ECT Nang's Boastful Lie

[Omniskeptical]

ouranos means elevation in greek.

 

[Right Divider]

Glad you are a happy soul, Right Divider.
But before The Lord sends them out (after His suffering, death, burial and resurrection but before His ascension) weren't Twelve Disciples like His children and He was the only Authority?


Didn't John the Baptist say something abut not being like them??

Now I have to go check myself!

I don't stay out of the Gospels myself - but it's a lot to remember!

Mat 18:18-20 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (19) Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. (20) For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
​

Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision (Romans 15:8) and He chose TWELVE apostles for the TWELVE tribes. He gave them all authority equally before and after His ascension. The fact that Judas killed himself and was replaced does not change that.

 

[rainee]

Mat 18:18-20 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (19) Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. (20) For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
​

Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision (Romans 15:8) and He chose TWELVE apostles for the TWELVE tribes. He gave them all authority equally before and after His ascension. The fact that Judas killed himself and was replaced does not change that.

Are you sure you want to print that?

 

[Right Divider]

Are you sure you want to print that?

No idea what your problem is with it....... go ahead and say it, I'm not a mind reader.

 

[rainee]

No idea what your problem is with it....... go ahead and say it, I'm not a mind reader.

Ok. please please quit parroting Paul without using any of your own God given understanding. You called The Lord a "minister of the circumcision."

Do you say He is God and Man?

I do.

So I read and believe everything that is said He is.

But you are trying to restrict Him with your one line.
This is a huge mistake for you, brother. And it is even inconsistent of you - so have you no pride?
I'm telling you you gotta quit that with respect, sir. That is leading to some wrong idea about His Rulership - and I pray you guys are not there yet.

Next and less important is His giving instructions while also bossing them around during this time you refer to - and yet you not noticing. They are called "disciples" there not "sent out ones" and that means followers - as well you know. Again why aren't you using your own mind?

And you are right about The Twelve. But you don't need to understand prophecy with the above, right? You just have the wrong twelve.

 

[rainee]

Dagnab it
I fear you are wrong about the twelve.
Who told you they would rule over?

I missed that word "rule"
sorry. Shoulda known you would get me humbled.

 

[Right Divider]

Ok. please please quit parroting Paul without using any of your own God given understanding. You called The Lord a "minister of the circumcision."

Nice insult to help with the discussion.

No, I did not call Him that. Paul did and I'm sure that Paul knew what he was talking about.

Rom 15:8-12 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers: (9) And that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name. (10) And again he saith, Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people. (11) And again, Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles; and laud him, all ye people. (12) And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust.
​

Do you say He is God and Man?

In THIS context, I was quoting Paul about Jesus' mission that Jesus also confirmed during His time on earth.

Mat 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
​

I do.

So do I, in the PROPER CONTEXT.

So I read and believe everything that is said He is.

So do I, in the PROPER CONTEXT.

But you are trying to restrict Him with your one line.

No, I am not. I am letting scripture do the talking.

This is a huge mistake for you, brother. And it is even inconsistent of you - so have you no pride?
I'm telling you you gotta quit that with respect, sir. That is leading to some wrong idea about His Rulership - and I pray you guys are not there yet.

Your confusion is completely understandable since you (apparently) try to mash the entire Bible into a single thought.

Next and less important is His giving instructions while also bossing them around during this time you refer to - and yet you not noticing. They are called "disciples" there not "sent out ones" and that means followers - as well you know. Again why aren't you using your own mind?

Thanks for the additional insult, "brother".

And you are right about The Twelve. But you don't need to understand prophecy with the above, right? You just have the wrong twelve.

There are TWELVE apostles for TWELVE tribes both BEFORE and AFTER the ascension of Christ and He sent them out many times (see Matthew 10:5-6). Also, just because THEY were always under HIS authority does NOT mean that THEY did not have an authority of their own. You make a false dichotomy.

Judas was preaching the gospel of the kingdom just like the other eleven. He had the same authority that they did. That was the point of the original mention of him by STP (correct me if I'm wrong STP).

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

If you want to start that game, that's where the KJO folks will have you in the bullseye:

No, it's actually the opposite of KJO silliness, which only exaggerates any of their potential criticisms by backing them up one level to ignore the fact that the recipient language in translation doesn't determine usage and meaning from the donor language.

