ECT The core of the argument between Christians and MAD.

[IMJerusha]

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.

What you call hall monitoring, God calls responsibility in Ezekiel 3:20-21. It is the context words are used in that gives clues as to the attitude and intent of the heart.

 

[Cross Reference]

I don't know why I'm wasting this on you but Andy, for once, hit very near the truth: Tongues are actually a sign of displeasure and judgment against unrepentant, unbelieving Israel. When God stopped dealing with Israel as Israel, when they'd heard and seen all there was to hear and see of Christ, tongues ceased.

So the question now is, what's been going on the past 100+ years with this alleged gentile revival of Pentecost and it's "tongues"? If they're not from God (and they demonstrably are not), what are they? More importantly, where do they come from? There's only two choices there, neither one good. Or they could be both.

I am not wasting my time on what you have to say, so I guess we're even.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

No argument there, but there remains a big difference: we acknowledge our fleshly filth. We don't pretend it isn't there when it plainly is.

Your doctrine excuses it so you never have to get rid of using it.

Heb 12:14 Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:

LA

 

[Lazy afternoon]

I don't know why I'm wasting this on you but Andy, for once, hit very near the truth: Tongues are actually a sign of displeasure and judgment against unrepentant, unbelieving Israel. When God stopped dealing with Israel as Israel, when they'd heard and seen all there was to hear and see of Christ, tongues ceased.

So the question now is, what's been going on the past 100+ years with this alleged gentile revival of Pentecost and it's "tongues"? If they're not from God (and they demonstrably are not), what are they? More importantly, where do they come from? There's only two choices there, neither one good. Or they could be both.

As you claim membership of a body of Christ which rejects the gifts of the Spirit then you are in no position to know if any gifts have ceased.

It is only because of your false doctrine that God has finished dealing with any people because Paul was an Israelite of the flesh and of the Spirit, and he prayed--

Rom 9:1 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,
Rom 9:2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.
Rom 9:3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:

The OC nation of Israel was judged at the cross, when they killed its King, and which Kingship of Israel of the flesh is no more and never to be revived.

It would amount to the denial of the death of Christ, which your theory from hell is.

LA

 

[Lazy afternoon]

Nang is filthy. That's probably why she finds Calvinism so attractive.

Why would it be important to you to proclaim another is filthy, when you say you are yourself and you have no intention of becoming clean.

1Th 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

It is important to Paul, but not to you.

LA

 

[Levolor]

This post is for those who think that the gospel St. Paul preached was never spoken since the world began and was kept secret until St. Paul. That the gospel was not spoken since the world began.

Galatians 3:8 Tells us God preached the gospel to Abraham.

7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.

8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. Galatians 3:7, 8

God preached. Preaching involves words. Takes a person to speak words.

So then, in Genesis 14:18 we are told who it was that God used to preach the gospel to Abraham: And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.

They even held communion together.

But! Do not over look what Melchizedek did. What did he do?

He said. He spoke to Abraham those words that are claimed were never spoken before.

19 And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:

Preaching involves the use of words, and Galatians shows that God preached, of course through Melchizedek, the gospel of grace.

Yes, Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. John 8:56

 

[Arsenios]

In (acts 11;15-17) is Peter saying that he already understood this(what was shown to him in Acts 10;10-15) or in acts 11;15-17 is Peter saying that he fell into a trance and was shown something he did not know in acts 2?

Yes and no...

In Acts 2, he experienced the descent of the Holy Spirit upon those who kept the Levitical Law...

In Acts 11:15-17, he is describing an event where the Holy Spirit descended upon those who did NOT keep the Levitical Law of the Jews...

He knew from Pentecost that this was a "second" Pentecost for the Gentiles, and when he grasped that, then he baptized the Gentiles.

So he did NOT know that non-Jews were to be Baptized at the original Pentecost, but he did know that they were to be Baptized at the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Gentiles at Joppa...

