ECT MAD'ists "know" and "love" the Bible but seek too much between lines

[Interplanner]

MAD'ists "know" and "love" the Bible but seek too much between lines

Relative to the average Western person, MAD'ists know a lot about the Bible. But MAD is a doctrinaire, overdone attempt to find some particular moment-of-transition inside the heads of the early Christians, as they distanced themselves from Judaism as they grew up in. As such it is annoying.

The reason it is annoying is that a Bible student should seek (and be taught to seek) those self-organizing passages that already tell us the bigger scopes and sweeps and picture of the Bible. At the end of the day, MAD has a few verses it dangles from. It is equally difficult to follow and to communicate because of the search for a secret moment (notice how the sub-groupings are various locations in Acts).

Time that should have been spent on unpacking Gal 3:17 about the Promise and the Law is not done, and so when MAD is done summarizing, things conflict with and avoid Gal 3:17.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Relative to the average Western person, MAD'ists know a lot about the Bible. But MAD is a doctrinaire, overdone attempt to find some particular moment-of-transition inside the heads of the early Christians, as they distanced themselves from Judaism as they grew up in. As such it is annoying.

The reason it is annoying is that a Bible student should seek (and be taught to seek) those self-organizing passages that already tell us the bigger scopes and sweeps and picture of the Bible. At the end of the day, MAD has a few verses it dangles from. It is equally difficult to follow and to communicate because of the search for a secret moment (notice how the sub-groupings are various locations in Acts).

Time that should have been spent on unpacking Gal 3:17 about the Promise and the Law is not done, and so when MAD is done summarizing, things conflict with and avoid Gal 3:17.

All right, another "hate" thread against the TRUTH of Scripture. It shows, you're at least thinking?

 

[steko]

Relative to the average Western person, MAD'ists know a lot about the Bible. But MAD is a doctrinaire, overdone attempt to find some particular moment-of-transition inside the heads of the early Christians, as they distanced themselves from Judaism as they grew up in. As such it is annoying.

The reason it is annoying is that a Bible student should seek (and be taught to seek) those self-organizing passages that already tell us the bigger scopes and sweeps and picture of the Bible. At the end of the day, MAD has a few verses it dangles from. It is equally difficult to follow and to communicate because of the search for a secret moment (notice how the sub-groupings are various locations in Acts).

Time that should have been spent on unpacking Gal 3:17 about the Promise and the Law is not done, and so when MAD is done summarizing, things conflict with and avoid Gal 3:17.

Sometimes I see some things that are annoying, too.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Sometimes I see some things that are annoying, too.

IP's unhealthy obsession is annoying.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

What is wrong with allowing the LORD to save different people for a different eternal purpose?
Same blood, same Christ, different inheritance, difference purpose. Let it be.

The reason you won't let it be is that it will destroy your particular denomination that you cherish more than anything.

 

[andyc]

What is wrong with allowing the LORD to save different people for a different eternal purpose?

How about, its not in the bible? There's a thought.

Same blood, same Christ,

Yeah!

different inheritance, difference purpose. Let it be.

Doh!

That little 5 star country club gospel, ya gotta love it.

The reason you won't let it be is that it will destroy your particular denomination that you cherish more than anything.

Interplanner is in the "trying to suss you out" stage. The fog will eventually clear, I hope.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

How about, its not in the bible? There's a thought.

:chuckle:

Only if words have no meaning.

Land, city, heaven. You make them all one. Why?

 

[patrick jane]

Madists know and love the Bible. Well put IP

 

[andyc]

:chuckle:

Only if words have no meaning.

Land, city, heaven. You make them all one. Why?

Progressive revelation.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Progressive revelation.

:chuckle:
Sure.

 

[andyc]

:chuckle:
Sure.

Even your hero messiah Paul supposedly had it decrypted after the other 12. So you agree with progressive revelation, but only when it suits.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Even your hero messiah Paul supposedly had it decrypted after the other 12. So you agree with progressive revelation, but only when it suits.

Nice little Andy, the passive aggressive.

Good luck changing land, city, and heaven into one. The Bible isn't going to change it.

 

[andyc]

Nice little Andy, the passive aggressive.

Good luck changing land, city, and heaven into one. The Bible isn't going to change it.

It does in fact.

You see, the Hebrews writer explains that only those things that cannot be shaken will remain. And that the things that will be shaken are the things that are made. And the things that are made, will be removed.

Heaven isn't made, unless you believe that God was once homeless.

 

[john w]

Relative to the average Western person, MAD'ists know a lot about the Bible. But MAD is a doctrinaire, overdone attempt to find some particular moment-of-transition inside the heads of the early Christians, as they distanced themselves from Judaism as they grew up in. As such it is annoying.

