ECT MADist thought for the day

[Jerry Shugart]

the law and the prophets were until John?
Shouldn't it say, "the law and the prophets were until Paul"?
How does the preaching of the kingdom of God supersede the law and the prophets?

"The Law was added because of transgressions, until the seed should come to whom the promise was made...which is Jesus Christ" (Gal. 3: 16, 19).​

The dispensation of the law was to last only until the beginning of the ministry of the Lord Jesus--"the law was added until the seed should come...."

I cannot imagine how anyone can fail to see a dispensational change with the coming of the Lord Jesus.

 

[JonahofAkron]

Jerry, if Messiah did not note a change, why assume there is one?

 

[DAN P]

Poor Nick has no clue about what Christ meant when He said, "It is finished."

Hi , them you tell me what " it is finished " in John 19:30 MEANS , if you can ??

dan p

 

[jamie]

The law and the prophets were until John?
Shouldn't it say, "the law and the prophets were until Paul"?
How does the preaching of the kingdom of God supersede the law and the prophets?

And lastly, how did everyone press into the kingdom of God?

The Law and the Prophets were about Israel. With John a new day arrived and John preached the kingdom of God as did Jesus.

A kingdom is a type of government. The kingdom of God is God's government. People are required to put forth effort to enter into the government of God, which is what is meant by pressing into it.

 

[andyc]

Let's have a look at the Madist's favorite passage of scripture - 1Cor 15:1-4

1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

The Madist reads this and says to him/herself...."this was a different gospel that was exclusively given to Paul for the gentiles", and was not revealed to the other apostles. However, Paul had explained that he was the Corinthians father in the Lord, as he was the one who brought the gospel to them.

Now lets continue on with the passage.........

5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. 11 Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.

Paul here says that, "whether it is I or they (the other apostles), so we (plural) preach, and so ye believe."
Paul puts little relevance on who the preacher was to the Corinthians, which is devastating to the madist opinion that Paul was ordained to be the chosen minister of an exclusive gospel to the gentiles.

No he wasn't.

The "we" indicates that the other apostles preached the same message, and if the Corinthians happened to hear it first from Paul, it was no big deal. The fact that it was preached by all the apostles , and that they believed it through Paul, was all that mattered.

 

[andyc]

The original point in the OP still shows how crazy mad really is.

Could a believing gentile woman in the BOC who is not under the law, potentially cause a Jewish husband to be unclean while she is menstruating?

Paul says, For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife (1 Corinthians 7:14).

So, a husband who isn't even saved is sanctified by the believing wife, in that the marriage arrangement cannot cause offense to God, but the believing Jew cannot be sanctified by the believing wife?

LOL what craziness.

 

[DAN P]

Poor Nick has no clue about what Christ meant when He said, "It is finished."

Hi , and you know what " it is finished " means , so tell me what it means ?

Bet you can not ??:rotfl::rotfl:

dan p

 

[Angel4Truth]

If a believer who happened to be a kingdom slave had a wife who was part of the BOC, would the wife be unclean to the husband while she was menstruating?
The law states that under normal conditions the woman would be unclean for seven days, and who ever touches her would be unclean until evening. If the woman was unclean to her husband it would put her under the law. If she wasn't unclean to her husband it would negate the law.

What say you?

Ephesians 5:22 Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body.…

Her honoring her husband doesnt place her back under the law.

 

[andyc]

Ephesians 5:22 Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body.…

Her honoring her husband doesnt place her back under the law.

If she is unclean to her husband, she is under law. She is unclean. Duh

 

[Angel4Truth]

If she is unclean to her husband, she is under law. She is unclean. Duh

No, it means she is to him, why do you believe that it means she is to herself? He wont be answering for her before God, she will be answering for herself.

 

[musterion]

Let's have a look at the Madist's favorite passage of scripture - 1Cor 15:1-4

1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

The Madist reads this and says to him/herself...."this was a different gospel that was exclusively given to Paul for the gentiles", and was not revealed to the other apostles. However, Paul had explained that he was the Corinthians father in the Lord, as he was the one who brought the gospel to them.

Now lets continue on with the passage.........

5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. 11 Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.

Paul here says that, "whether it is I or they (the other apostles), so we (plural) preach, and so ye believe."

How did the Corinthians hear and believe Peter's preaching when he never made it outside of Israel?

 

[andyc]

No, it means she is to him, why do you believe that it means she is to herself? He wont be answering for her before God, she will be answering for herself.

For a woman to be bound to her husband's duty to be ceremonial clean, she would have no choice but to also fall under the same bondage for his sake.

This alone should be common sense telling you that grace and law cannot coexist. Grace and condemnation cannot coexist. This is why God has to recognize the believing mate in order to sanctify a marriage arrangement between believer and non believer.

There was no arrangement between a husband and wife where one was under law, and the other grace. This would be totally impossible.

 

[andyc]

How did the Corinthians hear and believe Peter's preaching when he never made it outside of Israel?

Paul was the one who preached to the Corinthians, we already know this. But Paul didn't put any relevance on the fact he preached the gospel to them. Mads put huge relevance on it.

