ECT Would MAD be more accepted if Gal 2:7 were not in the text

[john w]

:up:

MAD is definitely man made.

Define "God made," sweetie.


Preterism is not "man made," wimp?

Of course, I have Craigie's own quotes, where he claims his teaching are from infallible men.


And he won't deny this.


Right, Craigie? Go ahead-and I'll prove it, again, punk, i.e., you are so obsessed, you'll lie about anything.



Sophistry, from the loser.

 

[Nick M]

MAD wackos graduated from the Institute of Sloppy Exegesis and Eisegesis For Lunatic Fringe Doctrines of Akron Ohio.

Isn't that were tires come from? Tet would know.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Gal 2:7 really isn't a very good prooftext for MAD anyway.

If MAD were consistent, it would have a different "gospel" for every time the phrase "Gospel of...." was used.

So there would be the gospel of the kingdom, the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Gospel of God, the gospel of the grace of God, the gospel of the glory of Christ, the gospel of peace, etc...

Mark speaks of Jesus proclaiming the "gospel of God (Mark 1:14)" and Paul speaks of his own ministry preaching the "Gospel of God" (Romans 1:1) yet MAD folks assert that there are really two different gospels?

Just because Paul uses the genitive (translated of) in Gal 2:7 does not mean that there are two distinct gospels and in no other place would such logic be employed.

For example, Mark refers to the gospel as the "gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God" (Mark 1:1), Matthew refers to the "gospel of the kingdom."

Same gospel, different way of describing it.

Nearly every MAD teacher I have ever heard recognizes that the gospel Jesus is proclaiming in Mark is the same one He is proclaiming in Matthew.
So why not consistently apply the same logic to Gal 2:7?

:idunno:

Perhaps it is because a consistent hermeneutic in this case would destroy the man made systematic structure that holds MAD together.

What holds it together is, "TRUTH!" You and your ilk have difficulty
distinguishing between truth and untruth! I suppose it's due to the
fact you don't know how to "Rightly Divide" the Bible?

 

[musterion]

If MAD were consistent, it would have a different "gospel" for every time the phrase "Gospel of...." was used. But it doesn’t.

MAD delineates the ones already delineated in Scripture. Your argument is with God, not us.

So there would be the gospel of the kingdom, the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Gospel of God, the gospel of the grace of God, the gospel of the glory of Christ, the gospel of peace, etc...

First, you have a choice to make here. Either words in the Bible mean things, or they do not. Put another way…either these, for the most part, are different “good newses” that are somehow distinct from one another, or they are all the exact same “good news” simply referred to by different labels. Which is the case?

Second, if you want to know what various Gospels in the Bible actually mean (instead of trying to guess by what they’re called), try to perceive the terms of what each required…in other words, what is the exact “good news” proffered in each, and what were people expected or required to do about it. That’ll clue you big.

Third, Deut 6:25 is one of the many “good newses” in the Bible:

“And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the LORD our God, as He hath commanded us.” Deuteronomy 6:25

Does this good news apply to you?

Mark speaks of Jesus proclaiming the "gospel of God (Mark 1:14)" and Paul speaks of his own ministry preaching the "Gospel of God" (Romans 1:1) yet MAD folks assert that there are really two different gospels?

You are too ignorant and confused as to what we actually believe to have posted this. Seriously. You posted a straw man and don't even know it.

Anyway, Romans 1:2-3 contains the clue you need, if you have eyes to see it.

Just because Paul uses the genitive (translated of) in Gal 2:7 does not mean that there are two distinct gospels and in no other place would such logic be employed.

Except that he made precisely that distinction here and elsewhere. Denying it is not sound argumentation.

For example, Mark refers to the gospel as the "gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God" (Mark 1:1), Matthew refers to the "gospel of the kingdom." Same gospel, different way of describing it. Nearly every MAD teacher I have ever heard recognizes that the gospel Jesus is proclaiming in Mark is the same one He is proclaiming in Matthew.

And? In what respect are these the same Gospel that Paul said was revealed and committed unto him directly from heaven, which he received nor was taught by any man?

See…either words mean things, or they don’t.

So why not consistently apply the same logic to Gal 2:7?

Because (a) Paul said what he said and (b) Paul made the same distinction elsewhere. Too bad you don’t like it, but as the kids say, it is what it is.

Nice try, though.

 

[tetelestai]

Isn't that were tires come from? Tet would know.

It's where Chrissie Hynde of the Pretenders is from.

Chrissie left Akron for a few years, and when she returned her city was gone. All the tire manufactures were gone. Which led her to exclaim: "Hey, ho, where'd you go, Ohio?"

Rush Limbaugh liked the song so much, he made it his theme song.

 

[musterion]

Christ never authorized Paul to preach to Gentiles of this dispensation the kingdom message and program of John the Baptist, the Lord Jesus, or the Twelve. Paul never preached Acts 2:38 to any Gentile. Acts 3:14-21 and Acts 5:29-32 are not the Gospel of the Grace of God. And no Gentile believers are authorized by the Lord to follow the order of Acts 8:5-16 or Acts 19:2-7.

