ECT Mad finds itself in the trash by applying simple logic

[andyc]

Lest anyone start taking Andy seriously again, his claim to tongues is the same as #34 on this list (6 minutes 22 seconds in). Notice what the guy does not provide.

Replace every time this guy says "raise the dead" with "speak in tongues" and you have Andy.

:chuckle:

When mustyboy gets shown how wrong he is, he comes back with Pentecostal stuff.

What a loser!

 

[andyc]

So the challenge in the OP has got the mads all upset, and now they've switch to youtube Charismania.
Standard procedure from the mads.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

So the challenge in the OP has got the mads all upset, and now they've switch to youtube Charismania.
Standard procedure from the mads.

:chuckle:

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

:chuckle:

When mustyboy gets shown how wrong he is, he comes back with Pentecostal stuff.

What a loser!

I think we all know who the REAL Loser is on TOL-----Andycnotruth!!

 

[andyc]

:chuckle:

Yeah, I must say I did laugh when I saw the videos back.
Speaks for itself.

 

[andyc]

I think we all know who the REAL Loser is on TOL-----AndyC!!

Well coming from someone who lives out the rest of his days on this web site throwing out endless pointless comments, you need to have a good long look at yourself.

 

[Lighthouse]

Lest anyone start taking Andy seriously again, his claim to tongues is the same as #34 on this list (6 minutes 22 seconds in). Notice what the guy does not provide.

Replace every time this guy says "raise the dead" with "speak in tongues" and you have Andy.

I do find it interesting the editor of this particular video cut the reading of the passage.

 

[musterion]

Here's a longer version of the same clip. He reads the Messianic directive to raise the dead in this one.

"Happening all over the world today in increasing momentum and numbers."

But no video.

 

[musterion]

:chuckle:

When mustyboy gets shown how wrong he is, he comes back with Pentecostal stuff.

What a loser!

I believe I addressed your weak point before Clete and Lighthouse did.

 

[musterion]

And here's a pentecostal commanding children to eat grass as if it's miraculous heavenly bread. Delusional? Yes. Demonic? I believe so.

 

[andyc]

I believe I addressed your weak point before Clete and Lighthouse did.

Nope.

Jesus forgave the of many sins in Luke 7. Her faith saved her.

Faith in what?
What was the basis for Jesus to forgive the woman?

I'm telling you, and ever Madist here, you will be unable to answer this with out pointing to the new testament grace of the cross, but you'll fight it to the death to save mad.

 

[andyc]

And here's a pentecostal commanding children to eat grass as if it's miraculous heavenly bread. Delusional? Yes. Demonic? I believe so.

Not related to the OP.

And posting stupid stuff from stupid people claiming to be chrstians, in order to try and make me look stupid, is only going to win approval from your little mad gang. So it makes no difference to me. It just tells me you can't deal with the OP.

 

[musterion]

Nope.

Yep. Done deal.

Jesus forgave the of many sins in Luke 7. Her faith saved her.

Faith in what?
What was the basis for Jesus to forgive the woman?

Her faith in Him as Messiah.

That's what all Israel was to repent and have faith in, as He walked among them, per John 8:24.

How do you not already know these things but need lowly MADs to instruct you?

I'm telling you, and ever Madist here, you will be unable to answer this with out pointing to the new testament grace of the cross, but you'll fight it to the death to save mad.

Then you may now close this thread. Her faith was not in "the new testament grace of the cross." It was in Him as Messiah.

Close it. You're done.

 

[Danoh]

...No one has been able to prove cessationism from scripture.

MANY things in Scripture are not so much proven through "see, here it is in black and white in this passage right here" rather; through the overall understanding of many interconnecting elements between things that TOGETHER result in an understanding that those yet amatuer's in a thing; remain unable to see.

Where does Scripture lay out Peter's wedding day, for example?

Yet, it asserts that the Lord went into Peter's mother-in-law's house with Peter.

Just as; because Scripture does not go into some 18 years or so of the Lord's life when He was here; men think it in themselves to do as your kind do - they turn to their own notions as to where He might have been, or what He might have been up to.

