ECT Musterion is typically mistaken

[Interplanner]

Because the Jews had Ps 16, 2, 22, 110, Is 53, Dan 9!!! Look at how the apostles were taught to use Zechariah! It's got all kinds of lines that disclose what's going on.

BEHOLD THE LAMB OF GOD means that Christ's purpose, before he starts any ministry, is to provide a righteous sacrifice that appeases God.

If you don't get that...you're with the disciples!!! but don't worry, we'll move you along.

Sorry, long day, injured shoulderblade, too. See you tomorrow.

 

[musterion]

Still not understanding your anger.

It is a fact that Peter rebuked Christ when He said He was going to die. And that was well after John 3:16.

That means that, even at that relatively late point, the disciples did not know any of what you are now backfilling into John 3:16, which is a sign of badly handling the Scriptures.

 

[musterion]

I think it's best you close this thread now.

 

[Interplanner]

Still not understanding your anger.

It is a fact that Peter rebuked Christ when He said He was going to die. And that was well after John 3:16.

That means that, even at that relatively late point, the disciples did not know any of what you are now backfilling into John 3:16, which is a sign of badly handling the Scriptures.

'See the Lamb of God' was before that. 'Name him Jesus/Joshua who will save us from our sins' was before that.

You are trying to read the bible with D'ism's anachronistic concerns. The gospels are not there for us to 'chase threads of thinking' down but as the authoritative statement of the apostles of the Gospel. This is the error of D'ism. D'ism thinks they are material to be shuffled, mere raw materials needing 're-organizing' (to fit 2P2P).

The reality of the Gospel is that it is completely foreign to what our human minds would put forward AS THE DIRECTION OF THE OT PROPHETS which was burning issue of that time, because the 490 years was near completion and Messiah was due. Jn 12:34--the average member of Judaism expected a restored theocracy. They were 'darkness'--assuming you agree with the passage that Christ was the Light!

D'ism tinkers in its laboratory of re-assembly and second-guessing instead of mastering the 2500 uses of the OT by the NT. I find their writers and speakers either completely unaware of quotes of the OT or in opposition to what the apostles said. Why is that? Why is it common to attend a Bible study of Amos and the heck if the leader is ever going to mention Acts 15 and mess it all up?

 

[tetelestai]

I'm asking you about John 3:16, which contains none of that doctrine but which Tet says is by itself sufficient to save a lost person if they believe it.

So I ask you again, do you agree with him?

Why don't you use my first answer Rom 10:9, since you claim to be a follower of Paul?


(Rom 10:9) If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

You deny that Rom 10:9 can save an unbeliever today.

 

[Interplanner]

Here is where Climate Sanity ended in the closed thread:

Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
More of your legalism.

Paul didn't present the gospel the way you claim the gospel has to be presented.

John 3:16 proves you wrong, as does Luke 7:50, as does Luke 23:43

You are adding to faith.


CLIMATE SANITY: You don't know the gospel.



We have a problem here folks, where if you look at the full picture in each passage, there is the teaching of forgiveness, about condemnation and addressing that, etc, in each passage. And it is not 'direct' forgiveness (as though God would just forgive apart from Christ), because the sacrifice of Christ is always taken into account.

Musterion has taken a 'gotcha' stance of ignoring such things, and I don't know where he has the right to do that nor to say that Tet is singling out what is in fact a singling by Musterion.

Tet has nothing to answer. Musterion and CS need to answer why they are shredding the passages.

We cannot take the view that our singling is how the original event or conversation sounded. That is clearly what Must and CS are projecting here. We have to know about all the conversation there.

Even with the thief on the cross, there is no disproof that the complete explanation of why Christ was letting this happen to himself was missing, and that the event was an irrational cartoon-like meaningless event out of nowhere. He knew enough about the kingdom to mention it!

Pouncing for singling is modernity on the brain in a really awful way. It is a way of darkening things, of not realizing how the people were up to speed on what was happening--even though the apostles had tons of difficulty accepting it, to their embarrassment.

 

[patrick jane]

IP is stoned

 

[Interplanner]

I'm not the one assuming that John 3:16 is all by itself and was never to be read with 17-21.

 

[tetelestai]

Musterion and CS need to answer why they are shredding the passages.

MADists have an agenda.

They claim only 1 Cor 15:1-4 can save a person today.

With their claim, they then go on and on and on and on about how Peter, nor anyone else preached 1 Cor 15:1-4 before Paul.

Once they establish that 1 Cor 15:1-4 is the only way people are saved today, they then claim there were two gospels, and how Peter's audience is in another "program".

It's all about their "two gospel" theory, and how Paul was the first person in the BOC. Without these claims, their MAD falls apart.

So, they can't have anything but 1 Cor 15:1-4 saving anyone today, not even Rom 10:9, or their MAD falls apart.

