ECT Obsolete, aging and soon disappearing: why MAD is pointless

[Danoh]

We are free from the "burden" of having to sort out every line in Acts, got it? It is an account; it is not a systematic statement of Christian doctrine like Heb 8 or Gal 3. I embrace them, and see no mess, thank you.

MAD is NOT based on Acts.

Rather, on Acts IN LIGHT OF Romans thru Philemon.

Paul's salvation, calling, commissioning, etc., are studied IN LIGHT OF Romans thru Philemon.

Just as Early Acts is studied in light of Hebrews thru Revelation.

But you know how it goes by now...

You

Are

An

Expert

In

YOUR

OWN

FOOL

IDEAS.

 

[Crucible]

MADist ideology largely pours into small, independent churches who don't do much communion with others- and a lot of these churches don't last very long because of it, or at best do not grow.

It's only the ones that do which MAD progresses, and to be perfectly blunt, those churches are mostly among higher class society who lose a lot of their youth as soon as they enter college.

The strong point of those churches is that they tend to have a lot of missionaries. Naturally, this is what people have to do in calling themselves evangelists. But other than that, I've ever really been too impressed with them.

Just being honest about how I feel :idunno:

 

[ClimateSanity]

MADist ideology largely pours into small, independent churches who don't do much communion with others- and a lot of these churches don't last very long because of it, or at best do not grow.

It's only the ones that do which MAD progresses, and to be perfectly blunt, those churches are mostly among higher class society who lose a lot of their youth as soon as they enter college.

The strong point of those churches is that they tend to have a lot of missionaries. Naturally, this is what people have to do in calling themselves evangelists. But other than that, I've ever really been too impressed with them.

Just being honest about how I feel :idunno:

What does any of that matter where the goal is to have a bible that is consistent and readable?

 

[Danoh]

Then spend your time in Gal 3 and Heb 8 where our theology is stated in complete and necessary form, instead of trying to figure out why or how certain things happened or were misunderstood. There is no need or point to MAD.

The fool says that because he thinks Gal. 3:17 is asserting some sort of voiding of the Law "they of the circumcision which believed," were under as Israelites.

Its all "one size fits all" to him, hence his fool use of the phrase "the gospel" - it is a "one size fits all" to him.

In his blindness, he fails to see that when the phrase is used in the Scripture, it's user always makes obvious his particularly intended sense.

Only book based buffoons and those who go by their own "what this means to me" use that phrase in a "one size fits all" manner.

In contrast, this is why heir, for example, ALWAYS rightly refers to "the gospel OF OUR SALVATION."

Out of her CONSISTENT awareness of THE NEED to EVER point that out to people in general, given the mess that Interplanner and their lot having been making of "the gospel OF OUR SALVATION" ever since the Apostle Paul himself found himself EVER NEEDING TO point this DISTINCTION out.

:doh:

 

[Crucible]

What does any of that matter where the goal is to have a bible that is consistent and readable?

Because handing someone a Bible does not make them Christians.
There's a big problem with evangelists today, and it's in pretending to deliver the Gospel when it's really about delivering themselves. I'm not going to pull the punches there- they do a lot of work in many places, but rarely in their own city.

 

[Danoh]

What does any of that matter where the goal is to have a bible that is consistent and readable?

It's fascinating - their supposed "logic" is ever nothing more than a half empty bottle.

They simply don't know they ought to pause and consider that they have not fully thought out there argument.

 

[Danoh]

Because handing someone a Bible does not make them Christians.
There's a big problem with evangelists today, and it's in pretending to deliver the Gospel when it's really about delivering themselves. I'm not going to pull the punches there- they do a lot of work in many places, but rarely in their own city.

Nonsense.

 

[Crucible]

Nonsense.

Can you give an example otherwise?

:chuckle:

 

[ClimateSanity]

The fool says that because he thinks Gal. 3:17 is asserting some sort of voiding of the Law "they of the circumcision which believed," were under as Israelites.

Its all "one size fits all" to him, hence his fool use of the phrase "the gospel" - it is a "one size fits all" to him.

In his blindness, he fails to see that when the phrase is used in the Scripture, it's user always makes obvious his particularly intended sense.

