Rosenritter
New member
Really? These questions are dishonest?
1. Why do you think that Peter was reluctant to see Cornelius?
2. Did you mean that Peter cited Jewish tradition after entering?
ECT The Gospel Proper
- Thread starter Clete
- Start date
- Status
Really? These questions are dishonest?
1. Why do you think that Peter was reluctant to see Cornelius?
2. Did you mean that Peter cited Jewish tradition after entering?
Not necessarily.
A person might rightly understand one thing, but then read into some other passage what he or she erroneously concludes is a support of what they had rightly understood.
Happens all the time, in Bible study.
musterion
Well-known member
That's better.
I'll answer your question with a question, not to be evasive but because you may already know the answer to your question but not realize it:
| Q. What were the terms of the so-called "great commission"? What was the execution of the G.C. supposed to look like? What did Christ command them to do, and how did He command them to do it? |
The larger point is that Peter, at first, wasn't even sure why God had sent him there any more than he understood what the sheet vision meant. This is confirmed in Clete's citation of how he was rebuked by the other believing Jews...when they first heard of him going to Cornelius, they didn't get it either and they didn't like it. The big question is, WHY NOT? This also ties into your answer to the box question above.
Rosenritter
New member
Those are exactly the same questions from before. I simply copied and pasted everything that had a question mark. Regardless thank you for catching them now.
I asked why you thought such and such... and checking to see what my answer is doesn't necessarily tell me if you would answer the same way I might answer the question.
Answering my own question. I don't think Peter was reluctant to see Cornelius, but I think that any potential reluctance was preemptively handled by the vision and specific revelation. I think that Peter would likely have been reluctant without the vision; his entire upbringing had emphasized a separation of Jew and Gentile, of clean (for God) and unclean (separated.)
To answer your question (to me) the terms of "teach all nations" is fairly open. They preach to everyone of every nation what Christ commanded them by the authority of heaven. It doesn't specify a certain style or a particular order in the few verses usually cited as the "Great Commission" but it is possible that Jesus spoke more words to them also.
I don't see how my answer to your question answers my question to you.
The other believing Jews were Jews who had been raised for their entire lives by their law that Gentiles were to be kept separate. The Jews were for God, the Gentiles were outside. It's overcoming a prejudice born of tradition, a tradition which was no longer applicable. It doesn't seem to tie into that box question.
Right Divider
Body part
The separation of Israel from the rest of the world was not a man-made Jewish doctrine. It was God that did it in the first place.
Lev 20:22-26 KJV Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, spue you not out. (23) And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them. (24) But I have said unto you, Ye shall inherit their land, and I will give it unto you to possess it, a land that floweth with milk and honey: I am the LORD your God, which have separated you from other people. (25) Ye shall therefore put difference between clean beasts and unclean, and between unclean fowls and clean: and ye shall not make your souls abominable by beast, or by fowl, or by any manner of living thing that creepeth on the ground, which I have separated from you as unclean. (26) And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the LORD am holy, and have severed you from other people, that ye should be mine.
musterion
Well-known member
You still aren't getting it. Let's try it this way.
1. Why did it take a vision and a direct command from God for him to go see Cornelius when he'd already been given the G.C.?
2. Given the G.C., why would he tell Cornelius that it was not lawful for him to come see him?
3. Why were Peter and the ones with him so surprised when Cornelius and the other Gentiles spoke in tongues? That was to be expected, per the G.C.
4. Again, given the G.C., why did the Jewish brethren have a big problem with Peter going to Cornelius?
5. Why did Peter's response amount to "Because God told me to go" instead of "Because we had the G.C. telling us to go"?
Rosenritter
New member
You ask that question as if Cornelius was Peter's next door neighbor. How many people do you figure were in those cities and countrysides? When the fields are white with harvest and the laborers few, you cannot blame the harvesters for first trying to gather what is beneath their arms before reaching out towards the corners.
I could ask why did Cornelius need a direct vision and command from God to go see Peter? Surely the news of the crucifixion had spread and it was no secret that there were men preaching Jesus. But there's no fault implied of either party. The story is that God spoke to both of them to specifically bring them together at the same time and place.
For the benefit of those present (both Jew and Gentile) because Peter is about to shatter that Jewish law on the rocks, even with specific revelation from God.
It seems to me that the speaking in tongues is an astonishing experience no matter what the circumstances, but I suspect that the Jewish believers were interpreting the gospel of the New Covenant on top of the Old Covenant as if one was an an extension of the other. The Holy Spirit directly giving evidence of approval was a refutation of that mindset.