 

[whitestone]

Here is where Climate Sanity ended in the closed thread:

Quote Originally Posted by tetelestai View Post
More of your legalism.

Paul didn't present the gospel the way you claim the gospel has to be presented.

John 3:16 proves you wrong, as does Luke 7:50, as does Luke 23:43

You are adding to faith.


CLIMATE SANITY: You don't know the gospel.



We have a problem here folks, where if you look at the full picture in each passage, there is the teaching of forgiveness, about condemnation and addressing that, etc, in each passage. And it is not 'direct' forgiveness (as though God would just forgive apart from Christ), because the sacrifice of Christ is always taken into account.

Musterion has taken a 'gotcha' stance of ignoring such things, and I don't know where he has the right to do that nor to say that Tet is singling out what is in fact a singling by Musterion.

Tet has nothing to answer. Musterion and CS need to answer why they are shredding the passages.

We cannot take the view that our singling is how the original event or conversation sounded. That is clearly what Must and CS are projecting here. We have to know about all the conversation there.

Even with the thief on the cross, there is no disproof that the complete explanation of why Christ was letting this happen to himself was missing, and that the event was an irrational cartoon-like meaningless event out of nowhere. He knew enough about the kingdom to mention it!

Pouncing for singling is modernity on the brain in a really awful way. It is a way of darkening things, of not realizing how the people were up to speed on what was happening--even though the apostles had tons of difficulty accepting it, to their embarrassment.

Out of fairness,because I see you trying to be open minded and not force things where they don't really fit I'll say this. Go to MAD doesn't follow Paul,,,go to page 56 find post #832 and see what he said five months ago about the same issue.

Then look at page 11(same thread) and find post #162 and see what was said about who the beast was. Notice that five months ago the answer was " I don't know,or could be". I took him on his word and moved along. Be careful whose advice you choose to follow,,,

 

[tetelestai]

Out of fairness,because I see you trying to be open minded and not force things where they don't really fit I'll say this. Go to MAD doesn't follow Paul,,,go to page 56 find post #832 and see what he said five months ago about the same issue.

Then look at page 11(same thread) and find post #162 and see what was said about who the beast was. Notice that five months ago the answer was " I don't know,or could be". I took him on his word and moved along. Be careful whose advice you choose to follow,,,

More deception.

The beast in Revelation is described as a nation, as seven kings, and as a man.

So when I say "I don't know, or could be" and then say Nero was, it's only because the Revelation describes the beast several different ways.

You are a typical Darby follower. You are not interested in discussing things, you only are interested in trying to attack the person you see as proving your Dispensationalism wrong.

You're only goal is to catch me in a "gotcha". If you can catch me in a "gotcha", then in your mind, everything I post about Dispensationalism is wrong because of your "gotcha".

That's what you, Little Johnny, mysterboy, and other MADists spend all your time trying to do because none of you guys can defend Darby's false teachings.

 

[Interplanner]

People have been given some conscience and light about these things direct from God, no matter how many scriptures they have encountered. That direct light is
1, that this is God's world and we are accountable to him; the alternative is chaos
2, divine justice will take place, and there has to be perfection to make things right. A credit figure must match the debt figure. The alternative is chaos.

Life does not make sense without these at least. Granted, some people have abandoned these but they have also abandoned what they use every day--the gift of reasoning. That's what Schaeffer meant about the modern situation. It is contradictory, because no one ever totally abandones their reason. A 'modern' filmmaker once scrapped his film about the total senselessness of modern life, BECAUSE HE REALIZED HE WAS STILL TRYING TO MAKE SENSE!

The NT Gospel of course is the perfect expression or logos of these things, with the perfect sacrifice being given and offered even to a thief on a Roman cross with an hour to live and no possibility of righting his human wrongs. But many people, before and after the Gospel events, have believed only these two things and are saved with a very incomplete understanding of Christ and the Gospel events.

This is a completely different statement from those you would find in modern liberal denominations where paganism is embraced etc without examination.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Yes it contains that doctrine. God loved the world, so he sent his son as a sacrifice for sins.

What you are missing is the apostles powerful preaching of the resurrection. It is not merely that it happened. It is that Christ's resurrection is proof of God's approval on our behalf. His life was perfect enough to pay our debt. That's why the Rom 10 on 'that God has raised him from the dead' is disclosing more than you think.

I don't trust YOUR comprehension of these things at this point, so I'm a bit amused that you think you have Tet over a barrel.

TeT is a crazed Preterest. Are you, as well?

 

[whitestone]

More deception.

The beast in Revelation is described as a nation, as seven kings, and as a man.

So when I say "I don't know, or could be" and then say Nero was, it's only because the Revelation describes the beast several different ways.