And KJOers are just preferencing a non-English textual tradition to begin with. Working backwards from the recipient language if fallacious.

whose Greek texts? Which variant readings?

Again, this isn't that difficult and KJOers have already established their biases for "which" texts and which readings, so it's a crazy position to take.

More than one Greek word is used in one verse in competing texts - which shall it be?

There are only two textual traditions, and lower textual criticism isn't that difficult when accessing resources that delineate the incompatibilities and seek for reconciliation rather than schism.

Erasmus' text had the Comma Johanneum in and out of revisions, so the same internal criticism FROM KJOers would be turned back upon them.

Neither textual tradition is completely consistent with itself, and that's why it's an intricate field of study rather than just working backwards from a pet English translation and making bare assertions.

The KJV and all other English translations came from a non-English textual tradition, so isolating the English translation as the defacto standard is worse than naive.

God didn't choose to preserve only one textual tradition, and neither is intact. The KJO tact just mimicks the higher critics' methodologies to undermine divine inspiration and render holy scripture as literature only.

A tree is only as good as its root, and English translations are rooted in Greek texts.

And there aren't as many crucial differences in semantics as you're representing. Plus, I'm also referring to the shallow conceptual reading in English, which usually includes no perusal of English etymology and definitions, either.

Take the previous (and constantly worn-out) example of "simplicity" from 2Cor 11:3. In English, an antonymn for simplicity would be either duplicity or complexity, or a handful of other words.

In the case of scripture, hapiotes (simplicity) is NOT an antonym for complexity, but for duplicity. Singleness, sincerity, faithfulness to others in representation without deceit as duplicity.

So this isn't just about Greek-to-English translation, it's about the patterning of the mind's concepts as Satan's devices through language.

A dumbed-down, skim-reading, lowest-common denominator is not what hapiotes means when translated as simplicity in the KJV. But simplicity CAN represent hapiotes if one knows that it's an anytonym for duplicity and insincerity rather than an antonym for complexity.

I prefer to think what God wants mankind to know is not in any way bound or limited by any language,

Of course, He's not. And that's why He inspired the text of scripture to be penned in Greek (and Hebrew) as high-context languages.

nor by anyone's poor understanding of that language.

And this is where God bears no blame for the devices of Satan by using confusion introduced at Babel by God to pattern man's mind.

Assuming an honest, competent effort

This isn't the determining factor. How would we know the hearts of those translators to examine that?

has been made on the part of translators, it's what God wants us to know. It's enough.

To a point, this is certainly correct. But what about the minutaie? And there's minutiae. A plethora of minutiae. LOL.

God assuredly wanted us to know that simplicity (hapiotes) is an antonym for duplicity, not an anytonym for complexity. One of the underlying themes for all of scripture is singleness. One God, one faith, etc. That's the simplicity we're to not depart from, not seeking a diluted and reduced condensation of the mysteries of God and then never pursuing them because we remain spiritual dullards.

Besides, there are workers, circumcizers, cultists, Christ-deniers and atheists who speak, read and write Biblical Greek far better than you can...as well as believers in Christ who can as well.

No doubt. That plays more against English-dependent understandings than Greek-dependent understandings. The JWs are a prime example. And how would you argue their translators weren't honest or comptent? They're no more biased than Christians, if we're including man's sincerity as a determining factor.

My point is, your discoveries re: language and truth cannot POSSIBLY be new to you.

No, but the comilation and culmination of them relative to having read every Patristic writing extant might help with context and usage that is foreign to the modern Western mind for both Hebrew and Greek.

Studying linguistics and edenics is foundation to many things, so it's not just a matter of narrow word-to-word translation from Greek to English for scripture.

Language is dialektos, so it's about outwardinglly conveying the inward intelligent faculties and their many functionalities in expression. This is Satan's playground to influence the hearts and minds of men. We've lost the integrity and viabillity of oral tradition, so we're vulnerable the written word as the death of the letter.

I'm not making an appeal to authority but who else have you found that already taught what you've presented since you've gotten here?[/quote

Nobody in entirety, but it's all been gleaned from Zodhiates (a favorite) and all the other lexical resources. The problem for most is they're approaching everything from the clutter and bias of their language-induced stupor of low-context understanding where individual words initially mean little and the priority is generality.

