Cross Reference
New member
Hardly uneducated. It just isn't there and then you open your mouth.
ECT MADists don't follow Paul
- Thread starter tetelestai
- Start date
You have more patience than I, when it comes to going back 100 posts. You
certainly have a lot of time to waste. Perhaps, seeking a job would be a better
usage of your time?
certainly have a lot of time to waste. Perhaps, seeking a job would be a better
usage of your time?
I see you're easily amused.
Good one. However, I'd keep my day job if I were you.
whitestone
Well-known member
But sticking to your O.P. you ask why,,,In Acts 11:1-3 KJV the Apostles and brethren contended with him about this very thing(they doubted it),,,
Paul received this in Acts 9(approx.) and then went to Galatians 1:17 KJV ,,,
So when did they have this explained to them by the Holy Spirit(at what point in our scriptures)?
No, that's not what is in the OP.
Gal 2:2 is what the OP is about.
(Gal 2:2) I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.
Why did Paul meet in private with the leaders at Jerusalem to see if the gospel he preached was in vain or not?
How would these leaders know?
Cross Reference
New member
Good point! I can hardly wait to read the unbelivable!
Your faith is a wee bit more outlandish. You claim Christ already
returned in the form of the Roman army. Twilight Zone material,
don't ya think? Maybe that's the problem, you don't think?
whitestone
Well-known member
lol,unless they were receiving the same Gospel as he was they wouldn't. Notice the path though because "before that point in scripture", they preached only to the Jews ,Acts 11:19 KJV ,,
But after they contended as to if this was so or not they preached what?
Then, don't wait, post something. Most, if not all of what you say is
unbelievable anyway. Right? Come on, be honest? You know you're
not the sharpest tool in the garage of life.
Cross Reference
New member
Great attempt, but no cigar in you trying to skirt your excuse for your inability to sort out the issues of life when all you have to do is give up your willful ignorance..
There, I posted something more for you to willfully ignore.
Oh, it's not hard to ignore ignorance. It's a rather simple task.
Cross Reference
New member
Indeed. You make it look easy. Maybe you ought to write a book. You might name it:
"How to be stupid without trying"
Yeah, I'll put you in the appendix and have you taken out.
CR certainly is an old, nearly 80 curmudgeon.
One more time, habitual liar Craigie, the satanic Preterist con "man," engager in sophistry. I have challenged you over 100 times in the last 3 years, 3 times in the last week, on a recent thread, on this "with Israel" deception, fraud, you continue to spam, and deceitfully assert, attempting to "spiritually" plunder the sheep/babes. Your father the devil, taught you well, in deleting from/adding to/corrupting the book, which you learned way back in Genesis.
The spineless one, as one of his numerous deceptive debating tactics in TOL, since he is so obsessed with allegedly disproving the dispensational approach to understanding the book, inevitably, on every thread, will, when he is getting bloodied, picked apart, sent reeling to the canvass in the ring, besides resorting to his old reliable "Hail Mary," which his Catholicism taught him, of "Darby....Bullinger....," resorts to either:
1. Quoting another "version" of the bible, if (a) particular version(s), does/do not validate/confirm/agree with/support his satanic "doctrine," i.e., his "doctrine" determines what the word of God is, or should say. If it does not, he rummages for another bible that does, or, ...
2. "The Greek...."-Craigie Tet. hundreds of times on TOL**
Citing this non existing "The Greek," which supports his "doctrine," even though he knows no "The Greek," cannot speak/read/understand/write it, and wouldn't know the difference between a gyros, and a "Hebrew National." He is a fraud, merely plagiarizing from other "articles," that deceptively resort to this "The Greek" scam. And, again, there is no such thing as "The" Greek.
Specifically, re. his above citation of the Ephesians verse, and it's "with Israel," I've asked him to document, cite, this "The Greek," which has the word Israel in it, over, and over, and over, again.
Now, Craigie, for all of TOL to see, on your "thread,"...
Identify this "The Greek," that allegedly has the word "Israel" in it, in the Ephesians passage you cite as part of your "argument."
This should be quite easy for you, deceiver, and perverter of the gospel of Christ, since you are a "The Greek" expert, and all that jazz, and, unlike us "confused" wacko dispies/MADists, never "follow the inventions of fallible men," do you wimp?
Let's go, fraud, habitual liar.
____
**As further evidence of his deception....To wit:
"Spelling was never one of my strong points."-Craigie Tettie
The clown cites a language he does not know, this "The Greek," out of the one side of his devious wolf mouth, and, out of the other, he concedes he can't grasp English spelling.
That's my point.
Unless it was the same gospel, how could the leaders who Paul met in private with no whether or not Paul was preaching in vain?
Paul also preached to the Jew first.
The same gospel preached to the Jews and pagan Gentiles would not sound the same.
In Acts 28 Paul described how he preached to the Jews in Rome
(Acts 28:23) ...He witnessed to them from morning till evening, explaining about the kingdom of God, and from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets he tried to persuade them about Jesus.
Notice Paul didn't preach 1 Cor 15:1-4 to these Jews?
Also, notice that Paul never preached the kingdom of God from the Law of Moses and the Prophets to the pagan Gentiles.
Same gospel, two very different audiences.
Why don't you explain the mystery that Paul preached in Ephesians 3?
Tell us who the two groups that became one body in the promise of Christ Jesus were?
C'mon Little Johnny W the Dance Director, tell us?
Cross Reference
New member
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. So why don't you use the same reasoning that might bring the necessary rectification to your religious thinking?