One could give examples like this all day for years...to...no...avail...where...the amateur...is...concerned.

What this Cessation issue as to the Lord and so called interventions today boils down to; where you "show me a verse" amatuers are concerned?

Hebrews 5:11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing. 5:12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. 5:13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. 5:14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

 

[ClimateSanity]

Christ Jesus didn't teach the law, He preached the kingdom of God.

(Luke 16:16) "The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing their way into it.

The sermon on the mount was all about the law.

 

[andyc]

Yep. Done deal.



Her faith in Him as Messiah.

That's what all Israel was to repent and have faith in, as He walked among them, per John 8:24.

How do you not already know these things but need lowly MADs to instruct you?



Then you may now close this thread. Her faith was not in "the new testament grace of the cross." It was in Him as Messiah.

Close it. You're done.

So, faith in the messiah meant they no longer needed the law?
If the sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law, faith in Christ frees the sinner from sin and the law.

Jesus was not enforcing the law, from musty's perspective. Obviously he doesn't really know what he's saying, and the consequences of it, but non madists following the thread will.

 

[Lighthouse]

:chuckle:

Telling her to leave her life of sin, was a bit of a giveaway.

Except that all sin.

But that's not what I asked you. I didn't ask how you know He knew. I asked how He knew. Try again.

No they didn't. You sure love to ad lib, don't yo?
You, like your theology is showing it's desperation.

You're a moron; and completely ignorant of the Law.

“The man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, he who commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress, shall surely be put to death.”
-Leviticus 20:10

“If a matter arises which is too hard for you to judge, between degrees of guilt for bloodshed, between one judgment or another, or between one punishment or another, matters of controversy within your gates, then you shall arise and go up to the place which the Lord your God chooses. And you shall come to the priests, the Levites, and to the judge there in those days, and inquire of them; they shall pronounce upon you the sentence of judgment. You shall do according to the sentence which they pronounce upon you in that place which the Lord chooses. And you shall be careful to do according to all that they order you.”
-Deuteronomy 17:8-10

Not mentioned in the text.

I didn't say it was. Only that it makes sense. Based on the context and the result.

I can't see where they broke the letter of the law.

I know. That's obvious. Your ignorance of the Law is abundantly clear.

And there is nothing mentioned to support your theory.

I didn't say there was.

Jesus said nothing about the accusers breaking the law.

[Jesus]“He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.”[/Jesus]
-John 8:7

You're making it up as usual.

I'm no making anything up. I'm postulating a possibility. I never said it was what actually happened.

This is a question that has been on the minds of Christians for a very long time and there are many possibilities offered. I have heard others. One was that He wrote a list of sins which He knew they were guilty. This possibility postulates that He was more specific. We will not know until Heaven, I suppose.

As for the spirit of the law, it is simply how the law affects the inner man. I could have worded it differently, but I thought you would understand. How wrong I was. The act of sin condemns the man, but the desire to want to commit the act condemns the conscience of the man. I even used Paul's own understanding of what it means to wrestle under condemnation, even if the act is not carried out. Mind you, talking to you is like talking to a fence post.

I understood it just fine, But it's not in Scripture. That's the issue here.

The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law.
-1 Corinthians 15:56

Irrelevant response to what I said.

You would think that.

This is what Jesus came to expose. The pharisees who thought they were pure because they observed the letter of the law, wouldn't acknowledge the evil desires within, which is why Jesus called them whitewashed sepulchers.

They did not observe the letter, they even added to it: pure blasphemy.

Those who knew they were condemned by the law, found forgiveness, but those who were proud of there legalistic performance, their sin remained.

I have never argued otherwise.

Idiot.
I told him to make a thread relevant to whatever he said, and I'd respond to it.

No you won't.

No one has been able to prove cessationism from scripture.

Ever wonder why Paul made two separate lists of gifts and the latter does not contain all that the former does? Or why the only time we see resurrection from the dead or demonic possession is while Jesus was still here?

