ECT MADists don't follow Paul

[Right Divider]

You're agreeing with what I said.

The moral aspect of the law can never be removed, otherwise sin cannot be defined as a violation of a moral principle.

Was it wrong when Cain murdered Able? It was morally wrong for Cain to murder his brother and yet he violated no law.

Murder (etc.) is WRONG regardless of law or no law.

We're getting into the heart of what mad is about here. And this is where it stinks of gnosticism right to the core.

You and Tellmorelies have a caricature of MAD that you beat the straw out of. Great work guys.

Concerning sin, only the judicial aspect of the law, that was empowered to condemn a sin act, has been abolished. The understanding is that if we are alive to God in the Spirit/spirit, the physical act of the body cannot be condemned because Jesus took the punishment for it on the cross.
However, as Paul said, "For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?"

Indeed.... WHO will deliver us? Christ has delivered US.

Just exactly how does MAD teach otherwise?

Paul never tries to subdivide the law the way that you guys do.

Paul begins his talk about the law in Romans 2 as follows:

Rom 2:12-16 KJV For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; (13) (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. (14) For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: (15) Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another (16) In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
​

So you think that Paul is referring to the ceremonial here?

Rom 3:20 KJV Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
​

Do you think that is refers to ceremonial law?

 

[Clete]

You and Tellmorelies have a caricature of MAD that you beat the straw out of. Great work guys.

Boy, you can say that again!

I don't understand the point of it either. I mean, where's the profit in jumping up and down, ranting about a supposed horrible doctrine that no one believes? Where is the profit in spending the time to refute a position no one holds?

Not there isn't someone somewhere that believes in Gnosticism but it certainly isn't us. I wonder why they feel the need to alter what we believe and then insist the we believe it. There's no Mid-Acts Dispensationalist anywhere that has ever said anything similar to Gnosticism. It smells of desperation but I don't understand it because we are all here to debate what we actually believe so where's the need for desperation? Who are they trying to convince?

Clete

 

[tetelestai]

Boy, you can say that again!

MAD teaches two gospels after the cross (kingdom & body)

MAD claims Peter and those in the "kingdom program" had to keep the law after the cross during their "kingdom program".

MAD claims Paul was the first person in the Body of Christ.

MAD claims that in the future God has a special plan for Jews according to the flesh

These are all false teachings (among many others my MAD). There's no strawman.

 

[andyc]

MAD teaches two gospels after the cross (kingdom & body)

MAD claims Peter and those in the "kingdom program" had to keep the law after the cross during their "kingdom program".

MAD claims Paul was the first person in the Body of Christ.

MAD claims that in the future God has a special plan for Jews according to the flesh

These are all false teachings (among many others my MAD). There's no strawman.

That's right.

Obviously there has to be reason why the mads have relegated the kingdom people to a lesser class of saint. Bottom dwellers if you will (live on the earth, have no justification, must live through the trib etc).
Why be so nasty to certain people, but so generous to themselves?

There's a motive behind this that existed in the first century church.

 

[john w]

So. This is where the law is a school master. It still is.

Agreed.But your buddy, Tetellies, satanically asserts:


"The law was nailed to the cross. You can't divide the law into parts that suit your belief system.....the law was abolished at the cross..."-Tet.


And he lied about that:

"But, remember, the Law of Moses was still in place.......(referring to the post cross Acts period-my note)...God didn't flick a lightswitch that in a split second switched the entire planet from OC to NC.Hebrews tells us that the OC was "waxing" and would soon be obsolete. We know that the OC was completely gone in 70AD....Of course Pentecost was part of the law....Of course the law was part of the OC...The unbelieving Jews had their temple and city destroyed for good in 70AD. That marked the end of the old covenant, the law and prophets, etc."-satanic Craigie

 

[musterion]

Boy, you can say that again!

I don't understand the point of it either. I mean, where's the profit in jumping up and down, ranting about a supposed horrible doctrine that no one believes? Where is the profit in spending the time to refute a position no one holds?

