ECT Enlightened about MAD

[Interplanner]

Curious what "breaking through" means.

Realizing that the whole D'ist enterprise had no idea what the DofJ meant'
realizing that the NT was crammed with this generation and 'the time is near'
realizng that there is no 2P2P in the bible, that the sensible arrangement is that Israel is what Gal 3-4 says it was--a child trainer, a governess stage and now we are at maturity where God's (Abrahams!) children are by faith and are male-female-slave-free-circumcised-non-Jew-Gentile.

All kinds of things my teachers and professors had tried to hide and obfuscate.

 

[Interplanner]

:AMR:

Who are you?

Raised in a D'ist, fundamentalist church and college. Learned that the Reformers were not like that and that D'ism showed up much later for very different reasons than solid, careful study.

I have a masters in Christian research, taught Greek 1 year, studied THE JEWISH WAR 1 year for translation practice, wrote some parts of a thesis on Luke-Acts and the Revolt. I have been a pastor and a missionary. I now write short stories that I develop into short novels and convert into motion-picture scripts as the tagline mentions.

Get FOOTHOLD and you'll acquire all of the above.

 

[Stripe]

Raised in a D'ist, fundamentalist church and college. Learned that the Reformers were not like that and that D'ism showed up much later for very different reasons than solid, careful study.

I have a masters in Christian research, taught Greek 1 year, studied THE JEWISH WAR 1 year for translation practice, wrote some parts of a thesis on Luke-Acts and the Revolt. I have been a pastor and a missionary. I now write short stories that I develop into short novels and convert into motion-picture scripts as the tagline mentions.

Get FOOTHOLD and you'll acquire all of the above.

So you hate something about "D"?

Why?

 

[Interplanner]

It is utterly imposed and
is Zionist in the old, and wrong, sense (for Christians),
it makes a total mess of what was expected in Christ--the interjected mystery church theory.

thats a few. go see 10 Propositions about NT eschatology.

 

[musterion]

IP,

Do you believe, as Tet does, that a lost person can be forgiven and justified by believing only John 3:16?

 

[Interplanner]

If you mean 'as though it had a talisman like power' like the phrase Hare Krishna did for them, then of course not. He means the DOCTRINAL CONTENT of those verses!!!

 

[musterion]

Does a convicted lost person NEED to know about Christ's death, burial and resurrection for sin and justification in order to be saved?

 

[Interplanner]

of course. btw, saved in romans is often interchanged for justification (to have the debt of sin cleared away) not for the personal transformation that is generated by justification.

 

[musterion]

So when Tet says a lost person can believe John 3:16 and nothing else, and that's enough to be saved, Tet is to that extent preaching a false gospel because John 3:16 does not deal with what had not even happened yet? Would you agree with that much?

 

[Interplanner]

not happened yet? it was happening. This is more evidence of MAD crap heaped upon you. The Mads are out there telling us there's other gospels in the NT and it progressed from one to the other or some, and don't forget Israel's bit, etc. It's all hooey from D'ism.

 

[musterion]

I don't understand your anger. Neither of the death, burial nor resurrection of Christ had happened at the time of John 3:16. It had not happened yet, and when He later began to reveal that it would happen His disciples did not believe Him.

 

[Interplanner]

They almost didn't get it, did they? But how many of them knew that Is 53 was in their scriptures for 700 years? How many knew Dan 9 was also with Messiah being cut off, not for himself?

Why would God bother with 'behold the lamb of God' or the songs of Luke 1-2--if it was all worthless to say it that way?

Not.

The anger is at D'ism for second-guessing the time frame of the gospel accounts. For saying there are other gospels there that were being 'tried.'

 

[musterion]

Peter rebuked Christ when He said He was going to die. And that was well after John 3:16.

That means that, even at that relatively late point, the disciples did not know what you are now backfilling into John 3:16, which is badly handling the Scriptures.

 

[musterion]

Best to close this one too.

 

[Danoh]

not happened yet? it was happening. This is more evidence of MAD crap heaped upon you. The Mads are out there telling us there's other gospels in the NT and it progressed from one to the other or some, and don't forget Israel's bit, etc. It's all hooey from D'ism.

Musty, you will get nowhere with IP on this.

He complains about insults even as he refers to MAD as trash, as pop eschatology, as crap, etc.

Now either the guy is duplicitous as, or as plainly stupid as Tet.

Your question is simple - if I were to walk up to some one who has never heard about the dbr and basically recited that paasage to him, I would not be surprised if he were to ask what son, and or what's this about gave.

If that much.

