ECT Tet and IP: so what's the bottom line, really?
- Thread starter musterion
- Start date
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...sm-so-impossible/page41&p=4703858#post4703858
“The Apostle Paul was the biggest anti-Semite there ever was:”-Tellalie , post 611
Satanic, for all to view....Sssssssssssssssssssss...................
“The Apostle Paul was the biggest anti-Semite there ever was:”-Tellalie , post 611
Satanic, for all to view....Sssssssssssssssssssss...................
Wick Stick
Well-known member
We probably disagree as to what the qualifications are, then.
From where I sit, a face-to-face meeting and personal commission with the Lord Jesus Christ is entirely sufficient. The apostles might have had some other ideas in Acts 1. They made lots of other mistakes, too.
Edit: John, sorry if I interrupted your conversation with yourself.
Any time.
Right Divider
Body part
Indeed, Paul's commission was unique and different. Good call.
Acts 1 explains what the qualifications were to be one of the twelve apostles for the twelve tribes (notice the match there?):
Acts 1:21-23 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:21) Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, (1:22) Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. (1:23) And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
There probably were not a large number of candidates based on those criteria; and Paul certainly did not meet those.
But Paul is not one of the twelve apostles for the twelve tribes; he is that other different apostle. That one apostle for the one body.
1 Corinthians 15 KJV
7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
Thus, Paul, in no uncertain terms, asserts that he was not to be identified as one of "the twelve" apostles, distinguishing himself from "all of the apostles"-"seen of me also."
The bible....a book of details....
What's the bottom line Tet?
Interplanner
Well-known member
RD wrote:
But Paul is not one of the twelve apostles for the twelve tribes; he is that other different apostle. That one apostle for the one body.
lol, what's going on? Apostles for tribes??? The one apostle for the one body, as though Eph 3 didn't exist?
But Paul is not one of the twelve apostles for the twelve tribes; he is that other different apostle. That one apostle for the one body.
lol, what's going on? Apostles for tribes??? The one apostle for the one body, as though Eph 3 didn't exist?
Interplanner
Well-known member
RD wrote:
There probably were not a large number of candidates based on those criteria; and Paul certainly did not meet those.
He was able to send out 70 pretty soon into his work. There were often thousands around.
There probably were not a large number of candidates based on those criteria; and Paul certainly did not meet those.
He was able to send out 70 pretty soon into his work. There were often thousands around.
Right Divider
Body part
You are literally as dumb as a box of rocks.
Yes, Jesus Christ said that the TWELVE apostles would sit on TWELVE thrones judging the TWELVE tribes of Israel.
Matt 19:27-28 (AKJV/PCE)
(19:27) ¶ Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore? (19:28) And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
I'm guessing that your no good at pattern matching at all. There is a PATTERN there that is not hard to see, except for someone blinded by their own whacked out story (like you).
Get yourself a Bible; burn that trash that you've been reading.
Right Divider
Body part
Once again your are CLUELESS about the CONTEXT of what was being discussed.
You never listen and are only here to show off your mighty "book learning".
Get yourself a Bible; burn that trash that you've been reading.
musterion
Well-known member
He won't answer it.
If he says MAD will damn us, one of two things happens.
(a) He'll be accusing us of believing a false gospel, which would demand he tell us what the true saving Gospel is...but that's a topic he always avoids,
or
(b) knowing we believe the grace Gospel, it proves he believes salvation is foremost by being a preterist, which would reveal him to believe a false gospel.
So he says nothing. At best, he'll pretend he answered without actually answering.
Last edited:
musterion
Well-known member
MADs almost never quote Darby but we're called Darbyists by Tet.
Okay.
Tet quotes Flavius Josephus far more than we ever quote Darby, so Tet is a Josephian or Flavian, you pick.
IP quotes Holford every third post. He's clearly a Holfordianist.
Goose, gander. Let's make these labels stick!
Okay.
Tet quotes Flavius Josephus far more than we ever quote Darby, so Tet is a Josephian or Flavian, you pick.
IP quotes Holford every third post. He's clearly a Holfordianist.
Goose, gander. Let's make these labels stick!
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Flava Flav!
Flave Joe
I like Flavian for Tet and Holfordist for IP
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
I prefer Flavius Bosephus, cause a country boy can survive.
:rotfl: