ECT What is the true root objection to MAD?

[john w]

Any other pointless questions, Nicki trix?

Another "personal" "attack," "character attack!!"


Stop it!!!! Ad homono!!!!!!


How did I do? You taught me that. I learned that from you, Forest.

 

[Heterodoxical]

•Why did Peter say it was unlawful to go to Cornelius if it was not? This was about SEVEN YEARS AFTER Christ had risen and given them the "great commission" which included Gentiles. Why did Peter still say it was unlawful for him to have come, and that Cornelius knew it?

What law was he violating? What is your argument here, can you break it down? The verse is referencing PETER and the Law, not the Centurian. The comments above seem to hint Corny was the violator. Under the law, IT WAS UNLAWFUL FOR HIM TO ASSOCIATE WITH GENTILES. It was NOT unlawful because GOD had ordained they were no longer unclean/unholy/dirty/ etc... You presume something here, but I can't find it. What occurred in the story, seems to not feed ANY argument you could use.... Seriously. Totally non sensical. Explain it to me please? •Why did God need to use the vision (three times)? Peter already had the "great commission" which included Gentiles. What was the point of God telling him Gentiles were not to be counted as unclean when they'd already been sent to Gentiles SEVEN YEARS BEFORE? The Centurion already was a God Fearer. Which part of the great commission do you think applied to him, other than ZERO? God doesn't "need" to do anything. Although it's sacrilegious of you to imply he did, I answered you anyway. Were they sent to the Gentiles 7 years before??? I'll have to review that. I'm fuzzy on that fact. You presume Peter "HAD" to be told. You question God here. Do you really think that is the position you wish to take? This whole question is based on a false premise of God "needing" to do something. Perhaps it was as simple as God gave Peter a reason to go there, so He could have Peter and those with him witness the Spirit descending to the Jews. And it was only to assuage doubt some of those people may have. OR it could have been that God wanted to use Peter here, so that a broader base of people would respect Peter and his leadership in the Church. Or perhaps.... I can sing this song all day.... Were you trying to make a point here or just muddy the waters with questions. You say ABSOLUTELY NOTHING here. And your question leads no where if you were attempting Socratic measures. •Why was Peter rebuked by the other Jewish disciples for going to Cornelius (Acts 11:1-5) when they, too, knew of the "great commission" which included Gentiles? You presume they were disciples. You presume a lot. They were people living under the law. They need not be disciples. If they were people of note, and not common people you'd expect a comment. For instance the disciples of Jesus questioned him... rather than those under the law in a general unimportant fashion. AND the visit to cornelius had absolutely NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING INVOLVED with the Great Commission. It's like you are trying to tell us how to cook steak by cutting up a cantaloupe.... •Why didn't Peter not cite for them the "great commission," which included Gentiles, as his authority to go to Cornelius? Because he understood things much better than you do. •Why did Peter nor the eleven never preach to another Gentile again, so far as God's Word records? They had the "great commission," which included Gentiles. Silence isn't proof. They pushed missions to the gentiles. So you are partially making a false claim here. The Church was broken up into groups/synagogues among the Jews. In fact at this time they were still considered "JEWS" and worshiped with the Jews. They saw themselves as Jews who had witnessed the Messiah, and were under the Rabbis and such of their local area. You had a disciple or apostle assigned to a city/area to represent this new faction of Jew. Pharisees, Sadducees, Christian, were considered Jewish, but different from each other. Ever read a church history book? •Why did Peter tell Cornelius of Jesus about Nazareth sent to the Jews? More specifically...why did Peter not preach Christ crucified for Cornelius' sins and the sins of the whole Jew and Gentile world without distinction?

These are questions YOU have spent years evading because you CAN'T answer them from Scripture. No one here can. All you can do is ignore them or twist them because, as JohnW says, you are a deceiver and a punk.

Maybe because while the Centurion was a God fearer, he hadn't heard the gospel message yet. Or hadn't heard it entirely, or hadn't heard it clearly, or hadn't heard the OFFICIAL message. So God sent the highest ranking member of the Church to him to show him he too was important.

Why do you ask stupid questions?
What do you think you prove?
Why don't you try to find the answers first so you can avoid looking this dense?
Why do you evade?
How long have you had these communication issues?

 

[Heterodoxical]

I just answered you, Johnny Ringo.

You lie.

Show me where you answered it in a fashion that makes any sense to a normal conversational format.

 

[Heterodoxical]

Nice dodge. Evasion.

That's all you have. Grow up or shut up. It's quite simple.

 

[TIPlatypus]

At that point, God began to usher in the previously unmentioned dispensation of grace, which is now in effect and will remain so until He decides to bring it to an end.

This is my only beef with your explanation. I think that we are the plan B. God will never start afresh like with Noah and he will never break his promise to us. If the new plan fails, then there is no backup.

