Joined:
Mar 13, 2003
Messages:
2,364
Likes Received:
0
I'm not your sock inspector and JJ is not your conscience. You're just so ready to make us out to be liars.
I haven't been called a liar since yesterday. I'm starting to feel left out.
Joined:
Mar 13, 2003
Messages:
2,364
Likes Received:
0
Ddear Brother Moderator,
We're on page 29 so do we just jump over to an already open thread and fill it up or can we lock em all down when we lock this one and start a new ONE?
"ME blown outta the water" is only at 16 pages.
PS. I don't think James' interpreting parables is a ME thread per say, but no one has really dealt with the OP much.
Joined:
Sep 12, 2006
Messages:
7,373
Likes Received:
0
Lacy Evans said:
Ddear Brother Moderator,
We're on page 29 so do we just jump over to an already open thread and fill it up or can we lock em all down when we lock this one and start a new ONE?
"ME blown outta the water" is only at 16 pages.
PS. I don't think James' interpreting parables is a ME thread per say, but no one has really dealt with the OP much.
Click to expand...
Why not start a new thread where you show those Pauline texts support ME doctrine?
Joined:
Mar 13, 2003
Messages:
2,364
Likes Received:
0
You're not getting off that easy.
My love is conditional. Prove why it is necessary first and then I'm your homie!
Joined:
Mar 13, 2003
Messages:
2,364
Likes Received:
0
I'll just post on your thread where you prove the Pauline dispensationalist theory from Paul's own hand.
Joined:
Jul 21, 2006
Messages:
565
Likes Received:
0
Now that I'm back from band practice - I scanned all the references to "kingdom" in the NT and didn't see any that were obviously, by plain reading, referring to a literal, earthly, future kingdom.
So, maybe you could give me an example of one that to your way of thinking speaks of a literal, future, earthly kingdom.
Les
Joined:
Sep 12, 2006
Messages:
7,373
Likes Received:
0
1. Well, you're the ones who said that you can do it from Paul.
2. Besides, Paul is quite didactic in his approach and
most of our theology are found in Paul.
Joined:
Jul 21, 2006
Messages:
565
Likes Received:
0
Joined:
Dec 25, 2005
Messages:
9,454
Likes Received:
3
J. Jump said:
Well I just posted two that have been talked about recently SFIC, so you might think about some short-term memory aids and this coming from someone that has a terrible short-term memory these days. If I can remember talking about them, I'm sure you folks can. It's not that difficult.
Click to expand...
Paul does not speak of Millenial Exclusion in either of those verses, JJump.
You only insert that false doctrine into those verses.
Joined:
Mar 13, 2003
Messages:
2,364
Likes Received:
0
Didactic schmidactic.
You're the ones who make it imperative that we do so. I refuse to play untill I understand why it is necessary. It should be easy for one so dogmatic about Pauline revalation.
Joined:
Sep 12, 2006
Messages:
7,373
Likes Received:
0
If you cannot understan the import of Paul in forming one's theology, then I cannot help you.
Joined:
Sep 25, 2006
Messages:
13,103
Likes Received:
4
Why the silly games?
If ME is important to you and you truly want people to understand it, then post away from Paul's writings.
Joined:
Mar 13, 2003
Messages:
2,364
Likes Received:
0
It's just that I really feel it is important to form my theology from Paul, so if you could kindly prove to me from Paul's own writing that Pauline Dispensationalism is true. . . .
Joined:
Sep 12, 2006
Messages:
7,373
Likes Received:
0
1. C'mon, Lacy, I have never argued for Pauline Dispensationalism.
What do you want me to start now.
2. BTW, what does Pauline Dispensationalism have to do with ME doctrine?
Joined:
Mar 13, 2003
Messages:
2,364
Likes Received:
0
TCGreek said:
1. C'mon, Lacy, I have never argued for Pauline Dispensationalism. What do you want me to start now.
2. BTW, what does Pauline Dispensationalism have to do with ME doctrine?
Click to expand...
OK I'll rephrase:
It's just that I really feel it is important to get my theology from Paul, so if you could kindly prove to me from Paul's own writing that we can't get doctrine from the gospels, (the parables) Acts, John, Peter, or Jude. . . .
Joined:
Mar 13, 2003
Messages:
2,364
Likes Received:
0
Uh Uh Uh . . . you gotta go first. I'm ready. I got em highlighted in my Bible, but I'm waiting on you.
PS. You better hurry we're on page 30!!!
Joined:
Jul 13, 2000
Messages:
37,982
Likes Received:
137
Lacy Evans said:
OK I'll rephrase:
It's just that I really feel it is important to get my theology from Paul, so if you could kindly prove to me from Paul's own writing that we can't get doctrine from the gospels, (the parables) Acts, John, Peter, or Jude. . . .
Click to expand...
In answer to the original request (or challenge): "Demonstrate ME theology through the teachings of Paul," your statement is both non sequitor, and nonsensical.
Joined:
Sep 12, 2006
Messages:
7,373
Likes Received:
0
Lacy Evans said:
OK I'll rephrase:
It's just that I really feel it is important to get my theology from Paul, so if you could kindly prove to me from Paul's own writing that we can't get doctrine from the gospels, (the parables) Acts, John, Peter, or Jude. . . .
Click to expand...
1. Lacy, with all respect, find someone else to answer your questions.
2. I thought the challenge was reasonable, but you decided to head in another direction.
3. Well, you will have to proceed without me.
Joined:
Dec 25, 2005
Messages:
9,454
Likes Received:
3
This constant going back and forth about the ME trash is useless.
When you post the truth from the Word of God, the ME proponents are blinded to it, having their understanding darkened.
Joined:
Mar 13, 2003
Messages:
2,364
Likes Received:
0
A non sequitur (IPA: /nɑn 'sɛkwɪtə(ɹ)/) is a conversational and literary device, often used for comical purposes
There might be a bit of truth to that.
Are you going to answer my post about Mark 9 ? Or do I have to first prove Mark is canonical or some such non sequiturism.