When you're catching the most flack, you know you're over the target.

 

[patrick jane]

Boy, you can say that again!

I don't understand the point of it either. I mean, where's the profit in jumping up and down, ranting about a supposed horrible doctrine that no one believes? Where is the profit in spending the time to refute a position no one holds?

Not there isn't someone somewhere that believes in Gnosticism but it certainly isn't us. I wonder why they feel the need to alter what we believe and then insist the we believe it. There's no Mid-Acts Dispensationalist anywhere that has ever said anything similar to Gnosticism. It smells of desperation but I don't understand it because we are all here to debate what we actually believe so where's the need for desperation? Who are they trying to convince?

Clete

great post

 

[musterion]

Agreed.But your buddy, Tetellies, satanically asserts:


"The law was nailed to the cross. You can't divide the law into parts that suit your belief system.....the law was abolished at the cross..."-Tet.


And he lied about that:

"But, remember, the Law of Moses was still in place.......(referring to the post cross Acts period-my note)...God didn't flick a lightswitch that in a split second switched the entire planet from OC to NC.Hebrews tells us that the OC was "waxing" and would soon be obsolete. We know that the OC was completely gone in 70AD....Of course Pentecost was part of the law....Of course the law was part of the OC...The unbelieving Jews had their temple and city destroyed for good in 70AD. That marked the end of the old covenant, the law and prophets, etc."-satanic Craigie

Waitaminnit. How could the Law be nailed to the Cross and abolished, yet still be in force during the Acts period (and presumably up until 70 when 'the two covenants ran side by side')? I don't get it.

 

[john w]

Show us where Peter kept the law of Moses after the cross?

You keep saying that, but you have yet to show us where Peter observed the law after the cross

Already did, sodomite. Your father tells you to keep spamming that assertion.



OK Craigie-agreed on a thread, you deceiving punk?

And you are going to address the below, you soft, pudgy sodomite:



-Who taught the law, in the OT, to the children of Israel?
-Who taught the law, in Matthew-John, which was OC, prior to the dbr?
-Who taught the "early Acts" believers, to adhere to the law, including the feasts, "the appointed feasts," such as Pentecost?
-Who taught the OC/"Old Testament,"from the cross, until AD 70, since you say that the OC did not end until AD 70-"transition period...God did not flip a lightswitch"?
-Who taught the law to Paul, the Galatians.............per:

Galatians 3:24 KJV Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

Josephus? Wikipedia?
-The Lord Jesus Christ spoke only the words of God the Father(as all prophets did-God's spokesman)-he taught the Savior, what to say. Go on record, and assert that God the Father did not teach him to teach the law.
-Tell us why the Lord Jesus Christ kept the law, a law, that He never taught. Go ahead.


"The law brought me, and brings others to Christ..."-Craigie



Who taught you the law, satanist?


I thought it was "nailed to the cross?"

Does the law serve to bring others to Christ today?

-Who taught the law to Paul, the Galatians.............per:

Galatians 3:24 KJV Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.[/B]




Who taught Peter, the law, to bring him to Christ?

"God didn't flick a lightswitch that in a split second switched the entire planet from OC to NC.Hebrews tells us that the OC was "waxing" and would soon be obsolete. We know that the OC was completely gone in 70AD."-Tet.



"But, remember, the Law of Moses was still in place."-Tettie

Whose directive was to keep the OC, still in place, which included the law, post dbr?


Why do you lie, when you asserted that the law was "nailed to the cross...abolished at the cross," when you assert that it lasted until 70 AD?


Rhetorical-children of the devil, are taught to lie habitually, like you.



Who taught the Acts believers, the law, to bring them to Christ?

Who taught the thousands, to observe Pentecost, in Acts?



Again, who taught you, if you are saved, the law, to bring you to Christ?


Who taught Paul, to go into the synagogues, reserved only for Torah/law keeping, followers?


Who taught Peter, John, to go to the temple,reserved only for Torah/law keeping, followers?

