You harbor at least one demon, maybe more.
ECT MADist thought for the day
- Thread starter andyc
- Start date
- Status
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
:chuckle:
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
LA, the Great Beheader?
LA; besides your obviously different understanding of various issues; what is your beef with Dispys that you feel so compelled to say things about Dispys and or the origin of Dispensationalism and or its original intent; that are simply not true?
I mean; you rightly take great issue when others make things up about you, and or when you conclude they have - why then, as someone who claims Christ; would you allow yourself to do that to others, in return?
Is it your belief that two wrongs make a right?
I know it is not mine.
For here I am attempting to reason with you well aware I myself am no angel.
Even if I were worse; you still have no excuse for allowing yourself to go there.
Yours is still your responsibility, and still within your power; as much as mine is; within mine.
What say you we both stick to the issues?
It is difficult enough to attempt to reason with someone who's views so appear the result of the writings of men read by such an individual, into the Scriptures.
That right there is enough of a problem in need of careful, mutual scrutiny, without the added distraction of lies about the origin of another's view and or about their supposedly actual intent.
I say all this well aware that some only end up proving theirs actually is a false agenda when an appeal such as this is made to them.
Eppiosis proved as much, when I made appeal to them; as have others in the past.
The ball is in your court.
In fact; in both our courts.
Likewise with all others...
I mean; you rightly take great issue when others make things up about you, and or when you conclude they have - why then, as someone who claims Christ; would you allow yourself to do that to others, in return?
Is it your belief that two wrongs make a right?
I know it is not mine.
For here I am attempting to reason with you well aware I myself am no angel.
Even if I were worse; you still have no excuse for allowing yourself to go there.
Yours is still your responsibility, and still within your power; as much as mine is; within mine.
What say you we both stick to the issues?
It is difficult enough to attempt to reason with someone who's views so appear the result of the writings of men read by such an individual, into the Scriptures.
That right there is enough of a problem in need of careful, mutual scrutiny, without the added distraction of lies about the origin of another's view and or about their supposedly actual intent.
I say all this well aware that some only end up proving theirs actually is a false agenda when an appeal such as this is made to them.
Eppiosis proved as much, when I made appeal to them; as have others in the past.
The ball is in your court.
In fact; in both our courts.
Likewise with all others...
The only thing you show is your ignorance.
Yeah, she's good at that.
Very well; I know I tried to explore these issues with you, just now.
All you have done is proven that accusations against you just might have some merit after all.
:doh:
Your "Paranoia" is well known around these parts.
LA is our "in-house" paranoid.
Learn how to "Rightly Divide" the word. Hebrews was pertaining to the "Hebrews." You're better at Paranoia than at understanding the Bible. If I was you, I'd stick with your "Paranoia" and leave everything else to others.
Have it your way...
LA sounds like "Captain Quegg" in, "The Caine Mutiny."
LA thinks everybody is lying to her. We're all out to deceive her, according to her Paranoia.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Everyone in the world faces death and the coming judgement of God. What is particular in Hebrews is that that 1st century generation was going to see the last event of the old covenant in the destruction of the country. Just because it was written to them with that in mind does not mean a ton of things apply to the rest of us.
andyc
New member
Here's another one of those obvious points that sail of the heads of the mads.....
Let's look at what the apostle John said about receiving grace.....
John 1:12-14
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
So to the people who received Jesus, he gave them the right to become children of God. This obviously means that they were not children of God before Jesus came. Why not? Well he tells us, doesn't he? To be a child of God, you have to be born of God, which is talking about a spiritual birth, as Jesus explained in John 3.
And so as a son of God, John couldn't be under the law, could he?
As Paul says.....
Gal 4:4-7 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world. But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, "Abba, Father!" Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.
And so we see that a son cannot be a slave, can he? Therefore John, as a son, was not under the law, was he?
But it gets more obvious than this (unless you're mad of course).
John 1:14-17
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. John bore witness of Him and cried out, saying, "This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me is preferred before me, for He was before me.’" And of His fullness we have all received, and grace for grace. For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
John explains that he beheld the glory of Christ as the Son of God, as being full of grace and truth, and went on to confess that he had received of Christ's fullness. This means that the fullness of grace was transferred to John, because the sonship was also transferred to John.
Hebrews 2:10 For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory.
And so John is saying that Jesus brought John to the glory he had seen in Christ.
And to finish off, John added, "the law came through Moses, but grace came through Jesus". John received the fullness of that grace, which means he was no longer under the law.
John was not under the law, which is absolutely obvious unless your a mad nutter.
Let's look at what the apostle John said about receiving grace.....
John 1:12-14
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
So to the people who received Jesus, he gave them the right to become children of God. This obviously means that they were not children of God before Jesus came. Why not? Well he tells us, doesn't he? To be a child of God, you have to be born of God, which is talking about a spiritual birth, as Jesus explained in John 3.
And so as a son of God, John couldn't be under the law, could he?
As Paul says.....
Gal 4:4-7 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world. But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, "Abba, Father!" Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.
And so we see that a son cannot be a slave, can he? Therefore John, as a son, was not under the law, was he?
But it gets more obvious than this (unless you're mad of course).
John 1:14-17
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. John bore witness of Him and cried out, saying, "This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me is preferred before me, for He was before me.’" And of His fullness we have all received, and grace for grace. For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
John explains that he beheld the glory of Christ as the Son of God, as being full of grace and truth, and went on to confess that he had received of Christ's fullness. This means that the fullness of grace was transferred to John, because the sonship was also transferred to John.
Hebrews 2:10 For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory.
And so John is saying that Jesus brought John to the glory he had seen in Christ.
And to finish off, John added, "the law came through Moses, but grace came through Jesus". John received the fullness of that grace, which means he was no longer under the law.
John was not under the law, which is absolutely obvious unless your a mad nutter.
You seem to forget something Andy, my boy. Both John and Hebrews were speaking to "Non-Gentiles." Do you catch my drift, pal?
Interplanner
Well-known member
There's no basis for saying that. That is a vestige of 2P2P dying out because it is a fraud that was generated by D'ism.
- Status