Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is MAD doctrine correct?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by Paulos View Post
    I don't KNOW what any of that means !!

    Why do you use TWO EXCLAMATION POINTS at the end of every paragraph ??

    Why do you SKIP a space , before putting in a comma ??
    Maybe , to aggravate you!!
    He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose.

    Jim Elliot

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Paulos View Post
      I don't KNOW what any of that means !!

      Why do you use TWO EXCLAMATION POINTS at the end of every paragraph ??

      Why do you SKIP a space , before putting in a comma ??

      Hi , and since you do not KNOW what I have written means , and as I was wtiting , he will not know what it means !!

      I do not write so that you will not understand , but that you will check out the Greek text and will see that the Perfect Tense is correct for the Greek word APHORIZO , and you complaint about 2 exclamation points instead ??

      Use VINE'S or STRONGS and the internet and check the Greek Text ??

      dan p

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Bright Raven View Post
        Maybe , to aggravate you!!
        No , thats not how its done !! You are SUPPOSED to put a space BETWEEN the last word in the sentence , and the exclamation points , like this !!

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Paulos View Post
          No , thats not how its done !! You are SUPPOSED to put a space BETWEEN the last word in the sentence , and the exclamation points , like this !!

          Hi , and I really do not care , as long as all will understand , and English was not a strong suit of mind !

          Just one exclamation point this time and you will NEVER understand what I write , unless , that person reading is saved !!

          1 Cor 2:14 RULES , as to why many do not understand and will never understand , for it seems that is where you fit in !

          dan p
          Last edited by DAN P; January 11th, 2013, 10:29 AM.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Lighthouse View Post
            So?

            Do you take this to mean Peter never baptized anyone?




            The 12 apostles were specifically told to baptize, by Jesus. Paul, who was an apostle, was not sent to baptize, even though he was called by Jesus. That's the point. Paul was also not commanded to teach all the things Jesus had taught the 12.

            Just because baptism happened doesn't change these facts, and there's also the fact that Paul wrote that there was only one baptism; and most of the time when he wrote of baptism it wasn't by water.
            Bad theology, bad exegesis.
            Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)

            They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
            I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")

            Rev. 1:17, 18; Jer. 9:23, 24

            "No Compromise!" (Keith Green)

            The Pledge: He died for me; I'll live for Him.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Guyver View Post
              So you don't think that Mark 16 belongs in the Bible? Does John 3 belong in the Bible? What about 1 John 5?

              Just a few posts before you said...



              Why would anyone want to change their view to match the Bible if it is not to be trusted? If people can add or subtract from the scriptures, thus nullifying 2 Timothy 3:16 then what's the point? It's just another book like any other...filled with men's ideas.

              I sure hope you're wrong. Because if you are not, and Mark 16 isn't supposed to be there.....then you may as well just toss the whole lot.

              I don't see how anyone could think otherwise. What are you doing....just picking and choosing whatever you feel like believing?
              The end of Mark 16 (vv. 9 ff.), not all of Mark 16 is disputed based on textual criticism. I Jn. 5 is defensible, but not the one verse I Jn. 5:7. Jn. 7-8 is fine, but a portion (woman story) is disputed based on lack of MSS evidence.

              I am not denying whole chapters, but rightly questioning a verse or portion that appears to be a spurious scribal addition, not something linked to the original, inspired MSS.
              Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)

              They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
              I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")

              Rev. 1:17, 18; Jer. 9:23, 24

              "No Compromise!" (Keith Green)

              The Pledge: He died for me; I'll live for Him.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by godrulz View Post
                The end of Mark 16 (vv. 9 ff.), not all of Mark 16 is disputed based on textual criticism. I Jn. 5 is defensible, but not the one verse I Jn. 5:7. Jn. 7-8 is fine, but a portion (woman story) is disputed based on lack of MSS evidence.