Also, I thought that MAD was a very literal way of interpreting scripture, and I disagree with that.

 

[chrysostom]

Lost me. I didn't bring up the two words in the quote.

you need to lighten up

that may have been my best post of the day

 

[Heterodoxical]

Ladies and gentleman, we call the above, and below, from our w/o vertebrae Hetty, as "speaking from behind a false face," i.e., hypocrisy/acting.

At lease you didn't deny it was empty posturing. You aren't a liar at least.

My evidence?


http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107453&page=13

Post #186

“As usual, starting with personal attacks rather than showing personal inadequacies by revealing it in argument. A sure sign of weak position.”-“author” Hetty

Here:"to character attacks, or attacking the person "-"author" crit

“Where do you get the mushrooms for your omelette?... So, if all that is required is your believing really hard, and squinting your eyes with the effort like you suffer dry stool, they are all going on to glory…. The only people you know FOR SURE know they are theological idiots, are the ones who have to play the "rightly divide" card to back up their position because their arguments do not…. I asked you the question idiot…. Are you ignorant of what you believe? Or a coward to present it publically…. We have to work together or we BOTH end up looking stupid, not just you…....So it's apparent you use strong images of men in videos to compensate for what you lack in your heart and in real life…. Ok you are a liar. We are done…. You are a coward or an idiot, you evade because you won't or can't answer. I'm not wasting my time with idiots.”-“author Hetty

Already answered, unless I'm answering the same thing twice.

Do you think avoiding answers means the points weren't answered?

Do you also pull the covers over your head to hide from the mean ole devul too?

Stuff your "poor me....they are 'personally' 'attacking'" me con job/acting job, puffed up one, as you wine, and pine, and cry, all the while, leveling "personal" "character attacks."

John I could give a personal plop of processed food if you personally attack me or not. There is nothing an inbred from a kentucky holler person like you can do that will upset me much. I know who you are and your character. I give you pity, not a lot of angst.

I bring up personal attacks because they, as ad homs, distract from the conversation> And this is a CONVERSATION BOARD. We come here looking for conversation, you come here looking for a target so you can exercise your thuggishness on>

You have nothing to offer a conversation but comic relief. That's it. And yes we all laugh at you. It's like the kid that was told he was Bat Boy for a day. You run around with your chest sticking out like you are something.

We go along, as long as you feel "big" we'll play along.

You are little and insignificant, johnny. You bring NOTHING to the table that holds value but comic relief.

We need our hankies, you slug.

Would you prefer "impersonal" attacks, crit?

Do you have anything else to offer?

 

[Heterodoxical]

Wow, Hetty said that?

And then went on to use the I-word FOUR TIMES in one post?

Show me I used the word, without providing the reasoning for it previously? If you live up to the word, why do you balk at the title? If you perform the behavior, why do you expect people to ALLOW IT to go unanaddressed?

The addressing term "idiot" has a specific meaning..

idiot
[id-ee-uh t]
Spell Syllables
Synonyms Word Origin
noun
1.
Informal. an utterly foolish or senseless person:

I showed you WHY I see you as utterly foolish and senseless each time.

it wasn't "name calling".

If a person lies, it's not name calling to call them a liar. It's a matter of fact. The offense is in the lie, you want to get to lie and not be called out on it.

It's just stupid musty.

 

[musterion]

This is my only beef with your explanation. I think that we are the plan B. God will never start afresh like with Noah and he will never break his promise to us. If the new plan fails, then there is no backup.

I think you've misunderstood. This - the dispensation of grace - is not Plan B. According to Paul, this was Plan A all along -- God just hadn't told anyone that until He revealed it through Paul.

Also, I thought that MAD was a very literal way of interpreting scripture, and I disagree with that.

It is pretty literal. Sorry you disagree with it.

 

[Heterodoxical]

Lat time, on "As the Actor Turns:"

"Ok you are a liar. We are done…."-crit Hetty


Next up: "That's all I have to say about that."-Forest Gump


Run, MADists, from crit Hitty....Run!!!!


Thanks for checking in, sport.

I am guilty.

He came back to the table, and I responded.

I had hopes he was still talking so there was still a reasoning synapse left in his head. While you are contagious Johnny boyo, there is hope someone develops the resistance to your particular whackiness and that they can be reached.

Condemn me for being overly optimistic.

 

[Heterodoxical]

No, Forest, I'm not too bright, but I'm smart enough to understand that you are a "short sale," and I, and others on TOL, Forest, have "shorted" you at market. And I don't need to cover this short sale. And I didn't need to get an MBA to recognize a drone, such as yourself.

I'm sorry, in all this blather, is there some explanation of what ad hominem is? Do you show it to be anything other than what I expressed?