The utter stupidity of asserting that that passage is enough by itself is not surprising - we're dealing with a guy who learned "about" whatever from various traditions he went off to school to learn "about" and that he bought into not because they make sense but because they made sense from where he reasons "about" things.

Even when he is talking about other subjects, this same reasoning "about" a thing in contrast to actually knowing it, is ever evident.

Ask your question but you are barking up the wrong tree where IP and this issue is concerned.

Look at the other passages the fool cited that better adress the dbr but that the fool brought up towards showing they are in John 3:16.

That is who you are dealing with - one who reads things into other things and then concludes they are there.

It is why he is so clueless about MAD. He reads his nonsense into it.

He is just another waste of time.

 

[musterion]

I don't disagree, but IP has been striking me as considerably more thoughtful and slightly more honest than Tet...still, I wondered just how far he would go in defending his fellow preterist. Now I know.

 

[Stripe]

It is utterly imposed and is Zionist in the old, and wrong, sense (for Christians), it makes a total mess of what was expected in Christ--the interjected mystery church theory. thats a few. go see 10 Propositions about NT eschatology.

English, dude. English.

https://youtu.be/3ISILzyDCNI?t=23s

 

[tetelestai]

(Acts 16:30-32) .... “Sirs, what must I do to be saved? They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved....

Both Paul and Silas together said "believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved".

Neither Paul, nor Silas went into detail about sin, the d,b,r or anything else, and the jailer was saved.

In another passage, Paul says the following in regards to what one must do to be saved:

(Rom 10:9) "If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."

Again, nothing about preaching about sin.

There is a reason why mysteryboy, Danoh, and other MADists are so upset about my answer (even though Paul confirms my answer)

Because of MAD's "two gospel" theory, MADists claim the only way a person is saved, is if they are taught 1 Cor 15:1-4. They claim 1 Cor 15:1-4 is the "other" gospel that is called "Paul's gospel", and that this other gospel is the only way someone is saved today.

They can't have people being saved today with just "believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved", because that can be found being preached BEFORE Paul's alleged "other" gospel that MAD is built upon.

That's why MADists such as mysteryboy and Danoh are legalists.

 

[Interplanner]

(Acts 16:30-32) .... “Sirs, what must I do to be saved? They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved....

Both Paul and Silas together said "believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved".

Neither Paul, nor Silas went into detail about sin, the d,b,r or anything else, and the jailer was saved.

In another passage, Paul says the following in regards to what one must do to be saved:

(Rom 10:9) "If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."

Again, nothing about preaching about sin.

There is a reason why mysteryboy, Danoh, and other MADists are so upset about my answer (even though Paul confirms my answer)

Because of MAD's "two gospel" theory, MADists claim the only way a person is saved, is if they are taught 1 Cor 15:1-4. They claim 1 Cor 15:1-4 is the "other" gospel that is called "Paul's gospel", and that this other gospel is the only way someone is saved today.

They can't have people being saved today with just "believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved", because that can be found being preached BEFORE Paul's alleged "other" gospel that MAD is built upon.

That's why MADists such as mysteryboy and Danoh are legalists.

Thanks Tet, that's some background I was missing.

On the question of 'believe on the Lord Jesus' not mentioning the death and resurrection of Christ, that's shaky. "Paul reasoned in the synagogue, demonstrating that Jesus was the Christ." That doesn't say anything about the death and resurrection of Christ, but do you think for a minute that Paul didn't explain it? Paul is the guy who coined the phrase 'before your eyes, Christ was graphically portrayed as crucified' which is still debated as to re-enactment with or without visual props. In the Philippi case, they had been singing hymns for hours. And not mentioning the whole range of events? Nonsense. More strait-jacketed nonsense like the mill of D'ism has been manufacturing for over a century.

 

[tetelestai]

On the question of 'believe on the Lord Jesus' not mentioning the death and resurrection of Christ, that's shaky.

Romans 10:9 was my original answer. That's what I would give as an answer today.

"Paul reasoned in the synagogue, demonstrating that Jesus was the Christ." That doesn't say anything about the death and resurrection of Christ, but do you think for a minute that Paul didn't explain it?

I'm sure he did.

Remember, Paul was dealing with Jews in the synagogue. Those Jews knew the OT.

In the case of the jailer, the jailer was a Roman who didn't even know what the OT was.

However, I am still standing with Rom 10:9 for the "minimum" a person has to do to be saved.

The MADists will insist it has to be 1 Cor 15:1-4. They do that only because of their belief that Paul's "gospel" is the only thing that can save someone.

Little do MADists know that Peter preached what they call "Paul's gospel":

(1 Peter 2:24) “He himself bore our sins” in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; “by his wounds you have been healed.”