It should be noted here that Paul was NOT involved in this Baptism of the Gentiles, and that the descent of the Holy Spirit came upon them AFTER Peter had been preaching the Gospel of the Jews TO the Gentiles...

And it should be noted as well that the whole event was orchestrated and directed and supervised by God and not by either Peter or the Gentiles...

So I do not see how it helps the MAD doctrine...

Arsenios

 

[patrick jane]

Yes and no...

In Acts 2, he experienced the descent of the Holy Spirit upon those who kept the Levitical Law...

In Acts 11:15-17, he is describing an event where the Holy Spirit descended upon those who did NOT keep the Levitical Law of the Jews...

He knew from Pentecost that this was a "second" Pentecost for the Gentiles, and when he grasped that, then he baptized the Gentiles.

So he did NOT know that non-Jews were to be Baptized at the original Pentecost, but he did know that they were to be Baptized at the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Gentiles at Joppa...

It should be noted here that Paul was NOT involved in this Baptism of the Gentiles, and that the descent of the Holy Spirit came upon them AFTER Peter had been preaching the Gospel of the Jews TO the Gentiles...

And it should be noted as well that the whole event was orchestrated and directed and supervised by God and not by either Peter or the Gentiles...

So I do not see how it helps the MAD doctrine...

Arsenios

always a jab at the end. you have an acquired distaste for MAD. a vendetta ? - atrol:


View attachment 19328

 

[Arsenios]

Not only that, but there is several years between Acts 9 and 10.

Acts 9:43 says "many days",
and Acts 10:1 begins DURING those "many days"...

Arsenios

 

[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.

The whole point is that it was a Pentecost descent of the Holy Spirit being given to the Gentiles [to the cornelius party]... They were THEN, AFTER THAT descent, that they were baptized...

It was the descent of the Holy Spirit that PERSUADED Peter to BAPTIZE them... There is nothing there about the Holy Spirit baptizing, but only about Peter baptizing, and the Holy Spirit descending.

Act 11:15
And as I began to speak,
the Holy Spirit descended upon them,
as on us at the beginning.

And it was Peter's MEMORY of Christ's words that persuaded him to them baptize the Gentiles... Christ's words were: "John indeed baptized by water, but you shall be baptized IN the Holy Spirit... So that when he saw them IN the Holy Spirit, he baptized them...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

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

I still think that the (not-so) big "mystery" is simply the Baptism of the Gentiles apart from the Jews, through whom Christ came...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

There's nothing to deny.
Paul is quoting Isaiah. The understanding is that if people refuse to hear the word of God in their own tongue, God will cause them to hear words even more unintelligibly in another tongue not understood. Therefore the tongues that no one understands, were a sign that God was speaking through gentiles as a way of rebuke because of their unbelief.

Now THERE is a new thought!

Nice work...

I had never thought it a divine rebuke...

I think for sure it was tongues that stressed the importance of evangelization of the Gospel to all the Nations in their own tongues...

AND...

It was a "mark" of demarcation of who was a Christian and who had not yet been baptized and given the Holy Spirit...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Your "theology" is completely messed-up.
Either learn something here or leave.

(Spoiler alert - Sarchasm to follow!)

Nothing like a spontaneous outburst...
Of the Spirit of Christ our God...
Witnessing for our Salvation!

GD tried much the same on me...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Nang is filthy.

Nothing like the Love of Christ, right Musterion?...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Nang is like everyone else in the flesh.
She has her nice moments and her ugly moments.


If this thread was about the deity of Christ, Nang would be one in which I would appreciate her posts. And she would probably appreciate mine, and yours.

The point I have tried to make is that no one here is exempt from being ugly to others here at times.

Which fact does not address, and evades addressing, the MAD POLICY here of using personal assaults via insults as its accepted method of arguing theology...

