ECT How is Paul's message different?

[whitestone]

:rotfl:

In other words, you had no answer so you deflected, and that, by brown-nosing the Acts 9 / Acts 28 Hybrids on here.

Proving only that you don't even know they are in error.

Here, another opportunity for you to not only brown-nose them some more, but to prove once more you know nothing about their errors.

The following is a comparison between actual Acts 9 Mid-Acts Dispensationalism, and the Hybrid being purported on TOL by some as Acts 9 MAD..

Here is list of 25 of their errors. The actual Acts 9 view on that list is the view held by many throughout the world.

https://forwhatsaiththescriptures.f...0/refutation-of-acts-9-28-hybrid-theology.pdf

So, if I am the Pope, I am far from alone.

Let's see how many of those you can prove the Hybrids on here are right about.

I found not a one.

And that is only 25 of their errors; during the time I have been on here, I've noticed many more.

Of course, you can do more of what they have done in response to that list - deflect, deflect, deflect.

:chuckle:

Rom. 5:6-8.

lol, no in fact I am not deflecting from what I'M asking you. If you refer back to #2556 I ask you about about the judgement of the angels,messengers ect.,. Then about the world to come in post 2558.

In post #2566 you defined it as the "millennial" and so in post 2563 I ask you if you saw yourself in that world already. In post #2571 I ask you whose over who and when.

Now who is a Pope, is he not one over some in rule and judgement? If so then in that day, Isaiah 1:26 KJV , are these the the 12 on earth during the Mill.? On the other hand if you review the scriptures I ask about in the post mentioned you would see something,that you yourself might me hybridizing.

I did bookmark the link you gave(read it briefly,and will read it more in depth) but at the same time are we in the world to come where we should judge the messengers? Again you have not said who those angels/messengers are yet and so in your mind they might be angelic beings that we will judge in the world to come Paul spoke of.

Now in the Mill. the beast and false prophet will have been cast into the lake of fire, Revelation 19:20 KJV and the devil is bound in chains in the pit, Revelation 20:2-3 KJV so then in the world to come(Mill. per you,post #2566) are they the same as 1 Corinthians 6:3 KJV ?

I am not deflecting, just tying to see why you see to declare some as if working in tandem with satin unless you see yourself already in the world to come now and it proper to rule over them today(from the link you gave/Brasseaux) .

 

[Danoh]

lol, no in fact I am not deflecting from what I'M asking you. If you refer back to #2556 I ask you about about the judgement of the angels,messengers ect.,. Then about the world to come in post 2558.

In post #2566 you defined it as the "millennial" and so in post 2563 I ask you if you saw yourself in that world already. In post #2571 I ask you whose over who and when.

Now who is a Pope, is he not one over some in rule and judgement? If so then in that day, Isaiah 1:26 KJV , are these the the 12 on earth during the Mill.? On the other hand if you review the scriptures I ask about in the post mentioned you would see something,that you yourself might me hybridizing.

I did bookmark the link you gave(read it briefly,and will read it more in depth) but at the same time are we in the world to come where we should judge the messengers? Again you have not said who those angels/messengers are yet and so in your mind they might be angelic beings that we will judge in the world to come Paul spoke of.

Now in the Mill. the beast and false prophet will have been cast into the lake of fire, Revelation 19:20 KJV and the devil is bound in chains in the pit, Revelation 20:2-3 KJV so then in the world to come(Mill. per you,post #2566) are they the same as 1 Corinthians 6:3 KJV ?

I am not deflecting, just tying to see why you see to declare some as if working in tandem with satin unless you see yourself already in the world to come now and it proper to rule over them today(from the link you gave/Brasseaux) .

No, I do not view the Hybrids on here as working with Satan.

Not where their Hybrid errors are concerned.

That part of Shawn's assertions I do not agree with.

They are MADs. Just Hybrid MADs, and not actually Acts 9.

