ECT The core of the argument between Christians and MAD.

[Levolor]

Now you are going to go on Levelor's black list.

​

I have no list, black or otherwise. There is a list of friends on my profile as anyone else might have, other than that I have no list.

What you have said is false witnessing.

(emphasis mine)

There have been people banned for changing the words in another person's quote... I don't care if you said emphasis mine on the changed words, it is still another form of false witnessing.

 

[Tambora]

I have no list, black or otherwise. There is a list of friends on my profile as anyone else might have, other than that I have no list.

What you have said is false witnessing.

So, to you, calling folks flakes is on the list of "gracious" talk you posted?

There have been people banned for changing the words in another person's quote... I don't care if you said emphasis mine on the changed words, it is still another form of false witnessing.

Nope. I won't get banned for changing a word and pointing out that it was changed.


You are really grasping at straws now.
Let's hear some more of your excuses.

 

[Levolor]

I don't recall ever saying that me putting down another is supposed to HELP them, anymore than when you do it helps.

No, you don't see.
I don't claim to be superior to anyone.

When putting down something or someone the 'down' is automatically below. Below you in this case. To put down a person is to put them below you thereby making you in a superior position. Do you see it now?

I sin, just like everyone else.
You think I behave badly at times,...

I think that you are made in the image of God.

God has not asked of us to do anything that we are incapable of doing.

31 Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. 1 Corinthians 10:31

14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Galatians 5:14

Think of these next time you want to lower another below you by putting them down by name calling or other deed. God loves them just as much as He loves you.

 

[Levolor]

So, to you, calling folks flakes is on the list of "gracious" talk you posted?

How do you get that out of this:

I have no list, black or otherwise. There is a list of friends on my profile as anyone else might have, other than that I have no list.

What you have said is false witnessing.

Nope. I won't get banned for changing a word and pointing out that it was changed.

I didn't say you would.

It appears that nothing was understood.

You are really grasping at straws now.
Let's hear some more of your excuses.

May you get understanding. Proverbs 4:7

 

[Tambora]

I have to agree with this. But I don't think it's right to call people "flakes". The word carnal is sufficient. Paul spoke often of striving for the prize....overcoming our carnal nature.

And now the hall-monitor has arrived to inform us all of what words we should use and not use, even though it won't change what is in their heart.
Sugarcoating galore!

You guys are a hoot!

 

[Tambora]

How do you get that out of this:

Just follow the trail back to your post of how all our talk should be gracious.

I didn't say you would.

Well, I won't. So no worries.

It appears that nothing was understood.

Very gracious of you.

May you get understanding. Proverbs 4:7

Already do.
But very gracious of you to imply I don't.

 

[Tambora]

Think of these next time you want to lower another below you by putting them down by name calling or other deed. God loves them just as much as He loves you.

You think of them next time you want to tell me how wrong I am.

BTW, what name did I call you?

 

[Simon Baker]

View attachment 19319

 

[Levolor]

Just follow the trail back to your post of how all our talk should be gracious.

Then you weren't talking about what was posted in the reply, but instead of an entirely different post from another day.

Do try to keep from mis-directing, and either speak about the post you are replying to, or to actually quote what you are referring to.

Already do.
But very gracious of you to imply I don't.

If you understood what was said in those replies, why did you not address them directly and instead put up a smoke screen and mis and re-direct?

Rolling of the eyes. Isn't that so cute!

There's lots of scriptures about being mature and no longer being children.

 

[Levolor]

You think of them next time you want to tell me how wrong I am.

I am not telling you that you are wrong. I am telling you that you are missing the mark and encouraging others to follow suit.

BTW, what name did I call you?

LOL

You mentioned remembering about me posting verses about being gracious, but can't remember this. Either remember what the conversation was, and if unable, go back and read.

 

[Tambora]

Then you weren't talking about what was posted in the reply, but instead of an entirely different post from another day.

Do try to keep from mis-directing, and either speak about the post you are replying to, or to actually quote what you are referring to.

Try to keep up.

