SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Yes sir, I used to shoot in the low 80s...on the first hole.
ECT Disposing of a MAD list
- Thread starter Interplanner
- Start date
Yes sir, I used to shoot in the low 80s...on the first hole.
Interplanner
Well-known member
No, if you read above, I've been waiting for answers to a few solid questions...Gal 3:17 etc, and the answer is a whining voice that says 'we don't like you.'
Look, I don't expect to change 100%; I'm just trying to get a true debate started here--about Gal 3:17. What made him say it, and say it that way?
If the heat gets too much for ya, get outta Dodge. After all, we don't want ya to suffer an emotional breakdown. You might start sobbing and whimpering uncontrollably?
God's Truth
New member
What exactly is your question about Galatians 3:17?
andyc
New member
With Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as the masseuse, waiter, and groundsman.
andyc
New member
Not from a waste of bandwidth like yourself.
He's proud of his hard earned thanks
Interplanner
Well-known member
I have no questions. I don't know why the other person can't start explaining it. I think it is the 'spinal cord' of Gal 3. Once you realize why he said that, you realize why there is actually physical threats from those in Judaism at the time.
It is the actual RT problem that needs to be discussed. The modern one is based entirely on misunderstanding and junk-eschatology.
God's Truth
New member
I have no idea what either one of you are debating concerning that scripture. Paul is just explaining how the law was given 430 years after the promise. What is there to discuss?
Interplanner
Well-known member
You must not realize what RT is. Modern RT --replacement theology--is the claim that Israel has been supplanted by the church. It has. If the claim that it has been supplanted is false, then all the alarm about modern RT is bogus.
Gal 3:17 is also about an "RT". Judaism, which Paul was raised in, believed that the promise (the promise of justification from sin, to the nations) was supplanted by the Law. Paul said no.
It is very clear to me that if you fail to understand Gal 3:17 at the time of its writing in 42 AD, then you will pursue the modern RT and not realize that it is bogus, which is to say, it detonates dispensationalism (D'ism). It shows precisely that there was not supposed to be 2P2P in the Bible, ever, and that it is a conception of Judaism.
This is clearly why there are so many neo- or revived-Judaism discussions here in the group of threads about MAD, or D'ism. There is no way, or perhaps no point, in believing 2P2P unless you restore Judaism, which as you may have noticed is a bit in conflict with the letter to Hebrews. I think I mentioned that it was to Hebrews, right?
The other participant here either does not realize this or is unwilling to accept the consequences.
Gal 3:17 is also about an "RT". Judaism, which Paul was raised in, believed that the promise (the promise of justification from sin, to the nations) was supplanted by the Law. Paul said no.
It is very clear to me that if you fail to understand Gal 3:17 at the time of its writing in 42 AD, then you will pursue the modern RT and not realize that it is bogus, which is to say, it detonates dispensationalism (D'ism). It shows precisely that there was not supposed to be 2P2P in the Bible, ever, and that it is a conception of Judaism.
This is clearly why there are so many neo- or revived-Judaism discussions here in the group of threads about MAD, or D'ism. There is no way, or perhaps no point, in believing 2P2P unless you restore Judaism, which as you may have noticed is a bit in conflict with the letter to Hebrews. I think I mentioned that it was to Hebrews, right?
The other participant here either does not realize this or is unwilling to accept the consequences.
God's Truth
New member
Interplanner
Well-known member
It is the dispensational belief that there are 2 programs and 2 peoples in the Bible. they alternate; they do not merge, overlap, meet, mesh, sync. "Salvation" means 2 different things at two different times to the two.
Once explained, there are D'ists who here who have replied, no, there's more than that.
Once explained, there are D'ists who here who have replied, no, there's more than that.
God's Truth
New member
Why so much confusion and studying of things that are not in the Bible?
Salvation means one thing to all.
Stop worrying about it. If you don't believe the truth, that's your choice. It won't matter to anyone else on TOL.
It's just that you don't see those "truths" that others do. Believe what you want. There's nothing wrong with being ignorant and blind. Just tell folks, you have a disease and leave at that.
Are you being a "smart aleck" again? I never know with you? I think I'll assume that you are.
You still ONLY have 55 Thanks to your name? It doesn't look good for you. :rotfl:
Interplanner
Well-known member
Why so much confusion? Because D'ism introduced propositions that are confusing and imposed them on the Bible and said this is the 'true' way to read the Bible. If you mix the time frames of Mt24A and B, there is nothing but confusion. If you start from 2P2P, there is nothing but confusion. If you don't make a science out of how the NT quotes the OT, then there is nothing but confusion when you use the OT.
To their credit, the Brethren that started D'ism weren't just doctrinaire theologians. They had the 3-century-running problem of Protestant vs Catholic tension to deal with. I'm not going to say for them that they shouldn't have been so susceptible to what D'ism proposed. I've never had to grow up in or live in raw theological tension where windows of homes are broken by opponents, etc., on a daily basis.
If you have no background in this, check a few histories or a few movies about the Elizabethan era of England, and then realize how many millions of people grew up in this tension from the 16th to the 18th centuries.
God's Truth
New member
What is sad and telling is how many thanks you have given to others---compared to what you have been given. Better to give than receive. Why haven't you given more thanks? Do you not think that those who thanked you would like to hear back from you?