 

[Angel4Truth]

For a woman to be bound to her husband's duty to be ceremonial clean, she would have no choice but to also fall under the same bondage for his sake.

This alone should be common sense telling you that grace and law cannot coexist. Grace and condemnation cannot coexist. This is why God has to recognize the believing mate in order to sanctify a marriage arrangement between believer and non believer.

There was no arrangement between a husband and wife where one was under law, and the other grace. This would be totally impossible.

What part of "it means she is to HIM, it doesnt mean she is to herself. They each answer for themselves before God.

You are pretending she isnt a person and is under whatever he chooses to be and she has no mind and heart of her own.

By your ridiculous claim that has no basis in reality, then a christian woman married to an atheist, is also no longer a christian but under disbelief, see how idiotic your op is?

 

[andyc]

What part of "it means she is to HIM, it doesnt mean she is to herself. They each answer for themselves before God.

You are pretending she isnt a person and is under whatever he chooses to be and she has no mind and heart of her own.

By your ridiculous claim that has no basis in reality, then a christian woman married to an atheist, is also no longer a christian but under disbelief, see how idiotic your op is?

Surely you can't be this naive?
If a husband must stay away from his wife because she is making him unclean, then she is the one unclean. If she is unclean to her husband, she comes under the bondage of the Mosaic law. She must be conscious of everything she does, or it could cause him to be ceremonially unclean.

This is bondage. How in the world you can fight this is beyond me.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Surely you can't be this naive?
If a husband must stay away from his wife because she is making him unclean, then she is the one unclean. If she is unclean to her husband, she comes under the bondage of the Mosaic law. She must be conscious of everything she does, or it could cause him to be ceremonially unclean.

This is bondage. How in the world you can fight this is beyond me.

Surely you cant be this idiotic, to not understand that just because to HIM she is unclean, it doesnt mean she is to her.

Also pray tell what temple she is to offer a sacrifice in to end her uncleanliness, you dont even know what you are talking about.

Also who is to say she doesnt just do as he asks for his sake, how does that put her under the law, because she wants to honor her husband, your op is moronic, completely and a clear attempt to grasp at straw.

Get something better, because as long as she answers to God for herself and believes HERSELF that she MUST follow the law (instead of doing as her husband asks to honor HIM) then this is a non issue, since what He chooses doesnt place her under law, except to HIM, and apparantly to you, who pretends she has no heart and mind before God for herself.

 

[andyc]

Surely you cant be this idiotic, to not understand that just because to HIM she is unclean, it doesnt mean she is to her.

It doesn't matter if she is only unclean to the husband. She still comes under the same bondage for her husband's sake. She's still under bondage.

Also pray tell what temple she is to offer a sacrifice in to end her uncleanliness, you dont even know what you are talking about.

She offers nothing because she's a believer.

Also who is to say she doesnt just do as he asks for his sake, how does that put her under the law, because she wants to honor her husband, your op is moronic, completely and a clear attempt to grasp at straw.

LOL
When you think of law, you only think of the moral aspect of the law. This was not bondage. It was the constant reminder of being imperfect in the flesh, being constantly reminded that the flesh is corrupt and cursed.

Get something better, because as long as she answers to God for herself and believes HERSELF that she MUST follow the law (instead of doing as her husband asks to honor HIM) then this is a non issue, since what He chooses doesnt place her under law, except to HIM, and apparantly to you, who pretends she has no heart and mind before God for herself.

LOL
Being bound to the ceremonial law for his sake, is being bound to the law. How can the woman have no condemnation if she makes her husband unclean?
Get real.

The OP stands as valid, but Jesus already explained that law and grace cannot coexist.

Matthew 9:16-17
"No one puts a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; for the patch pulls away from the garment, and the tear is made worse. "Nor do they put new wine into old wineskins, or else the wineskins break, the wine is spilled, and the wineskins are ruined. But they put new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved."

This passage should read, "No one puts an unshrunk cloth on an old garment, except the madists".

 

[Angel4Truth]

It doesn't matter if she is only unclean to the husband. She still comes under the same bondage for her husband's sake. She's still under bondage.

No, she isnt if she is just honoring her husband and do not believe she is compelled to follow the law because she believes HERSELF under it.

:doh:

Again, your idiotic stance would then also apply to a female believer married to a male atheist.

You are pretending her covenant with God, is His. They arent.

Unless she believes she HAS to follow it, how is she in bondage for not making Him stumble and honoring Him?

 

[musterion]

But Paul didn't put any relevance on the fact he preached the gospel to them. Mads put huge relevance on it.

He didn't?

 

[andyc]

No, she isnt if she is just honoring her husband and do not believe she is compelled to follow the law because she believes HERSELF under it.

:doh:

Again, your idiotic stance would then also apply to a female believer married to a male atheist.

You are pretending her covenant with God, is His. They arent.

What would it be like to live with someone who had to stay away from you while you were menstruating, had to be careful to observe all dietary laws, sabbath laws, sacrificial laws etc?

You would be forced to live under these laws for your husband's sake. If you messed up, you could make him unclean. Therefore your conscience would be bound for the sake of your husband, not your own. But if you loved your husband, you would share the respectability. This is bondage.