SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
How so?
ECT Calling All Confused "MADs"
- Thread starter Danoh
- Start date
- Status
How so?
Seems to me that dano is perturbed or perhaps jealous that some MADs here understand Paul's epistles better than he does. :idunno:
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
He's convinced that there is 'one true MAD', and any deviation from that is almost worthy of anathema.
Pope Danoh IV.
heir
TOL Subscriber
I thank God that we can believe the Bible and 1 Corinthians 1:10 KJV. For whatever reason(s) he's bothered by that.
musterion
Well-known member
Here's an idea, but it's up to Danoh to initiate it and a mod to severely enforce it: a modified back alley doctrinal cage match. Since he's called out pretty much all of us, it needs to involve all of us:
1. Danoh starts a thread on ONE problem topic (as he sees it).
2. ONLY MADs can reply.
3. Each MAD gets one post for their response to Danoh's topic. No other replies allowed, so no arguments, no crosstalk, no distractors, no trolls, no confusion. Everyone knows exactly where everyone else stands.
4. When all participating MADs have replied, Danoh closes the thread.
5. Danoh opens thread #2 on his new problem topic. New replies. Lock it.
6. Repeat until Danoh is satisfied.
Who else is up for this? The idea is not for everyone to come to agreement because that's never going to happen. The point is for everyone to know exactly where everyone else stands once and for all, in one place.
1. Danoh starts a thread on ONE problem topic (as he sees it).
2. ONLY MADs can reply.
3. Each MAD gets one post for their response to Danoh's topic. No other replies allowed, so no arguments, no crosstalk, no distractors, no trolls, no confusion. Everyone knows exactly where everyone else stands.
4. When all participating MADs have replied, Danoh closes the thread.
5. Danoh opens thread #2 on his new problem topic. New replies. Lock it.
6. Repeat until Danoh is satisfied.
Who else is up for this? The idea is not for everyone to come to agreement because that's never going to happen. The point is for everyone to know exactly where everyone else stands once and for all, in one place.
:doh:
"What saith the Scripture" is the word order when it is a question.
In contrast, when it is a statement, the word order is "what the Scripture saith."
STP also makes that same kind of mistake all the time.
So it is no surprise his having stated on various occasions that only he, you and nick: who also often evidences poor word structure; are the only three the most right of your group on here.
Yep, I do find that amusing. In fact, very. :chuckle:
And your mere assertion that the Galatians mentioned in Galatians 3:29 Gentiles were the same as THOSE IN Ephesians 2:11-12, does not make it so, anymore than anyone's assertion otherwise, does.
Other than your crystal clear obvious Acts 28er study approach based error, what do you have showing those two were not the same?
By the way, your insolence (when disagreed with) is not only doing me a huge favor, but to the Lord's glory.
Would the same were the case for you.
Perhaps the version of "MAD" you learned never taught you the following, vital aspect of Mid-Acts Pauline Dispensationalism.
For you barely ever exhibit it, other than with those you have concluded are of your number (the Law's Performance Based Acceptance, in contrast to Grace's Grace Based Acceptance).
This grace in Christ Jesus, here...
Your consistent insolence when disagreed with, affords me the opportunity each time anew to consciously do something that had not been my opportunity in Him towards you, until your next instance of insolence once more - the opportunity to choose to look over at you through the lens of Rom. 5: 6-8 - in each our stead - in remembrance of Him - to His glory...
As it should be.
Try that some time.
See if that doesn't cool you off, in the very in moment you consciously allow His finished work to be, not your consistently hollow talk, but rather, your worthy walk - in remembrance of Him.
And that is an infirmity in the flesh ever worth glorying in - in Him!
So thank you for each time you unwittingly contribute to this opportunity for me towards you in Him to His glory alone - in the very moment in which you least deserve it.
Sincerely,
:thumb:
As I have never cared for all or nothing agreement, I think I'll pass on your idea for now, and just give it some further thought first.
Besides, all one has to do is state where one stands on each of those 25 errors laid out in outline form in one of those three documents in that link in my OP.
Thus far, you have each skirted doing even that much.
And his outline does not even include most of some other 13 or 14 plus errors I have gone back and forth with heir and or STP on here over time to the same denials.
In the end, it matters not if the list is 25 errors or 2500, what matters is what even one error points to: a mis-fire in study approach somewhere - that must be addressed if one is to...