 

[ClimateSanity]

Nope.

Jesus forgave the of many sins in Luke 7. Her faith saved her.

Faith in what?
What was the basis for Jesus to forgive the woman?

I'm telling you, and ever Madist here, you will be unable to answer this with out pointing to the new testament grace of the cross, but you'll fight it to the death to save mad.

Faith that Jesus was God in the flesh and Israel's Messiah.....Only God can forgive sins.

 

[andyc]

Faith that Jesus was God in the flesh and Israel's Messiah.....Only God can forgive sins.

What is the basis for God to forgive the sins of people who are under the law?

 

[andyc]

Except that all sin.

But that's not what I asked you. I didn't ask how you know He knew. I asked how He knew. Try again.

The Pharisees would not have lied about a woman caught in the act, and he knew that the whole thing was a trap.

You're a moron; and completely ignorant of the Law.

“The man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, he who commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress, shall surely be put to death.”
-Leviticus 20:10

“If a matter arises which is too hard for you to judge, between degrees of guilt for bloodshed, between one judgment or another, or between one punishment or another, matters of controversy within your gates, then you shall arise and go up to the place which the Lord your God chooses. And you shall come to the priests, the Levites, and to the judge there in those days, and inquire of them; they shall pronounce upon you the sentence of judgment. You shall do according to the sentence which they pronounce upon you in that place which the Lord chooses. And you shall be careful to do according to all that they order you.”
-Deuteronomy 17:8-10

None of this is relevant, as Jesus said, "he who is without sin, cast the first stone".
As I said, you're showing your desperation by trying to use the exactness of judicial law to negate the accusations, but Jesus did not use the same arguments you're trying to come up with, because everyone knew she was guilty, and there was never any intention of carrying out judgement.
It was theological entrapment, and the accusers only wanted to know what the judgement would have been if the law of Moses were to be carried out.
Now it's completely obvious that the full legal aspect of the judicial system would have to be carried out, but that is not what was being discussed.

Why are you so blind that you can't see this?

Well it's obvious isn't it?

If Jesus didn't condemn the woman caught in the act of adultery, he wasn't a minister of the law, and that would be curtains for mad.

I didn't say it was. Only that it makes sense. Based on the context and the result.

Nope. It makes no sense unless you're mad.

I know. That's obvious. Your ignorance of the Law is abundantly clear.

I notice that you didn't give me an example.

I didn't say there was.

So it's irrelevant then, isn't it?

[Jesus“He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.”[/Jesus]
-John 8:7

What a twit.
I was talking about sin involving the ordeal of the woman's adultery.

I'm no making anything up. I'm postulating a possibility. I never said it was what actually happened.


This is a question that has been on the minds of Christians for a very long time and there are many possibilities offered. I have heard others. One was that He wrote a list of sins which He knew they were guilty. This possibility postulates that He was more specific. We will not know until Heaven, I suppose.

We have enough information in the text to to conclude what was happening, and the reasons why etc.

I understood it just fine, But it's not in Scripture. That's the issue here.

The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law.
-1 Corinthians 15:56


You would think that.


They did not observe the letter, they even added to it: pure blasphemy.

The understanding I'm trying to get through to you, is simply that Jesus was trying to expose the evil heart. It's just as bad for a person to want to indulge sin, than to commit the act. But the law only condemned the act. As long as the pharisees felt they were right with God for not committing the act, they were blinded to the corruption of their sinful heart.

If you really understood this, you'd see Jesus as a minister of grace, not law.

I have never argued otherwise.

If you really believed this, you'd know that Jesus was minister of grace, as only the blood Jesus can remove the guilt of sin from the conscience. You really are blind to how messed up your thinking is.

No you won't.

Prove it!

Take his ideas, and start a thread on it. Watch me get stuck into it.

Ever wonder why Paul made two separate lists of gifts and the latter does not contain all that the former does? Or why the only time we see resurrection from the dead or demonic possession is while Jesus was still here?

Paul and Peter raised the dead. And they did it once, as is mentioned in scripture.