Meaning they are off in understanding in three or four dozen or more points.

Because they mix Acts 9 with the Acts 28 view on things.

But anyway, if you read that much of Shawn's worthy article, then you've done more by that than even one of the Acts 9 / Acts 28 Hybrids as on here have done - their's has been repeated...ignorance, and deflection.

Note RD's response - deflection.

For there those 25 points are apparently for him and his to repeatedly...skirt.

Anyway, the "judge the angels" phrase is similar in operating principle to the Twelve's "shall sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel" phrase, but refers to the Body's rule over the Angelic Realm in Glory, one day.

In other words BOTH are issues WITHIN God's Kingdom between His Own AFTER He has cleansed those High Places that Ephesians 6 mentions are presently the realm of the Adversary and his equally fallen angelic host.

Note that the issue in the following is not one of judging towards eternal damnation issues but of properly discerning a thing within God's kingdom - between His people - and in the following, it is the issue of a righteousness in discernment between right and wrong in the here and NOW, and between BODY members.

1 Corinthians 6:1 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? 6:2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 6:3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?

In other words, the extent to which we have each practiced judging one another fairly in the here and now, will greatly impact one day what role will be determined in Glory we are suited for within the Body's rule over the Angelic Realm.

The issues are ruling decisions over matters within God's Kingdom and that, based on who has been assigned what role in that, and what criteria having assigned said roles has been based on.

6:4 If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.

6:5 I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? 6:6 But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers. 6:7 Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded? 6:8 Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren.

Problem with the Corinthians was that, just as with various of the so called MADs on here, they lived for conflict.

How exactly does one inform an individual who lives for conflict that said individual lives for conflict, without setting them off into more of their obvious need for conflict?

As the Apostle Paul himself repeatedly found while dealing with the Corinthians on this very issue, one is basically talking individuals long proven have rendered themselves incapable of facing their hypocrisy.

To point it out to such, merely sets it off in such once more.

Need for conflict which such, of course, rationalize as "just truth smacking like Jesus."

The Lord Himself would have disagreed with the self-righteous "judgment" of such...

Matthew 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

Rom. 5:6-8.

 

[musterion]

Problem with the Corinthians was that, just as with various of the so called MADs on here, they lived for conflict.

 

[Danoh]

This is the very first time I've ever heard the phrase, "Acts 9 / Acts 28 Hybrid".

Could you give a brief description of one of these hybrids and explain (briefly) why its a big deal?

The phrase "Acts 9 / Acts 28 Hybrid" is apparently a phrase coined by Shawn Brasseaux.

Other descriptive are "Acts 28ers in Acts 9 clothing" and "Two senders" (after their teaching that Paul was given a different dispensation at Acts 28).

Though, actually, in contrast to actually consistent Acts 9 MAD position that Paul had preached only one gospel from Acts 9 til his death just after 2 Timothy 2, the Hybrids erroneously assert that Paul preached three different gospels...

Some time before I ever even knew of Shawn's sound article on 25 of their main errors, I began ribbing them on here as being "ALMOST 28ers" due to various other errors of theirs that I had observed them asserting on TOL, had approached them about, only to repeatedly meet with their deflection.

Of course, they not only right off repeatedly misinterpreted that as my asserting they ARE 28ers, but took great offense to this.

Now they assert I never dealt with them on these errors of theirs.

I continue to find it all a...

:chuckle:

Anyway, the big deal is that said Hybrids, both those on here, and many more of their number outside of here, are not only misrepresenting their errors as Acts 9 Dispensationalism but are now infamous for how easily they are prone to spitting on anyone who does not hold their views - including actually consistent Acts 9 MADs.

You'll recall heir's absolute nonsense (and STP's agreement with it) that because Enyart does not repeatedly harp on their 1 Cor. 15:1-4 mantra, but also holds to Romans 10: 9, 10, he is "an enemy of the fellowship of the mystery."

