The grammar of Gal 2 and the folly of 2P2P

Status
Not open for further replies.

Interplanner

Well-known member
Why is your favorite adjective "Niggardly"?


No, I used it once in the past year. You are a continual insult and character assassin.

I know of no group of "Christians" anywhere else who wants to deprive believers of hebrews glorious truth, and do so while not even beginning to understand about Melchizedek.
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
How do think Jesus saying "tell no one I'm the Christ" means we shouldn't?

Because it was for a specific group and for a specific time.

Jesus told that same group to tell. So there goes your theory.
Theory????
Foolish woman, it is no theory, it is truth.
It is in the scriptures.
Wanna see it again?

Matthew 16:20 KJV
(20) Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.


Jesus' words were not temporary and only to a select few.


Jesus' words are forever to everyone.
Your lies never stop, do they?
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
Theory????
Foolish woman, it is no theory, it is truth.
It is in the scriptures.
Wanna see it again?

Matthew 16:20 KJV
(20) Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.


Your lies never stop, do they?



As proof of your literalism problem, Tam, he said show me where that is a rule for all time (in so many words). He meant to them in 1st century Judea, in their Judaistic upraising.

Your problem is you do this with the Bible; latch on to one line with blinders about the coherence that line is to have with others.
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
As proof of your literalism problem, Tam, he said show me where that is a rule for all time (in so many words). He meant to them in 1st century Judea, in their Judaistic upraising.

Your problem is you do this with the Bible; latch on to one line with blinders about the coherence that line is to have with others.
Nope.
If you had been paying attention to GT's false claims of:

"We have to obey EVERYTHING Jesus says".

"Jesus' words were not temporary and only to a select few.
Jesus' words are forever to everyone"


It is just as false as it is every time she says it, and she says it over and over and over.


We know that EVERYTHING Jesus said is not for everyone at all times (but GT does), and that some of what Jesus said was temporary and to a select few (but GT doesn't)

Why would you even attempt to support her lies if you truly want the truth of scripture to be told?
 

Danoh

New member
Why is your favorite adjective "Niggardly"?

In fairness, Interplanner was simply using another, equally legitimate, albeit "archaic" word for the word "stingy."

His use of that word is the result of his being well-read.

A person who reads a lot tends to pick up many more words describing for a same thing than someone who is not as well read.

The guy was merely repeating his same old accusation that so called MADs tend to hog up or over-focus on certain passages at the expense of other passages they greatly ignore.

His original post showed that was what he had meant.

Like using a so called "archaic" JKV phrasing like "do you to wit" he was merely using a supposedly "archaic" word.

Both his recurrent (consistently repeated) pattern, and his orginal post had showed that was what he had meant.

Note his same repeated accusation in paragraph two of the following...

____________

Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner...

As proof of your literalism problem, Tam, he said show me where that is a rule for all time (in so many words). He meant to them in 1st century Judea, in their Judaistic upraising.

Your problem is you do this with the Bible; latch on to one line with blinders about the coherence that line is to have with others.

________________

His use of that "archaic" word in his orginal post to you was legitimate.
 

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
In fairness, Interplanner was simply using another, equally legitimate, albeit "archaic" word for the word "stingy."

His use of that word is the result of his being well-read.

A person who reads a lot tends to pick up many more words describing for a same thing than someone who is not as well read.

The guy was merely repeating his same old accusation that so called MADs tend to hog up or over-focus on certain passages at the expense of other passages they greatly ignore.

His original post showed that was what he had meant.

Like using a so called "archaic" JKV phrasing like "do you to wit" he was merely using a supposedly "archaic" word.

Both his recurrent (consistently repeated) pattern, and his orginal post had showed that was what he had meant.

Note his same repeated accusation in paragraph two of the following...

____________

Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner...

As proof of your literalism problem, Tam, he said show me where that is a rule for all time (in so many words). He meant to them in 1st century Judea, in their Judaistic upraising.

Your problem is you do this with the Bible; latch on to one line with blinders about the coherence that line is to have with others.

________________

His use of that "archaic" word in his orginal post to you was legitimate.

:wave2:
 

john w

New member
Hall of Fame
They have too much of theological systems in their head to actually agree to what the grammar says. 'Euangelizo' by definition cannot be two gospels. They don't care squat about grammar unless it is 1500s KJV.

Vs.


..niggardly...

Will you teach us, perhaps, "The 2000's Modern English?" Can we sit at your bootstraps? Please? Please lord over us, teacher? Please?
 

john w

New member
Hall of Fame
The tragedy, saint john, is that despite all of his vast knowledge and learnedness, he is either not apt to teach, or unwilling to take the time to "learn us".

Yes siree, Breenite, anyone that thinks he is smart enough, to correct the book, and give the creator of the universe, and languages, and..... some "hep," has too much eggeecashun. It's a compelsion complex.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top