heir
TOL Subscriber
No, he didn't. You're a liar. Grow up. Get a ministry. Move along.Oh yes he did express his sense that STP appeared to have read one thing into another.
:chuckle:
Rom. 5: 6-8.
No, he didn't. You're a liar. Grow up. Get a ministry. Move along.Oh yes he did express his sense that STP appeared to have read one thing into another.
:chuckle:
Rom. 5: 6-8.
Galatians 1:15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, 1:16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: 1:17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
Paul knew from the beginning the eventual scope of his ministry. So?
Yeah, okay, suuuuuure.... :chuckle:
Must be why he had a thriving ministry among both in Acts 9.
Acts 17: 11,12.
2 Cor
12:4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.
12:5 Of such an one will I glory: yet of myself I will not glory, but in mine infirmities.
12:6 For though I would desire to glory, I shall not be a fool; for I will say the truth: but now I forbear, lest any man should think of me above that which he seeth me to be, or that he heareth of me.
12:7 And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.
I know, I know, my 'approach' is off (somehow, yet it is undefinable)
Sure is off.
In your obvious failure to follow the flow of Paul's thought; ending up at your own.
What is Paul's thought? Break it down for us.
You need to learn to study out a thing properly.
Given that just as various of your pals on here often prove, you also often prove your having been unable to understand where one poster or another is coming from (because your reading approach is obviously off somewhere), I seriously doubt your parroting my above back to me has any real weight behind it, coming from you.
I mean, I post my belief that you are obviously unable to see the obvious.
I give you the benefit of the doubt - due to my approach.
What do you post in return?
That I don't like what a passage says.
That is just dumb, on your part.
The dumbness your obvious mis-fire of an approach cannot but result in - your reading INTO a thing.
Fact is, I am fine with the passages, as they are.
My disagreement is with what I view as YOUR mis-interpretation of them.
And even that is not that big a deal.
For obviously at least we both hold to the basic fundamental that "Christ died for ours sins...and rose again for our justification."
Beyond that, you and I can not hope to see eye to eye on so many different things within the "MAD" hold to and vice-versa.
For we obviously so differ in study approach in many areas, that we might as well each be speaking in a different language.
So I give you a hard time about it.
But no where near how I deal with various of your pals on here.
You being one of the very few of your number on here I have still have respect for.
Along with other MADs on here I consider not of your group's number.
Doesn't mean I have to agree with your take on things.
Rom. 14:5; 5: 6-8.
Won't happen.
Obviously, your approach is off in this. Nevertheless, best to you and yours.
O go fellowship in your new found Baptist home - enemies of the Mystery, you hypocrite.
Won't happen.
Someone really needs to set a word limit to your blathering. :yawn:Given that just as various of your pals on here often prove, you also often prove your having been unable to understand where one poster or another is coming from (because your reading approach is obviously off somewhere), I seriously doubt your parroting my above back to me has any real weight behind it, coming from you.
I mean, I post my belief that you are obviously unable to see the obvious.
I give you the benefit of the doubt - due to my approach.
What do you post in return?
That I don't like what a passage says.
That is just dumb, on your part.
The dumbness your obvious mis-fire of an approach cannot but result in - your reading INTO a thing.
Fact is, I am fine with the passages, as they are.
My disagreement is with what I view as YOUR mis-interpretation of them.
And even that is not that big a deal.
For obviously at least we both hold to the basic fundamental that "Christ died for ours sins...and rose again for our justification."
Beyond that, you and I can not hope to see eye to eye on so many different things within the "MAD" you hold to, and vice-versa.
For we obviously so differ in study approach in many areas, that we might as well each be speaking in a different language.
So I give you a hard time about it.
But nowhere near how I deal with various of your pals on here.
You being one of the very few of your number on here I still have some respect for.
Along with other MADs on here I consider not of your group's number.
Doesn't mean I have to agree with your take on things.
Rom. 14:5; 5: 6-8.
What's with all of his one sentence "paragraphs". His writing approach is way off.Someone really needs to set a word limit to your blathering. :yawn:
What's with all of his one sentence "paragraphs". His writing approach is way off.
"Your reading approach is obviously off somewhere."What's with all of his one sentence "paragraphs". His writing approach is way off.
He would have to get off his one trick high horse to do that.And, note well, gentle readers...it didn't.