Peter said what he was opposing, and God also gave testimony by miracle. Astonishing.
Recent converts aren't necessarily going to understand the big picture yet. Would you describe the early church at this time as being "newborn" or "mature?" The apostles are going to have had the closest teaching and revelations and it's still new to them too.
I'm sure there were more words exchanged than what is recorded, but the more recent vision was specific to the event and hand. I don't expect that Peter would say "It is written in Matthew 28:19 ... " and they probably didn't have a catch-phrase for "Great Comission" either.
turbosixx
New member
I know you'd rather not debate me but I thought I would add my .02 on this comment.
I am familiar with those verses and do not ignore them. I also feel they fit right in with my understanding of truth (1 gospel). I suggest you have your own paradigm as well.
We have the benefit of having all of God’s revealed word at our fingertips. At that time, they did not. They only knew in part. The apostles were told many things they did not fully understand until the time was right. I don’t’ see why the great commission should be any different. They eventually understood it.
10:34 So Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality,
Their delayed understanding does not change Jesus’s commandment in the great commission. God eventually sends Peter to preach to the Gentiles. Peter didn’t preach a different message but the same thing he preached to the Jews and God proved to them (Jews) without a shadow of a doubt that Gentiles were to be included in the gospel. 11:18 When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life.”
The Jews coming to the understanding of the great commission and that God’s grace was extended also to the Gentiles all happened without Paul.
I fail to see how Peter wanting to be clean before God, something he had done his whole life, has any bearing on his preaching of the gospel.
Rom. 14:5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God.
The gospel was to the Jew first then the Gentile. That's exactly what happened. Jews first then Gentiles.
Rosenritter, the exchanges and actions that take place in Sctipture, take place within Scripture's narrative, not within one's own.
The reason you are not getting, say, where Musti is coming from, or what he is driving at via those questions, is that you are applying your own reasoning, in contrast to asking yourself, where the answer might be found in Scripture.
And such answers are neither not always readily apparant, nor always apparent within a nearer context.
As a result, arriving at a sound answer to the questions being asked never functions within its' own vacuum (one's own reasoning), but relies, instead, on the bigger picture these things are always merely a part of, in Scripture.
Case in point, the following...
Luke 24:15 And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them. 24:16 But their eyes were holden that they should not know him. 24:17 And he said unto them, What manner of communications are these that ye have one to another, as ye walk, and are sad? 24:18 And the one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answering said unto him, Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which are come to pass there in these days? 24:19 And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people: 24:20 And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him. 24:21 But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done.
Properly understanding their assertion that they'd trusted that it had been He which should have redeemed Israel involves a great deal of time in Scripture, attempting there, to sort out from its' own narrative what those two men had actually meant by that.
His reply to them also helps shed light on what they had meant, but it too is going to rely on a much wider narrative within Scripture than merely on going by a passage or to is going to reveal.
His reply, in answer to what they said to Him...
Luke 24:25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: 24:26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
24:30 And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.
Result, not only of His first reply to them, but of His following that up with His basing His answer to them on what clearly appears to be passages of Scripture from different parts of the Scriptures because all the relevant passages obviously rely on and build on one another.
Result?
24:31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight. 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?
Clearly, they went from what is earlier described as their own reasoning, to Scriptures' own.
We now have a completed Canon. So that it is just a matter of reverse engineering a thing to its own origin,
This principle itself is one that is taught by Scripture, in various places, in Scripture, one of which is in the following...
2 Peter 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Both Luke 24's description of the Lord's having based His Words to those two on various parts of the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets, concerning Him, and Peter's verse 21 there, tells one that verse 20's "private interpretation" is referring to the origin and whole picture of a thing.
In other words, that the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. That it originated, not in the reasoning of men, but in the mind of God.
In contrast, many conclude, from within their own reasoning that Peter is referring to our Later Modern English understanding of the word "interpretation."
The point being that if one is to successfully navigate Scripture's own waters, one is not going to do so through one's own reasoning.
Paul asserts the same in his description of the actual source of "his mind of Christ" on the things he was writing about...
1 Corinthians 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
2:16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.
And again, such things are often based on a much wider narrative within Scripture, than one might often think to keep in mind...
As in what Paul through Luke describes as to the actual origin of his writings, in the following...
Acts 26:16 But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;
In short, the answers to the questions you were asked, are found, neither in Acts 10 alone, nor, in Acts, alone.
Rather, in other, actually related parts of Scripture, just as has been the case in my above cited examples.