My comment about a black list was about your post on how everyone should speak graciously.
Of course, it disregards all the scriptures where God, prophets, and apostles speak unflattering words to others.

If you understood what was said in those replies, why did you not address them directly and instead put up a smoke screen and mis and re-direct?

I didn't put up a smoke screen or redirect.

Rolling of the eyes. Isn't that so cute!

Sometimes.

There's lots of scriptures about being mature and no longer being children.

Yep. And there are scriptures about being as little children.


Are you getting a clue yet that you don't speak so graciously to others either?

 

[Tambora]

I am not telling you that you are wrong. I am telling you that you are missing the mark and encouraging others to follow suit.

What "mark" are you referring to?

If it's about being in Christ, I'm a bull's eye!

LOL

You mentioned remembering about me posting verses about being gracious, but can't remember this. Either remember what the conversation was, and if unable, go back and read.

Or, you could have just told me what name I called you.
What was it?

 

[Tambora]

A flake is someone who's carnal.

So is whore, pig, and dog.

 

[whitestone]

Is he not speaking of baptizing the Gentiles outside the Circumcision and the Levitical Law of Moses?

Arsenios

I think Peter explains it his own self in Acts 11:16-17,that is before this encounter in acts 10,11 he did not think the Gentiles would be baptized by the Holy Ghost.

 

[Nang]

So is whore, pig, and dog.

If "whore" is so excusably an accepted biblical term, why was I recently banned for 2 weeks from TOL for inexcusably using it to describe a MADist?

 

[Tambora]

If "whore" is so excusably an accepted biblical term,

Well, isn't it?

why was I recently banned for 2 weeks from TOL for inexcusably using it to describe a MADist?

I don't know. Why?

 

[Nang]

Well, isn't it?

I don't know. Why?

Infraction came from Knight for my supposedly "provoking" (a MADist provocateur) by using the term "whore" describing the trolling tactics of GM (which description I thought to be, indeed, most accurate.)

This censorship imposed against me, came despite the fact I have been often been vilified by this very term (and worse), by MADists.

No one can tell me TOL is unbiased and does not favor those who are recruited to further their OT and MADist "cause."

 

[whitestone]

Yes it's nothing really. As I said, no problem with me.



I'm trying to understand why the timeline is important to you?
And I'm not sure what the case is you're trying to present or what you're specifically saying/asking.

Also, your scripture quotes are with a semi colon. It would be better to use a colon, and then the verses can be viewed.

Yes it's nothing really. As I said, no problem with me.



I'm trying to understand why the timeline is important to you?
And I'm not sure what the case is you're trying to present or what you're specifically saying/asking.

Also, your scripture quotes are with a semi colon. It would be better to use a colon, and then the verses can be viewed.

The timeline to me is a reflection of the title of the thread "middle Acts dispensation"or M.A.D.,so it is a reflection up to acts 9,10,11 of what was known and what was being taught. And then from this point onward whether or not they were teaching the same thing or if something was revealed to them(a mystery) and from that point onward did they began to teach what was being added to what they understood.

Paul as we know has become a touchy subject as to how he actually fits in to this (we examine him very close because of this). On the other hand Peter also is a good example of how and when they were told certain things that they had no knowledge of. As we know there is a mystery that "was kept secret since the world began" Romans 16:25-26 but at what time was this secret made manifest Acts 9,10,11 ?

Now as for Peter this mystery must have been extremely eyeopening for him because as it states in Acts 10:17 he "doubted it" and was told in Acts 10:20 not to doubt it. So as he is recounting this to the others who doubted it Acts 11:2 he states to them "what was I, that I could withstand God?",,,so he at first (and) those of the circumcision doubted what was happening(they thought something else was suppose to take place see Acts 1:6)

So if there is a secret that had not yet been made manifest to Peter until Acts 10 it would be reflected in Acts chapter 2 when he addressed those present. That is there being a crowd composed of both Gentiles and Israel(Acts 2:5-11) he in his explanation would break it down to render it's meaning to those who were "ye men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem"(Acts 2:14) . But then since he believed the baptism of the Holy Ghost was exclusive to Israel he would say something different to them beginning at Acts 2:22 ,,,