She has said as much about Pastor Justin Johnson (again, with STP's agreement) just because he is actually a much more consistent Acts 9 MAD in many of his teachings and writings (note also their complete ignoring of everyone of his writings posted on their so called MAD forum by PJ).

Per STP and heir, the main (Hybrids) on here are himself, Nick, and heir.

He has noted they are the most in agreement (on their errors - see Shawn's 25 points, of many more that could be cited).

Most of their pals on here fall somewhere in between some semblance of the views held by most actually consistent Acts 9 MADs (The BBS, GSB, doctrine.org, and so on) and those many Hybrid errors written about on here in various posts by myself, and by people like Shawn and others within actually consistent Acts 9 MAD outside of here.

Richard Jordan (Grace School of the Bible) himself did a study on the Acts 28 errors. Watching those videos, I could not but repeatedly think 've might as well be taking of the Acts 9 / Acts 28 Hybrids...'

Read that article by Shawn, those 25 errors of theirs are more than enough to show anyone with actual eyes to see, and actual ears to hear, that the Acts 9 / Acts 28 Hybrids have erroneously mixed Acts 9 with the erroneous Acts 28 position on those issues.

Doesn't make them believers in soul sleep.

Doesn't make them Bullingerites.

Doesn't make them of Satan.

Doesn't make them lost.

Rather ALMOST 28ers.

:chuckle:

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

 

[Danoh]

Romans 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

 

[Clete]

The phrase "Acts 9 / Acts 28 Hybrid" is apparently a phrase coined by Shawn Brasseaux.

Other descriptive are "Acts 28ers in Acts 9 clothing" and "Two senders" (after their teaching that Paul was given a different dispensation at Acts 28).

Though, actually, in contrast to actually consistent Acts 9 MAD position that Paul had preached only one gospel from Acts 9 til his death just after 2 Timothy 2, the Hybrids erroneously assert that Paul preached three different gospels...

Some time before I ever even knew of Shawn's sound article on 25 of their main errors, I began ribbing them on here as being "ALMOST 28ers" due to various other errors of theirs that I had observed them asserting on TOL, had approached them about, only to repeatedly meet with their deflection.

Of course, they not only right off repeatedly misinterpreted that as my asserting they ARE 28ers, but took great offense to this.

Now they assert I never dealt with them on these errors of theirs.

I continue to find it all a...

:chuckle:

Anyway, the big deal is that said Hybrids, both those on here, and many more of their number outside of here, are not only misrepresenting their errors as Acts 9 Dispensationalism but are now infamous for how easily they are prone to spitting on anyone who does not hold their views - including actually consistent Acts 9 MADs.

You'll recall heir's absolute nonsense (and STP's agreement with it) that because Enyart does not repeatedly harp on their 1 Cor. 15:1-4 mantra, but also holds to Romans 10: 9, 10, he is "an enemy of the fellowship of the mystery."

She has said as much about Pastor Justin Johnson (again, with STP's agreement) just because he is actually a much more consistent Acts 9 MAD in many of his teachings and writings (note also their complete ignoring of everyone of his writings posted on their so called MAD forum by PJ).

Per STP and heir, the main (Hybrids) on here are himself, Nick, and heir.

He has noted they are the most in agreement (on their errors - see Shawn's 25 points, of many more that could be cited).

Most of their pals on here fall somewhere in between some semblance of the views held by most actually consistent Acts 9 MADs (The BBS, GSB, doctrine.org, and so on) and those many Hybrid errors written about on here in various posts by myself, and by people like Shawn and others within actually consistent Acts 9 MAD outside of here.

Richard Jordan (Grace School of the Bible) himself did a study on the Acts 28 errors. Watching those videos, I could not but repeatedly think 've might as well be taking of the Acts 9 / Acts 28 Hybrids...'