In other words, per Acts 17: 11, 12.
Hopefully you are better at allowing someone to point a thing out to you that you might do well to reflect on, than how thin-skinned most will tend to be.
But anyway, the above principle has been one that has often allowed me to see more than most on a thing...often.
But that is merely a result of seeking to apply it with consistency.
It is...that important, that...reliable.
It is...Isaiah 8:20.
It is the principle of repeatedly asking oneself the simple question 'now where might I find the answer to this within the WHOLE of Scripture?'
Proverbs 3:5.
Hope this helps.
The reason you are not getting, say, where Musti is coming from, or what he is driving at via those questions, is that you are applying your own reasoning, in contrast to asking yourself, where the answer might be found in Scripture.
And such answers are neither not always readily apparant, nor always apparent within a nearer context.
As a result, arriving at a sound answer to the questions being asked never functions within its' own vacuum (one's own reasoning), but relies, instead, on the bigger picture these things are always merely a part of, in Scripture.
Case in point, the following...
Luke 24:15 And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them. 24:16 But their eyes were holden that they should not know him. 24:17 And he said unto them, What manner of communications are these that ye have one to another, as ye walk, and are sad? 24:18 And the one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answering said unto him, Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which are come to pass there in these days? 24:19 And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people: 24:20 And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him. 24:21 But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done.
Properly understanding their assertion that they'd trusted that it had been He which should have redeemed Israel involves a great deal of time in Scripture, attempting there, to sort out from its' own narrative what those two men had actually meant by that.
His reply to them also helps shed light on what they had meant, but it too is going to rely on a much wider narrative within Scripture than merely on going by a passage or to is going to reveal.
His reply, in answer to what they said to Him...
Luke 24:25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: 24:26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
24:30 And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.
Result, not only of His first reply to them, but of His following that up with His basing His answer to them on what clearly appears to be passages of Scripture from different parts of the Scriptures because all the relevant passages obviously rely on and build on one another.
Result?
24:31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight. 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?
Clearly, they went from what is earlier described as their own reasoning, to Scriptures' own.
We now have a completed Canon. So that it is just a matter of reverse engineering a thing to its own origin,
This principle itself is one that is taught by Scripture, in various places, in Scripture, one of which is in the following...
2 Peter 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Both Luke 24's description of the Lord's having based His Words to those two on various parts of the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets, concerning Him, and Peter's verse 21 there, tells one that verse 20's "private interpretation" is referring to the origin and whole picture of a thing.
In other words, that the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. That it originated, not in the reasoning of men, but in the mind of God.
In contrast, many conclude, from within their own reasoning that Peter is referring to our Later Modern English understanding of the word "interpretation."
The point being that if one is to successfully navigate Scripture's own waters, one is not going to do so through one's own reasoning.
Paul asserts the same in his description of the actual source of "his mind of Christ" on the things he was writing about...
1 Corinthians 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
2:16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.
And again, such things are often based on a much wider narrative within Scripture, than one might often think to keep in mind...
As in what Paul through Luke describes as to the actual origin of his writings, in the following...
Acts 26:16 But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;
In short, the answers to the questions you were asked, are found, neither in Acts 10 alone, nor, in Acts, alone.
Rather, in other, actually related parts of Scripture, just as has been the case in my above cited examples.
In other words, per Acts 17: 11, 12.
Hopefully you are better at allowing someone to point a thing out to you that you might do well to reflect on, than how thin-skinned most will tend to be.
But anyway, the above principle has been one that has often allowed me to see more than most on a thing...often.
But that is merely a result of seeking to apply it with consistency.
It is...that important, that...reliable.
It is...Isaiah 8:20.
It is the principle of repeatedly asking oneself the simple question 'now where might I find the answer to this within the WHOLE of Scripture?'
Proverbs 3:5.
Hope this helps.
There you go again, basing a thing on your own reasoning.
Paul said that in Romans, which he wrote near the end of Acts, which depicts Israel at large as having failed to believe PAUL'S OWN preaching unto them first.
Written by him near the end of his preaching among his own in the hope that he "might save some," the phrase is more a historical statement of his very practice of having gone to them first, as well as an indictment against Israel in its' having failed to believe.
He says it within the obvious fact both in Acts and in Paul's earlier writings, that the Gentiles have welcomed the message that Israel rejected from him.
Note his words, during his testimony TO ISRAEL, just two chapters before Acts ends on such a grim note as far as Israel's rejection of Paul's preaching unto them first, has been concerned...