You are a typical Darby follower. You are not interested in discussing things, you only are interested in trying to attack the person you see as proving your Dispensationalism wrong.

You're only goal is to catch me in a "gotcha". If you can catch me in a "gotcha", then in your mind, everything I post about Dispensationalism is wrong because of your "gotcha".

That's what you, Little Johnny, mysterboy, and other MADists spend all your time trying to do because none of you guys can defend Darby's false teachings.

Never the less Tet You owe Stripe 50 bucks. You five months ago did not know the answer to either of the two questions and since then you have gone through a metamorphosis(making it up as you go).

You said it could be "Nero or a Jew"(again you didn't know 5 months ago)then you googled it or something and since then you take a "Hugo Grotious/Hammond" stance,which R.Fleming,the younger refuted in 1701-1703. You say you don't follow men but when you need to we see that you do. Your doing the same thing you did with the mark now with soteriology and its not fair for I.P. to not be aware of it.

On the going market value there are five I.P.'s to one Tet but you try to have him think you are the greater and he is the lesser. Now I don't envision myself going preterit or nothing but if I did I would not think to take any advice from you I would seek a further advanced specimen than you.

I men no offense in saying this to you but if you don't know five months ago how is it that you are now the master of knowledge on the matter? Let I.P. reason through it on his own he's a big boy whose a lot smarter than you,,,,pay Stripe "you make it up as you go".

 

[tetelestai]

Your doing the same thing you did with the mark now with soteriology and its not fair for I.P. to not be aware of it.

Once again, you're trying to make it all about me. Just like Little Johnny W tries.

I don't know who the beast was when in the context of a man. I don't who the beast was in the context of the seven kings. I do believe the beast was Rome when in the context of a nation.

For some reason you can't understand that because you have been brainwashed by Dispensationalism, and believe the beast is one man who is called the anti-Christ, who comes in the future.

Salvation is by grace through faith. What I don't do is claim only 1 Cor 15:1-4 can save a person like MADists do.

MADists do this in order to support their two gospel theory.

 

[whitestone]

lol, And you say all this when I just spent the last few post helping I.P. who is not of my camp? Your right in that I will defend mine own,,,but when I help I.P.(another camp) see something he doesn't know about you I'm unfair? your lucky I didn't bet you 50 bucks about that (whether or not I would be unfair),I could use the last several post in defense. Let Musterion and I.P. reason through it,I do enjoy watching a good preacher at work.

 

[tetelestai]

Your right in that I will defend mine own,,,

There's your #1 problem.

You only care about defending your fellow Darby followers. In doing so, you don't care what the scriptures actually say.

It's more important to you to "win".

but when I help I.P.(another camp) see something he doesn't know about you I'm unfair?

You took what I said out of context. You did the same thing with the "prophetic clock", because you are so desperate to catch me in a "gotcha".

Even after I clarified to you just now about the beast, you still say: " something he doesn't know about you ".

Like I said, your just another typical Darby follower who can't defend Darby's false teachings, and then goes on a personal attack because you have no other alternative.

 

[tetelestai]

see something he doesn't know about you I'm unfair?

Why are you obsessed with me?

Since May 10th, you have quoted 31 posts.

Of those 31 posts, 26 of them were either my quotes, or quotes by others about me.

IOW, in the last 12 days, you have spent 84% of your time on TOL replying only to my quotes, or quotes by others about me.

And, the other 16% of your quotes (except for one quote),are only in threads about Preterism that I am participating in.

 

[whitestone]

Why are you obsessed with me?

Since May 10th, you have quoted 31 posts.

Of those 31 posts, 26 of them were either my quotes, or quotes by others about me.

IOW, in the last 12 days, you have spent 84% of your time on TOL replying only to my quotes, or quotes by others about me.

And, the other 16% of your quotes (except for one quote),are only in threads about Preterism that I am participating in.

lol, well I'll beat no bones about it,glance down through the threads on ECT at all the "Madist don't","dispensationist this",Darby followers that, ect.ect. and put yourself in our shoes.

As I said you took up the go at them all with the shotgun approach and so all you did was call down on yourself every camp of dispensationist at once. If you don't want all of us to come at you at once don't do it. If you put yourself in our shoes were being stalked by you,and when you've had enough let us all know.

 

[patrick jane]

Why are you obsessed with me?

Since May 10th, you have quoted 31 posts.

Of those 31 posts, 26 of them were either my quotes, or quotes by others about me.

IOW, in the last 12 days, you have spent 84% of your time on TOL replying only to my quotes, or quotes by others about me.

And, the other 16% of your quotes (except for one quote),are only in threads about Preterism that I am participating in.

Sounds like YOU are obsessed with him since you did all that math !!! Face it, you're the resident preterist and thus anti Christ in nature, so you're bound to get lots of replies.