J.C. O'Hair,
Scofieldarbullingerite

 

[john w]

MAD delineates the ones already delineated in Scripture. Your argument is with God, not us.



First, you have a choice to make here. Either words in the Bible mean things, or they do not. Put another way…either these, for the most part, are different “good newses” that are somehow distinct from one another, or they are all the exact same “good news” simply referred to by different labels. Which is the case?

Second, if you want to know what various Gospels in the Bible actually mean (instead of trying to guess by what they’re called), try to perceive the terms of what each required…in other words, what is the exact “good news” proffered in each. That’ll clue you big.

Third, Deut 6:25 is one of the many “good newses” in the Bible:

“And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the LORD our God, as He hath commanded us.” Deuteronomy 6:25

Does this good news apply to you?



You are too ignorant and confused as to what we actually believe to have posted this. Seriously. You posted a straw man and don't even know it.

Anyway, Romans 1:2-3 contains the clue you need, if you have eyes to see it.



Except that he made precisely that distinction here and elsewhere. Denying it is not sound argumentation.



And? In what respect are these the same Gospel that Paul said was revealed and committed unto him directly from heaven? See…either words mean things, or they don’t.



Because (a) Paul said what he said and (b) Paul made the same distinction elsewhere. Too bad you don’t like it, but as the kids say, it is what it is.

Nice try, though.

Convincing response-"Thou hast well said."

 

[musterion]

Convincing response-"Thou hast well said."

Convincing only for those willing to receive a love of the truth. Such are in short supply these days.

 

[heir]

I don't doubt that your a believer in Christ, heir.

You wouldn't know the gospel Paul preached if it bit you on the nose.

You only know the false teachings of John Nelson Darby.

You talk out of both sides of your mouth.

James 1:8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

 

[musterion]

You talk out of both sides of your mouth.

James 1:8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

See? He's just phoning it in. Doesn't even try to keep track of his own trolling. He also know he outed himself as an unsealed unbeliever.

 

[heir]

See? He's just phoning it in. Doesn't even try to keep track of his own trolling. He also know he outed himself as an unsealed unbeliever.

yep!

 

[john w]

You talk out of both sides of your mouth.

James 1:8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

And he also asserts that (many)MADists deny the finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ, by denying that the NC is in effect right now, that we preach a false gospel, but, will not "quit like a man," show some spine, and tell us that we are not saved, and other wolves/wolf-ette's, and, that we/others pervert the gospel of Christ.

That is, he has no purpose on TOL, much less in the boc, if he is a member. His ministry is his MAD/"dispie" obsession.

"My posts are not Scripture, so don't interpret them like they are my infallible positions." -Preterist Craigee Tet.

"I am not here to teach, instruct, evangelize, or advise anyone."-Preterist Craigee Tet.

 

[tetelestai]

James 1:8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

Back to Dispensationalism 101 for you.

If you're going to be a Dispy, you can't quote James for people today.

 

[Nick M]

Back to Dispensationalism 101 for you.

If you're going to be a Dispy, you can't quote James for people today.

Nice try, Legion. We rightly divide the word of truth, which is the gospel. Murder is still immoral, even during the dispensation of grace. So is sodomy and adultery.

 

[tetelestai]

See? He's just phoning it in. Doesn't even try to keep track of his own trolling. He also know he outed himself as an unsealed unbeliever.

If believers were sealed until the Day of Redemption, and the Day of Redemption happened in 70AD, why would anyone think believers are sealed today?

Christ Jesus made it very clear that He would return before all the generation of His contemporaries passed away.

 

[tetelestai]

You talk out of both sides of your mouth.

No, I see you as a very confused believer.

Hopefully someday, you will give up following Darby, and believe what the Bible says.

 

[tetelestai]

We rightly divide the word of truth, which is the gospel.

Um...no you don't.

You claim God is a respecter of the flesh.

You claim God looks to a fleshly people as a special people different from everyone else, despite the Apostle Paul repeatedly telling you there is no longer a distinction between Jew and Gentile.

 

[john w]

No, I see you as a very confused believer.

Hopefully someday, you will give up following Darby, and believe what the Bible says.

Translated: Heir exposed him, as I have, for the actor/habitual liar he is, picked him apart, so he spams his old reliable "Darby" spam.


Quite impressive, Craigie...And TOL laughs at you.

 

[john w]

Um...no you don't.

You claim God is a respecter of the flesh.

You claim God looks to a fleshly people as a special people different from everyone else, despite the Apostle Paul repeatedly telling you there is no longer a distinction between Jew and Gentile.

You claim this fake "Jesus" of yours is not a man. Perverter.

 

[tetelestai]

What do you think?

I think you should read the next verse (Gal 2:8)