For instance, I've never met anyone yet who truly understands what Rhema is, and in contrast to Logos. Rhema represents the thing spoken about; the subject matter; the content; the substance of what is thought and spoken. Logos is the intelligent and wisely rational reasoning, ponderance, and contemplation of the Rhema; and IF there is expression, whether written or spoken, that's also Logos.

I spent over a decade accessing every use and reference to Rhema and Logos in Patristic writings and lexicography, fasting nigh unto death many times, just to continuously pursue the depth, breadth, and height of what those words mean... in English.

I stood on the shoulders of all the great men of God before me rather than ignoring them or sweeping them away for selfish preference of my own understanding.

You are not the first;

Of course not. Virtually everyone has been searching for the truth in bits and pieces. I've just compiled them into a cohesive simplicity and singleness of truth that focuses around God's Rhema, which carried forth and continuously upholds all things (Heb 1).

I know you know of others. Who are they?

You'd probably have to start with Zodhiates' lexicography, but he nor anyone else that I've found have collated all the meanings into the true simplicity of hapiotes that I've exampled.

It's all about God's Rhema and Logos; and His hypostasis and the prosopon of Christ as the expresss image of that hypostasis.

Since faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Rhema... And the Rhema is the sword of the Spirit... And Mary said, "Be it unto me according to thy Rhema."... And man shall not live by bread alone, but by every Rhema that proceeds out of the mouth of God... And with God, nothing (no Rhema) shall be impossible... Then Rhema's intricately specific meaning is quite important.

And therein, along with a handful of other definitions (like hamartia and thanatos, etc?) lies the simplicity of the ontological Gospel of Paul, entrusted to him by God.

I know of no one who has spiritually surrendered and devoted their lives to language in that fashion, so over 15 years ago I decided to do so. And it's because the ontology of Paul's Gospel was lost to the methodology of the earliest apologists, and the Romanization of the Church into apostasy.

And it's not arrogance. It's intentional humility and love, with voraciouly rabid and resting faith as absolute assurance and confident pursuasion.

Pistis. Not just elpis.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I can't help but like the guy

Wow. Who knew? I thought you were just exhibiting restraint and tolerance. You still remain one of the few voices on TOL that stirs me to the heart.

but if he's right, we can't know for sure what God says because we're not Greek experts.

It's not about being a Greek expert. And it's not that difficult to see most misuses of words. It's about not being ignorant of Satan's devices, and demonstrating a measure of stewardship beyond gloss reading, shallow proof-texting, and presupposed doctrines as eisegesis.

I'm probably the only one who will admit that I'm constantly on guard for eisegesis lest I allow my own heart and mind to determine what scripture says.

Period. Even if he has some good technical and practical points, he carries it too far and sows nothing but doubt.

I'm not sowing doubt. In fact, I'm depending upon others' trust in Christ as the foundation to search further and deeper than their indoctrination.

Even when I pointed out a word isn't used in the Bible the way he says it is, he blew it off.

Hypostasis is foundational. God is a hypostasis. Faith is a hypostasis. You are a hypostasis. The hypostasis (substance) underlies the ousia (essence), and those are outwardly presented by the prosopon.

God accepts no man's prosopon, and the prosopon "has" the hypostasis. That's why the hypostasis of faith is vital for us to be translated into the kingdom of God's dear Son.

Translated means moved to another location. That's our inner man, being translated into Christ. Moved into His prosopon. Putting on Christ.

It's ontological and literal, not figurative. It's putting on His robe of righteousness. THAT's the imputation. It's not just an assigned legal status as a label. That's merely identity and ostension.

Paul was in the prosopon of Christ. God accepts no man's prosopon.

If you want to think hypostasis is merely a disposition, then you deny your own Theology Proper. The three hypostases are the three alleged "persons" of your acquiesced version of the historical Trinity.

This ignorance is why most professing Trinitarians aren't actual historical O/othodox Trinitarians.

All I've done is reconcile all the views of various opposing doctrines, including Theology Proper, though that's another related topic.

The whole thing smacks of "Did God say...?"

Not at all. It smacks of someone who doesn't trust Satan and his devices that result from the influence of him sculpting language to change men's hearts, including professing Believers.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

ouranos means elevation in greek.

