ECT Some Directions from I Cor 7 MAD cannot absorb

[Lighthouse]

Thank you for the generalization. I don't want to be arrogant. I'm immersed in Galatians, meaning I realize there is not two gospels in ch 2. What exact problem do you have with what I said?

Ignorance begets arrogance.

If you were immersed in Galatians, you would have had Acts 15 in one hand as you read Galatians.



Acts 15
5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.

:thumb:

 

[glorydaz]

What it actually says,


King James Bible
Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

That sure doesn't say it's the keeping of the commandments that count.

I read it to say circumcision is the keeping and uncircumcision is the not keeping...they both have to do with "commandment keeping".

 

[Interplanner]

Ignorance begets arrogance.


:thumb:

Thumb what? You are not being clear.

I meant, what exact problem with the text do you have. The internet is no place to declare someone arrogant until you've read a lot of them. I've only seen you here recently.

Yes, those Pharisees believed but they were a sect. It is 'hairesis' which is always evil. It is a work of the flesh.

STP has a knack for missing what the text is actually saying and calling black white and evil good. They were ruled against. They were also disturbing and troubling everyone, so go ahead STP and enjoy troubling and disturbing everyone.

And where he gets the idiotic idea that I wouldn't know what Acts 15 is saying relative to Gal 2 is about par for his understanding. He does this so much I removed him from view and everytime I see a quote by him it is worthless.

 

[Interplanner]

That sure doesn't say it's the keeping of the commandments that count.

I read it to say circumcision is the keeping and uncircumcision is the not keeping...they both have to do with "commandment keeping".

No it is not that at all glorydaz. He meant the weighier things of the law, and he wants them done spontaneously, instinctively. Neither circ nor uncirc mattered (apparently both groups tried to assert their accomplishment). The one Gospel (ch 1) leveled the field for all.

 

[Lighthouse]

Thumb what? You are not being clear.

The ":thumb:" was not directed to you.

I meant, what exact problem with the text do you have.

And I didn't answer.

The internet is no place to declare someone arrogant until you've read a lot of them. I've only seen you here recently.

You seriously don't remember me? My join date is in the profile on every one of my posts: I joined TOL in June of 2003 [almost 14 years ago].

Yes, those Pharisees believed but they were a sect. It is 'hairesis' which is always evil. It is a work of the flesh.

Heresies? Is that what you meant?

STP has a knack for missing what the text is actually saying and calling black white and evil good. They were ruled against. They were also disturbing and troubling everyone, so go ahead STP and enjoy troubling and disturbing everyone.

If you want to talk to STP maybe you should quote one of his posts.

And where he gets the idiotic idea that I wouldn't know what Acts 15 is saying relative to Gal 2 is about par for his understanding. He does this so much I removed him from view and everytime I see a quote by him it is worthless.

Maybe from the fact you glaringly miss the ramifications of Acts 15.

 

[glorydaz]

No it is not that at all glorydaz. He meant the weighier things of the law, and he wants them done spontaneously, instinctively. Neither circ nor uncirc mattered (apparently both groups tried to assert their accomplishment). The one Gospel (ch 1) leveled the field for all.

I was talking about the "commandments of God" part. Even the "weightier" things of the law can't bring righteousness, justification, or life. What does avail is "a new creature".

Gal. 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.​

 

[Danoh]

What it actually says,


King James Bible
Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

It does not say "is nothing but the keeping of the commandments."

That is how you are understanding it; what you are reading into it; "how it reads to" you; "what it means to" you

It actually reads "is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments."

Big difference.

Feel free to correct me in return.

Proverbs 27:17

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Thumb what? You are not being clear.

I meant, what exact problem with the text do you have. The internet is no place to declare someone arrogant until you've read a lot of them. I've only seen you here recently.

Yes, those Pharisees believed but they were a sect. It is 'hairesis' which is always evil. It is a work of the flesh.

STP has a knack for missing what the text is actually saying and calling black white and evil good. They were ruled against. They were also disturbing and troubling everyone, so go ahead STP and enjoy troubling and disturbing everyone.

And where he gets the idiotic idea that I wouldn't know what Acts 15 is saying relative to Gal 2 is about par for his understanding. He does this so much I removed him from view and everytime I see a quote by him it is worthless.

Because I challenge you, and you cannot handle it.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

No it is not that at all glorydaz. He meant the weighier things of the law, and he wants them done spontaneously, instinctively. Neither circ nor uncirc mattered (apparently both groups tried to assert their accomplishment). The one Gospel (ch 1) leveled the field for all.

More from Dr. Phil...

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

It does not say "is nothing but the keeping of the commandments."

That is how you are understanding it; what you are reading into it; "how it reads to" you; "what it means to" you

It actually reads "is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments."

Big difference.

Feel free to correct me in return.

Proverbs 27:17

I know what commas mean, "bro"!

 

[Danoh]

I know what commas mean, "bro"!

Lol - ah; the infamous TOL "club" exclamation point :chuckle:

There are two things in that passage, that help bring out the intended meaning.

Calm down, don't take correction personally; get back to the passage, and get to gettin at the other one

Lol - Proverbs 27:17 IS...in your KJB; is it not?

 

[Interplanner]

I was talking about the "commandments of God" part. Even the "weightier" things of the law can't bring righteousness, justification, or life. What does avail is "a new creature".

Gal. 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.​

But you validated circumcision.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

But you validated circumcision.

Huh?

 

[Right Divider]

Huh?

:french:

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Yes, those Pharisees believed but they were a sect. It is 'hairesis' which is always evil. It is a work of the flesh.

Down South, a hairy sis is when a female refuses to shave her underarms.

 

[glorydaz]

It does not say "is nothing but the keeping of the commandments."

That is how you are understanding it; what you are reading into it; "how it reads to" you; "what it means to" you

It actually reads "is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments."

Big difference.

Feel free to correct me in return.

Proverbs 27:17

I'll correct you. :sibbie:

I'm the one who dared to say how I "read it". This is what irritates me about you, Danoh. I wanted STP to give me his insight into that verse, and I was letting him know what I was thinking. But, no, you have to jump in with your condescending digs about how I worded my comment. You totally stifle dialogue on this site. I swear, you're as bad as God's UnTruth in that respect.

 

[glorydaz]

I know what commas mean, "bro"!

You're so sweet. You didn't even correct his dumb-ness that I had made the comment.

 

[glorydaz]

But you validated circumcision.

Really? Pray tell how I did that.

 

[Tambora]

I'll correct you. :sibbie:

I'm the one who dared to say how I "read it". This is what irritates me about you, Danoh. I wanted STP to give me his insight into that verse, and I was letting him know what I was thinking. But, no, you have to jump in with your condescending digs about how I worded my comment. You totally stifle dialogue on this site. I swear, you're as bad as God's UnTruth in that respect.

He acts that way because he likes to act that way.

 

[glorydaz]

He acts that way because he likes to act that way.

Yeah, well it gets him some attention.