ECT The Gospel Proper
- Thread starter Clete
- Start date
- Status
musterion
Well-known member
Then Paul lied.
Either that or you are reading things into those two passages missing from them in the understanding of most people...until it is taught to them.
While, your resorting to your usual insolence, just proves you expect people to kow tow to your way if they expect your acceptance of them.
You have a long wait, with that.
Very long.
Rom. 5:6-8.
musterion
Well-known member
Stop blathering and make a valid point, if you have one.
Right Divider
Body part
You must think that you're the only one.
I already did, twice.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Yep, irrelevant but the motive is pretty clear.
Hebrews 9:9-10
9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; 10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.
9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; 10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.
Galatians 2:4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:
glorydaz
Well-known member
What did the RISEN LORD tell Paul? In fact, it's the only time the Lord Jesus Christ used the word Grace. Different message Rosenritter.
2 Corinthians 12:9
And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.
And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
My only claim is that the Scripture teaches us that the Body of Christ has an authentic pastorate, and this office is held by bishops, which is the word in Scripture (e.g. 1Ti3:1KJV). This pastorate cannot be claimed by anybody validly except those who are validly holders of the office. I can call myself the President of the United States, but it's fictional, unless I am the actual President of the United States. 'Same goes for bishops.
If the Bishop is the actual authentic Church pastorate, and Catholic and Orthodox bishops are the authentic holders of that office, then it is trivially within their power to set policy on the requirements and prerequisites and specifications of potential new bishops. Coincidentally, the Catholic bishops were challenged on their requirement that bishops be only men, and they distinguished honestly and accurately that the matter is unchangeable by the Bishop, because it is Apostolic, which means that it is Christ's own sovereign decision, and since the Church is His Church, that is certainly His prerogative, and whether or not every bishops disagrees with Him, and think instead that women ought to be permitted to be bishops also, they are powerless to do anything about it. If you think of it, if you believe in Christ, then why would you be surprised that He instituted a pastorate that is powerless to contravene His will? They can't and won't do a darn thing about the all-male pastorate. That's the Lord Jesus Christ's personal call, and we don't have to like it, but if we dislike it, we are clearly in disagreement with the Lord Jesus Christ, and that automatically makes you wrong. You should yield, you should defer, to Him, that He far outweighs you in the brain use department. He already out-thought you. You'll never catch up with Him. Just submit, to our Lord.
Do you think it's possible that Mark was Peter's son? That would make Mark's Gospel Peter's gospel, automatically, wouldn't you think? Mark would presumably, I think safely we can say 'presumably,' be listening to his father's stories about Jesus of Nazareth. And presumably, if Peter read it, and saw errors, he would correct his son, and not let him publish the Gospel of the Circumcision (cf. Gal2:7KJV) fallible or errant.
Paul and Luke had a similar arrangement. Somehow, Paul was able to get Luke to write a Gospel that was extraordinarily similar to Mark, even though Paul hadn't read Mark, nor known Peter all that well to know every detail in Luke, very many of which are almost identical to Mark. Paul's Gospel of the Uncircumcision was miraculously similar to Peter's Gospel of the Circumcision. Galatians 1:11-12 KJV
The only thing that they had to do, and the only that they have to do, is to call the police whenever anyone makes a criminal accusation against anyone. This is usually unhealthy to have snitches, but in this case, it's literally for the children, that we have to get familiar with that even our closest allies are going to call the police if you're ever accused of child abuse. It's unacceptable to try to paternalistically protect the accused, with the presumption of their innocence in the matter. The police need to be involved asap, and the quicker we all get used to this, the sooner this dark age ends for good.
How do you see Catholics in bondage? I see no bound Catholics. You made that up. Catholics who feel bound just leave. There's almost zero pressure to keep anybody coming to Mass, everyone who's there, wants to be there. They're at Mass completely voluntarily, and of their free will.
Last edited:
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
False dichotomy. Both you and the parading bird-clowns are the Church today, but only one of you are authentic pastors.
And I'm not "Roman." Catholicism's my theology, but I am only "[Catholic] on the way to full communion," irl.
