ECT Madist explain please how the 7 I AM's OF Jesus in John does not apply to the BOC

Grosnick Marowbe

New member
Hall of Fame
I'm making a mistake even giving you the time of day. Nevertheless...

The correct question is "Why Paul?"

Your question is stupidity. The bible records that Paul received "his gospel" from the risen Christ, by direct divine revelation (which you didn't even know until I just told you (unless someone here beat me to the punch). If that is true, it answers your question but implies a series of questions that you cannot answer...

Why was Paul taught a gospel by direct divine revelation?

Is Paul's gospel different than the gospel taught by Jesus and the Twelve?
If not, why teach Paul the gospel by direct divine revelation? Why not simply send him to the Twelve Apostles whom Jesus had just spent the last three years training and all of whom had just recieved the Holy Spirit? In fact, if Paul's gospel is not different, where the need to have a thirteenth Apostle at all, whatever happened to the Great Commission?

If it is different, which direct divine revelation compels one to accept, what is different about it, why did it change and why aren't you following it?

You cannot answer these questions because there isn't a good answer from within your theological paradigm. Any answer you submit will undermine your doctrine. In short, either Paul is a fraud or you are wrong or both (if both then Christianity itself is false). Those are the only rational choices you've got.

Resting in Him,
Clete

EXCELLENT POST!!
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Dodge knew this when he posted the OP.

He isn't debating, he's propagandizing. He may as well have asked, "Madists, please explain why you worship Satan and follow the teachings of Adolf Hitler?"
Pretty much.

Did somebody else use your user name above ?
No. You just can't read.

You used that comment to imply that the 7 I AM'S of Jesus was not for the BOC. Things that are the same are the same.
No, he did not.

Your question is not quite right the one I would have asked is why is the Apostle Paul elevated in His teachings ABOVE Jesus ? I am NOT propagandizing I am trying to understand how any body that reads scripture can place more importance on an Apostles teachings than on Jesus' teachings. Has the servant now become greater than the master to some ? I think so.
Or maybe Jesus usurped Himself because He changed the plan...

FYI, it is Jesus' Gospel NOT Paul's !
Why not both?

https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?search=my+gospel&version=NKJV&searchtype=phrase
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Paul is not a fraud you are.
You're pathetic.

If Paul is not a fraud then your doctrine is wrong.

Paul taught nothing that Jesus had not already taught.

Are you sure about that or are you just shooting your mouth off?

Jesus taught to follow the Law...
Matthew 19:16 Now behold, one came and said to Him, “Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?”

17 So He said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.”

18 He said to Him, “Which ones?”

Jesus said, “‘You shall not murder,’ ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You shall not steal,’ ‘You shall not bear false witness,’ 19 ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ ”

Matthew 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do...



Paul taught...

Galatians 2:16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

Romans 4:4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,

Colossians 2:13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

Romans 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed...​

The meaning was withheld by God for a time as scripture says, but Paul taught nothing that Jesus had not already taught, and after the resurrection ALL the Apostles taught GRACE. Not that you can or will see that truth because it aptly destroys the lies and deceptions of MAD.
Show me!

Show me where ANYONE ANYWHERE IN THE WHOLE BIBLE taught that "NOW, the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed"




Now, what I've stated above is an example of a responsive post. You make a claim (albeit a baseless and unsubstantiated claim) and I refute it by making a biblical argument. It is substantive and directly responsive to your vapid claims that were neither of those things. It'll be the last you see from me unless and until you respond in like manner to both this post and post 91 of this thread, which I frankly don't believe you capable of.


Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. I dare you to attempt to answer this openning post. Lilstu will destroy you.
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
You're pathetic.

If Paul is not a fraud then your doctrine is wrong.



Are you sure about that or are you just shooting your mouth off?

Jesus taught to follow the Law...
Matthew 19:16 Now behold, one came and said to Him, “Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?”

17 So He said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.”

18 He said to Him, “Which ones?”

Jesus said, “‘You shall not murder,’ ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You shall not steal,’ ‘You shall not bear false witness,’ 19 ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ ”

Matthew 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do...



Paul taught...

Galatians 2:16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

Romans 4:4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,

Colossians 2:13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

Romans 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed...​


Show me!

Show me where ANYONE ANYWHERE IN THE WHOLE BIBLE taught that "NOW, the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed"




Now, what I've stated above is an example of a responsive post. You make a claim (albeit a baseless and unsubstantiated claim) and I refute it by making a biblical argument. It is substantive and directly responsive to your vapid claims that were neither of those things. It'll be the last you see from me unless and until you respond in like manner to both this post and post 91 of this thread, which I frankly don't believe you capable of.


Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. I dare you to attempt to answer this openning post. Lilstu will destroy you.



Not sure I follow about 'if Paul is not a fraud...'

I know I don't follow about whether someone in the Bible taught that 'now the righteousness of God is revealed.' You are aware of Rom 3:21?
 

dodge

New member
You're pathetic.


P.S. I dare you to attempt to answer this openning post. Lilstu will destroy you.

You have questions ?

Start your own thread and I will drop in and answer your questions.

Seems to me I started this thread and you don't get to dictate or order me to do anything.

I did go to Lilstu's thread and you might be surprised on some of his beliefs about Paul.

Have you ever read any of Lilstu's posts ? He has some UN-scriptural positions . Maybe YOU should go check out his thread.
 

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
You have questions ?

Start your own thread and I will drop in and answer your questions.

Seems to me I started this thread and you don't get to dictate or order me to do anything.

I did go to Lilstu's thread and you might be surprised on some of his beliefs about Paul.

Have you ever read any of Lilstu's posts ? He has some UN-scriptural positions . Maybe YOU should go check out his thread.
Lilstu is a blasphemer of Paul and grace
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Not sure I follow about 'if Paul is not a fraud...'
It is very clearly spelled out in post 91.

I know I don't follow about whether someone in the Bible taught that 'now the righteousness of God is revealed.' You are aware of Rom 3:21?

Anyone other than Paul. Give me a break. Can you not follow your own conversations?

You claimed that Paul didn't teach anything new and so I quote Romans 3:21 and challenged you to find someone, anyone, anywhere else in the bible that taught what Romans 3:21 teaches! Jesus didn't teach it, the Apostles didn't teach it, they observed the Law and taught others to do the same and were in fact, "zealous for the Law". Who else OTHER THAN PAUL taught anything similar to "If you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing."?

That last quote was of Galatians 5:2 and, incidentally, Paul wrote both Romans and Galatians and 'law' and 'grace' are not synonyms.

Okay, now that's it. Nothing more from me (aside from ridicule and insults) if you do not respond to post 91 in some meaningful way. Read it slowly if you need to.

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
You have questions ?

Start your own thread and I will drop in and answer your questions.

Seems to me I started this thread and you don't get to dictate or order me to do anything.
This is a debate forum, idiot!

You don't get to start one thread after another after another after another on the exact same topic without responding to people who engage you. Not at least if you want me to participate.

No one was dictating anything you slobber-mouthed neandertal! I'm simply telling you that if you refuse to respond in a substantive way I'll not dignify your posts by responding to them any further except to ridicule you for the idiot that you are.

Not an idiot? Prove it by engaging the debate with someone who actually knows what he believes and why he believes it.

I did go to Lilstu's thread and you might be surprised on some of his beliefs about Paul. Have you ever read any of Lilstu's posts ? He has some UN-scriptural positions . Maybe YOU should go check out his thread.
I won't be surprised, I know exactly what his beliefs about Paul are and you don't have a snowball's chance in Hell of defeating him in a debate. I didn't send you there because I agree with him. He couldn't be more wrong and yet he would destroy you in any debate you dared to engage him on. You know why? It's because your most basic doctrinal presuppositions are very nearly identical to his and you don't even know it.

Go ahead and try it if you want to learn something about yourself. He'll present arguments that will confound you. You won't even understand how to respond because he'll say things in support of the rejection of Paul that, in another context, you'd agree with and you won't have a clue how to counter the argument. The reason will be because he holds theological presuppositions that are very similar to those that you hold but he is willing to take the logical implications of those ideas to their rational end and you've never even thought them through.

And the exercise wouldn't even be a rabbit trail off the topic of this thread. It would just be a practical exercise of the same argument I made in post 91, which you have yet to address at all but that you will address or else I'm out of here. I won't let those who are wasting their time, waste mine as well.

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

Grosnick Marowbe

New member
Hall of Fame
This is a debate forum, idiot!

You don't get to start one thread after another after another after another on the exact same topic without responding to people who engage you. Not at least if you want me to participate.

No one was dictating anything you slobber-mouthed neandertal! I'm simply telling you that if you refuse to respond in a substantive way I'll not dignify your posts by responding to them any further except to ridicule you for the idiot that you are.

Not an idiot? Prove it by engaging the debate with someone who actually knows what he believes and why he believes it.


I won't be surprised, I know exactly what his beliefs about Paul are and you don't have a snowball's chance in Hell of defeating him in a debate. I didn't send you there because I agree with him. He couldn't be more wrong and yet he would destroy you in any debate you dared to engage him on. You know why? It's because your most basic doctrinal presuppositions are very nearly identical to his and you don't even know it.