                I am not denying whole chapters, but rightly questioning a verse or portion that appears to be a spurious scribal addition, not something linked to the original, inspired MSS.
                Maybe I'm the only one who acknowledges the can of worms that opens up. I know it's a commonly held notion...but the whole thing is ridiculous considering that there are no original manuscripts.

                Do you also question the works included in the canon, or are sixty-six books the right number?

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Guyver View Post
                  I know it's a commonly held notion...but the whole thing is ridiculous considering that there are no original manuscripts.
                  Besides which, Mark 16:8 does seem to be a rather abrupt and implausible ending for a gospel.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Guyver View Post
                    Maybe I'm the only one who acknowledges the can of worms that opens up. I know it's a commonly held notion...but the whole thing is ridiculous considering that there are no original manuscripts.

                    Do you also question the works included in the canon, or are sixty-six books the right number?
                    I do not have a problem with canonicity and reject Apocrypha as non-canonical.

                    The wealth of MSS evidence allows us to reconstruct the original to over 99% accuracy. If a verse has NO MSS support, then we are safe to assume it is spurious, a later interpolation (I Jn. 5:7).

                    I agree with the teachings in the disputed passages, but have to be scholastically honest and admit they are likely not in the originals.
                    Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)

                    They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
                    I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")

                    Rev. 1:17, 18; Jer. 9:23, 24

                    "No Compromise!" (Keith Green)

                    The Pledge: He died for me; I'll live for Him.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Paulos View Post
                      Besides which, Mark 16:8 does seem to be a rather abrupt and implausible ending for a gospel.
                      This objection is noted by the scholars and there are answers for it. The bottom line is a lack of credible MSS support for v. 9 ff. I still read, study, believe, obey it, but recognize the flag translators raise about it.
                      Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)

                      They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
                      I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")

                      Rev. 1:17, 18; Jer. 9:23, 24

                      "No Compromise!" (Keith Green)

                      The Pledge: He died for me; I'll live for Him.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Paulos View Post
                        Why did Paul ever bother water baptizing anyone then?
                        There was no prohibition against it.

                        Originally posted by godrulz View Post
                        Bad theology, bad exegesis.
                        If you're going to make claims back them up.
                        sigpic

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Guyver View Post
                          Maybe I'm the only one who acknowledges the can of worms that opens up. I know it's a commonly held notion...but the whole thing is ridiculous considering that there are no original manuscripts.

                          Do you also question the works included in the canon, or are sixty-six books the right number?
                          You are going to see his normal argument more often. His normal argument is that it doesn't mean what it says. Then he will not say what it (Paul) really means.
                          Jesus saves completely. http://www.climatedepot.com/ http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

                          Titus 1

                          For there are many insubordinate, both idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, whose mouths must be stopped

                          Ephesians 5

                          11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them. 12 For it is shameful even to speak of those things which are done by them in secret

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Lighthouse View Post
                            There was no prohibition against it.
                            That there is no prohibition against doing something is not a reason to do it.
                            Last edited by Paulos; January 11th, 2013, 08:27 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Paulos View Post
                              That there is no prohibition against doing something is not a reason to do it.
                              Israel had a commission. Paul was called into service, but in a different direction. Not all was revealed from the beginning.


                              Acts 26:16

                              16 But rise and stand on your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to make you a minister and a witness both of the things which you have seen and of the things which I will yet reveal to you.
                              Jesus saves completely. http://www.climatedepot.com/ http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

                              Titus 1

                              For there are many insubordinate, both idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, whose mouths must be stopped

                              Ephesians 5

                              11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them. 12 For it is shameful even to speak of those things which are done by them in secret

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Nick M View Post
                                You are going to see his normal argument more often. His normal argument is that it doesn't mean what it says. Then he will not say what it (Paul) really means.
                                I'm going to give him credit for being honest about his beliefs, consistent, and not ducking any issues.

                                He did answer my questions and didn't duck any as many people often do.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X