Who taught those that were "zeo


Acts 22:12 KJV

And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there,


Who sent this "devout man according to the law." to Saul/Paul?




Acts 21:20 KJV

And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:



Who taught these thousands of Jews, which believed, to be zealous of the law?


Wikipedia? Flavey Joe?




WHO EVER TAUGHT THE LAW IN THE BIBLE, you satanic punk?



Name one teacher, who ever taught, that the law was not observed by Peter, John, the other 10, the masses, in early Acts? Names, please. Specifics.


You are going to answer these questions, you satanic dirt bag.

Am I clear?

 

[john w]

Waitaminnit. How could the Law be nailed to the Cross and abolished, yet still be in force during the Acts period (and presumably up until 70 when 'the two covenants ran side by side')? I don't get it.

I/others, have been asking him that, for years, and all we get, from this demon, is "You'd understand, if you did not follow Darby....Don't you believe the bible/'Jesus'/Paul?......MAD cannot answer, so all they do is attack me, assassinate my character, insult me.....Wa, wa, wa, wa, wa, wa, ..................Stop it!!!!! You are desperate....."

He is a habitual liar, engaged in hypocrisy, deception, satanic debating techniques. Even he knows it.

 

[whitestone]

I don't understand what your point is?

Can you elaborate?

Marcellus replaced Pilate in 36 or 37 ad,,,Marullus became prefect in ad38 so the letter from the high priest fits between here during Marcellus governorship which is why Saul obtained the letter from the high priest instead of the prefect(Marcellus had no power) . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marullus_(prefect_of_Judea)


So then ad 36-37,Saul of Tarsus obtains a letter from the high priest Acts 9:2 KJV . Contemplating this then,that it was not proper for The same high priest to take in their own hands to take Jesus into judgment, took him before Pontius Pilate. Then afterward during the office of Marcellus they because he actually had no power,were at liberty to issue a letter to Saul did do so.

This Saul then states that he then is let down a basket 2 Corinthians 11:32-33 KJV , Acts 9:25 KJV yet there is another earmark found which is Aretas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aretas_IV_Philopatris ,who dies "roughly" ce40.

Then he says,, he went to Arabia for three years Galatians 1:17-18 KJV . So then from the letter ad37 and 3 years in Arabia is ad40 at Acts 9:25 KJV because Aretas is dead after this point.At this time,John is still in Acts 8:14 (not yet on Patmos), after 3 days,many days how many times does Luke say this in Acts 9 and why, how much time is this covering?

John himself seems to be the missing link,that is from beginning to end never is it once mentioned of the first revolt of ad66. Never in Acts,the letters of Paul,Peter,James,Jude,John,ect,ect. unless that pesky Revelation. Then in and of it's own self it becomes the focal point in eschatology. So where did John go,did he remain there and become a pillar to his community between Acts 8 and the council in 48-50 ,how is it that John is exiled to Patmos and Paul thinks he is a pillar in Jerusalem at the same time?, Galatians 2:9 KJV ... So in Paul's mind was he somewhere else(Patmos)or was he there present among the 11 and described as an pillar?

The lord said to John "behold thy mother",to Peter, you will be bound and led to a place where you don't want to go. They all seemed to see all that different as to why John would remain until then,but John understood his stewardship that he would remain until Mary died.

John thinks hes not in exile on Patmos , 2 John 12 KJV ,,,lol he thinks he is able to go in 3 John 10 ,lol Ignatius writes letters to him and ask him to come http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0114.htm just as if he's sure John is free and is still caring for Mary (bottom few letters).


We are full of where John is,where John is not is the problem, that he is not on Patmos before ad66...

 

[tetelestai]

Waitaminnit. How could the Law be nailed to the Cross and abolished, yet still be in force during the Acts period (and presumably up until 70 when 'the two covenants ran side by side')? I don't get it.

Was the law in place for 40 years during the Exodus generation?