Read that article by Shawn, those 25 errors of theirs are more than enough to show anyone with actual eyes to see, and actual ears to hear, that the Acts 9 / Acts 28 Hybrids have erroneously mixed Acts 9 with the erroneous Acts 28 position on those issues.

Doesn't make them believers in soul sleep.

Doesn't make them Bullingerites.

Doesn't make them of Satan.

Doesn't make them lost.

Rather ALMOST 28ers.

:chuckle:

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

Okay, can you be more specific? Just what errors are you talking about?

I'm not doubting you, I just don't regularly follow the discussions on this specific topic very much and am curious. I, for example, have never heard anyone suggest that Paul taught more than one gospel (nevermind three). What are the other two?

Clete

 

[musterion]

 

[Danoh]

Okay, can you be more specific? Just what errors are you talking about?

I'm not doubting you, I just don't regularly follow the discussions on this specific topic very much and am curious. I, for example, have never heard anyone suggest that Paul taught more than one gospel (nevermind three). What are the other two?

Clete

Take a look at this chart comparison of actual Acts 9 Mid-Acts with the Acts 28 view, and also, with that of the Acts 9 / Acts 28 Hybrid asserted on here by the Hybrids as Acts 9 MAD.

https://forwhatsaiththescriptures.f...imelines-acts-9-acts-28-acts-9-28-hybrid1.pdf

Note any immediately obvious differences?

As for their three gospels of Paul, one is supposedly "the gospel of God...to the Jew first..."

Another is supposedly "A dispensation of the gospel" to Jews and Greeks or some such (Greeks being their asserted error that said Greeks were "God-fearing / Israel blessing Gentiles."

Still a third is "THE dispensation of the grace of God" God supposedly committed unto Paul near the end of Acts.

In this third gospel error the Ephesians in Ephesians 2 are not the same Ephesians of Acts 20.

:doh:

I mean, those are the kind of false-positives such base their many errors on - on some supposed difference between "A dispensation" and "THE dispensation."

Clearly, their failure is in basic rules of grammar, incorrect study approach somewhat, together with a poor ability at properly reasoning through a thing via the relevant passages.

Another of their errors is that the Romans Paul praises the faith of in Romans 1 are the Jews he condemns in Romans 2.

Their "logic"?

"Because Paul says they are "CALLED a Jew."

In other words "prosylites." To his credit, RD does not hold to that last error of theirs. Neither apparently, does Musti.

STP has asserted that Romans 11:25's "fulness" took place near Acts 28.

Another of their errors is that Romans 11's grafting in refers to those Greek Gentiles in ISRAEL's Promises, which is why the reference to being cut off (which they erroneously assert refers to loss of salvation).

And so on...

You can read their errors over in the "MAD" forum.

But again, their greatest error is their intolerance and insolence towards any MAD who does not hold their errors, or worse - points them out to them.

This too is repeatedly evident over on the "MAD" forum.

Case in point, of many on there..

http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?117303-A28D

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

 

[Danoh]

You just had to tarnish Connery's famous cool as Bond, with your ever predictable rubbish.

:chuckle:

Rom. 5:6-8.

 

[musterion]

your ever predictable rubbish.

 

[whitestone]

No, I do not view the Hybrids on here as working with Satan.

Not where their Hybrid errors are concerned.

That part of Shawn's assertions I do not agree with.

They are MADs. Just Hybrid MADs, and not actually Acts 9.

Meaning they are off in understanding in three or four dozen or more points.

Because they mix Acts 9 with the Acts 28 view on things.

But anyway, if you read that much of Shawn's worthy article, then you've done more by that than even one of the Acts 9 / Acts 28 Hybrids as on here have done - their's has been repeated...ignorance, and deflection.

Note RD's response - deflection.

For there those 25 points are apparently for him and his to repeatedly...skirt.

Anyway, the "judge the angels" phrase is similar in operating principle to the Twelve's "shall sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel" phrase, but refers to the Body's rule over the Angelic Realm in Glory, one day.