Fair enough.

 

[rainee]

Nice insult to help with the discussion.

Sir, and I mean that, you are not being insulted. I am telling you I expect more from you than you are giving and that is what you think is coming out as an insult. You chose your nick. It's a good one. I have to believe something in you is right or wants to be right.

No, I did not call Him that. Paul did and I'm sure that Paul knew what he was talking about.

True, Paul knows.
But here I go again - we are human - Paul is speaking filled with the Holy Spirit. He is quoting OT scriptures - do they tell you He (THE LORD) is going to REIGN over YOU, you Gentile? Ok then lots of Scripture about this and it's prophecy - and I ain't doing prophecy or can't so take all the words completely. Why tell me what Paul says He was for the sake of the Fathers?? What were the Fathers told He was? (And with a Rod of Iron too.) So Paul is evening out something for you and your Lord. Every time you try to disqualify something from a Gospel with something Paul says - you are probably dealing with OT Scripture Paul is working with or something like that - Paul is in line with The Lord. The Lord is in line in the Gospels. You need both.
Which is crazy for me to tell you cuz you read Hebrews! So OF COURSE you need the Gospels.

Rom 15:8-12 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers: (9) And that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name. (10) And again he saith, Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people. (11) And again, Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles; and laud him, all ye people. (12) And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust.
​

In THIS context, I was quoting Paul about Jesus' mission that Jesus also confirmed during His time on earth.

Mat 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
​

So do I, in the PROPER CONTEXT.

No. In this context you were long ago spoken of to the Fathers.

Your confusion is completely understandable since you (apparently) try to mash the entire Bible into a single thought.

Either I have a gift with Scripture or i don't. But even that can fail. It is better to call me confused than of the devil - so thank you.

There are TWELVE apostles for TWELVE tribes both BEFORE and AFTER the ascension of Christ and He sent them out many times (see Matthew 10:5-6). Also, just because THEY were always under HIS authority does NOT mean that THEY did not have an authority of their own. You make a false dichotomy.

Jesus releases Judas to go and betray Him because like with God this is how it happens.
Judas was a disciple, one of the twelve, to fulfill prophecy as you should and probably do well know. This all for our understanding which you are about 20 thousand miles away from apparently. Why????

Judas was preaching the gospel of the kingdom just like the other eleven. He had the same authority that they did. That was the point of the original mention of him by STP (correct me if I'm wrong STP).

I have not read STP.
When did they preach the gospel? Teach me. When they were sent to cast out demons? Where are these verses? Are you guys assuming?

 

[patrick jane]

No, it's actually the opposite of KJO silliness, which only exaggerates any of their potential criticisms by backing them up one level to ignore the fact that the recipient language in translation doesn't determine usage and meaning from the donor language.

And KJOers are just preferencing a non-English textual tradition to begin with. Working backwards from the recipient language if fallacious.



Again, this isn't that difficult and KJOers have already established their biases for "which" texts and which readings, so it's a crazy position to take.



There are only two textual traditions, and lower textual criticism isn't that difficult when accessing resources that delineate the incompatibilities and seek for reconciliation rather than schism.

Erasmus' text had the Comma Johanneum in and out of revisions, so the same internal criticism FROM KJOers would be turned back upon them.

Neither textual tradition is completely consistent with itself, and that's why it's an intricate field of study rather than just working backwards from a pet English translation and making bare assertions.

The KJV and all other English translations came from a non-English textual tradition, so isolating the English translation as the defacto standard is worse than naive.

God didn't choose to preserve only one textual tradition, and neither is intact. The KJO tact just mimicks the higher critics' methodologies to undermine divine inspiration and render holy scripture as literature only.

A tree is only as good as its root, and English translations are rooted in Greek texts.

And there aren't as many crucial differences in semantics as you're representing. Plus, I'm also referring to the shallow conceptual reading in English, which usually includes no perusal of English etymology and definitions, either.

Take the previous (and constantly worn-out) example of "simplicity" from 2Cor 11:3. In English, an antonymn for simplicity would be either duplicity or complexity, or a handful of other words.

In the case of scripture, hapiotes (simplicity) is NOT an antonym for complexity, but for duplicity. Singleness, sincerity, faithfulness to others in representation without deceit as duplicity.

