ClimateSanity
New member
Grammar doesn't necessarily come with brilliance.
I could not care less.....I cannot bring myself to care the least amount.
I could care less......i care more than the minimum possible.
ECT The mission to the nations has been known for generations
- Thread starter Interplanner
- Start date
Grammar doesn't necessarily come with brilliance.
I could not care less.....I cannot bring myself to care the least amount.
I could care less......i care more than the minimum possible.
ClimateSanity
New member
Not the least amount or he would say... couldn't care less.
Til his next post and or thread :chuckle:
It's odd how his kind end up so obsessed with what they claim they could not care less about.
Must be like an addiction like quiting smoking or drinking or something - the ol "I'm not hooked; I can quit whenever I want to" :rotfl:
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Why do you spend so much time on MAD, then?
Interplanner
Well-known member
To get people to reject it, so that they are excited about the historic Gospel and speak about it instead of thinking the bible is a Rubic's cube that some guy in 1800 "finally solved." The historic Gospel is that the resurrection of Christ for justification from our sins fulfills the promises to Israel, Acts 13:32+. No amount of MAD material whatsoever helps in the spread of that, which is our mission. I don't know what MAD's mission is except to prop themselves up as 'got it all figured out' and I don't care. This is why they are so defensive about it and calling people fools and idiots on a regular basis. sorry, but it reminds me of Judaism.
No, it is because you ARE a fool and an idiot.
Proverbs 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
Romans 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: 11:27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. 11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. 11:29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
Luke 24:25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
That is you and your so called "doing the history" (short for an overreliance on endless books "about") - a fool - in his slowness of heart to believe all that the prophets had spoken concerning Who it was that would make the land promise possible at last.
Hebrews 4:8 For if Jesus (Joshua) had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. 4:9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.
Your mess is the very origin of the Preterist notions you hold to - its' very origin, the need to go outside Scripture in search of answers, out of a need to solve for seeming contradictions as a result of your school's mishandling of Romans 9-11.
But, as you have admitted; you "could care less."
Obviously, here you still are, caring less :chuckle:
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
As long as you call 1 Cor 15:1-4 (KJV) the "historic gospel" you will not have any problems with MAD wackos.
He knows we're right and we're smarter. He's jealous
ClimateSanity
New member
The historic gospel is no gospel at all, it mixes law and grace. We have always been excited about the gospel of our salvation that only Paul talks about and the only one that can save today. We cannot get excited about a gospel that is no gospel at all.
ClimateSanity
New member
Agreed. But his historic gospel complicates 1 Corinthians 15:1-4.
Interplanner
Well-known member
??? what is this about? Why are you putting down the historic gospel? You must not have read the sermon of Acts 13, there is no mixing of those two things at all. Every thing you've said in this paragraph is spurious.
If you think that the historic mixes rather than fulfills the law (through Christ on our behalf), then that is what you must unlearn. Or if you think Paul ruined eschatology by saying what he did in that sermon--that the resurrection fulfills all the promises. That's your problem to correct.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Acts 13 was Paul. What utter fools you are.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Please work on your grammar; it is horrible. "...you'd know what 'climate sanity' he was referring to"
That was a play on his name o clueless one.
Who doesn't know Acts 13 was Paul?
Look! Look! He actually got one thing right about Acts 13, and another about the MADs.
Yep, Acts 13 was Paul, and yep, the MADs are fools for Christ.
Okay, back to your endless errors :chuckle:
Interplanner
Well-known member
then the paragraph by CS is completely irrational. Paul's Gospel is the historic gospel I was referring to, which CS trashed, and you validated CS.
If you can't pay attention to a track of thought here, please quit.
You are in constant celebration of your intelligence, sort of like Hilary, and unable to gauge what is being said.
Instead of clarity, I just get more of your self-celebration that "I know MAD" and "MAD is the answer." To what? CS's paragraph is self-destructive. Only Paul's historic Gospel in Acts 13 is the good news.
Problem is, we each mean something different when we each assert "historic" this or that.
I am at least aware of that. You are not.
You think you are right because you think you are.
You have yet proven you actually are.
You can't because you hold to an approach and I hold to another :crackup:
This is also the case within your different understanding on some things from that of the understanding of your fellow Preterists, and vice versa.
As it is within the different understandings on some things between MADs.
You hold that, Matt. 24B: Christ did not return. Some of your own hold otherwise.
I hold that Romans 2:17 is referring to unbelieving sons of Jacob. Some MADs hold that Paul is referring to Gentiles as proselytes.
Round and round we all go.
I figure I might as well take all views in from a sense of humour.
You, well; you do your thing - misunderstand :chuckle:
Interplanner
Well-known member
Is there an alternative understanding of Acts 13:32? You see, it has to have the verbs promised and fulfilled in it, OK? And last I checked, Acts 13 was in history, and referring to history, not today. So the historic Gospel is right there. That reference to promise and fulfillment means the same thing as I Cor 15's 'he died for our sins and was resurrected.'. However you want to put it, they are about the same thing, OK?