In other words BOTH are issues WITHIN God's Kingdom between His Own AFTER He has cleansed those High Places that Ephesians 6 mentions are presently the realm of the Adversary and his equally fallen angelic host.

Note that the issue in the following is not one of judging towards eternal damnation issues but of properly discerning a thing within God's kingdom - between His people - and in the following, it is the issue of a righteousness in discernment between right and wrong in the here and NOW, and between BODY members.

1 Corinthians 6:1 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? 6:2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 6:3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?

In other words, the extent to which we have each practiced judging one another fairly in the here and now, will greatly impact one day what role will be determined in Glory we are suited for within the Body's rule over the Angelic Realm.

The issues are ruling decisions over matters within God's Kingdom and that, based on who has been assigned what role in that, and what criteria having assigned said roles has been based on.

6:4 If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.

6:5 I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? 6:6 But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers. 6:7 Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded? 6:8 Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren.

Problem with the Corinthians was that, just as with various of the so called MADs on here, they lived for conflict.

How exactly does one inform an individual who lives for conflict that said individual lives for conflict, without setting them off into more of their obvious need for conflict?

As the Apostle Paul himself repeatedly found while dealing with the Corinthians on this very issue, one is basically talking individuals long proven have rendered themselves incapable of facing their hypocrisy.

To point it out to such, merely sets it off in such once more.

Need for conflict which such, of course, rationalize as "just truth smacking like Jesus."

The Lord Himself would have disagreed with the self-righteous "judgment" of such...

Matthew 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

Rom. 5:6-8.

Well it's a relief that you say that you don't see them as working in tandem with satin like Shawn B. believes a little bit of support goes a long ways in regards to trust. You say I read more more of it and the others "deflect" which I see as not quite fair Clete is asking you about it and Gloydaz told you in post 2565,pg.171 that she did look up the pdf but didn't agree with your take on it. I myself keep asking you questions so in fact it's not defensible to assert deflect/ignorant if you consider the dialogue. During the tet/offensive where he took the shotgun approach against all Dispy's I wondered if it would end up with us at odds with one another, be careful and don't play his cards for him if you would heed that advice. But if one could go back a year or so and begin again at say GM and apply 1 Timothy 5:1-2 KJV all today would be different if we would just follow the advice of Paul.

As for the judge the angels part in your response,,, lol the 12 during the Mill are on earth ruling and the BOC after the ress./rap. are referring to the BOC? lol, I'M not sure if your hybridizing the two or misspeaking/typing ,lol,,,can you explain the part where your said "sit on the twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel",but refers to the Body's rule over...?

 

[Danoh]

Well it's a relief that you say that you don't see them as working in tandem with satin like Shawn B. believes a little bit of support goes a long ways in regards to trust. You say I read more more of it and the others "deflect" which I see as not quite fair Clete is asking you about it and Gloydaz told you in post 2565,pg.171 that she did look up the pdf but didn't agree with your take on it. I myself keep asking you questions so in fact it's not defensible to assert deflect/ignorant if you consider the dialogue. During the tet/offensive where he took the shotgun approach against all Dispy's I wondered if it would end up with us at odds with one another, be careful and don't play his cards for him if you would heed that advice. But if one could go back a year or so and begin again at say GM and apply 1 Timothy 5:1-2 KJV all today would be different if we would just follow the advice of Paul.

As for the judge the angels part in your response,,, lol the 12 during the Mill are on earth ruling and the BOC after the ress./rap. are referring to the BOC? lol, I'M not sure if your hybridizing the two or misspeaking/typing ,lol,,,can you explain the part where your said "sit on the twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel",but refers to the Body's rule over...?

Msn o man are you off on what was said.

:chuckle:

1 - Clete does not subscribe to the Acts 9 / Acts 28 Hybrid being purported on here by various individuals as Acts 9 MAD. Read his posts to me, he asserts he was not even aware of their views.

