The ME fallacy's false inheritance

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.

 

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.

 

Why not start a new thread where you show those Pauline texts support ME doctrine?

 

You're not getting off that easy. My love is conditional. Prove why it is necessary first and then I'm your homie!

 

I'll just post on your thread where you prove the Pauline dispensationalist theory from Paul's own hand.

 

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

 

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.

 

ROFLOL!!!!

 

Paul does not speak of Millenial Exclusion in either of those verses, JJump. You only insert that false doctrine into those verses.

 

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.

 

If you cannot understan the import of Paul in forming one's theology, then I cannot help you.

 

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.

 

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. . . .

 

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?

 

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. . . .

 

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!!!

 

In answer to the original request (or challenge): "Demonstrate ME theology through the teachings of Paul," your statement is both non sequitor, and nonsensical.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.