Acts 26:15 And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. 26:16 But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; 26:17 Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, 26:18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me. 26:19 Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision:
26:20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.
26:21 For these causes the Jews caught me in the temple, and went about to kill me.
And at the end of Romans he writes of how that...
Romans 15:19 Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.
15:20 Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation: 15:21 But as it is written, To whom he was not spoken of, they shall see: and they that have not heard shall understand.
Obviously, his "to the Jew first" was to Jews who had not heard "the gospel of Christ" before PAUL shewed up to preach it unto them.
He is now done with this "Jew first" aspect; the record against Israel is complete.
Romans 15:22 For which cause also I have been much hindered from coming to you. 15:23 But now having no more place in these parts, and having a great desire these many years to come unto you; 15:24 Whensoever I take my journey into Spain, I will come to you: for I trust to see you in my journey, and to be brought on my way thitherward by you, if first I be somewhat filled with your company.
For, but for the following, he is done going to the Jew first (not an iota of a mention of it, in his later writings), the indictment against Israel is complete - Strike one, Acts 13; Strike two, Acts 18; Strike three is already in progress, as he heads for his final encounter with "the Jew first" in chains, as he heads for Acts 28's FINAL, grim words against Israel (might do you well to read those three sections)...
Romans 15:25 But now I go unto Jerusalem to minister unto the saints. 15:26 For it hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem. 15:27 It hath pleased them verily; and their debtors they are. For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister unto them in carnal things. 15:28 When therefore I have performed this, and have sealed to them this fruit, I will come by you into Spain. 15:29 And I am sure that, when I come unto you, I shall come in the fulness of the blessing of the gospel of Christ.
And even then, he expects trouble from the Jews...
15:30 Now I beseech you, brethren, for the Lord Jesus Christ's sake, and for the love of the Spirit, that ye strive together with me in your prayers to God for me; 15:31 That I may be delivered from them that do not believe in Judaea; and that my service which I have for Jerusalem may be accepted of the saints;
Get out of your own head on the things of Scripture, turbo - Paul's "to the Jew first" is unique to HIS ministry among them first, and the resulting indictment against them, in the end, each time, including the first time...
Acts 13:44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God. 13:45 But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming. 13:46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. 13:47 For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.
Acts 17: 11, 12.
Rosenritter
New member
I will disagree with you on one point: specifically, if I do not know where Musterion the reason lies with Musterion, rather than any lack of scriptural perspective. If Musterion wanted me to know where he was coming from he has the opportunity to explain. He preferred an unsupported meaningless retort of "all your answers are wrong" which seemed to bring about the wild cheering of the MAD fan-base. And as for scriptural perspective, I had used a short answers but I could have embellished that with its own scriptural foundations as well.
As for the rest that you said afterwards, I don't disagree with it at all and it was well spoken. I wouldn't mind continuing on that standard of calmness and civility.
I cheer no one on here.
I either agree with a person on a point, or I do not, no matter who the person might be, and regardless of what its supposed cost might or might not be.
Other times I say nothing at all about one thing or another, thinking 'what's the use.'
I'm fine with that and wrote to you what I wrote out of my own consistent results with my described approach.
No offense intended, none taken.
Because Romans 5:6-8, in each...our stead.
Right Divider
Body part
I don't mind debating you. It's just the topic of water baptism that I try to sort of avoid. The cost-benefit ratio just usually isn't there.
The problem with this idea is that not only did the Twelve spend years being trained by God the Son Himself, but the Twelve - all twelve of them - were indwelt with the Holy Spirit in Acts 2. These folks were given the authority to make executive level decisions in Christ's absence up to and including the forgiveness of sins and commanding their followers to sell their processions and live in a commune. They fully understood the gospel. ( John 17:1-19 )
This is so wrong it's nearly blasphemous - although I would expect you to understand why.
Peter was never sent to the Gentiles in any manner similar to that of Paul and without Paul, you would be a practicing Messianic Jew.
Further, if what you are saying is true, which it flatly isn't, but just saying for the sake of argument that it is, what the heck was the point of Paul in the first place then?
Why not just send Peter, James or John and forego all this confusion? Without Paul having been sent, there'd have been no need for the Jerusalem council, there'd have been no controversy over circumcision, no need for Peter to get all nervous about people from James showing up for dinner, etc. And that's not to even mention the next 2000 years worth of divisive disagreements in the church over all sorts of issues, probably the greatest of which is water baptism.
So, I ask again, WHY PAUL?