2 - And I never said otherwise. He is not who these differences are with.

3 - GD said she read another pdf, not the one I posted (the women has major issues with even looking at pdf, link, video I post :chuckle

A pdf that agrees with what RD was asserting about what the mystery of godliness is referring to.

4 - She did say that both RD'and my view are what it is referring to; which I disagree with.

5 - As for the rest of your post, that is your reading into what I said.

6 - For, I did not confuse the Twelve with the Body, nor did I confuse each their respective realms of authority.

7- Ya might, just wanna re-read my prior post.

8 - Just as you might actually read the balance of Shawn's document - ten to one you yourself will agree with most if not all his 25 points as they are basically stating what the passages in question actually state, even absent of the actually consistent, Acts 9 Mid-Acts lens.

9 - You might also learn something you may have previously been unaware of about one passage or another - as I at times do when reading someone's writing from another school of thought.

:thumb:

Rom. 5:6-8.

 

[whitestone]

Msn o man are you off on what was said.

:chuckle:

1 - Clete does not subscribe to the Acts 9 / Acts 28 Hybrid being purported on here by various individuals as Acts 9 MAD. Read his posts to me, he asserts he was not even aware of their views.

2 - And I never said otherwise. He is not who these differences are with.

3 - GD said she read another pdf, not the one I posted (the women has major issues with even looking at pdf, link, video I post :chuckle

A pdf that agrees with what RD was asserting about what the mystery of godliness is referring to.

4 - She did say that both RD'and my view are what it is referring to; which I disagree with.

5 - As for the rest of your post, that is your reading into what I said.

6 - For, I did not confuse the Twelve with the Body, nor did I confuse each their respective realms of authority.

7- Ya might, just wanna re-read my prior post.

8 - Just as you might actually read the balance of Shawn's document - ten to one you yourself will agree with most if not all his 25 points as they are basically stating what the passages in question actually state, even absent of the actually consistent, Acts 9 Mid-Acts lens.

9 - You might also learn something you may have previously been unaware of about one passage or another - as I at times do when reading someone's writing from another school of thought.

:thumb:

Rom. 5:6-8.

lol, deflect? lol explain what I ask maybe I'm ignorant like you said...

 

[Danoh]

lol, deflect? lol explain what I ask maybe I'm ignorant like you said...

Never said you are ignorant.

In fact, I never use the word ignorant like that.

For to me it basically refers to one's lacking in or being unaware of information in some way.

While, what I mean by deflect is to say or do something as a means of creating a diversion away from actually addressing some issue or point pointed out to one.

Rom. 5: 6-8.

 

[glorydaz]

Msn o man are you off on what was said.

:chuckle:

1 - Clete does not subscribe to the Acts 9 / Acts 28 Hybrid being purported on here by various individuals as Acts 9 MAD. Read his posts to me, he asserts he was not even aware of their views.

2 - And I never said otherwise. He is not who these differences are with.

3 - GD said she read another pdf, not the one I posted (the women has major issues with even looking at pdf, link, video I post :chuckle

A pdf that agrees with what RD was asserting about what the mystery of godliness is referring to.

4 - She did say that both RD'and my view are what it is referring to; which I disagree with.

5 - As for the rest of your post, that is your reading into what I said.

6 - For, I did not confuse the Twelve with the Body, nor did I confuse each their respective realms of authority.

7- Ya might, just wanna re-read my prior post.

8 - Just as you might actually read the balance of Shawn's document - ten to one you yourself will agree with most if not all his 25 points as they are basically stating what the passages in question actually state, even absent of the actually consistent, Acts 9 Mid-Acts lens.

9 - You might also learn something you may have previously been unaware of about one passage or another - as I at times do when reading someone's writing from another school of thought.

:thumb:

Rom. 5:6-8.

This man is gossiping.....using my name in a derogatory manner. :nono:

Malicious and dastardly like the liberal he is. opcorn:

Poor Danoh, can't stop playing the hypocrite.