So lacking that claim, your prior shot in the dark attempt of "he's a hypocrite he name called", is no longer on the table and you ceded the point.

GOOD, you are more honest than I remember you.

What's the ticker symbol of "ad hominem?"

JWAH

Can you dig it, Forest?

The fool is scrambling to Google, as he reads this, clueless as to what I am talking about..

Whatever you need to say to make yourself feel relevant you little man.

 

[Heterodoxical]

Another "personal" "attack," "character attack!!"

How is that a personal attack. Are you really that desperate?

Stop it!!!! Ad homono!!!!!!

Not sure what your fascination with Homo or like sounding words is Johnny. It seems you have repressed something you wish to let out.

How did I do? You taught me that. I learned that from you, Forest.

Liar, you've been the lead character shot artist at any point in any time period I showed up here.

You posture with empty noise.

Grow up and say something like a big boy Johnny. Really. Step into a conversation and address the points not the person.

My last name is Dickey. You can sit there and make fun of me all day long. MUCH brighter people than you have taken their shots. I can't imagine your limited synaptic soliloquies having any significant meaning.

 

[Heterodoxical]

you need to lighten up

that may have been my best post of the day

I realized I missed something. But I really can't connect the dots.... Sorry.

 

[musterion]

What law was he violating?
What is your argument here, can you break it down? The verse is referencing PETER and the Law, not the Centurian. The comments above seem to hint Corny was the violator.

Under the law, IT WAS UNLAWFUL FOR HIM TO ASSOCIATE WITH GENTILES.

It was NOT unlawful because GOD had ordained they were no longer unclean/unholy/dirty/ etc...

You presume something here, but I can't find it. What occurred in the story, seems to not feed ANY argument you could use.... Seriously. Totally non sensical. Explain it to me please?





The Centurion already was a God Fearer. Which part of the great commission do you think applied to him, other than ZERO?

God doesn't "need" to do anything. Although it's sacrilegious of you to imply he did, I answered you anyway.

Were they sent to the Gentiles 7 years before??? I'll have to review that. I'm fuzzy on that fact.

You presume Peter "HAD" to be told. You question God here. Do you really think that is the position you wish to take? This whole question is based on a false premise of God "needing" to do something.

Perhaps it was as simple as God gave Peter a reason to go there, so He could have Peter and those with him witness the Spirit descending to the Jews. And it was only to assuage doubt some of those people may have.

OR it could have been that God wanted to use Peter here, so that a broader base of people would respect Peter and his leadership in the Church.

Or perhaps.... I can sing this song all day....

Were you trying to make a point here or just muddy the waters with questions. You say ABSOLUTELY NOTHING here. And your question leads no where if you were attempting Socratic measures.



You presume they were disciples. You presume a lot.
They were people living under the law. They need not be disciples. If they were people of note, and not common people you'd expect a comment. For instance the disciples of Jesus questioned him... rather than those under the law in a general unimportant fashion.

AND the visit to cornelius had absolutely NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING INVOLVED with the Great Commission. It's like you are trying to tell us how to cook steak by cutting up a cantaloupe....



Because he understood things much better than you do.

Silence isn't proof. They pushed missions to the gentiles. So you are partially making a false claim here. The Church was broken up into groups/synagogues among the Jews. In fact at this time they were still considered "JEWS" and worshiped with the Jews. They saw themselves as Jews who had witnessed the Messiah, and were under the Rabbis and such of their local area.

You had a disciple or apostle assigned to a city/area to represent this new faction of Jew. Pharisees, Sadducees, Christian, were considered Jewish, but different from each other.

Ever read a church history book?



Maybe because while the Centurion was a God fearer, he hadn't heard the gospel message yet. Or hadn't heard it entirely, or hadn't heard it clearly, or hadn't heard the OFFICIAL message. So God sent the highest ranking member of the Church to him to show him he too was important.

Why do you ask stupid questions?
What do you think you prove?
Why don't you try to find the answers first so you can avoid looking this dense?
Why do you evade?
How long have you had these communication issues?

Is that it?

I see a lot of "maybe," "perhaps," "could have," lots of speculative answers but nothing firm and nothing you can back up from Scripture. Also unwarranted insults. You're just all over the map.

But I'll give you one more try.

Bullet-point fashion (using ALT+7), reply point by point to each question I asked. Do it in an orderly fashion; try to stay focused on your answer. Don't drift; try to maintain your train of thought.

For example: You point out, correctly, that Cornelius was a God-fearer. True. But he was not saved. That was the whole point of Peter being sent to him, so the G.C. very much would have applied to him...but you said it had zero application for him. Wrong...you'll have to try again.

