Antioch.

In 14:1 they are just called the Gentiles not the god-fearers, and they are at synagogues.

So after the first death threat of 9:30 (a death threat means he didn't exactly fit with Judaism, right?), he is removed to home, then he goes to Antioch for 13:1, but nothing is given about that Tarsus period. Based on how God changed him from his Judaistic background, he had a rooted interest in trying to change as many of the people in Judaism that he had formerly been the champion enforcer for. And now he knew (Eph 3:5,6) that the Gospel was how the nations were to receive their Abrahamic blessing, clearing that up from what Judaism taught (race and torah). So like Christ and Rom 9-11, he tried to get as many of them involved in the mission to the nations as well.

One pagan? Did he preach DBR and the mystery to the sorcerer?

 

[Danoh]

:blabla: Just make sure YOU "deflect" and fail to answer my question.

I have answered that before.

And, I have already answered STP on that, and I have just posted to IP on it.

The principle is this, PJ - per Acts 7 and Romans 2 & 3, Paul himself was concluded spiritual Uncircimcision with his nation.

Paul's very point to Peter in Galatians 2.

Meaning, Paul himself was the first "pagan" preached to, after Acts 7.

Look for the operating principle in a thing.

It then allows you to see all sorts of things clearly - even before you study them out.

Acts 17: 11, 12.

 

[Danoh]

One pagan? Did he preach DBR and the mystery to the sorcerer?

It is clear from Galations and 1st and 2nd Thessalonians, that Paul taught Mystery Truth from the very start of his ministry.

Luke just does not go into that, as it is neither his place, nor his intent in writing Acts.

Paul does, when he writes to them to remind them of what he had taught them, "while" he "was yet with" them.

The Principle is "understand Paul and or Paul in Acts via Romans thru Philemon, not via Acts" (the mistake the 28ers are infamous for).

This is my very point - that Acts 9 and Acts 28 study these things differently.

A mix of both would be a hybrid and an error.

Acts 17: 11, 12.

 

[Right Divider]

When worshipping in Spirit and truth, there is no Jew, gentile, or synagogue. That's the purpose of the gospel, to bring fourth the new spiritual man.

That is not what the Bible says. Once AGAIN, you're confusing the dispensations of God.

Acts 13:14 (AKJV/PCE)​

(13:14) ¶ But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down.

​

Acts 13:26 (AKJV/PCE)​

(13:26) Men [and] brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent. ​

Just let the Bible speak for itself. Do not try to put words in its mouth.

 

[Danoh]

That is not what the Bible says. Once AGAIN, you're confusing the dispensations of God.

Acts 13:14 (AKJV/PCE)​

(13:14) ¶ But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down.

​

Acts 13:26 (AKJV/PCE)​

(13:26) Men [and] brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent. ​

Just let the Bible speak for itself. Do not try to put words in its mouth.

Exactly the way by which the actual Acts 28er attempts to understand Acts.

Through Acts as to Paul's ministry, rather than through Paul's writings as to Paul's ministry.

At the same time, what you said to Andy about his having confused the Dispensations, is an Acts 9 principle in practice more than it is within any other Dispensational system.

Which you then proceeded to prove your inconsistent practice of.

Yours is clearly an erroneous hybrid or mix, of where the Acts 9 Position consistently and soundly studies out a thing from, with where the Acts 28 Position does so, both erroneously, and inconsistently.

Which is why the Acts 28er is an Acts 28er, and you are an ALMOST Acts 28er.

Neither of which is a consistent, Acts 9 Position.

Unfortunately, not only is it obvious once more that no one ever pointed that out to you, or that you are all deaf ears, but it has often been just as obvious that you do not take well to having a thing pointed out to you by most anyone other than those you consider being of your number.

Which is another trait many ALMOST 28ers have often been known for, just like many of their close cousins, the Actual Acts 28ers.

There is no reasoning with such.

Thank God for...Rom. 5: 6-8.

 

[andyc]

Exactly the way by which the actual Acts 28er attempts to understand Acts.

Through Acts as to Paul's ministry, rather than through Paul's writings as to Paul's ministry.

At the same time, what you said to Andy about his having confused the Dispensations, is an Acts 9 principle in practice more than it is within any other Dispensational system.

Which you then proceeded to prove your inconsistent practice of.

Yours is clearly an erroneous hybrid or mix, of where the Acts 9 Position consistently and soundly studies out a thing from, with where the Acts 28 Position does so, both erroneously, and inconsistently.

Which is why the Acts 28er is an Acts 28er, and you are an ALMOST Acts 28er.

Neither of which is a consistent, Acts 9 Position.