The second citation in yellow is simply a lie....attempting to deceive while making himself look better.

 

[glorydaz]

lol, deflect? lol explain what I ask maybe I'm ignorant like you said...

I think he assumes he's convincing others.....of something. :idunno:

 

[Danoh]

This man is gossiping.....using my name in a derogatory manner. :nono:

Malicious and dastardly like the liberal he is. opcorn:

Poor Danoh, can't stop playing the hypocrite.

The second citation in yellow is simply a lie....attempting to deceive while making himself look better.

:rotfl:

Consistently, and daily, you are repeatedly proven a liar on TOL by all sorts of people (other than by your dishonest pals), through your own words.

You above is one more case of that.

Regarding the issue of what the mystery of godliness refers to - RD asserted it refers to Christ at His 1st Advent...

1Tim 3:16 (AKJV/PCE)​

(3:16) And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Matt 1:23 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:23) Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
​

I ribbed that...

You're either slippin, or have slipped - even STP chuckle knows that 1 Tim. 3:16 is a sum up of God having manifested Himself in His New Creature: the Body of Christ.

2 Corinthians 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 6:15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, 6:18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

1 Timothy 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

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

GD, wrongly asserted...

Actually, it's both. It's a comparison. I'm surprised you don't know this, Danoh.

She then added the following to her proof of her consistent inability to properly discern what she reads.

You've not even attempted to prove otherwise. Same ol' Danoh.

Aside from those passages I had already cited as the basis for my assertion, I added that...

Every aspect of what Paul had meant is laid out passage by passage in that pdf I mentioned to RD.

Also, I've laid out additional passages and thoughts to Whitestone.

More than you have done.

I know, I know, you never read pdfs or watch youtube videos, right, "Yanny and Laurel."

Just you being the same old you.

:rotfl:

Rom. 5:6-8.

GD responded with more of her self-delusions and reading into a thing...

Let's see....a 5 min. video about something I've been curious about, or a 30 or more video about some preacher you recommend on some other subject? :think:

No contest.

However, to make you happy, I did go to a pdf on this and found exactly what RD was saying. Word by word what I have always believed that verse is saying.

In short, she asserted she referenced some other pdf, not the one I mentioned to RD when I posted to him to simply...

Google these words here...

009 The Mystery Of Godliness.pdf

But, as I have already noted about your delusions of grandeur, GD...

:rotfl:

In short, you are full of it.

And thanks for your comedy of errors.

:chuckle:

Rom. 5:6-8.

 

[Danoh]

That's the thing about the Acts 9 / Acts 28 Hybrids: their persistently obvious inability to properly discern the actual sense of the passages and or another's words to them (case in point, STP's recent nonsense that people on the Flat Earth threads debating what VERY LITTLE he posted in his USUAL weak defense of his positions, were just angry and proud).

The same nonsense heir and GD both often hurl at anyone who disagrees with them and or punches crater size holes in their flimsy arguments.

:rotfl:

But that's the Hybrids for ya, they base their many errors on reading things into a thing.

And some of their number (on here, and elsewhere on the net) consistently stoop to lying, and to changing their stories, and to denying they ever said a thing.

They're an amusing bunch; that's for sure.

:chuckle:

Rom. 5:6-8.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I don't know about everyone else here, but I'm still waiting on a response to this...

Okay, can you be more specific? Just what errors are you talking about?

I'm not doubting you, I just don't regularly follow the discussions on this specific topic very much and am curious. I, for example, have never heard anyone suggest that Paul taught more than one gospel (nevermind three). What are the other two?

Clete

 

[musterion]

MADs as a general rule have the saving Gospel down with better accuracy and clarity than anyone else here, but some forever rebuke MADs over relative trifles while they lolbro up to avowed enemies of the cross.

Make of that fact what you want but it is a fact.