2 Timothy 2:16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. 2:17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;
Rom. 14:5; 5: 6-8 - in each our stead.
Their take on the promise is basically your same take, more or less.
Their take on that long allegory is basically your same take, more or less.
Meaning?
Same error in study approach, more or less.
But Shawn went over that one in his 25 point outline in that link in my OP. No sense in redoing that which he laid out so well...
Post it. Prove you bothered.
Prove yours is...
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
Thus far, yours has been to skirt that document against your errors.
Thus far, yours has not been "prove all things."
Acts 17: 11, 12.
Another mis-fire on your part once more, given your consistently proven reading INTO a thing you then assert "means what it says."
Deal with those 25 errors in that outline in those documents in that link in my OP.
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
Rom. 5: 6-8.
Last edited:
You see all this here...
That is a result of a consistent application of how Acts 9 studies a thing out.
Allowing the various passage's flow of thought to be just that - THEIR flow of thought.
That said...
As you well know, many non-MADs conclude from this part there - "For he hath put all things under his feet..."
That He hath ALREADY put ALL things under His Feet.
It is clear they have broken from the flow of Paul's actual thought.
For that passage follows the thought of the previous passage, which is yet future.
Well that is exactly what the Acts 28er often does with the flow of thought not only of various passages in Acts, but in Paul's writings.
Which is how THEY ended up Acts 28ers.
And how THEY end up REMAINING Acts 28ers.
They break from a passage's own flow of thought, INTO their own.
Just as you do with the flow of thought in various passages in Acts; and in Romans 1; in Romans 2; in Romans 11; in 1 Corinthians 2; in 1 Corinthians 11; In 2 Corinthians 3; and so on.
THAT is why I assert that yours is OBVIOUSLY a mix of where BOTH the Acts 9 Position studies out a thing from, with where the Acts 28 Position often erroneously does.
And it is ever clear to me that you are not aware of that.
That you were taught what you hold to.
Which you then built on.
But its foundation is the result of that error in practice, by those who taught you their conclusions.
You found Feldick lacking in how to solve for seeming inconsistencies in Acts and Paul's writings.
But his ministry is focused on a much simpler study - on the early basics of Mid-Acts, not on the more advanced principles.
So you sought for answers to that in Scripture, found yourself unable to solve for them, and looked elsewhere.
Just as Interplanner and Tetelestai have often asserted they did.
Only you ended up under the teaching of men who mixed Bullinger and Stam for their solution.
This is well known about them witin Mid-Acts all the way back to O'Hair, Baker, and Stam.
O'Hair himself had struggled with that mix, for a time.
In the end, he rightly rejected it.
I first noticed this about YOUR group's use of that mix back when we were all on friendly terms and I mentioned one of those in Acts.
Next thing I knew, what I posted on it was met with all sorts of more of the exact same failure to trace out the flow of Paul's thought on that one.
This one here...
Acts 28:20 For this cause therefore have I called for you, to see you, and to speak with you: because that for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain.
It dawned on me later that day, that yours was exactly the Acts 28 Position on that hope.
That was what; about three years ago?
Then, in the later part of last year, when I first ran across Shawn's 25 point outline of your various errors: there that one was on his list also - and laid out exactly as if he had read my mind.
In other words, exactly as laid out in Scripture as to the Scripture's flow of thought on that one.
This here...
Acts 26:6 And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers: 26:7 Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come. For which hope's sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews. 26:8 Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead? 26:9 I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth.
Said hope is the same as this one...
1 Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
In other words, the hope of their resurrection is the fact of Christ's Resurrection.
Paul was not preaching Israel's hoped for resurrection (by then long in hold), rather its basis - their / our same basis - Christ's Resurrection.
Again, though - it matters not if the error is one or many.
What really matters is the mis-fire in study approach somewhere that any error can pin point - if - one is actually an "all readiness of mind" Berean, when presented with the assertion one is off in one thing or another.
You still don't know what I am actually talking about; do you?
No matter how I spell it out.
So you go on with your reading INTO my intent.
In the end, your seeming humility is proven another form that pride can sometimes quietly take the form of: as often portrayed in Andy's character on The Andy Griffith Show (rip).
Just ask Opie. :chuckle:
Rom. 14:5; 5: 6-8 towards you.
That is a result of a consistent application of how Acts 9 studies a thing out.
Allowing the various passage's flow of thought to be just that - THEIR flow of thought.
That said...