So Peter then 10 years later after being shown the "secret" would then realize that something was not as he thought at first and then as we know he realized that when the Holy Ghost fell on them(Gentiles) the same as it did on him at the beginning(he is referring to Acts 2:3-4 when he says the beginning) Acts 11:15-16

I say this and I mean no disrespect to Peter in what I am saying that is what the Lord wanted him to know and do he gave him as he needed to receive it. So the same during this same time frame Saul of Tarsus did also not know the "secret" but as the time unfolded and it was time for him to know he was shown,in the same Peter when the time was fulfilled,"preaching the word to none but the Jews only"(Acts 11:19) then the secret that was kept a mystery from the beginning was made manifest to them. I as I say mean no disrespect toward Peter or any as I stated he knew what he was to know when the Lord decided in his timeline he needed to know it.

Today has been a long day for me and so I will go for now. It has been a good day thank you all for this days respectful discussion we can discuss this one with the other in the same environment as if we were sitting in our living-rooms with the ones we love,goodnight sweet dreams.

p.s. I tried your suggestion about the colon instead of semicolon,hope it works but my com. keeps disconnecting and logging me out "sorry about the double quote when I copy and paste,lol

 

[andyc]

The timeline to me is a reflection of the title of the thread "middle Acts dispensation"or M.A.D.,so it is a reflection up to acts 9,10,11 of what was known and what was being taught. And then from this point onward whether or not they were teaching the same thing or if something was revealed to them(a mystery) and from that point onward did they began to teach what was being added to what they understood.

Paul as we know has become a touchy subject as to how he actually fits in to this (we examine him very close because of this). On the other hand Peter also is a good example of how and when they were told certain things that they had no knowledge of. As we know there is a mystery that "was kept secret since the world began" Romans 16:25-26 but at what time was this secret made manifest Acts 9,10,11 ?

When we understand what the mystery is, we can try to identify it first being revealed in scripture. The most profound mystery of all was how God would somehow accept all people on the basis of faith alone.
A faith that goes behind the veil (heaven), not based on external ceremonial cleansings etc.

Now as for Peter this mystery must have been extremely eyeopening for him because as it states in Acts 10:17 he "doubted it" and was told in Acts 10:20 not to doubt it. So as he is recounting this to the others who doubted it Acts 11:2 he states to them "what was I, that I could withstand God?",,,so he at first (and) those of the circumcision doubted what was happening(they thought something else was suppose to take place see Acts 1:6)

So if there is a secret that had not yet been made manifest to Peter until Acts 10 it would be reflected in Acts chapter 2 when he addressed those present. That is there being a crowd composed of both Gentiles and Israel(Acts 2:5-11) he in his explanation would break it down to render it's meaning to those who were "ye men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem"(Acts 2:14) . But then since he believed the baptism of the Holy Ghost was exclusive to Israel he would say something different to them beginning at Acts 2:22 ,,,

Does Peter's ability to grasp a truth, negate the possibility that the truth had already been manifested but not understood?
For example, in Mark 7:19 we see Jesus pronouncing all foods clean, but in Acts 10 we see Peter calling certain meats unclean. The voice from the vision said, "do not call unclean what God has cleansed."

If people had been made alive to God in the Spirit, the physical body could not longer be unclean by anything external. This being the case, there would no longer be distinction between the Jew and gentile from an outward physical point of view. It is the inner man only that must be purified by faith, not the outer through obedience to the ceremonial law.

So Peter then 10 years later after being shown the "secret" would then realize that something was not as he thought at first and then as we know he realized that when the Holy Ghost fell on them(Gentiles) the same as it did on him at the beginning(he is referring to Acts 2:3-4 when he says the beginning) Acts 11:15-16

What is most important, and what you're not being clear about, is the understanding of what the secret is, and why it was manifested. Otherwise the timeline might become far more important to people than what is necessary. This can be dangerous, because we could be dealing with an understanding of knowledge alone that changes nothing, rather than practical experience received through obedience to the word of God.
When people like to put great emphasis on secret knowledge learned through revelations to only certain people, we're moving close to the realm of gnosticism. The gospel of knowledge alone.