You fail to see it because you have Acts 2 Dispensational glasses on. There is exactly nothing more antithetical to Paul's gospel than the idea of "wanting to keep clean before God".
You think that grace has been added to a covenant of law and therefore think that getting wet has something to do with getting saved and you think that the Ten Commandments are something you should follow. What you fail to see is that grace had already been added to the covenant of law during the previous dispensation and that it is the law that has been taken away. Your adding the law back to it is the spiritual equivalent of eating the forbidden fruit all over again and placing Christ back on that cross.
Again, you don't see that, and I know you must recoil at the very thought but I'm here to tell you that this is what you are doing, even if it is unwittingly so.
Clete
musterion
Well-known member
I'm not the problem. The problem is that you're so badly taught that there'd be so much of your own interpretational paradigm to set aside FIRST (even just for the sake of discussion) before you could begin to accurately and honestly discuss ours that, frankly, it's impossible. A waste of time. Such is the case with north of 90% of all discussions on TOL. Same with Turbo, GT and dozens of others. This is no exception.
Yet like Turbo, GT and dozens of others, you work to refute MAD without actually understanding it...not the odd MAD doctrine here or there which you enjoy taking potshots at, but the essential foundation of why we believe it. You just don't see it. So nothing good ever results.
Right Divider
Body part
They do a bang up job of beating the crap out of all the various straw-men that they setup though.
Rosenritter
New member
You remind me of the Mormon missionaries. They wanted you to be baptized into their religion, but if they were asked if they would answer questions they were not willing to do that. It seems to me that if you were actually secure in your faith there wouldn't be such a resistance to "be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason..." (1 Peter 3;15).
As of this time, I have a very low opinion of "MAD" doctrine from what I have seen of its results both in its doctrines and the spirit shown by its supporters. That poor reputation is not the result of any "poorly taught teaching" but what has been earned. That may not be a fair approximation of all people who might hold similar beliefs, but that's the representation that has floated to the top, even accentuated through hindsight of "ah, that's where he was coming from, and that explains his strange attitude!"
If you would like to help undo that impression, just go back two steps and respond normally and like a regular human.
Right Divider
Body part
What a hypocrite! With your arrogance and self-righteousness.
Apparently insults are only allowed in one direction in your religion.
Clete, regarding your words to turbo, repeated in the Spoiler below, a...
:chuckle:
In that I was reminded of the former poster on here, Interplanner's actual beef with me.
Prior to TOL, he and I would go back and forth on another Forum, basically getting nowhere, due to what he eventually confessed, when I finally just threw up my hands and recommended he at least Google the words...
Pdf Things That Differ C.R. Stam
...download it, and actually read it before I would actually bother with him anymore.
He confessed he had no interest in doing even that much.
And yet, he continued on that Forum, and on this one here, when he and I ended up over here, the very practice he now continues on another Forum - to go on, and on, and on, against a subject he absolutely refused to bother actually looking into before allowing himself his two cents on it and its understandings - Mid-Acts Dispensationalism.
In the end, I just gave him a hard time, which he, of course, took great issue with.
The poster, northwye, has refused to do as much, and so has turbo, and others I have suggested the above to.
That is simply dishonest on the part of such.
Plain, and simple.
Rosenwriter, if you're reading this, I would suggest the above to you as well...
Pdf Things That Differ C.R. Stam
Nevertheless, Romans 5:6-8, in each...our stead.
:chuckle:
In that I was reminded of the former poster on here, Interplanner's actual beef with me.
Prior to TOL, he and I would go back and forth on another Forum, basically getting nowhere, due to what he eventually confessed, when I finally just threw up my hands and recommended he at least Google the words...
Pdf Things That Differ C.R. Stam
...download it, and actually read it before I would actually bother with him anymore.
He confessed he had no interest in doing even that much.
And yet, he continued on that Forum, and on this one here, when he and I ended up over here, the very practice he now continues on another Forum - to go on, and on, and on, against a subject he absolutely refused to bother actually looking into before allowing himself his two cents on it and its understandings - Mid-Acts Dispensationalism.
In the end, I just gave him a hard time, which he, of course, took great issue with.
The poster, northwye, has refused to do as much, and so has turbo, and others I have suggested the above to.
That is simply dishonest on the part of such.
Plain, and simple.
Rosenwriter, if you're reading this, I would suggest the above to you as well...
Pdf Things That Differ C.R. Stam
Nevertheless, Romans 5:6-8, in each...our stead.
Spoiler
- Status