So this isn't just about Greek-to-English translation, it's about the patterning of the mind's concepts as Satan's devices through language.

A dumbed-down, skim-reading, lowest-common denominator is not what hapiotes means when translated as simplicity in the KJV. But simplicity CAN represent hapiotes if one knows that it's an anytonym for duplicity and insincerity rather than an antonym for complexity.



Of course, He's not. And that's why He inspired the text of scripture to be penned in Greek (and Hebrew) as high-context languages.



And this is where God bears no blame for the devices of Satan by using confusion introduced at Babel by God to pattern man's mind.



This isn't the determining factor. How would we know the hearts of those translators to examine that?



To a point, this is certainly correct. But what about the minutaie? And there's minutiae. A plethora of minutiae. LOL.

God assuredly wanted us to know that simplicity (hapiotes) is an antonym for duplicity, not an anytonym for complexity. One of the underlying themes for all of scripture is singleness. One God, one faith, etc. That's the simplicity we're to not depart from, not seeking a diluted and reduced condensation of the mysteries of God and then never pursuing them because we remain spiritual dullards.



No doubt. That plays more against English-dependent understandings than Greek-dependent understandings. The JWs are a prime example. And how would you argue their translators weren't honest or comptent? They're no more biased than Christians, if we're including man's sincerity as a determining factor.



No, but the comilation and culmination of them relative to having read every Patristic writing extant might help with context and usage that is foreign to the modern Western mind for both Hebrew and Greek.

Studying linguistics and edenics is foundation to many things, so it's not just a matter of narrow word-to-word translation from Greek to English for scripture.

Language is dialektos, so it's about outwardinglly conveying the inward intelligent faculties and their many functionalities in expression. This is Satan's playground to influence the hearts and minds of men. We've lost the integrity and viabillity of oral tradition, so we're vulnerable the written word as the death of the letter.

I'm not making an appeal to authority but who else have you found that already taught what you've presented since you've gotten here?[/quote

Nobody in entirety, but it's all been gleaned from Zodhiates (a favorite) and all the other lexical resources. The problem for most is they're approaching everything from the clutter and bias of their language-induced stupor of low-context understanding where individual words initially mean little and the priority is generality.

For instance, I've never met anyone yet who truly understands what Rhema is, and in contrast to Logos. Rhema represents the thing spoken about; the subject matter; the content; the substance of what is thought and spoken. Logos is the intelligent and wisely rational reasoning, ponderance, and contemplation of the Rhema; and IF there is expression, whether written or spoken, that's also Logos.

I spent over a decade accessing every use and reference to Rhema and Logos in Patristic writings and lexicography, fasting nigh unto death many times, just to continuously pursue the depth, breadth, and height of what those words mean... in English.

I stood on the shoulders of all the great men of God before me rather than ignoring them or sweeping them away for selfish preference of my own understanding.



Of course not. Virtually everyone has been searching for the truth in bits and pieces. I've just compiled them into a cohesive simplicity and singleness of truth that focuses around God's Rhema, which carried forth and continuously upholds all things (Heb 1).



You'd probably have to start with Zodhiates' lexicography, but he nor anyone else that I've found have collated all the meanings into the true simplicity of hapiotes that I've exampled.

It's all about God's Rhema and Logos; and His hypostasis and the prosopon of Christ as the expresss image of that hypostasis.

Since faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Rhema... And the Rhema is the sword of the Spirit... And Mary said, "Be it unto me according to thy Rhema."... And man shall not live by bread alone, but by every Rhema that proceeds out of the mouth of God... And with God, nothing (no Rhema) shall be impossible... Then Rhema's intricately specific meaning is quite important.

And therein, along with a handful of other definitions (like hamartia and thanatos, etc?) lies the simplicity of the ontological Gospel of Paul, entrusted to him by God.

I know of no one who has spiritually surrendered and devoted their lives to language in that fashion, so over 15 years ago I decided to do so. And it's because the ontology of Paul's Gospel was lost to the methodology of the earliest apologists, and the Romanization of the Church into apostasy.

And it's not arrogance. It's intentional humility and love, with voraciouly rabid and resting faith as absolute assurance and confident pursuasion.