I say this and I mean no disrespect to Peter in what I am saying that is what the Lord wanted him to know and do he gave him as he needed to receive it. So the same during this same time frame Saul of Tarsus did also not know the "secret" but as the time unfolded and it was time for him to know he was shown,in the same Peter when the time was fulfilled,"preaching the word to none but the Jews only"(Acts 11:19) then the secret that was kept a mystery from the beginning was made manifest to them. I as I say mean no disrespect toward Peter or any as I stated he knew what he was to know when the Lord decided in his timeline he needed to know it.

I see it as simply God trying to make Peter understand the new life in the Spirit through faith in Christ. Peter had to understand that he was clean inwardly apart from the law, and he had to embrace this with a clear conscience otherwise he would be seen to be wavering based on ceremonial external commands. What better way for him to understand it, than to see ceremonially unclean gentiles find the same acceptance with God through faith alone?
This concept would be radical to the Jews, and wisdom would be needed to not offend those who didn't understand it.

Today has been a long day for me and so I will go for now. It has been a good day thank you all for this days respectful discussion we can discuss this one with the other in the same environment as if we were sitting in our living-rooms with the ones we love,goodnight sweet dreams.

p.s. I tried your suggestion about the colon instead of semicolon,hope it works but my com. keeps disconnecting and logging me out "sorry about the double quote when I copy and paste,lol

Yep it's working.

Regards.

 

[Simon Baker]

When we understand what the mystery is, we can try to identify it first being revealed in scripture. The most profound mystery of all was how God would somehow accept all people on the basis of faith alone.
A faith that goes behind the veil (heaven), not based on external ceremonial cleansings etc.



Does Peter's ability to grasp a truth, negate the possibility that the truth had already been manifested but not understood?
For example, in Mark 7:19 we see Jesus pronouncing all foods clean, but in Acts 10 we see Peter calling certain meats unclean. The voice from the vision said, "do not call unclean what God has cleansed."

If people had been made alive to God in the Spirit, the physical body could not longer be unclean by anything external. This being the case, there would no longer be distinction between the Jew and gentile from an outward physical point of view. It is the inner man only that must be purified by faith, not the outer through obedience to the ceremonial law.



What is most important, and what you're not being clear about, is the

understanding of what the secret is, and why it was manifested. Otherwise the timeline might become far more important to people than what is necessary. This can be dangerous, because we could be dealing with an understanding of knowledge alone that changes nothing,

It Is Working ?



rather than practical experience received through obedience to the word of God.

When people like to put great emphasis on secret knowledge learned through revelations to only certain people, we're moving close to the realm of gnosticism. The gospel of knowledge alone.[/QUOTE]

Simon Says,
It Is Not Secret Knowledge For Only Certain People. When I Read The Bible, I Picture Myself Face To Face, Looking Into The Eyes Of The Speaker Or Prophet, The Emphasis And Passion, Hearing From God. The Mystery Today Is Corporate Churches Feeding Off Of Guilt And Shame, Strife And Everyday Problems Of Christians, Confusing And Focusing On The Wrong Aspects Of The Bible. Namely, The Free Gift Of Salvation In God's Grace Which Came Through Christ Jesus. To Paul First, From Jesus, And Nobody Explains It Better Than Paul Except Jesus. See How That Works Andy ? It's Working. Holy Spirit, That Is.


View attachment 19323

I see it as simply God trying to make Peter understand the new life in the Spirit through faith in Christ. Peter had to understand that he was clean inwardly apart from the law, and he had to embrace this with a clear conscience otherwise he would be seen to be wavering based on ceremonial external commands. What better way for him to understand it, than to see ceremonially unclean gentiles find the same acceptance with God through faith alone?
This concept would be radical to the Jews, and wisdom would be needed to not offend those who didn't understand it.

Yep it's working.

Regards.[

/QUOTE]





Simon Says,
Yep. Holy Spirit Is Working