ECT Calling All Confused "MADs"

[Danoh]

You well know you only bring up your "approach" bit that you might then pound others over the head with your view about it.

No clueless - that is just your projection, out of your double-standard.

The fact is that I have ever been curious about how a thing works and Bible study approaches is one of those fascinations.

And the point I harp about is about the importance of being ever consciously aware of what one's study approach might be.

Because being aware of what one's approach is, when going into the exploration of a thing, allows one to know with greater precision how one has come to one understanding or another; why one is sound; how one ended up off; how to correct for it; where another is actually coming from; and so on.

I first saw that in Scripture many years ago, when wondering how studying it out might work, I asked 'I wonder what had been the approach of these Bereans, here, in Acts 17: 11 and 12?'

I have been curious about Bible study approaches and what I posted about them in this post, ever since that very moment all.those years ago.

Jeff asked me if I have ever been off on a thing. My first thought was 'yep; and the first question I ask myself is - where might I have mis-fired in my study approach?'

Its called 2 Timothy 2:15's first word "Study" or "spoudazo" - "DILGENTLY seek."

No Tam, yours is nothing more than your same old double-standard in your willful ignorance, and that of some..
of your pals.

Instead of focusing on actually exploring the possible validity or not of any of those 25 errors, when you do come along, you bring your same old pettiness to the table.

I started this thread because fools like you keep insisting that where you and some of your pals may be off (which is a question of study approach, o clueless one) has never been posted.

Not true. In fact, yours is a flat out lie.

The truth is that but for heir and STP, here and there, you have each either consistently ignored such posts, or turned them into your pettiness - just - like - you - are - doing - once - more.

Well go right ahead Tam, RD, GD, Musti, and your brown nose, PJ - all you want.

Whatever floats your bigot boat.

At least STP and heir have at times made some sort of an attempt at refuting the assertion they might be off on some things and or in the study approach (all conclusions are always actually the basis of)

Which why I often address them. Which, of course, you clowns turn into one more means of your ever bigoted finger pointing.

As I have already said - go right ahead.

That is each your loss in your ever insisted on double-standard.

Not only now.

But in timeless eternity.

Rom. 14: 10; 2 Cor. 5: 10.

Rom. 5: 6-8.

 

[patrick jane]

No clueless - that is just your projection, out of your double-standard.

The fact is that I have ever been curious about how a thing works and Bible study approaches is one of those fascinations.

And the point I harp about is about the importance of being ever consciously aware of what one's study approach might be.

Because being aware of what one's approach is, when going into the exploration of a thing, allows one to know with greater precision how one has come to one understanding or another; why one is sound; how one ended up off; how to correct for it; where another is actually coming from; and so on.

I first saw that in Scripture many years ago, when wondering how studying it out might work, I asked 'I wonder what had been the approach of these Bereans, here, in Acts 17: 11 and 12?'

I have been curious about Bible study approaches and what I posted about them in this post, ever since that very moment all.those years ago.

Jeff asked me if I have ever been off on a thing. My first thought was 'yep; and the first question I ask myself is - where might I have mis-fired in my study approach?'

Its called 2 Timothy 2:15's first word "Study" or "spoudazo" - "DILGENTLY seek."

No Tam, yours is nothing more than your same old double-standard in your willful ignorance, and that of some..
of your pals.

Instead of focusing on actually exploring the possible validity or not of any of those 25 errors, when you do come along, you bring your same old pettiness to the table.

I started this thread because fools like you keep insisting that where you and some of your pals may be off (which is a question of study approach, o clueless one) has never been posted.

Not true. In fact, yours is a flat out lie.

The truth is that but for heir and STP, here and there, you have each either consistently ignored such posts, or turned them into your pettiness - just - like - you - are - doing - once - more.

Well go right ahead Tam, RD, GD, Musti, and your brown nose, PJ - all you want.

Whatever floats your bigot boat.

At least STP and heir have at times made some sort of an attempt at refuting the assertion they might be off on some things and or in the study approach (all conclusions are always actually the basis of)

Which why I often address them. Which, of course, you clowns turn into one more means of your ever bigoted finger pointing.

As I have already said - go right ahead.

That is each your loss in your ever insisted on double-standard.

Not only now.

But in timeless eternity.

Rom. 14: 10; 2 Cor. 5: 10.

Rom. 5: 6-8.

 

[Tambora]

No clueless - that is just your projection, out of your double-standard.

That is your projection and conjecture.
Same old off base conclusion

 

[Danoh]

Please compare this with witnessing to Bubba down at the local honky tonk.

What that was, was nothing more than this...

Acts 13: 46 Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent.

Within this...

