ECT The thing MAD can't grasp about the plot of the NT

Grosnick Marowbe

New member
Hall of Fame
You haven't an ounce of grace toward anyone who's view you differ with.



That's true, because, I literally HATE false doctrine and false gospels. I will only preach the one and only Grace Gospel and stand against the rest. If you don't like it, pack your bags and get outta Dodge.
 

Interplanner

New member
:chuckle:

Or maybe they just believed the prophets.



You sound completely unfamiliar with how the NT uses the OT. There are 2500 cases. They are usually completely different from what Judaism was saying--even to this day. As you may know the whole modern homeland movement was started on the principles of Judaism, not on Christ and what is true in Christ.

So click on your cartoons, if you think that is "thinking about it" but you have no idea.
 

SaulToPaul

New member
Silver Subscriber
Hall of Fame
You sound completely unfamiliar with how the NT uses the OT. There are 2500 cases. They are usually completely different from what Judaism was saying--even to this day. As you may know the whole modern homeland movement was started on the principles of Judaism, not on Christ and what is true in Christ.

So click on your cartoons, if you think that is "thinking about it" but you have no idea.

Don't get angry, become a believer.
 

Interplanner

New member
Don't get angry, become a believer.



It is not that difficult STP. It takes steady work, but the Bible never asks us to make an irrational leap against knowing.

I know its confusing when you have secondary nonsense like Danoh thinking Holford helped the higher critics when it was actually Pastor Holford's opponent that led to higher critics. But it can be sorted out.
 

Danoh

New member
It is not that difficult STP. It takes steady work, but the Bible never asks us to make an irrational leap against knowing.

I know its confusing when you have secondary nonsense like Danoh thinking Holford helped the higher critics when it was actually Pastor Holford's opponent that led to higher critics. But it can be sorted out.

No, knucklehead, actually; I was asserting the opposite :chuckle:
 

Right Divider

Body part
It is not that difficult STP. It takes steady work, but the Bible never asks us to make an irrational leap against knowing.

I know its confusing when you have secondary nonsense like Danoh thinking Holford helped the higher critics when it was actually Pastor Holford's opponent that led to higher critics. But it can be sorted out.
If your position was so clear, you would not need to be a scripture twister (using ... when there was MORE information that was CRITICAL to the context).
 

Interplanner

New member
If your position was so clear, you would not need to be a scripture twister (using ... when there was MORE information that was CRITICAL to the context).


sorry, but I did not mean my position was confusing. I meant that when people defy Gal 1 and believe they can get away with defining another gospel--even if that means what Peter did in his capitulation that was confronted by Paul--then our study of the NT gets confusing. But Gal 1 is not. Paul's treatment of Peter is not. Peter's mistake is not. Peter's mistake is not another gospel, and there is no kingdom gospel that allows works, because 'behold the Lamb of God' precedes announcements of the arrival of the kingdom.
 

Right Divider

Body part
sorry, but I did not mean my position was confusing. I meant that when people defy Gal 1 and believe they can get away with defining another gospel--even if that means what Peter did in his capitulation that was confronted by Paul--then our study of the NT gets confusing. But Gal 1 is not. Paul's treatment of Peter is not. Peter's mistake is not. Peter's mistake is not another gospel, and there is no kingdom gospel that allows works, because 'behold the Lamb of God' precedes announcements of the arrival of the kingdom.
The Bible defines plenty of "gospels", but so many zombies have now decided otherwise.

You also seem to be one of those that thinks that the NT starts with Matt 1 and consumes all the rest of the Bible. That, once again, is just stupid.

I'm able discern that when a book is labeled HEBREWS that it just might have some doctrine related to ..... HEBREWS! Then I read the book and lo and behold, it contains HEBREW doctrine!. What a surprise... NOT!

Same with the Book of Revelation; full of Hebrew doctrine.... so thick that only a blind man/woman can miss it!
 

Interplanner

New member
The Bible defines plenty of "gospels", but so many zombies have now decided otherwise.

You also seem to be one of those that thinks that the NT starts with Matt 1 and consumes all the rest of the Bible. That, once again, is just stupid.

I'm able discern that when a book is labeled HEBREWS that it just might have some doctrine related to ..... HEBREWS! Then I read the book and lo and behold, it contains HEBREW doctrine!. What a surprise... NOT!

Same with the Book of Revelation; full of Hebrew doctrine.... so thick that only a blind man/woman can miss it!


Is this supposed to be an answer about why you are so complicated about Gal 1, which says there is only 1 gospel on risk of anathema? There are other phrases that use the term gospel in them, but you would have to go back to the announcment of the exile's return from Babylon to actually another meaning other than christ's sacrifice.
 

Danoh

New member
Is this supposed to be an answer about why you are so complicated about Gal 1, which says there is only 1 gospel on risk of anathema? There are other phrases that use the term gospel in them, but you would have to go back to the announcment of the exile's return from Babylon to actually another meaning other than christ's sacrifice.

What was the other good news which was not?
 

Right Divider

Body part
Is this supposed to be an answer about why you are so complicated about Gal 1, which says there is only 1 gospel on risk of anathema? There are other phrases that use the term gospel in them, but you would have to go back to the announcment of the exile's return from Babylon to actually another meaning other than christ's sacrifice.
It does NOT say that. It's just another case of your bias blinding you.
 
Top