Unfortunately, not only is it obvious once more that no one ever pointed that out to you, or that you are all deaf ears, but it has often been just as obvious that you do not take well to having a thing pointed out to you by most anyone other than those you consider being of your number.

Which is another trait many ALMOST 28ers have often been known for, just like many of their close cousins, the Actual Acts 28ers.

There is no reasoning with such.

Thank God for...Rom. 5: 6-8.

He's someone who came into this forum not knowing what to believe. The mad clique here got hold of him, and now he just regurgitates what's he's seen others say.

 

[andyc]

That is not what the Bible says. Once AGAIN, you're confusing the dispensations of God.

Acts 13:14 (AKJV/PCE)​

(13:14) ¶ But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down.

​

Acts 13:26 (AKJV/PCE)​

(13:26) Men [and] brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent. ​

Just let the Bible speak for itself. Do not try to put words in its mouth.

There's a difference between a physical natural viewpoint, and a spiritual viewpoint.
As far as the natural is concerned, there are Jews, gentiles, and synagogues. Where God is concerned, and where faith is concerned, it is the spiritual man that God relates to, who is neither Jew or gentile. And synagogues are just meeting places.

 

[Right Divider]

There's a difference between a physical natural viewpoint, and a spiritual viewpoint.
As far as the natural is concerned, there are Jews, gentiles, and synagogues. Where God is concerned, and where faith is concerned, it is the spiritual man that God relates to, who is neither Jew or gentile. And synagogues are just meeting places.

So you still do not understand the difference between a gentile that worships God in a synagogue with God's people and a pagan gentile. Got it.

 

[Stripe]

You listened to people like Bullinger, Stam and Feldick.

Never heard of him.

Also, I've never heard of you. Who are you? :idunno:

You have been away a spell, so consider the following.

I titled the thread in the manner I have due to the ignorance and false charges I have encountered from various so called "MADs" on here.

I assert they are off on one thing or another, point out where, and that it implies a mis-fire in study approach; am met with all sorts of pettiness and ignorance, and am then accused of never having provided evidence of what I am asserting is off, or that it implies mis-fires in study approach somewhere.

I've never met such thin-skinned and narrow minded MADs as a group, in all my years within MAD.

That last statement will bring them running.

Only proving my point. That is what they live for on here - conflict.

Even as they alone deny it; for everyone else on TOL is always having to point it out.

To date, not a one of them has ever addressed any of the 25 points the person in that link in the OP basically laid out rather well, whenever In have posted that list.

They do the same with other errors I have pointed out here and there; but boy are they all over a thing when they sense an opportunity to be their usually petty selves.

And no, I am not referring to every MAD here, where any of these issues are concerned.

There are in fact several different MADs represented on TOL.

There is also something definitely wrong with those I am referring to, that they so easily take issue with having an error pointed out to them - the very thing they each and collectively engage in towards non-MADs throughout any given day of the week.

Sounds like you're upset with someone.

Case in point, the fact is that the Jew mentioned in Romans 2:17 is not the Romans Paul has just admired the well-known faith of in Romans 1.

Uhm. OK.

So?

To conclude otherwise, is not only an error; and is not only indicative of a mis-fire in study approach somewhere; and not only indicates that same mis-fire is possible in many other areas (over 25 thus far); but to take petty issue with having it pointed out, only further reveals one is dealing with an individual who's understanding of grace is just as off.

What's the issue and how does it relate to MAD?

There is no hope for an iron sharpeneth from, and with such.

That is what is wrong.

I've rocked their false status quo only because they themselves even now continue to prove that is what theirs is.

Nothing new.

In Stam's, Baker's and O'Hairs day, those errors were then referred to as "Acts 28ers in Mid-Acts clothing."

For that is what these errors are a result of - a result of an obvious confusion of where The Acts 9 Position apparantly soundly studies a thing from consistently, with where The Acts 28 Position erroneously and ever inconsistently does.

And from the same ignorance and arrogance this ALMOST Acts 28er...Acts 9 / Acts 28 Hybrid System appears to attract such to.

Rom. 5: 6-8.
Acts 17: 11, 12.

You sure do write a lot.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

It is YOU who are reading a thing into that Acts 13 passage that it is not actually saying.

:chuckle:

Show me how you get a pagan into the Acts 13 passage, please.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

That is not what the Bible says. Once AGAIN, you're confusing the dispensations of God.

Acts 13:14 (AKJV/PCE)​

(13:14) ¶ But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down.

​

Acts 13:26 (AKJV/PCE)​

(13:26) Men [and] brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent. ​

Just let the Bible speak for itself. Do not try to put words in its mouth.