Go ahead and try it if you want to learn something about yourself. He'll present arguments that will confound you. You won't even understand how to respond because he'll say things in support of the rejection of Paul that, in another context, you'd agree with and you won't have a clue how to counter the argument. The reason will be because he holds theological presuppositions that are very similar to those that you hold but he is willing to take the logical implications of those ideas to their rational end and you've never even thought them through.

And the exercise wouldn't even be a rabbit trail off the topic of this thread. It would just be a practical exercise of the same argument I made in post 91, which you have yet to address at all but that you will address or else I'm out of here. I won't let those who are wasting their time, waste mine as well.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Yep.
 

dodge

New member
Clete;4835970]This is a debate forum, idiot!


lol, You want to see an idiot go look in a mirror.

Why do you suppose there are so many threads and so many topics ? Is that so you can hi-jack every thread and talk about just what YOU want to talk about ? I do not think so.

Like I said start your own thread and ask what ever you want.

When you go to an others thread you just might want to talk about the topic of that thread.
 
Last edited:

Interplanner

Well-known member
It is very clearly spelled out in post 91.



Anyone other than Paul. Give me a break. Can you not follow your own conversations?

You claimed that Paul didn't teach anything new and so I quote Romans 3:21 and challenged you to find someone, anyone, anywhere else in the bible that taught what Romans 3:21 teaches! Jesus didn't teach it, the Apostles didn't teach it, they observed the Law and taught others to do the same and were in fact, "zealous for the Law". Who else OTHER THAN PAUL taught anything similar to "If you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing."?

That last quote was of Galatians 5:2 and, incidentally, Paul wrote both Romans and Galatians and 'law' and 'grace' are not synonyms.

Okay, now that's it. Nothing more from me (aside from ridicule and insults) if you do not respond to post 91 in some meaningful way. Read it slowly if you need to.

Resting in Him,
Clete



Clete wrote:
Jesus didn't teach it,

Then you are not familiar with what Christ was doing. He participated in John's baptism "to fulfill all righteousness" Mt 3:16. Ie, his whole life was lived to fulfill that (Rom 10:4). Paul's expression refers back to Isaiah (and some Psalms) that said it would come one day, and provide what was promised from ancient times.
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
It is very clearly spelled out in post 91.



Anyone other than Paul. Give me a break. Can you not follow your own conversations?

You claimed that Paul didn't teach anything new and so I quote Romans 3:21 and challenged you to find someone, anyone, anywhere else in the bible that taught what Romans 3:21 teaches! Jesus didn't teach it, the Apostles didn't teach it, they observed the Law and taught others to do the same and were in fact, "zealous for the Law". Who else OTHER THAN PAUL taught anything similar to "If you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing."?

That last quote was of Galatians 5:2 and, incidentally, Paul wrote both Romans and Galatians and 'law' and 'grace' are not synonyms.

Okay, now that's it. Nothing more from me (aside from ridicule and insults) if you do not respond to post 91 in some meaningful way. Read it slowly if you need to.

Resting in Him,
Clete



Clete wrote:
Jesus didn't teach it,

Then you are not familiar with what Christ was doing. He participated in John's baptism "to fulfill all righteousness" Mt 3:16. Ie, his whole life was lived to fulfill that (Rom 10:4). Paul's expression refers back to Isaiah (and some Psalms) that said it would come one day, and provide what was promised from ancient times.
 

Danoh

New member
Clete wrote:
Jesus didn't teach it,

Then you are not familiar with what Christ was doing. He participated in John's baptism "to fulfill all righteousness" Mt 3:16. Ie, his whole life was lived to fulfill that (Rom 10:4). Paul's expression refers back to Isaiah (and some Psalms) that said it would come one day, and provide what was promised from ancient times.

Just goes to show once more that...you...read...your ideas...into things.

Within your very wording - "He participated in John's baptism" - you mentioned what the Lord had actually meant by - "to fulfill all righteousness" - even as you distorted what He'd meant - by what you erroneously read into His words :doh:

As RD well noted - more of your all under one tent "theology."

Sheesh - get a clue, already :chuckle:
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
lol, You want to see an idiot go look in a mirror.

Why do you suppose there are so many threads and so many topics ? Is that so you can hi-jack every thread and talk about just what YOU want to talk about ? I do not think so.

Like I said start your own thread and ask what ever you want.

When you go to an others thread you just might want to talk about the topic of that thread.
Fool.
 
Top