 

[patrick jane]

Marcellus replaced Pilate in 36 or 37 ad,,,Marullus became prefect in ad38 so the letter from the high priest fits between here during Marcellus governorship which is why Saul obtained the letter from the high priest instead of the prefect(Marcellus had no power) . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marullus_(prefect_of_Judea)


So then ad 36-37,Saul of Tarsus obtains a letter from the high priest Acts 9:2 KJV . Contemplating this then,that it was not proper for The same high priest to take in their own hands to take Jesus into judgment, took him before Pontius Pilate. Then afterward during the office of Marcellus they because he actually had no power,were at liberty to issue a letter to Saul did do so.

This Saul then states that he then is let down a basket 2 Corinthians 11:32-33 KJV , Acts 9:25 KJV yet there is another earmark found which is Aretas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aretas_IV_Philopatris ,who dies "roughly" ce40.

Then he says,, he went to Arabia for three years Galatians 1:17-18 KJV . So then from the letter ad37 and 3 years in Arabia is ad40 at Acts 9:25 KJV because Aretas is dead after this point.At this time,John is still in Acts 8:14 (not yet on Patmos), after 3 days,many days how many times does Luke say this in Acts 9 and why, how much time is this covering?

John himself seems to be the missing link,that is from beginning to end never is it once mentioned of the first revolt of ad66. Never in Acts,the letters of Paul,Peter,James,Jude,John,ect,ect. unless that pesky Revelation. Then in and of it's own self it becomes the focal point in eschatology. So where did John go,did he remain there and become a pillar to his community between Acts 8 and the council in 48-50 ,how is it that John is exiled to Patmos and Paul thinks he is a pillar in Jerusalem at the same time?, Galatians 2:9 KJV ... So in Paul's mind was he somewhere else(Patmos)or was he there present among the 11 and described as an pillar?

The lord said to John "behold thy mother",to Peter, you will be bound and led to a place where you don't want to go. They all seemed to see all that different as to why John would remain until then,but John understood his stewardship that he would remain until Mary died.

John thinks hes not in exile on Patmos , 2 John 12 KJV ,,,lol he thinks he is able to go in 3 John 10 ,lol Ignatius writes letters to him and ask him to come http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0114.htm just as if he's sure John is free and is still caring for Mary (bottom few letters).


We are full of where John is,where John is not is the problem, that he is not on Patmos before ad66...

View attachment 21266

 

[patrick jane]

View attachment 21267

 

[Right Divider]

Was the law in place for 40 years during the Exodus generation?

More proof by assumption.

 

[tetelestai]

More proof by assumption.

(Joshua 5:5) All the people that came out had been circumcised, but all the people born in the wilderness during the journey from Egypt had not.

Why weren't any of the males circumcised for 40 years?

The law of Moses said that unless a male was circumcised, he couldn't partake of the Passover:

(Exodus 12:48) ......But no uncircumcised male may ever eat the Passover meal.

For 40 years, why was the law in place for some Israelite men, but not for other Israelite men?

 

[tetelestai]

Marcellus replaced Pilate in 36 or 37 ad,,,Marullus became prefect in ad38 so the letter from the high priest fits between here during Marcellus governorship which is why Saul obtained the letter from the high priest instead of the prefect(Marcellus had no power) . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marullus_(prefect_of_Judea)


So then ad 36-37,Saul of Tarsus obtains a letter from the high priest Acts 9:2 KJV . Contemplating this then,that it was not proper for The same high priest to take in their own hands to take Jesus into judgment, took him before Pontius Pilate. Then afterward during the office of Marcellus they because he actually had no power,were at liberty to issue a letter to Saul did do so.

This Saul then states that he then is let down a basket 2 Corinthians 11:32-33 KJV , Acts 9:25 KJV yet there is another earmark found which is Aretas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aretas_IV_Philopatris ,who dies "roughly" ce40.

