2 Thess 2:4 already happened.
(2 Thess 2:6) And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time.
Paul wrote to the Thessalonians a few years before 66AD.
ECT What is the true root objection to MAD?
- Thread starter musterion
- Start date
2 Thess 2:4 already happened.
(2 Thess 2:6) And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time.
Paul wrote to the Thessalonians a few years before 66AD.
musterion
Well-known member
The full text:
Peter said it was unlawful for him to even darken Cornelius' door but went because God's sheet vision showed him not to consider Gentiles unclean, and that was a brand new thought for Peter. It was a whole paradigm shift that he still did not understand. Nor did Peter yet know why he was there. So much for the myth of Peter knowing his commission was to preach Paul's Gospel in which there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile. LATER Peter realized that...but at this point in Acts? Not yet.
The man who stood up before all Israel on Pentecost and indicted the Pharisees for murder? I don't think so.
Peter said it was unlawful for him to keep company. Did he lie?
Why was it not until Acts 10:34 that Peter NOW perceived that God showed no partiality? What does that tell you about what Peter believed when he first knocked on Cornelius' door?
andyc
New member
Just as a little side note, it's obvious that the Corinthians were very familiar with Peter's preaching, as some of them were saying "I am of Cephas".
This would be very unusual if Peter was supposed to be preaching a non grace gospel to Jews only. And it does fit with Paul saying, "whether it was him or they (the other apostles)" who preached. It really didn't matter who it was, as long as they received it and believed it.
(2 Thess 2:3) 3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.
The "rebellion" above that Paul spoke about was The Great Jewish Revolt that began in 66AD.
In the verse, Paul uses the Greek word "APOSTASIA". This is the exact same Greek word Josephus used to describe The Great Jewish Revolt that began in 66AD.
The "rebellion" above that Paul spoke about was The Great Jewish Revolt that began in 66AD.
In the verse, Paul uses the Greek word "APOSTASIA". This is the exact same Greek word Josephus used to describe The Great Jewish Revolt that began in 66AD.
It was unlawful according to the Talmud.
If you think I'm wrong, and that it was unlawful for a Jew to enter a Gentile's house and keep company, then just show us from the OT where is says so?
It tells me how evil the Pharisees and the Talmud were.
Which is why Jesus called them a brood of vipers, a wicked generation, told them the blood of all the prophets were on their hands, and that their father was satan.
musterion
Well-known member
You think too one-dimensionally.
The Romans desecrated the Temple, that is true. But it was already thoroughly desecrated and profaned by Israel's complete rejection of Christ. It had stood intact but empty of all glory and holiness long before Rome burned it down. It was nothing but a whited sepulchre at that point.
The point is, no one sat in the Temple AS A HOLY PLACE (Matt 24:15) declaring himself to be God and enforcing worship of himself as God (2 Thess 2:4). That is yet to occur.
Heterodoxical
New member
Couldn't have said it better myself
Mad is a gnostic country club. Nothing more.
heheheh I laugh at the example there.
But I'm not sure it's not close to right. I've never found a M.A.D. theologian that could have the chat with me. I get them in places they have no answers for and they start to freak out.
musterion
Well-known member
Heterodoxical
New member
Musterion,
You claim SO MAD in your profile.
I can prove to you that you aren't a scriptural respecting theologian. I only need to ask you a few questions.
You select the scripture you wish to claim is relevant, and omit anything else. I can show you with the scriptural authors you accept even.
if you ever find yourself bored, please look me up, thread or PM I don't care. I just like the chats so I can learn.
You claim SO MAD in your profile.
I can prove to you that you aren't a scriptural respecting theologian. I only need to ask you a few questions.
You select the scripture you wish to claim is relevant, and omit anything else. I can show you with the scriptural authors you accept even.
if you ever find yourself bored, please look me up, thread or PM I don't care. I just like the chats so I can learn.
Heterodoxical
New member
I like you already Doc.
So, does OT prophecy have anything to do with M.A.D. theology? I mean, without Christ, you couldn't hold your positions anyway, right? Christ isn't removed from the equation, He still had to fulfill the cross. Am I right there?
musterion
Well-known member
musterion
Well-known member
Is Christ the Messiah?
Heterodoxical
New member
Lose the snotty cite evidence crap. I came at this chat open minded and working with what I know. And I don't document every conversation I have and every explanation I receive to justify M.A.D. theology.
M.A.D., to my understanding considers the scriptures addressing the Jews to not apply to them. That's a pretty big distinction, no?
My evidence is every time JOHNW says, "that doesn't apply to me".
Heterodoxical
New member
I'll answer you when you answer me.
If you are going to evade with questions, there is no sense pretending I can speak with you as an adult.
musterion
Well-known member
I did answer it, in context.
musterion
Well-known member
Cite an example and we'll go from there.
Heterodoxical
New member
Heterodoxical
New member
I asked you the question idiot. I presented that is my understanding, and sit here and anxiously await if you agree or disagree. It really doesn't matter what someone else thinks, I'm discussing with you, so it only matters what you think.
I have asked, and you evade.
Are you ignorant of what you believe?
Or a coward to present it publically.
Why would you hide and evade?
It's not that difficult. If you wish to talk at the big boys table, then you live in a quid pro quo world. You speak I answer, I speak you answer. We have to work together or we BOTH end up looking stupid, not just you.
You wanted to be my huckleberry, well, Doc didn't run from a fight. So it's apparent you use strong images of men in videos to compensate for what you lack in your heart and in real life.