As you well know, many non-MADs conclude from this part there - "For he hath put all things under his feet..."
That He hath ALREADY put ALL things under His Feet.
It is clear they have broken from the flow of Paul's actual thought.
For that passage follows the thought of the previous passage, which is yet future.
Well that is exactly what the Acts 28er often does with the flow of thought not only of various passages in Acts, but in Paul's writings.
Which is how THEY ended up Acts 28ers.
And how THEY end up REMAINING Acts 28ers.
They break from a passage's own flow of thought, INTO their own.
Just as you do with the flow of thought in various passages in Acts; and in Romans 1; in Romans 2; in Romans 11; in 1 Corinthians 2; in 1 Corinthians 11; In 2 Corinthians 3; and so on.
THAT is why I assert that yours is OBVIOUSLY a mix of where BOTH the Acts 9 Position studies out a thing from, with where the Acts 28 Position often erroneously does.
And it is ever clear to me that you are not aware of that.
That you were taught what you hold to.
Which you then built on.
But its foundation is the result of that error in practice, by those who taught you their conclusions.
You found Feldick lacking in how to solve for seeming inconsistencies in Acts and Paul's writings.
But his ministry is focused on a much simpler study - on the early basics of Mid-Acts, not on the more advanced principles.
So you sought for answers to that in Scripture, found yourself unable to solve for them, and looked elsewhere.
Just as Interplanner and Tetelestai have often asserted they did.
Only you ended up under the teaching of men who mixed Bullinger and Stam for their solution.
This is well known about them witin Mid-Acts all the way back to O'Hair, Baker, and Stam.
O'Hair himself had struggled with that mix, for a time.
In the end, he rightly rejected it.
I first noticed this about YOUR group's use of that mix back when we were all on friendly terms and I mentioned one of those in Acts.
Next thing I knew, what I posted on it was met with all sorts of more of the exact same failure to trace out the flow of Paul's thought on that one.
This one here...
Acts 28:20 For this cause therefore have I called for you, to see you, and to speak with you: because that for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain.
It dawned on me later that day, that yours was exactly the Acts 28 Position on that hope.
That was what; about three years ago?
Then, in the later part of last year, when I first ran across Shawn's 25 point outline of your various errors: there that one was on his list also - and laid out exactly as if he had read my mind.
In other words, exactly as laid out in Scripture as to the Scripture's flow of thought on that one.
This here...
Acts 26:6 And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers: 26:7 Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come. For which hope's sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews. 26:8 Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead? 26:9 I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth.
Said hope is the same as this one...
1 Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
In other words, the hope of their resurrection is the fact of Christ's Resurrection.
Paul was not preaching Israel's hoped for resurrection (by then long in hold), rather its basis - their / our same basis - Christ's Resurrection.
Again, though - it matters not if the error is one or many.
What really matters is the mis-fire in study approach somewhere that any error can pin point - if - one is actually an "all readiness of mind" Berean, when presented with the assertion one is off in one thing or another.
You still don't know what I am actually talking about; do you?
No matter how I spell it out.
So you go on with your reading INTO my intent.
In the end, your seeming humility is proven another form that pride can sometimes quietly take the form of: as often portrayed in Andy's character on The Andy Griffith Show (rip).
Just ask Opie. :chuckle:
Rom. 14:5; 5: 6-8 towards you.
musterion
Well-known member
I knew you would.
You're very All Or Nothing when you don't like other MADs views. That's why THIS thread is here.
But let someone make a suggestion for clarity and fairness, to the edification of all involved, you back out.
Fraud.
Rubbish.
I know you well.
The reality is that you read through that 25 point outline of errors on one of those three documents in that link in my OP, saw you don't hold some of these views yourself, and came up with this ruse of yours, rather than offend your pals you have already sold out anyway, in your thread about your seeking to find a home within the very enemies of the fellowship of the Mystery - a Baptist assembly.
Nice try slick, but I know you already.
And like I said, I'll give your idea some thought.
Though it is obvious what you are actually up to.
You are doing what they are doing with your thread - avoiding confronting one another on one another's errors.
All for the sake of your "good ol boys" network.
:chuckle:
For you guys continue to crack - me - up!
Rom. 5: 6-8.
musterion
Well-known member
I didn't read it precisely BECAUSE it isn't yours.
You borrowed work from someone else to make the case that has become your reason for being on TOL.