Crystal clear. Danoh, et al. just do not like what it says.

 

[Danoh]

Never heard of him...

Bullinger, Stam and Feldick are three indivuduals, not one.

Which says something about your approach on that moment in which you read those three names, and concluded one; does it not?

And that is my point to some of the MADs on here - they often read THEIR context into a thing.

Even as they insult others all day long for reading reading things into a thing .

Sounds like you're upset with someone.

You neglected the overall context within which I said all that.

Result?

"Sounds" to YOU "like" I'm "upset."

Case in point - PJ both lashed out at me, and insulted me.

My response?

I focused on answering the question he asked me about Paul and Gentiles.

Because neither PJ nor I, nor anyone else are the issue - Christ alone is.

But anyway, while I was typing out an answer to him; he had already read HIS context into my momentary delay.

Did he correct himself when it turned out he was wrong?

Nope - they often never deal with their having been proven wrong.

What kind of a MAD is that?

There is no growth in that.

A turn off to many out there us what that double-standard is.

Uhm. OK.

So?

Were you and I face to face you would not be concluding what you might from the following words.

I am merely pointing out the obvious:

That point about Rom. 2:17 is just one more error one could add to that list of 25 of their errors I posted a link to in the OP.

Thus far, you have asked a question, only to end up reading your own context into my replies.

Again, face to face, you might see I am merely pointing out such mis-fires in perception.

I would appreciate as much, but how can anyone unaware of their own hope to objectively and thus soundly, perceive another's mis-fires?

What's the issue and how does it relate to MAD?

Have you gone to that link and read that list of 25 errors being promoted on here as MAD?

Apparantly not.

My OP appears valid, once more, unfortunately.

You sure do write a lot.

Guilty.

And Rom. 14: 5 towards you; in memory of Rom. 5: 6-8 - in each our stead.

For though I hoop and holler about this and that - that last sentence there is my actual context.

Consciously so, each time anew.

Absent of it, I'd end up misreading and or taking personal issue with others.

Which has no place in the life of a Believer.

Eph. 4:16.

 

[patrick jane]

Case in point - PJ both lashed out at me, and insulted me.

Nah, you didn't insult me though, you never have.

 

[Danoh]

Crystal clear. Danoh, et al. just do not like what it says.

No.

This has nothing to do with our liking or not, what a passage says, or not.

Rom. 5:6-8

 

[Danoh]

Nah, you didn't insult me though, you never have.

That was not my point.

I was addressing what he concluded I "sound like."

Leave it to your kind to turn a thing into something else.

You, diehard, posters plastered all over your walls, Trump supporter, you.

:rotfl:

Okay, now you can make this about you. :chuckle:

Rom. 5: 6-8.

 

[patrick jane]

That was not my point.

I was addressing what he concluded I "sound like."

Leave it to your kind to turn a thing into something else.

You, diehard, posters plastered all over your walls, Trump supporter, you.

:rotfl:

Okay, now you can make this about you. :chuckle:

Rom. 5: 6-8.

You used me as a case in point and said I lashed out at you and insulted you. Talk about a social ape, you can't even remember what you say. I'm pretty sure if we went back in time we would see that you insulted me first. :chuckle:

 

[Danoh]

You used me as a case in point and said I lashed out at you and insulted you. Talk about a social ape, you can't even remember what you say. I'm pretty sure if we went back in time we would see that you insulted me first. :chuckle:

I am well aware of what I said.

The point is that no matter who has insulted who, or how bad, or what have you; one ALWAYS has a choice - especially the Believer - as to where to perceive such things from - where you and your pals often perceive such things from, thus your need for payback and glorying in payback - or where the Scripture says we CAN each choose to look at such things from.

We can each CHOOSE TO look at others through the lens that is Romans 5: 6-8 in each our stead, simply by doing so..
in remembrance of Him.

Do that just as you are about to post, and keep it in mind throughout.

See if that does not enable you to walk IN Him towards others; even when calling them out on one mis-fire or bit of nonsense or another.

The option otherwise?

To ever leave yourself subject to what others say, either for you, or against you.

Neither is the Believer's victory IN Him.

Rom. 5: 6-8 - in each our stead.

 

[Stripe]

Have you gone to that link and read that list of 25 errors being promoted on here as MAD?

I clicked on the link and couldn't quickly find anything that would get me up to speed without investing into in-depth study. I though perhaps you could just tell me what one of the problems is.

You make reference to something in Romans, but I have no idea how that might be a problem for me as a MADist. :idunno:

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

No.

This has nothing to do with our liking or not, what a passage says, or not.

Rom. 5:6-8

In Acts 13, was that salvation sent to 'all' without distinction?