Theology Club: A28D
- Thread starter Danoh
- Start date
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Gentiles could always be blessed without becoming proselytes.
I don't know where he gets that idea.
I don't know where he gets that idea.
beameup
New member
Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: Ephesians 2:11-12
That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: Ephesians 2:11-12
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Yeah, ok :chuckle:
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
You are not stupid.
You know the difference between a Gentile in a synagogue and a Gentile worshiping Diana.
Well, I had suspected your politeness was not all it appeared to be.
So the reverse of "not stupid" implication is no surprise.
Disappointing; but not surprising.
All because we differ in our understanding.
And the difference between those two proves nothing - it is obvious in Acts 18 and 19 that both were well aware of the beliefs of the other.
Ok; so you needed your system to work and found ways for it to.
I can understand that - I too have slipped down what turned out to be my own slippery slope at times.
Doesn't give you nor I, nor anyone, the right to imply a MAD who has solved for those issues in another way is stupid.
You remain on my good side, nonetheless.
Back to the issues.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
You've made snide remarks to sister heir ,and about me for months.
I have never made a single negative comment about you. But I guess there's a time when patience runs out.
You have a lot to offer to TOL , but I don't know why you continue to create drama.
I'd ribbed you each; at times - you took that wrong, I guess.
She tends to be rather curt. Hand in hand with that should be a thick skin on the receiving end.
I found it not the case; apologized and dropped the ribbing.
But even that went nowhere; she has every now and then continued to assert I am up to no good.
That is her projection.
You remain silent when yours are off on some point. You each do.
We obviously differ even in this, as I do not believe I should just call out those not MAD.
My impression has been that because we are not on the same page you mostly ignore my posts to you.
I'm fine with that, at the same time that it lets me know where we stand.
I didn't sign up on TOL for this. Not even to waste all that time with our mutual enemies. I mean, talk about what a dense bunch they are. What a waste of time.
My hope had been mutual exploration of various subjects beyond "that's not for us..." for we nevertheless hold to much in the same way.
But let's be honest, other than a neg here or there, any attempts as to that mutual exploration of other themes on my part have been ignored by you and yours.
Is conflict with others all you and yours are about?
At what point do you begin to post studies of one edifying topic or another on this MAD forum?
Do you and yours not care about or not study such things?
These are my impressions of you and yours.
Of course, now GD will come along and get on me about my use of "you and yours" God love er, lol
Feel free to address these issues, or to ignore them once more; that is on you.
The same old same old nevertheless does get old, brother.
Again, I harbor no animosity towards you and heir.
heir
TOL Subscriber
That makes us look quite different for that of the "Acts 28ers". Way to go!
heir
TOL Subscriber
beameup
New member
Thessalonians are considered by most to be the first epistles of Paul (52AD). What is the obvious "subject matter" that they have in common? The Departure (harpazo) from the earth to heaven (and the appearing of the Antichrist and Day of the Lord). No mention of an earthly kingdom, which is the hope of Israel.
Being that you have been the one concluding I somehow see you and yours as 28ers, your jubilance in your conclusion you spotted some sort of a hole in my having posted the above is no surprise.
Your response just now has been one of my points - you're glorying in what you conclude is another proving himself wrong and you right.
Again, I have never seen you and yours as 28ers.
Rather as - Almost - 28ers - in some areas - as your conclusions - in some areas - reveal a study method similar to their own.
Still, if this seeming victory of yours makes you happy, I'm happy for you with you.
Again, I have never seen you and yours as 28ers - note my posts to that fool, Tetelestai about this very thing whenever he has accused you and yours of being "Bullingerites."
I hold to Galatians as having been his first Epistle - as did Bullinger, by the way.
My own Almost 28er moment, lol
But anyway, could you elaborate a bit more as to what your point is?
By the way, I'm curious as to what anyone on here holds to as to 1 Thessalonians 4 and into chapter 5.
The Post-Tribbers hold both are one and the same subject.
How do each of you reconcile the two chapters from a truly Mid-Acts Perspective?
This is one more area where the Post Tribbers and the 28ers end up revealing, by their results, their having relied on an error in how they approach studying such things out.
I said the Post Tribbers and the 28ers, by the way.
Those two chapters make for a really good study of how to study a thing out, as they demand one really examine how one approaches studying a thing out in light how easily said two chapters can lend themselves, if one is not careful, to one's easily falling prey to surface level, first impression conclusions.
Such first impression, surface level conclusions are forever the bane of every Bible student. They are, for example, the source of why and where the Acts 2 Dispy and the 9er differ on much.
Where we agree with them and, visa versa, being where this problem was not a problem.
heir
TOL Subscriber
"almost Acts 28ers" or "Acts 28ers" whichever, it's still a propensity for divisive labels. And what's with the "you and yours" all the time? It's almost as if you have a problem with brothers and sisters in Christ being of the same mind and of the same judgment. It comes off a bit jealous. just sayin
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Ange: "Hey Gomer."
Gomer: "Hey to you and yours, Andy."
Gomer: "Hey to you and yours, Andy."
You better just take care of you and yours :chuckle:
Am merely expressing my awareness that I am addressing you and yours.
Could be just you and STP, or more, or Interplanner and those who subscribe to his view, like I Am A Berean, Aaron the Tall, Tetelestai, Phantom et al.
Saves time on typing all the names out each time.
Consider - why would I be jealous about that which I differ with? I enjoy where I look at things from. In many areas of life.
Again, sis, we're just not familar with one another's particular word usage.
Sort of like how people who are not that familiar with how the KJV uses words, right off conclude the need for some better translation, or whatever.
heir
TOL Subscriber
:idea: You could try actually addressing the person you are quoting, but no, you bring in "you and yours" (and more than a few times) because you are jealous or maybe the better term is obsessed that there are some here who 1 Corinthians 1:10 KJV.
Last edited: