Pure lack of faith on candyandycain's part, Mayor. Wonder what causes that?
ECT The Definition of Musterion and why the Gospel was not a Mystery
- Thread starter intojoy
- Start date
Pure lack of faith on candyandycain's part, Mayor. Wonder what causes that?
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Yes. Literal does not mean wooden. Literal means to take the words in Scripture as they are intended to mean by the writer. The writers of Holy Writ, superintended by God the Holy Spirit, wrote the words of God as the words of men.
The words of men employ many literary devices, hyperbole, chiasm, allusion, apostrophe, metaphor, parellelism, assonance, idiom, simile, merism, synecdoche, paradox, metonymy, didactic, poetry, and so on.
These devices are to be taken literally, that is, just as they were meant when they were so written. A good student of hermeneutics understands how to distinguish these literary devices, and not add more interpretative freight to them than they were meant to carry.
AMR
You missed it.intojoy's post #15:
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...usterion-and-why-the-Gospel-was-not-a-Mystery
Sarcasm, AMR-I quoted him. Nice swoop in, w/o reading posts in the thread. Nice.
Try this intojoy debate clincher:
YOUR PROOFTEXT IS YOUR PRETEXT.NO CONTEXTUAL RELEVANCE HERE. NO CONNECTING RELATIONSHIP.
QED.
Imafixinta write this stumper down also:
"The words of men employ many literary devices, hyperbole, chiasm, allusion, apostrophe, metaphor, parellelism, assonance, idiom, simile, merism, synecdoche, paradox, metonymy, didactic, poetry, and so on.
These devices are to be taken literally, that is, just as they were meant when they were so written. A good student of hermeneutics understands how to distinguish these literary devices, and not add more interpretative freight to them than they were meant to carry."-AMR
____________________
Happy hour time...Time for some brewski's, chased by chiasm's, assonance's, idiom's, merism's, synecdoche's, metonymy's, and sum didactic's....
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Why didn't they teach us these things at The Institute of Eisegesis and Sloppy Exegesis of Akron Ohio?
You're posing a straw man argument, Mayor,and argumentum ad ignorantiam(That means, in "The English," that you are an ignorant moron/dummy, Lamont).
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
I think Aunt Esther has whacked you upside the head too many times with her pocketbook.
Am I getting through to you, fella?
Watch it, sucker! I take off on Aunt Esther, and Grady. I cain't do Lamont-he talks like everyone else.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
I tend to take off on Rollo...
It is important to study and learn the entire counsel of the Word of God. That must only be done by using a strict literal hermeneutic that includes taking relevant passages into context in order to understand what has been declared.
YOUR PROOFTEXT IS YOUR PRETEXT.NO CONTEXTUAL RELEVANCE HERE. NO CONNECTING RELATIONSHIP.
Seems the lot of all who end up on TOL :chuckle:
You are proof texting out of context to support a preconceived idea. This misuse of the verses you cite out of context shows the lack of support for your understanding of the Holy Bible, as you should include other verses. Pitting Adam and Eve against Paul is not biblical, and your one gospel theory negates much of the OT as directly applicable to Gentile Jews, in context.. Your timing of the start of the BOC and understanding of the centrality of the cross seems flawed. So, quoting Levticus, etc., verses will fall on deaf ears.Using your style, when the Lord Jesus Christ said nothing is impossible for God, it could mean that God lies or that God is the Jonas Brothers (more wooden literalism problems).Your problem is prooftexting a preconceived view that causes confusion and division instead of exegeting properly to support the inspired unity.
What was the topic again?
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Yes, this is becoming an epidemic, as many are not applying the Danohianic Principle to their posts.
Wonder what causes that?
It's a compelsion complex,as I've been trying to explain to you, for years, Mayor!
Gospel/Goodnews
1. Good news of the kingdom of the Messiah
2. Good news of the substitutionary death burial and resurrection of Messiah for our sins.
Salvation/Atonement
1. Salvation is based on acceptance of the required content of revealed truth of God's word up to that point of time in the earth's history.
Since Christ had not died as of yet for sin and the required content of faith for salvation was what? What had been revealed to the world before the cross? These are the questions that need to be answered in order to rightly divide the Bible. Obviously since no Atonement had been made there could not have been a propitiation.
Thus those saved were still in their sins.
The Good news of the kingdom was not a requirement for salvation for individuals BC in my observation. Not anymore than believing that there will be a rapture of the church is required for salvation today, for Jews to believe in a kingdom wasn't vital to individual salvation either.
What one had to believe was the Jehovah is God and not the idols period.
2. Atonement. Once completed, in order for any individual Jew or Gentile to be saved he had to believe in the Good news of the cross. Peter's 3000 in the upper room could not have been saved by merely accepting Messiah's Messiahship alone. Now after the Atonement the Jew had no excuse to ignore the primary purpose of the first coming.
Selah sons
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
1. Good news of the kingdom of the Messiah
2. Good news of the substitutionary death burial and resurrection of Messiah for our sins.
Salvation/Atonement
1. Salvation is based on acceptance of the required content of revealed truth of God's word up to that point of time in the earth's history.
Since Christ had not died as of yet for sin and the required content of faith for salvation was what? What had been revealed to the world before the cross? These are the questions that need to be answered in order to rightly divide the Bible. Obviously since no Atonement had been made there could not have been a propitiation.
Thus those saved were still in their sins.
The Good news of the kingdom was not a requirement for salvation for individuals BC in my observation. Not anymore than believing that there will be a rapture of the church is required for salvation today, for Jews to believe in a kingdom wasn't vital to individual salvation either.
What one had to believe was the Jehovah is God and not the idols period.
2. Atonement. Once completed, in order for any individual Jew or Gentile to be saved he had to believe in the Good news of the cross. Peter's 3000 in the upper room could not have been saved by merely accepting Messiah's Messiahship alone. Now after the Atonement the Jew had no excuse to ignore the primary purpose of the first coming.
Selah sons
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
It is important to study and learn the entire counsel of the Word of God. That must only be done by using a strict literal hermeneutic that includes taking relevant passages into context in order to understand what has been declared.
YOUR PROOFTEXT IS YOUR PRETEXT.NO CONTEXTUAL RELEVANCE HERE. NO CONNECTING RELATIONSHIP.
The problem is your negative proof texting void of exegesis in context.As well, we must formulate a chronology based on all the relevant verses.Look at all relevant verses without a wrong paradigm.. Classic proof texting out of context. You are misunderstanding/misrepresenting their points. If you quote other sections, it will not support your jumping to conclusions.It is a logical fallacy to think majority is always right, but it is also not always wrong.
That ought to do it.
What were we discussing again...?
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Quick primer, saint john.
Mystery of Christ- that Christ died for the sins of Jews and Gentiles in the promises, hidden in the scriptures until God revealed it.
Mystery of the Gospel- that Christ died for all men, to be testified in due time, including Gentiles who were not in the promises. Not hidden in the scriptures, but hidden in God.