Then he says,, he went to Arabia for three years Galatians 1:17-18 KJV . So then from the letter ad37 and 3 years in Arabia is ad40 at Acts 9:25 KJV because Aretas is dead after this point.At this time,John is still in Acts 8:14 (not yet on Patmos), after 3 days,many days how many times does Luke say this in Acts 9 and why, how much time is this covering?

John himself seems to be the missing link,that is from beginning to end never is it once mentioned of the first revolt of ad66. Never in Acts,the letters of Paul,Peter,James,Jude,John,ect,ect. unless that pesky Revelation. Then in and of it's own self it becomes the focal point in eschatology. So where did John go,did he remain there and become a pillar to his community between Acts 8 and the council in 48-50 ,how is it that John is exiled to Patmos and Paul thinks he is a pillar in Jerusalem at the same time?, Galatians 2:9 KJV ... So in Paul's mind was he somewhere else(Patmos)or was he there present among the 11 and described as an pillar?

The lord said to John "behold thy mother",to Peter, you will be bound and led to a place where you don't want to go. They all seemed to see all that different as to why John would remain until then,but John understood his stewardship that he would remain until Mary died.

John thinks hes not in exile on Patmos , 2 John 12 KJV ,,,lol he thinks he is able to go in 3 John 10 ,lol Ignatius writes letters to him and ask him to come http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0114.htm just as if he's sure John is free and is still caring for Mary (bottom few letters).


We are full of where John is,where John is not is the problem, that he is not on Patmos before ad66...

First off, nowhere in the Bible does it say John was exiled to Patmos. John said he was on Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. There is nothing that suggests John was exiled, or imprisoned to Patmos. That doesn't mean John wasn't exiled to Patmos, but there is nothing in the Bible that says he was.

Secondly, you say the First Revolt of 66AD isn't mentioned in the Bible. That makes sense if all of the NT was written before 66AD, which is what I believe was the case.

Again, you need to establish when Paul wrote 2 Corinthians, then we can subtract 14 years, and this will tell us when John was on Patmos.

Once we come with a year, then we can try and figure out where John was that year.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

Your ignorance surpasses the lowest IQ's on planet earth. No
offence, I just need you to know the truth about yourself.

Pro 15:3 The eyes of the LORD are in every place, beholding the evil and the good.
Pro 15:4 A wholesome tongue is a tree of life: but perverseness therein is a breach in the spirit.
Pro 15:5 A fool despiseth his father's instruction: but he that regardeth reproof is prudent.
Pro 15:6 In the house of the righteous is much treasure: but in the revenues of the wicked is trouble.
Pro 15:7 The lips of the wise disperse knowledge: but the heart of the foolish doeth not so.
Pro 15:8 The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the LORD: but the prayer of the upright is his delight.
Pro 15:9 The way of the wicked is an abomination unto the LORD: but he loveth him that followeth after righteousness.
Pro 15:10 Correction is grievous unto him that forsaketh the way: and he that hateth reproof shall die.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Pro 15:3 The eyes of the LORD are in every place, beholding the evil and the good.
Pro 15:4 A wholesome tongue is a tree of life: but perverseness therein is a breach in the spirit.
Pro 15:5 A fool despiseth his father's instruction: but he that regardeth reproof is prudent.
Pro 15:6 In the house of the righteous is much treasure: but in the revenues of the wicked is trouble.
Pro 15:7 The lips of the wise disperse knowledge: but the heart of the foolish doeth not so.
Pro 15:8 The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the LORD: but the prayer of the upright is his delight.
Pro 15:9 The way of the wicked is an abomination unto the LORD: but he loveth him that followeth after righteousness.
Pro 15:10 Correction is grievous unto him that forsaketh the way: and he that hateth reproof shall die.

Do you have a point to go along with the Scriptures you posted? Or,
just practicing your cut/paste techniques?

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

You always blurt out some "fact" without any evidence.


MAD teaches what is contained in the Bible. You just make up anything to support your myth.

You lies have been exposed over and over and yet you just keep up the lying.

He has no shame.