ECT Things known for ages--Acts 15

[dodge]

edit

 

[Danoh]

Another words what I posted from Peter though you are wrong is not relevant to those in MAD.

I may not be the sharpest tack in the box but I do not avoid the truth to follow those who have bought into a lie as those in MAD have done.

I posted PROOF with verses to support my conclusion Vs. your opinion I believe I will stay with scripture, thanks anyways.

You do know when one has arrived and becomes UN-teachable they are only good at supporting lies and deceptions.

The only truths I will not re-evaluate is that Christ Jesus died in my place for my sins and my faith is in Him not in anyone else those are non-negotiable.

Lol - you did it again - rushed to post too soon - you might want to read your post, as it is a bit incoherent; in places :chuckle:

Slow down...bro.

 

[dodge]

Lol - you did it again - rushed to post too soon - you might want to read your post, as it is a bit incoherent; in places :chuckle:

Slow down...bro.

I edited the post but you beat me to it,lol.

I realized I posted in the wrong thread but you was to quick ! Slow down Danoh.

I started a new post where Peter preached the same Gospel as Paul and thought I was responding to that.

Between my 8 year old grand daughter and her new kitten , they are driving me batty lol, I posted in the wrong thread.

Peace !

 

[Lighthouse]

Foolishness of God more like. Why else would Paul contrast wages and gift in Rom 4? Does he just like to hear himself talk? Why else would the bogus gospel of the Pharisees (Acts 15) be troubling and disturbing? Why else would the Colossians find themselves degraded?

Not even relevant to why I called you a fool.

 

[Interplanner]

Not even relevant to why I called you a fool.

Explain why you are exempt to what Christ said about calling people fools in Mt 5, and then get back to the questions here. I'm not at all interested in your head or inner thoughts, no matter how precious they seem to you.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Explain why you are exempt to what Christ said about calling people fools in Mt 5,

1 Cor 15:36 (KJV)

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

1 Cor 15:36 (KJV)

:idunno:

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Hybrid commentaries is pretty much how MAD started.

:Clete:

Actually... note the name... "Mid Acts"

Commentary not required and discouraged. Preterism? Now that takes commentary and a lobotomy.

Where are you on the matter? I believe you've stated to me that you know Jesus will come back for the Jews and National Israel. Am I incorrect?

 

[Danoh]

Explain why you are exempt to what Christ said about calling people fools in Mt 5, and then get back to the questions here. I'm not at all interested in your head or inner thoughts, no matter how precious they seem to you.

Lol - due to your often poor grammatical structure: this, by you...

"Explain why you are exempt to what Christ said about calling people fools in Mt 5, and then get back to the questions here."

...is contradicted by this; by you...

"I'm not at all interested in your head or inner thoughts, no matter how precious they seem to you."

Then again, you have often asserted you have no interest in actually hearing any Dispy out.

O foolish Galatian, you :chuckle:

 

[Interplanner]

The things known for ages, and the grace of God before all time (2 Tim 1), is why the new eternal covenant existed before the old.

 

[Danoh]

Actually... note the name... "Mid Acts"

Commentary not required and discouraged. Preterism? Now that takes commentary and a lobotomy.

Where are you on the matter? I believe you've stated to me that you know Jesus will come back for the Jews and National Israel. Am I incorrect?

Consider the following...

Most Dispys you deal with will turn out having learned the views they hold to from a combination of Dispy based commentaries and or from Dispy commentaries based teachers, together with their and one's own findings (among the few who study; that is).

You will find very few Dispys who came to the perspective on their own.

And you will find very few able to lay out the various study principles by which they arrive at their conclusions; as even the sharpest of them often turn out consciously unaware of what those principles are.

This is often the case within most endeavors and or professions or pursuits in life, in general.

The result being that few Dispys end up able to check where they may have ended up off on one thing or another; nor how far.

Look at it this way: when was the last time you yourself found you'd been either sound on one thing or another, or off-base, and then followed up on either of those with the question "now how did I arrive at that - what principles might I have been applying, or ignoring; that resulted in my conclusion? And what would such principles look like in written form; that I might be consciously aware of them the next time I attempt to study out one thing or another..."

Some food for thought...

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

The things known for ages, and the grace of God before all time (2 Tim 1), is why the new eternal covenant existed before the old.

AFTER those days, I WILL MAKE...

 

[Interplanner]

I don't know what STP is saying, but it is odd to me that D'ists, who love to operate outside of time and say that X000 years pops in and out of several passages, would have any trouble with the new eternal covenant being "before" the old when the meaning of "new" there exists because it is an act of God who is eternal and infinite, while "old" is finite and bound to one age on earth. The plan for the eternal was there, as far as earth goes, before earth was created.

 

[Right Divider]

I don't know what STP is saying, but it is odd to me that D'ists, who love to operate outside of time and say that X000 years pops in and out of several passages, would have any trouble with the new eternal covenant being "before" the old when the meaning of "new" there exists because it is an act of God who is eternal and infinite, while "old" is finite and bound to one age on earth. The plan for the eternal was there, as far as earth goes, before earth was created.

Folks... this is your brain on commentaries. It's worst than drugs.

 

[Interplanner]

Folks... this is your brain on commentaries. It's worst than drugs.

It is the plain meaning of the grace of God before time that was in the Gospel, I Tim 2, Heb 13 (the eternal covenant).

But you are only interested in plain meaning when it favors D'ism.

 

[Right Divider]

It is the plain meaning of the grace of God before time that was in the Gospel, I Tim 2, Heb 13 (the eternal covenant).

But you are only interested in plain meaning when it favors D'ism.

The NEW covenant is NOT identical to the eternal covenant DingleBerry.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

I don't know what STP is saying, but it is odd to me that D'ists, who love to operate outside of time and say that X000 years pops in and out of several passages, would have any trouble with the new eternal covenant being "before" the old when the meaning of "new" there exists because it is an act of God who is eternal and infinite, while "old" is finite and bound to one age on earth. The plan for the eternal was there, as far as earth goes, before earth was created.

God planning for it is one thing, it existing is quite another.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

I don't know what STP is saying,

Surrrrre. Even though I'm on ignore, all you have to do is click 'view post'.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Consider the following...

Most Dispys you deal with will turn out having learned the views they hold to from a combination of Dispy based commentaries and or from Dispy commentaries based teachers, together with their and one's own findings (among the few who study; that is).

You will find very few Dispys who came to the perspective on their own.

And you will find very few able to lay out the various study principles by which they arrive at their conclusions; as even the sharpest of them often turn out consciously unaware of what those principles are.

This is often the case within most endeavors and or professions or pursuits in life, in general.

The result being that few Dispys end up able to check where they may have ended up off on one thing or another; nor how far.

Look at it this way: when was the last time you yourself found you'd been either sound on one thing or another, or off-base, and then followed up on either of those with the question "now how did I arrive at that - what principles might I have been applying, or ignoring; that resulted in my conclusion? And what would such principles look like in written form; that I might be consciously aware of them the next time I attempt to study out one thing or another..."

Some food for thought...

I couldn't agree more with the idea that we must forever be able to connect the intellectual and spiritual dots.

I believe in progressive, personal revelation by the HS for many reasons... but above all... it's exactly what you wrote in your last paragraph.

I have no issue scrapping a theological concept that causes a complete re-study on all matters. If I was to become rigid and unwilling to continue to search... then I would now be guilty of having a theological idol before God.

- EE

 

[Interplanner]

The NEW covenant is NOT identical to the eternal covenant DingleBerry.

There aren't any others. It's either old or new. The new was eternal because it was agreed that Christ would save the wayward before they ever created mankind.

My name here is Interplanner.