Romans 3:9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

And this....

Romans 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 3:26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

And this...

Romans 11:30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief: 11:31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. 11:32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

And so on...

All...of which is a question of...study approach...

There is simply no denying that you and I approach the study of these things...differently.

Difference in study approach is ever behind difference in resulting difference in understanding.

I'm just curious about what that difference might be.

Case in point - "Hymenaeus and Philetus; 2:18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some." - 2 Timothy 2.

It is obvious their "study" approach resulted in their concluding our resurrection - the Pre-Trib Rapture (the whole of 1 Cor. 15, and part of 1 These. 4) - as "past already."

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Study + approach (rightly dividing - and whatever its various principles might be - being said approach).

Again, STP, we obviously differ in study approach somewhere.

What is the 12 In / 12 Out question actually an issue of?

Same thing - a difference somewhere, in study approach.

Water Baptism?

Same issue.

Difference in study approach somewhere.

And so on.

I believe it matters.

Nehemiah 8:8 So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.

8:12 And all the people went their way to eat, and to drink, and to send portions, and to make great mirth, because they had understood the words that were declared unto them.

Rom. 14:5; 5:6-8.

 

[Danoh]

That is your projection and conjecture.
Same old off base conclusion

I've said what I've had to say to you and your kind about all that; go pester some one else on one of your threads closed to anyone who strongly differs with your narrow mind and that of your precious false idols.

Rom. 5: 6-8.

 

[Tambora]

I've said what I've had to say to you and your kind about all that; go pester some one else on one of your threads closed to anyone who strongly differs with your narrow mind and that of your precious false idols.

Rom. 5: 6-8.

You know darn well that no one was booted from the thread for not agreeing with my view.
They were booted for turning it into a Trump bashing thread when we already had several Trump bashing threads that you losers made.
So your "little ol innocent me" act is just getting even more sickening than usual.

Have a mod delete my posts from this sickening call out thread of yours.
You make a thread calling all MADs to tell them how inadequate they are, and then cry foul when they show up and give their analysis of you.
And after that you usually start your mantra of "It's not about me or you", as if no one can clearly see that you do indeed make it about particular people.
It's sickening to watch you belittle all my friends here while you try to convince everyone it is for their own good and they should thank you for being so privileged to be granted advice from the great enlightened Danoh.
Your delusions of self grandeur is blinding you to what you are doing.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Jim Brackin - one of the men you told me you learned your view from.

I was wondering HOW LONG AGO it was that you and he went back and forth, back when you went back and forth on what the phrase "the mystery of the faith" was a reference to.

Rom. 14:5; 5:6-8.

2007-2010 roughly.

 

[Danoh]

:chuckle:

Show me a pagan Gentile that Paul preached the gospel of Christ to, during Acts.

That is straight out of the Acts 28 Handbook, and you know it.

So, a :chuckle: back at ya.

Again, STP - our different understandings result from from a difference in study approach somewhere...

You see this here...

Galatians 4:8 Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods. 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? 4:10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. 4:21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?

Paul's actual point to them is that having left a similar system of "weak and beggarly elements" within the Heathen/Gentile world and turned to Christ, why would they have allowed themselves to be swayed into the now defunct one under Moses?

Note...

Galatians 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

Who were they?

1:16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:

They were Heathen.

Who?

Galatians 2:2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

They were Gentiles.

Who?

2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

They were the Uncircimcision.

Who?

2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles: )

They were Gentiles.

Who?

2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

They were Heathen.

Who?

Galatians 5:2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. 5:3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

They had not been under the Law.

Thus, the actual sense of this here...

Galatians 4:8 Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods.

Is similar to this here...

1 Corinthians 12:2 Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led.

In turn, the actual sense of this here...

Galatians 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? 4:10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. 4:21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?

They had gone from their prior Pagan Religious system of worship, to having believed in Christ, to having ended up in the Mosaic Religious system.

And I have proven on here in the past that Paul had a thriving ministry among Gentiles in Acts 9.

We differ in study approach.

Thus, in understandings.

And that is not even all the proof on this Heathen/Gentile ministry issue in Galatians and elsewhere.

Fact is that just before God saved Paul, he first concluded "the whole world" both Jew and Gentile "under sin;" Acts 7; Acts 17; Romans 1-3; Romans 11; etc. - the very point Paul relates having both communicated unto James, Cephas, and John, and...having had to remind them of all again, in Galatians 2.

Acts 17: 11, 12.

Rom. 14: 5; 6-8.

 

[Danoh]

2007-2010 roughly.

Thanks.

Rom. 5: 6-8.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

acts
13:26 Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent.

Re-reiteration...