Only book based buffoons and those who go by their own "what this means to me" use that phrase in a "one size fits all" manner.

In contrast, this is why heir, for example, ALWAYS rightly refers to "the gospel OF OUR SALVATION."

Out of her CONSISTENT awareness of THE NEED to EVER point that out to people in general, given the mess that Interplanner and their lot having been making of "the gospel OF OUR SALVATION" ever since the Apostle Paul himself found himself EVER NEEDING TO point this DISTINCTION out.

:doh:

I never paid attention to that about Heir. It has to be made clear in discussion to avoid confusion. Jesus never taught his disciples anything about the Gospel of OUR salvation. Much of his teachings touched in a tertiary way on it but never directly concerning it.

 

[Interplanner]

The fool says that because he thinks Gal. 3:17 is asserting some sort of voiding of the Law "they of the circumcision which believed," were under as Israelites.

Its all "one size fits all" to him, hence his fool use of the phrase "the gospel" - it is a "one size fits all" to him.

In his blindness, he fails to see that when the phrase is used in the Scripture, it's user always makes obvious his particularly intended sense.

Only book based buffoons and those who go by their own "what this means to me" use that phrase in a "one size fits all" manner.

In contrast, this is why heir, for example, ALWAYS rightly refers to "the gospel OF OUR SALVATION."

Out of her CONSISTENT awareness of THE NEED to EVER point that out to people in general, given the mess that Interplanner and their lot having been making of "the gospel OF OUR SALVATION" ever since the Apostle Paul himself found himself EVER NEEDING TO point this DISTINCTION out.

:doh:

Danoh never explains why the gospel accounts start with the Lamb of God who takes away the debt of sin.

So you can pretty much dismiss what he's saying until he does.

"Lamb" means a certain thing in Judaism...

 

[Interplanner]

There is just one Gospel about Christ. There were other good newses in Israel's past, but only one regarding Christ. Unless you are 2P2P; then you don't even need the Bible you just create your own reality.

 

[Interplanner]

...and there's no mess. Sorry to dissappoint.

 

[Danoh]

...and there's no mess. Sorry to dissappoint.

Must be some of your "good newSES" :chuckle:

 

[Interplanner]

I'm sure it was a good news to Israel to return frmo captivity. But when the Gospel came, it superceded anything previous, as reality supercedes shadow. There was also a way to protect the land of Israel from revolution, but it was rejected.

Try to agree when you can, you are exhausting.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

MAD is not so much mistaken as pointless.

Heb 8 tells us the end of the old covenant is as gradual as the verbs chosen in this verse, and many obsolete things linger on.

The waste of MAD is to try to over analyse this in slow motion in the first half of Acts or all of it and find out exactly how it came apart or ended. Who cares?

Your simple problem is, Hebrews was written to Hebrews not to Gentiles.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

That's why I see no point in MAD. It deals with obsolete, unnecessary questions. It is clutter where the Gospel is crisp and necessary.

So, you'd rather remain in ignorance, is that correct?

 

[Interplanner]

Christ is the Wisdom and the Power of God, and all his promises are yes and amen in Christ. I Cor 1, and II Cor 1. What ignorance?

 

[Interplanner]

Your simple problem is, Hebrews was written to Hebrews not to Gentiles.

That does NOT change the status of the new covenant which is for all, 2 Cor 5! Are you pathologically trying to make the Bible complicated??? Sheesh.

 

[Interplanner]

So, you'd rather remain in ignorance, is that correct?

According to I Cor 1-3, it is carnality to try to find a system or theology etc other than Christ crucified as the fulfillment of all God wanted to do. That's what it sounds to me like you are doing. 'the Greeks seek knowledge and the Jews seek a sign but Christ is the Wisdom and Power of God' (answering both mentalities). He meant the Christ of the Gospel of righteousness that is imputed to the believer.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

That does NOT change the status of the new covenant which is for all, 2 Cor 5! Are you pathologically trying to make the Bible complicated??? Sheesh.

The problem is, you don't understand how to "Rightly Divide" the word of God. You're not alone, most posters on TOL are in the same predicament. Therefore, you're in good (bad) company.