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
That's exactly what the Catholic bishops say.
musterion
Well-known member
Seriously?
When someone says something so desperately ridiculous as this I usually just shut the conversation down.
I mean, my reaction to this comment is a level a incredulous that I don't know how to express in words!
Saul was around the entire time Jesus was on the Earth. What are you suggesting, that God just overlooked him during the time when Jesus was collecting His disciples? Perhaps you think that God would have been unable to persuade Saul until after he was actively in the process of murdering believers and destroying the church. Maybe you think that God is just sort of a little wish-washy in regards to sticking with those who stick with Him and decided to simply blow off the Twelve Apostles that He already had and instead decided to supernaturally convert this murderer and have him show the Twelve how being a disciple is supposed to be done.
Again, the desperation here is flatly stupefying!
The only difference you see is zeal.
You simply cannot be serious!
And, if you are, there's no point in continuing. In fact, I'm not even going to bother with the rest of this. The only possible outcome is needless enmity.
I give you high marks for at least responding to the question and making some semblance of an argument, which is more than most even attempt, but we are just way too far apart and that's me assuming that you sincerely believe these things, which I genuinely cannot fathom.
Clete
P.S. Truly, the power of paradigm is, by far and without a doubt, the biggest hurdle there is in the way of seeing the truth. I submit to you that you will never convince anyone of anything nor will you be convinced of anything part from that which is already believed unless and until you stop analyzing the trees and begin to look at the forest. You're looking at and arguing over the color of October Elm leaves in a forest of Pine trees in May.
If you want to make real progress, stop even thinking about specific doctrines and start examining your over all theological paradigm and begin to think about ways to objectively compare that paradigm with others that exist. I wish, honestly, that I could simply save you the time and effort by telling you to simply believe that Mid-Acts Dispensationalism is the truth but it just doesn't work that way. You must come to see it for yourself.
Thing is, his particular paradigm does not appear a desperate one.
So I doubt he said that out of some sort of a desperation, but more out of where his paradigm has long since learned to look at things from "by reason of use."
From within a paradigm, which, as you have often pointed out, is simply lacking in the much, wider Scripture based, frame of reference that Scripture demands one must approach looking at anything in Scripture from, if one is to properly understand any of its smaller frames of reference.
In other words, his paradigm always evidences a failure to have looked at a thing from within a much, much wider, Isaiah 8:20; Acts 17: 11, 12; 2 Timothy 3:16, 17 frame of reference.
The repeated result, when it comes to dealing with such, from within the whole of Scripture on God and the things of God?
Hebrews 5:11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing. 5:12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. 5:13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. 5:14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
Result? His own reasoning on a thing, believed by him as "sound."
Happy New Year, Clete.
Because Romans 5:6-11!
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Wow! You posted a video....
This, it seems to me, is a distinction without a difference.
Well, the difference is that I don't detect any hostility on his part against believing the truth in favor of his doctrine. Of course, right now, he thinks his doctrine is the truth but what I mean is that he doesn't come off to me like one who wouldn't change his mind if someone found the words needed to persuade him. He's not like Nang for B57 where no matter what anyone ever said about anything, there's nothing and no one alive capable to moving them an inch off their dogmatic trust in Calvinism. They see the error and don't care. In fact, they actually believe that their refusal to allow sound reason to persuade them is what the word 'faith' refers to. I detect no such mindless obstinance with Trubosixx. It seems to me that he doesn't change his mind because we have failed to persuade him that there is good cause to do so. And I can live with that, by the way. He'll come find us after judgment day is over and we'll all have a big belly laugh about how wrong we all were.
Clete
Always have admired how well you more often than not, take whenever this MAD points a thing out to you, that you might consider some further reflection on.
I've known many a MAD over the years - many - and not all welcome such a thing, let alone, with joy.
Feel free to do likewise towards me, whenever you conclude I might be off on one understanding, or another - I'm ever about the right thinking on a thing - from friend and foe, alike.
Proverbs 27:17, Titus 1: 12, 13.
musterion
Well-known member
Just can't help it, can you.
- Status