Pistis. Not just elpis.

that is an excellent explanation of what one must do. instead of spending decades of translations and root languages to gain understanding, some of us are blessed with the ability to understand the the full meaning of scripture with the words we have. in the language we speak. obviously, some people have time to do this, work in this field of study, or dedicate their lives to it. very complex, but very simple. for me, anyway. i would guess that any question posed to me in plain english, i can answer in plain english. no pistis elsis logos rhema. although, they are great words or adjectives, they can be expressed in english as well or better. PPS is describing a level of understanding that i rarely encounter in everyday life. awesome ! :dog:

 

[Right Divider]

<cut>

You're all over the road and in the ditch. Good luck.

 

[rainee]

You're all over the road and in the ditch. Good luck.

Are you going to put me on your list, RD?

Will it make it better if I say you are right?

Rom 15:8-12 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers: (9) And that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name. (10) And again he saith, Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people. (11) And again, Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles; and laud him, all ye people. (12) And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust.
​

Ok - none of that is about you. You are right.
Focusing on Verse numbers helps with that, remember Paul numbers his words on purpose.

Or should I say porpoise? sigh

Have you seen any dead ones in avatars lately?

 

[Right Divider]

Are you going to put me on your list, RD?

Do you belong there? It's a very distinguished group and it seems like maybe you want to join them.

Will it make it better if I say you are right?

Better for you.

Ok - none of that is about you. You are right.
Focusing on Verse numbers helps with that, remember Paul numbers his words on purpose.

As usual, I don't know what you mean. You are always very unclear and confusing. Do you do that on porpoise?

Or should I say porpoise? sigh

Have you seen any dead ones in avatars lately?

Again, no idea what you're talking about.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

ATTENTION ALL MADs:

Regardless of whether it's appreciated or reciprocal, I've had a very prayerful and significant change of heart that accompanies an overall recent reassessment of how I engage others in person and online.

I've determined that constantly being combative and adversarial with others (most of whom, by their own testimonies, are my brothers and sisters in Christ) is simply not very effective or productive on many levels.

It may take some time and care, with potential small relapses because theological issues can be so intense and charged, but I'm focusing my efforts on TOL and in "real" life upon faith, hope, and love, etc. without any compromise in representing truth as iron is sharpening iron between us all.

As I've pondered the distinctions of the MAD focus, I see that it's entirely and appropriately about faith apart from works. I find that I've too often been involved in some degree of judgement that hasn't always been righteous judgment because of my general valid disdain for Dispensationalism.

But I see the MADs here mostly contending for the faith as the Gospel of Paul, even though I rightly consider it to be more ontological than MADs seem to realize.

I've too often returned neg reps and comments and attitudes, engaging in some form of "eye for an eye" mentality without ever really considering it.

So I'm thankful for many of the contributions of MADs in this and other threads, and I've listened to some of the appropriate criticism of scrutinizing others' works. My own are too rancid for that to ever be anything but hypocritical and faith-denying.

In the end, I'm thankful and grateful for the imputed righteousness of God through Jesus Christ for the Body. And that's about the sum of it from me.

Thank you for reading.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

ATTENTION ALL MADs:

Regardless of whether it's appreciated or reciprocal, I've had a very prayerful and significant change of heart that accompanies an overall recent reassessment of how I engage others in person and online.

I've determined that constantly being combative and adversarial with others (most of whom, by their own testimonies, are my brothers and sisters in Christ) is simply not very effective or productive on many levels.

It may take some time and care, with potential small relapses because theological issues can be so intense and charged, but I'm focusing my efforts on TOL and in "real" life upon faith, hope, and love, etc. without any compromise in representing truth as iron is sharpening iron between us all.

As I've pondered the distinctions of the MAD focus, I see that it's entirely and appropriately about faith apart from works. I find that I've too often been involved in some degree of judgement that hasn't always been righteous judgment because of my general valid disdain for Dispensationalism.

But I see the MADs here mostly contending for the faith as the Gospel of Paul, even though I rightly consider it to be more ontological than MADs seem to realize.

I've too often returned neg reps and comments and attitudes, engaging in some form of "eye for an eye" mentality without ever really considering it.

So I'm thankful for many of the contributions of MADs in this and other threads, and I've listened to some of the appropriate criticism of scrutinizing others' works. My own are too rancid for that to ever be anything but hypocritical and faith-denying.