Also, Peter said it was unlawful for him to come to Cornelius, and said it after God had told him to go. Notice I made no attempt to explain why Peter said that - I only quoted him (psst...I know the reason he said it but wanted to see if you know). You, however, turned it around and asked me to explain what law he was violating. That's not my question to answer. You are the one who does not understand why Peter said it at all, and avoid addressing from Scripture why he said it. That question is still yours to answer. As are the rest of them.

If you're going to speculate ("I think...maybe...perhaps...could have been..."), that's fine, but don't think that your speculations are automatically going to adequately answer my questions because they don't. Every one of them you offered is wrong because the answers to every one of my questions is right there in the New Testament. EVERY. ONE. Ask me nicely and I'll tell you what they are, but only after you've made an honest try, and drop the insults.

Here's your last at bat.

 

[Heterodoxical]

Is that it?

Does that mean you have nothing in rebuttal? Must be.

I see a lot of "maybe," "perhaps," "could have," lots of speculative answers but nothing firm and nothing you can back up from Scripture.k

I back up from scripture as much as you do. What's good for the goose via gander, etc....

Also unwarranted insults.

Why do you feel pointing out the english word for your behavior is an insult. That would make the behavior also insulting, which would make YOU the primary offender.

You're just all over the map.

But I'll give you one more try.

Oh you are so gracious, for someone who initiated the disrespect here, to be so LENIENT when I return your behavior back at you. You are truly God Touched aren't you?

Bullet-point fashion (using ALT+7), reply point by point to each question I asked. Do it in an orderly fashion; try to stay focused on your answer. Don't drift; try to maintain your train of thought.

why do you ask me to do what I did? ?????????? Are you slow?

For example: You point out, correctly, that Cornelius was a God-fearer. True. But he was not saved.

For someone that had the brass to ask for comments that were biblically based, you sure do suppose a lot as fact that isn't in the Bible. What a freakish position to try to maintain> YOU DID NOT SHOW BIBLE STUFF TO BACK UP YOUR ASSUMPTIONS, YOU HAVE TO, NOW BE QUITE WHILE I DO JUST WHAT I CONDEMNED YOU FOR DOING>!!!!!! Brilliant!!!!!!

That was the whole point of Peter being sent to him, so the G.C. very much would have applied to him...but you said it had zero application for him. Wrong...you'll have to try again.

Show me that in scripture. Yawn. Go ahead, back it up.

I'm waiting.. but not holding my breath.

Also, Peter said it was unlawful for him to come to Cornelius, and said it after God had told him to go. Notice I made no attempt to explain why Peter said that - I only quoted him (psst...I know the reason he said it but wanted to see if you know).

You insinuated points from the question that you now deny. Your question was off key. You are not a very honest discussion person, are you.

You, however, turned it around and asked me to explain what law he was violating. That's not my question to answer.

Of course only YOU have the power to answer questions with questions. I get you. So tell me, does being that hypocritical not bother you? Or are you not even realizing you do it?

You are the one who does not understand why Peter said it at all, and avoid addressing from Scripture why he said it. That question is still yours to answer. As are the rest of them.

Musty, your performance is tiresome. You can't really discuss the points in any exegetical fashion so all can learn, you just try to be as insulting as you can, presuming you are right and hoping that will carry the point for you.

You might as well just say, "I'm right, you are wrong because you are a big fat dummy!!!!!" for all the substance you put in your posts.

 

[musterion]

So you're going to take a pass on this one?

 

[musterion]

And I already said I'd answer and explain each and every one of my own questions from Scripture, so you may learn from them (as you said you'd like to). But you have to attempt to do so first. See...I'm calling you out on your claims to exegetical prowess, which so far you've shown no sign of possessing. So I'm still your Huckleberry, and you're still Ringo. Let's see that exegetical quickdraw.

 

[Heterodoxical]

So you're going to take a pass on this one?

You are still evading.

I'm still waiting on an answer.

Why do you evade?

Cowardice or confidence? Which one is lacking...

Or is there a reason I've not considered yet?

yawn.

carry on.

 

[musterion]

I'm still waiting on an answer.

The only clear question you've asked (before posting that trainwreck) about MAD and the O.T., I already answered. Was there another one?

 

[Heterodoxical]

And I already said I'd answer and explain each and every one of my own questions from Scripture,

Really where did you say that, show me.

But, tell me Musty, how the heck does that answer a question I asked you when you pose another question?
It's not an answer. DO you know what the word ANSWER means????

so you may learn from them (as you said you'd like to). But you have to attempt to do so first. See...I'm calling you out on your claims to exegetical prowess, which so far you've shown no sign of possessing. So I'm still your Huckleberry, and you're still Ringo.

I can't go forward with exegesis of my disagreements with your faith, because where I asked you clarifying thoughts on the topic, you evaded and asked more questions.

My Gawd Son, you are missing a few currents between the ears, no?