This is yet another why I believe that, whoever you really are, your Danoh persona is a fraud. A very well-researched fraud, but a fraud.
Now, it's possible that STP may be right -- you could be the guy who wrote what you linked but aren't honest enough to tell us. If so...you're shady. You got no guts or faith in what you write or you'd ditch the Danoh persona and stamp your name on it here on TOL instead of sock-linking to it instead. Gutless, if it is you.
But assuming you're not him, all I'm asking is to see YOU do YOUR own work on this since YOU are the one calling all of us out. Not let someone else do your heavy lifting for you and then crow with victory.
I think I'm expecting too much. I'm betting you're just a fraud as well as lazy, and a very small, petty and unhappy person.
In case I'm wrong, I'll repeat the idea.
Point by point, YOU tell us what YOU think our problems are. Not let someone else do it for you.
Let each of us respond and speak for ourselves, with @Sherman overseeing it. Let us clear the air.
If you had any real interest in honesty and truth, and aren't just a passive-aggressive seed-picking slanderer, you'd be for it.
You nailed it.
heir
TOL Subscriber
That's what you claim. :chuckle: They are clearly different! You should agree with the scripture. Why don't you?
heir
TOL Subscriber
He's not interested in it because he can't or won't articulate his position only defer to others dissertation as he's a coat tail rider.
Right Divider
Body part
How can we dialog with someone that reads the opposite of what you write?
Musti, ya really know how to crack some one up.
From you, someone who is forever posting one link and or video or another.
And I have long since proven I am more than capable of holding my own with anyone on TOL.
Nope. That is just STP's inability to actually discern the finer things that differ between writers through their words.
One more of his now famous "hunh?"
Something you are each even more repeatedly infamous for on here.
The rest of that is just your same old "demon behind every bush" paranoia.
In your own thread you talk about selling out the Mystery to a Baptist assembly. Perhaps a Pentecostal assembly might better suit you ever spooked foolishness.
Rubbish. When we were all on good terms (til I began calling out how ugly you each treat anyone you consider not of your fool number) it was nothing but accolades from most of you about how well thought out and astute many of my posts were.
You are. As usual.
More of your double-standard and incompetence.
For though they deny it, again, I have either pointer out or heir and or STP and I have gone back and forth over time on TOL on some 14 or 15 plus other errors I myself have laid out and or have further expanded, on during my responses.
Three errors on Roman 1 - on "the gospel of God / of Christ;" and on the word "establish." The error on the word "Jew" in Romans 2. Three errors on Romans 11 - on the words "election;" "cut off;" and "fullness." The error on Romans 16's "scriptures of the prophets." The error on the phrase "church of God" in 1 Corinthians 1, and elsewhere. The error on the "mystery" in 1 Corinthians 2. The two errors on 1 Corinthians 11 - on the words "heresy" and on "the Lord's Supper."
And so on.
You are each either lying, clueless, or suffering from some sort of a self-willed dementia. :chuckle:
Are you guys actually that dense, or that dishonest?
The answer is obvious - that clueless.
heir blabs on about how watching a video on that link would be a waste, not of her time, but of God's.
Cracked - me - up.
And this even though she once asked I invest some time in hearing out something like two almost one hour audio studies - from some guy she said had later renounced those very studies.
Hearing them out, it was clear to me why he later renounced them - they were full of holes.
That exchange ended as they always have; with her insolence as her way of coping.
In contrast to STP's just opting out after an exchange or two where he fails to prove his point with the one liner or two he is known for.
And Shawn's videos just happen to be part of that link in my OP. I never did say watch the videos nor have I ever referenced them in this thread. Never.
Always, I have mentioned only those documents. Always.
Having read his list, I found I concur with just about everyone of them.
No need to read invent the wheel, anymore than when any of you point soneone to a book or a link to someone else's studies.
Things that differ right dividers my foot.
Plain and simple.
And who are you to dictate to anyone how they should run a thread, even as you refuse to abide by the simple request of this one?
Here, have one of these on your selves...
:rotfl:
What characters...
Rom. 5: 6-8.
You well know you later came to disagree with her and STP's error that the Jews who Paul condemns the history of in Romans 2 are the Romans whose well-known faith he praises in Romans 1.
That has often been clear in various of your posts.
But yours has long been proven a double-standard.
So carry on RD.
Be all that you are ever determined to be. :chuckle:
Rom. 5: 6-8.
- Status