 

[Stripe]

Here ya go, so called TOL "MADs" - that list ONCE MORE of 25 of your various other errors, outside of the ones I have often pointed out, with the same following result each time:

Most of you feel free to carry on as you always have on these issues: you fail to address them; pitch your usual fits; and then claim your many errors were never presented to you. :chuckle:

https://forwhatsaiththescriptures.org/2015/10/25/acts-9-28-hybrid-theology/

Feel free to pick which ever of those you feel you can prove wrong, and I'll be more than happy to prove you wrong instead; hopefully unto both our edification.

Though I sincerely doubt that will be the case, as many of you have consistently proven yourselves to be the most rabid, insolent, and set in your errors of any other "MADs" I have ever run accross, out of the many, many MADs I have dealt with and or have known over the years.

Not that all MADs on here hold the errors you so called "MADs" on here hold.

By the way, the following are 3 more of your frequent failures, starting with the very first one - especially that one...

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that...

1 - they received the word with all readiness of mind, and...

2 - searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. 17:12...

3 - Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.

You guys sure prove the need that is Rom. 5: 6-8 - in each our wretched stead.

I don't mind telling ya, I'm confused.

 

[Danoh]

I don't mind telling ya, I'm confused.

"Join the club." :chuckle:

Rom. 14: 5, in memory of Rom. 5: 6-8 - in each our stead.

 

[Danoh]

acts
13:26 Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent.

Re-reiteration...

The very next chapter - Acts 14 - shows you are off.

But so is your one verse "means what it says" approach.

So, no surprise there.

Fact is that Acts is not the context of Acts.

This is...

Galatians 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. 1:13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: 1:14 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers. 1:15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, 1:16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: 1:17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

Acts 17: 11, 12.

 

[andyc]

many of you have consistently proven yourselves to be the most rabid, insolent, and set in your errors of any other "MADs" I have ever run accross, out of the many, many MADs I have dealt with and or have known over the years.

:e4e:

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

The very next chapter - Acts 14 - shows you are off.

How?

How do you get pagans into the Acts 13 passage?

 

[andyc]

If a pagan Gentile, during Acts, approached Paul and asked for the truth, Paul would not have turned him away.

BUT, Paul was not sent to pagans, and he did not seek them out, during this time.

Excuse me?
Was there any other kind of gentile?

 

[Interplanner]

Excuse me?
Was there any other kind of gentile?

He may have meant the difference between active in a local pagan cult vs 'sebomomai' which trans as 'god-fearing'. However, STP's remark is as mistaken as most of his are. The breadth of experience as indicated in Acts or Corinthians shows that there was plenty of exposure with those outside Judaism. It's just that there was at least something to build on at the synagogue.

 

[andyc]

He may have meant the difference between active in a local pagan cult vs 'sebomomai' which trans as 'god-fearing'

When people were referred to as "gentiles" in scripture, it was in the negative (pagan) sense.
Hence the reason why grace is exalted if gentiles (pagans) could be saved by simply believing.
And so when Paul said that his gospel was to the gentiles, he meant....to vile pagans.

 

[Danoh]

How?

How do you get pagans into the Acts 13 passage?

It is YOU who are reading a thing into that Acts 13 passage that it is not actually saying.

In Acts 14, Paul converts Gentiles not too far from Galatia (land of the pagan Gauls, or Celts) who not only had mistaken him and Barnabas as the Greek gods, Jupiter and Mercury, but had been set to offer their Religion's animal sacrifices.

If your view were correct, Paul would have had no business converting them, for according to your erroneous view, Paul's Acts ministry had only been to Jews and God -fearing Gentiles.

In fact, Paul preaches his gospel to both those Jews and Gentiles in Acts 13, for the same reason he preaches it to those pagan Gentiles in Acts 14 - because by the time of Paul, God had concluded all under sin, that he might have mercy on all without distinction.

It is YOU who are reading a thing into the Acts 13 passage it is not saying.

All because when Paul addressed both those Jews and Gentiles in Acts 13, those Gentiles there happened to have been God-fearing.

Well the ones in the very next chapter had not been.

You are simply wrong.

And one of your one liners and or prooftexts is not going to change this fact.

Galatians 1:15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, 1:16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: 1:17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

Galatians 2:1 Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. 2:2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

Acts 17: 11, 12.

 

[Right Divider]

When people were referred to as "gentiles" in scripture, it was in the negative (pagan) sense.
Hence the reason why grace is exalted if gentiles (pagans) could be saved by simply believing.
And so when Paul said that his gospel was to the gentiles, he meant....to vile pagans.

Just exactly how is a gentile worshiping God in a synagogue with God's people a pagan?