The reason it is annoying is that a Bible student should seek (and be taught to seek) those self-organizing passages that already tell us the bigger scopes and sweeps and picture of the Bible. At the end of the day, MAD has a few verses it dangles from. It is equally difficult to follow and to communicate because of the search for a secret moment (notice how the sub-groupings are various locations in Acts).

Time that should have been spent on unpacking Gal 3:17 about the Promise and the Law is not done, and so when MAD is done summarizing, things conflict with and avoid Gal 3:17.

Translated: In my opinion, InternationalPlaguer, being a talk show host, where every opinion is equally valid, others need to be in the Laodicean "church" age, like where I am, and join me, so that we can all be, together, as "good Christian folk," a bunch of wavering, double minded, unstable, inconsistent fools(survey James 1:6-8 KJV), just showing off, all over the ww net, our "intelligence," even though we have isolated ourselves from intelligent members of the boc. These proud, worthless overlords, such as IP, candyandycain, ...........have been deceiving and destroying the flock, and manufacturing drones, after their own kind(Genesis), like poor children who show up on this board, many of whom cannot even think straight anymore, as they log in, and lose their mind.

So, let's spend less time, hangin' out/chillaxin' with the "Oprah/Donahue/Dr. Phil" crowd, and more time learning to rightly divide the word of truth. And that is something you drones will have to learn for yourselves.We are not your overlords, nor have we claimed to be your masters, or anyone elses(Romans 14:4 KJV). We alleged dispie/MAD wackos can direct you to some things, and can help you, provided you are being honest with us, do want help, and are not just here to "show us a few thins," Lucy. And please, IP, notify us when you have something intelligent to serve up, contribute, to the discussion. In the meantime, there are plenty of other forums/boards, for children, with a bible, in which every verse is about them, directed to them, specifically, applies to them, and is for their obedience. It's called "The Bible Blender/Smorgasbord Society" boards.

Thank you, and have a nice day. And remember....God loves you, and so does Sponge Bob, "The View," and Oprah......

I have officially closed this "thread." EOT. DOA. CLOSED. CONDEMNED AREA.. NO ENTRANCE. RIP.

 

[Danoh]

Exactly, JohnW.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Heaven isn't made, unless you believe that God was once homeless.

:chuckle:

 

[Danoh]

Relative to the average Western person, MAD'ists know a lot about the Bible. But MAD is a doctrinaire, overdone attempt to find some particular moment-of-transition inside the heads of the early Christians, as they distanced themselves from Judaism as they grew up in. As such it is annoying.

The reason it is annoying is that a Bible student should seek (and be taught to seek) those self-organizing passages that already tell us the bigger scopes and sweeps and picture of the Bible. At the end of the day, MAD has a few verses it dangles from. It is equally difficult to follow and to communicate because of the search for a secret moment (notice how the sub-groupings are various locations in Acts).

Time that should have been spent on unpacking Gal 3:17 about the Promise and the Law is not done, and so when MAD is done summarizing, things conflict with and avoid Gal 3:17.

Try seeking FIRST to identify IN SCRIPTURE the organizing principle by which the organizing principle is to be identified.

The one principle is meta to, or above, and therefore governs, the lower, other.

Or, before one sits down to think on a thing, one might do well to first sit down to think on how one is going to think on it.

Figure that out and books "about" actually ONLY THEN BEGIN TO become much more useful than even their writers might have hoped.

Do you even know what I am talking about?

Can you walk up to any man in any field and explain to him "the how" behind his "how" without having to know "about" it beforehand?

Absent of this skill, your books "about" are, and remain a crutch you will never be free of.

Absent of this skill, all you will ever be is someone's "books based" parrot.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Even your hero messiah Paul supposedly had it decrypted after the other 12. So you agree with progressive revelation, but only when it suits.

I see AndyCnoTruth is trying his best to preach discord.

 

[Interplanner]

Try seeking FIRST to identify IN SCRIPTURE the organizing principle by which the organizing principle is to be identified.

The one principle is meta to, or above, and therefore governs, the lower, other.

Or, before one sits down to think on a thing, one might do well to first sit down to think on how one is going to think on it.

Figure that out and books "about" actually ONLY THEN BEGIN TO become much more useful than even their writers might have hoped.

Do you even know what I am talking about?




Can you walk up to any man in any field and explain to him "the how" behind his "how" without having to know "about" it beforehand?

Absent of this skill, your books "about" are, and remain a crutch you will never be free of.

Absent of this skill, all you will ever be is someone's "books based" parrot.

No, you don't know what you're talking about. I know this because you never say what is going on in Gal 3:17 in your own words. You're too insecure or whatever.

maybe you feel guilty about all the books you've based your thinking upon exactly as described in the OP. Which has nothing insulting in it.