In the end, I'm thankful and grateful for the imputed righteousness of God through Jesus Christ for the Body. And that's about the sum of it from me.

Thank you for reading.

YES!!!

May He quicken us all in His love.

 

[patrick jane]

ATTENTION ALL MADs:

Regardless of whether it's appreciated or reciprocal, I've had a very prayerful and significant change of heart that accompanies an overall recent reassessment of how I engage others in person and online.

I've determined that constantly being combative and adversarial with others (most of whom, by their own testimonies, are my brothers and sisters in Christ) is simply not very effective or productive on many levels.

It may take some time and care, with potential small relapses because theological issues can be so intense and charged, but I'm focusing my efforts on TOL and in "real" life upon faith, hope, and love, etc. without any compromise in representing truth as iron is sharpening iron between us all.

As I've pondered the distinctions of the MAD focus, I see that it's entirely and appropriately about faith apart from works. I find that I've too often been involved in some degree of judgement that hasn't always been righteous judgment because of my general valid disdain for Dispensationalism.

But I see the MADs here mostly contending for the faith as the Gospel of Paul, even though I rightly consider it to be more ontological than MADs seem to realize.

I've too often returned neg reps and comments and attitudes, engaging in some form of "eye for an eye" mentality without ever really considering it.

So I'm thankful for many of the contributions of MADs in this and other threads, and I've listened to some of the appropriate criticism of scrutinizing others' works. My own are too rancid for that to ever be anything but hypocritical and faith-denying.

In the end, I'm thankful and grateful for the imputed righteousness of God through Jesus Christ for the Body. And that's about the sum of it from me.

Thank you for reading.

Amen. well put. i think i may have played a small part. jk. All Glory to God. God Works. Prayer Works. God works through people. God is patient, God's Will Be Done. you help all of us PPS !:sam:

 

[Nang]

ATTENTION ALL MADs:

Regardless of whether it's appreciated or reciprocal, I've had a very prayerful and significant change of heart that accompanies an overall recent reassessment of how I engage others in person and online.

I've determined that constantly being combative and adversarial with others (most of whom, by their own testimonies, are my brothers and sisters in Christ) is simply not very effective or productive on many levels.

It may take some time and care, with potential small relapses because theological issues can be so intense and charged, but I'm focusing my efforts on TOL and in "real" life upon faith, hope, and love, etc. without any compromise in representing truth as iron is sharpening iron between us all.

As I've pondered the distinctions of the MAD focus, I see that it's entirely and appropriately about faith apart from works. I find that I've too often been involved in some degree of judgement that hasn't always been righteous judgment because of my general valid disdain for Dispensationalism.

But I see the MADs here mostly contending for the faith as the Gospel of Paul, even though I rightly consider it to be more ontological than MADs seem to realize.

I've too often returned neg reps and comments and attitudes, engaging in some form of "eye for an eye" mentality without ever really considering it.

So I'm thankful for many of the contributions of MADs in this and other threads, and I've listened to some of the appropriate criticism of scrutinizing others' works. My own are too rancid for that to ever be anything but hypocritical and faith-denying.

In the end, I'm thankful and grateful for the imputed righteousness of God through Jesus Christ for the Body. And that's about the sum of it from me.

Thank you for reading.

To each his own, but I would like to know what contributions you think MADists have made to the Truth of the one Gospel of Grace in Jesus Christ. . . which they openly deny!

MADists only repeatedly condemn me to hell for my beliefs, so I cannot consider any of them my brothers or sisters in the Lord, but if you want to claim them, you will have to own them.

The only way to show love to delusional Dispies and hateful MADists (and all gnostics,) is to faithfully, and unceasingly repeat the one true Gospel of Grace within their hearing, and trust that God will save whom He will . . if any of them.

It will be a grande experiment to watch to see how lovingly the MADists respond to your grande gesture . . . :nono:

 

[Nang]

Amen. well put. i think i may have played a small part. jk. All Glory to God. God Works. Prayer Works. God works through people. God is patient, God's Will Be Done. you help all of us PPS !:sam:

There is never any such thing as "all glory given to God," except by faithfully standing for the following biblical principles:
Which is:

Sola Scriptura
Sola Gratia
Sola Fide
Solus Christus . . .

Soli Deo Gloria