That POLICY creates an atmosphere in which it is very hard NOT to respond in kind, and one response, (or 10, makes no difference) is for you enough to condemn the responder equally with the provoker in a very provocative environment engineered by MAD policy-makers for this site...

And it is ongoing, with Nick and RD as we are posting now... Without MAD rebuke of them...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

always a jab at the end.
you have an acquired distaste for MAD.
a vendetta ? - atrol:

I loved Blacklist...

The "jab" was to the poster who said he was here to learn the basis or lack of basis for MAD doctrine, and I was reading his take on these Mid-Acts passages to be potentially supportive of the MAD theology...

So please forgive me the provocation - I simply had a different take on the passages being discussed, and was trying to get the matter back on the track of his purpose of posting here...

My peeve is with the common and unrebuked MAD practice here of launching personal attacks on people with whom they disagree... It is so pervasive that I suppose "vendetta" would be the appropriate term for my confronting it when it arises... But this comment was not one of those... I think you know that I would not shy away from admitting it were it the case...

Arsenios

 

[Lazy afternoon]

always a jab at the end. you have an acquired distaste for MAD. a vendetta ? - atrol:


View attachment 19328

He only said it does not help MAD doctrine, and you call that a jab?

He did not say the kind of words MADists use.

If you make Paul greater than the other Apostles then of course you will be offended when you hear the truth.

LA

 

[Right Divider]

Acts 9:43 says "many days",
and Acts 10:1 begins DURING those "many days"...

Arsenios

Where?

Act 9:43 KJV And it came to pass, that he tarried many days in Joppa with one Simon a tanner.

Act 10:1 KJV There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band,
​

 

[Arsenios]

He only said it does not help MAD doctrine, and you call that a jab?

He did not say the kind of words MADists use.

If you make Paul greater than the other Apostles then of course you will be offended when you hear the truth.

LA

Now THAT was a jab...

And granted, by normal MAD posting standards, it was fairly mild, yet solidly in the strike zone. But when there is a whole culture that is enforced here rewarding such conduct, even if lopsidedly favoring MAD adherents, then such a jab is very understandable, although not justified... Justification would come IF it were conducive to MAD repentance from their general policy or personal conduct, and this clearly is NOT the case... So far, at least, they are not budging at all, and the least assaultive of them, PJ and T, are justifying what they themselves do not do, when Nick and RD intersperse the discussion with ongoing assaults on the persons involved...

And you will notice, perhaps, that they are not doing it so much with me, because I try hard not to get sucked in to the temptation to reply in kind, and generally manage to more or less do so, and the ethos here is to provoke, then wait for a counter provocation in kind, and then to launch a graded escalation of their personal assault as their doctrines are progressively presented and rejected...

I remember Arthur Koestler (Darkness at Noon, The Case of the Midwife Toad, and many others) writing about his days as a Communist idealogue in Stalinist Russia, where the Party members would ride the trains through starving countrysides, seeing people skeletonized and begging for a crust of bread, with unburied corpses littered along the tracks in the winter snows, and he reported that he himself DID NOT SEE their suffering and death as anything but a minor and needed byproduct of their prior capitalist error to which they had clung... He simply could not see them, through the lenses with which he was then viewing them, as suffering persecutions and being murdered by the Stalinist Regime, or even as being human and suffering and dying... He could only see them as ideas, because he was an idealogue...

His repentance took him some 50 years...

And millions of deaths...

And our standards as professing Christians are higher than his...

Arsenios

 

[Right Divider]

Which fact does not address, and evades addressing, the MAD POLICY here of using personal assaults via insults as its accepted method of arguing theology...

That POLICY creates an atmosphere in which it is very hard NOT to respond in kind, and one response, (or 10, makes no difference) is for you enough to condemn the responder equally with the provoker in a very provocative environment engineered by MAD policy-makers for this site...

And it is ongoing, with Nick and RD as we are posting now... Without MAD rebuke of them...

Arsenios

Please show me my "transgression", oh wise one.