SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
He's pathetic.
ECT The Christocentricity of Acts 13
- Thread starter Interplanner
- Start date
He's pathetic.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Since another thread on the accusation at Paul re resurrection in Acts 26 is so similar to this one, let me put the question here as well: what else about the resurrection beside the brute breaking of the power of death was an issue that made Judaism furious as Paul related the resurrection of Christ to the hope of Israel?
musterion
Well-known member
What's the point of reading your posts? They're in English.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Somewhat...
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Correct. He does not know any ancient Greek, he only knows what he has read in commentaries.
On the contrary - it is obvious he is very well versed in the Greek of that time.
Problem is that THAT ALONE is not enough.
This is one of the very same reasons behind why even a DanP or a Jerry Shugart, and so on, so often fail to prove one or another assertion of theirs - even when attempting to present a case for one or another Mid-Acts understanding.
In this, I'm reminded of an audio one of your pals on here, posted a link to me on, sometime back.
In that audio, it was evident the speaker had OVER relied on Strong's for his definition of the word "heresy" as used by the Apostle Paul, in 1 Cor. 11.
In contrast to relying on the Basic Principle of simply asking oneself 'what was this writer talking about before he then made use of this or that word? And what is he talking about after his use of it?"
As I recall, Paul was talking about divisive divisions between the Corinthians.
Divisions he in basically the same breath also referred to as herecies that nevertheless had the result of making stand out who among them was the one actually approved of God - as - to - right conduct.
In other words, how a word is used, in light of what is being talked about, etc., is often much more reliable than relying on the original language.
In this, IP's is not his lack of expertise In the Greek that is in his way, rather; his OVER reliance on it, together with his just as obvious OVER reliance on commentaries slanted towards the view he has basically embraced as his own - a hybrid largely, of Reformed Theology and Partial Preterism (together with his adaptations, here and there).
Rom. 5:8
Acts 17:11,12
musterion
Well-known member
As opposed to unifying divisions?
You mean you can't think of a unifying division taught in Scripture?
lol - some "MAD" you are.
Rom. 5:8
Acts 17:11,12
lol, again.
For you must be aware by now, of how often Scripture does that very thing.
Rom. 5:8
Acts 17:11,12
whitestone
Well-known member
lol, put your mind to the test on the matter. Take this Greek and get him to tell us one of the words and I promise,,, https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...xy._LXVI_4499.jpg/250px-P._Oxy._LXVI_4499.jpg I'll give you another...
Interplanner
Well-known member
I don't strain at making the Greek words function literally. There is too much idiom, metaphor, innovation going on. There is no substitute for reading in it for hours. You'll get closer in English, but in the original you will start to see other things going on.
Danoh has never named a single commentary, nor has STP in 2 years, just like none of the MAD people have ever given a definitive handle for what they believe. Yet they feel quite free to quote their own fav writers. For some reason, they don't accept Ryrie's shot at it (two peoples, two programs) even though that is the bottom line and the big mistake of itall.
Danoh has never named a single commentary, nor has STP in 2 years, just like none of the MAD people have ever given a definitive handle for what they believe. Yet they feel quite free to quote their own fav writers. For some reason, they don't accept Ryrie's shot at it (two peoples, two programs) even though that is the bottom line and the big mistake of itall.
musterion
Well-known member
MADs can and do make the basic case for our beliefs straight from Scripture with appeals to no one. You may reject the case we make, but we can make it. That's what Gerstner found so distasteful. That's why Reformed philosophers and cultists hate mixing it up with MADs...they want to appeal to sources other than the Bible to make their cases. We don't bother. They find it irritating, narrow and unsophisticated. We're just fine with that.
You are unable to make your case from the Bible alone, as it lays in context. So was Tet. So are all preterists.
You don't even want to try because you seem to not LIKE the Bible.
Like all cults, preterism starts with an unbiblical assumption, superimposes that assumption onto the Bible, then twists it to make the Bible arrive at the conclusions assumed from the start.
MAD does not do that.
You = eisegesis.
Us = exegesis.
You = deductive.
Us = inductive.
I don't know if you realize this but on the rare occasions you talk about why you believe what you believe, you always disparage the Bible. You really don't have faith in the Bible. You DO have faith in what men tell you God said.
When you turn out to be wrong - and you will - do you really think your faith in men will be an excuse before the Throne when you are judged for denying His revealed will?
Will He allow you to call all of those commentary writers to your defense?
Will He condemn them for misleading you?
Will He cut you slack for simply not trusting the Bible, which you don't?
All of the above is rhetorical. We already know there's no point in even asking you honest questions. You have no honest answers except that you simply do not trust the Bible.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
:chuckle:
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Send us a copy of your originals.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Must wrote:
You are unable to make your case from the Bible alone, as it lays in context. So was Tet. So are all preterists.
You don't even want to try because you seem to not LIKE the Bible.
I won't read any further because for 2 years I have listed the chapters of support, and I love it. You are a disgusting and inattentive conversationalist.
the chapter list goes: Gal 3, 4, Rom 4, 5, 9-11, 15, Heb 8-10, Acts 13, 26.
For 2 bloody years.
I do not find any questions or assertions about these passages dealt with satisfactorily by anything I find in D'ism. I find an artificial system constantly blocking the natural meaning and clinging to a few prooftexts.
Prooftexts means: soundbytes in a passage but opposed to the flow of the passage. For ex., where Rom 11 is entirely against operating on a race-based election, D'ism throws it at the text through the one line, destroying what "saved" means in Rom 11 and all of Paul.
There is no point in reading your Goebellian bludgeoning of my position further.
You are unable to make your case from the Bible alone, as it lays in context. So was Tet. So are all preterists.
You don't even want to try because you seem to not LIKE the Bible.
I won't read any further because for 2 years I have listed the chapters of support, and I love it. You are a disgusting and inattentive conversationalist.
the chapter list goes: Gal 3, 4, Rom 4, 5, 9-11, 15, Heb 8-10, Acts 13, 26.
For 2 bloody years.
I do not find any questions or assertions about these passages dealt with satisfactorily by anything I find in D'ism. I find an artificial system constantly blocking the natural meaning and clinging to a few prooftexts.
Prooftexts means: soundbytes in a passage but opposed to the flow of the passage. For ex., where Rom 11 is entirely against operating on a race-based election, D'ism throws it at the text through the one line, destroying what "saved" means in Rom 11 and all of Paul.
There is no point in reading your Goebellian bludgeoning of my position further.
I'll concede a small fraction of what IP said there, in that first paragraph.
As for that second paragraph - it is nonsense.
Not only have I dealt with IP on one or another of his, specific, favorite books "about" but John W has often posted images of book covers of the very kinds of endless books "about" that bookworms like IP clearly OVER rely on, endlessly.
Theirs is the very "scholastic mysticism" such are not only ever so enamoured with, but from which such express their shock, whenever such encounter anyone who prefers relying much more on Scripture, in contrast to their OVER relying on their ever endless books "about."
Guess what, bookworm - your mysticism is nothing new.
Try this...
Acts 19:18 And many that believed came, and confessed, and shewed their deeds. 19:19 Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together, and burned them before all men: and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver.
That is, if you actually have this - Acts 19:20 So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed.
In other words, bookworms, this - Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
In honor of this - Rom. 5:8
In short, stick to this - Acts 17:11,12.
That is to say, actually Believe this - 2 Tim. 3:16,17.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
:chuckle:
Interplanner
Well-known member
See you in 3 months at best.