ECT "Things that are different" included Gentiles

D

Danoh

New member
SaulToPaul said:
I skimmed through Shawn's article, and it's much ado about nothing.
Everything in there is easily addressed. He really does not know what he is saying.
Click to expand...

Nope; you are simply stuck in your Hybrid of where Acts 9 looks at things from, with where the Acts 28 Position does.

Why?

You never went beyond within the Acts 9 Position itself, to how to properly study out those kinds of more seemingly perplexing issues.

As a result, when you found yourself unable to solve for them, you welcomed with open arms the erroneous Hybrid as a solution.

A person's conclusions leave a trail of recurrent patterns built into their resulting assertions that points right back to where they were looking at things from to begin with, that they have ended up at the conclusions they then assert.

The forensics of a thing, bro.

Of...the things that differ...

You are simply stubborn :)
 
D

Danoh

New member
tetelestai said:
The actual wall had a sign on it. It separated Jew from Gentile.

After Paul says the wall had been broken down, Paul then speaks of the enmity between Jew and Gentile, then Paul says "EVEN" the law of commandments contained in ordinances. Paul was speaking of the laws contained in ordinances that separated Jew from Gentile.
Click to expand...

Nope; that physical wall remained up way after the Body began: duh-uh :chuckle:

Acts 21:28 Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place.
 
tetelestai

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Danoh said:
Nope; that physical wall remained up way after the Body began: duh-uh :chuckle:

Acts 21:28 Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place.
Click to expand...

In Acts 21:28, did Paul take the Greeks past the wall?
 
john w

john w

New member
Hall of Fame
tetelestai said:
The middle wall of partition was an actual stone wall in the temple. It existed long before James said anything in Acts 15.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

(Eph 2:13-14 KJV) 14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;

15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

The word "even" in verse 15 of the KJV proves your theory and OP wrong.

Paul wouldn't have used the word "even" before "the law of commandments", after previously saying "middle wall of partition".
The irony is that you are proven wrong by the King James version.
Click to expand...

The irony is that you are proven wrong by your "Originals Only-ism," and "Errors Only-ism," and your anti-Semitism, little weak arms/chin Craigie boy.


Prove that "the originals," since you are an "Originals Only-ist," and a non existing "the Greek" "Only-ist," in the Ephesians 2 passage you site, say what your "invented" AD 70-ism/Preterism, say it says.

And prove your admitted anti-Semitism, and Jew hatred, which you have admitted, on TOL, from "The originals," weasel.

The infidel, unemployed Craigie, won't touch this post.
 
Last edited:
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Danoh said:
Nope; you are simply stuck in your Hybrid of where Acts 9 looks at things from, with where the Acts 28 Position does.

Why?

You never went beyond within the Acts 9 Position itself, to how to properly study out those kinds of more seemingly perplexing issues.

As a result, when you found yourself unable to solve for them, you welcomed with open arms the erroneous Hybrid as a solution.

A person's conclusions leave a trail of recurrent patterns built into their resulting assertions that points right back to where they were looking at things from to begin with, that they have ended up at the conclusions they then assert.

The forensics of a thing, bro.

Of...the things that differ...

You are simply stubborn :)
Click to expand...

I will reskim with the Danohianic Principle in mind.
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Danoh said:
Nope; you are simply stuck in your Hybrid of where Acts 9 looks at things from, with where the Acts 28 Position does.

Why?

You never went beyond within the Acts 9 Position itself, to how to properly study out those kinds of more seemingly perplexing issues.

As a result, when you found yourself unable to solve for them, you welcomed with open arms the erroneous Hybrid as a solution.

A person's conclusions leave a trail of recurrent patterns built into their resulting assertions that points right back to where they were looking at things from to begin with, that they have ended up at the conclusions they then assert.

The forensics of a thing, bro.

Of...the things that differ...

You are simply stubborn :)
Click to expand...

You are too vague, I don't know what you are saying. Can you be specific?
 
tetelestai

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
heir said:
Nope.
Click to expand...

No matter how hard you try with your revisionist history, and denial, the facts are as follows:

1) A wall existed in the temple that kept the Gentiles from entering the Inner Court. Only the Jews could go past the wall. The wall was called The Middle Wall of Partition.

2) The Jewish historian Josephus wrote about and described what was written on the Middle Wall of Partition.

3) In 1871, archeologists found a stone from the Middle Wall of Partition that had written on it exactly what Josephus said was written on it.

You really need to study to show yourself approved (2 Tim 2:15 KJV) instead of trying to defend the false teachings of E.W. Bullinger.
 
D

Danoh

New member
tetelestai said:
No matter how hard you try with your revisionist history, and denial, the facts are as follows:

1) A wall existed in the temple that kept the Gentiles from entering the Inner Court. Only the Jews could go past the wall. The wall was called The Middle Wall of Partition.

2) The Jewish historian Josephus wrote about and described what was written on the Middle Wall of Partition.

3) In 1871, archeologists found a stone from the Middle Wall of Partition that had written on it exactly what Josephus said was written on it.

You really need to study to show yourself approved (2 Tim 2:15 KJV) instead of trying to defend the false teachings of E.W. Bullinger.
Click to expand...

lol - so much for your bit to heir-er about her revisionist history.

Fact is that many an actual MAD brings up that physical wall when teaching on this issue.

Though the conclusion I posted to you is the one we actual Acts 9 MADs hold to; not yours, nor that of the Acts 9 / Acts 28 Hybrids (of those two different study approaches) as one, asserting that their view on this is "MAD."
 
tetelestai

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Danoh said:
lol - so much for your bit to heir-er about her revisionist history.

Fact is that many an actual MAD brings up that physical wall when teaching on this issue.

Though the conclusion I posted to you is the one we actual Acts 9 MADs hold to; not yours, nor that of the Acts 9 / Acts 28 Hybrids (of those two different study approaches) as one, asserting that their view on this is "MAD."
Click to expand...

Trophimus the Ephesian, went where no Gentile was supposed to go.

Read Acts 21
 
tetelestai

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Danoh said:
Doesn't matter if it was Captain Kirk; Spock; and Bones who all beamed themselves in, bro - you have not proven your assertion.
Click to expand...

Acts 21 proves that the Middle Wall of Partition existed in the temple.

Are you agreeing with heir and STP that the Middle Wall of Partition was not an actual wall in the temple?
 
D

Danoh

New member
tetelestai said:
Acts 21 proves that the Middle Wall of Partition existed in the temple.

Are you agreeing with heir and STP that the Middle Wall of Partition was not an actual wall in the temple?
Click to expand...

I have already answered that some two or three times.

Just goes to show why you are off on so much; your obvious inability to understand a writer's words.

And my answer was neither that held by STP, heir-er, others of their Hybrid as "MAD." My answer was that of the actual Acts 9 or Mid-Acts Position aka MAD.

Quit confusing actual Acts 9 MADs with Acts 9/Acts 28 Hybrids as so called "MADs" :chuckle:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top