All you have to do is generalize since there is so much wrong.
All you have to do is generalize since there is so much wrong.
Theology Club: Is MAD doctrine correct?
- Thread starter Bright Raven
- Start date
All you have to do is generalize since there is so much wrong.
All you have to do is generalize since there is so much wrong.
I have generalized before...the whole paradigm is wrong because a circ vs uncirc two gospel theory is a denial of the one true gospel that is rooted in Christ and His finished work. There are not two true post-cross gospels. Paul's issue is a ministry issue since the message and basis for it preceded his conversion. He had a unique and profound calling, but it was not to be the first sinner in the Body of Christ or the first Christian or the starter of a new gospel. The ones before him preached the risen Christ and Jew/Gentile were becoming one in Christ based on the cross, not Paul's conversion and calling.:noid:
heir
TOL Subscriber
No, you reject the form of sound words.
heir
TOL Subscriber
Where is it? What is it? Scripture, please.
Galatians 2:7 KJV
Paul went up by revelation and communicated that gospel that he preached among the Gentiles (Galatians 2:2 KJV). There would be no need to do that if they were all preaching the same gospel. They didn't perceive it until then (Galatians 2:6-9 KJV).
1 Timothy 1:16 KJV
Galatians 1:11-12 KJV
They preached resurrection, but not that "Christ died for our sins" and certainly not the gospel of Christ as the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth! Get your facts straight!
heir
TOL Subscriber
You don't even believe that the sins Christ died for were yours. I'm not your sister.
No, you said there were problems in the greek and that is why it falls apart. There is a reason you will not go to the thread and correct Meshak who says Paul says things against Jesus. Because you, like her, are a servant of satan.
He can't even tell us what Paul supposedly actually meant.
Nor can he exegete Acts 15. Let alone all the other passages that show there to be different messages being preached.
He never does, and neither do many others. We are not interpreting Paul correctly, but they can not say what he really means when he says we are dead to sin.
Shasta
Well-known member
I agree with Godrulz. Robertson is a more credible witness to the proper meaning of this text than any other that has been presented. In his time he was the foremost authority on Koine Greek in the world. The gospel of the circumcision" according to Robertson did not mean that there were two messages. He interpreted the genitive to mean that belonged to, pertained to, the Jews and Gentiles respectively in the sense that it was intended to be sent to them. This "mail" containing the same good news was addressed to two groups and each was assigned to deliver it.
The content of the message however was the same. What other "good news" is there except that about who Christ was and what He did for us? This is the same message that was foretold by the prophets in the scriptures (Romans 1:2 ) This coming of this gospel was foretold in (Isaiah 52:7, Isaiah 61:1). Jesus said that He preached this gospel ( Luke 4:16-22) The same message was preached by Paul (Romans 10:15). The Lord did not would not complicate and confuse His word by using the same scriptures to refer to two entirely different messages.
The content of the message however was the same. What other "good news" is there except that about who Christ was and what He did for us? This is the same message that was foretold by the prophets in the scriptures (Romans 1:2 ) This coming of this gospel was foretold in (Isaiah 52:7, Isaiah 61:1). Jesus said that He preached this gospel ( Luke 4:16-22) The same message was preached by Paul (Romans 10:15). The Lord did not would not complicate and confuse His word by using the same scriptures to refer to two entirely different messages.
Actually it does. And I am not surprised you go no where near the two messages and show what they are really saying.
The Lord Jesus Christ was asked what must be done to enter into life. What was his answer?
Christ died for my sins. I thought you were an Open Theist. If so, you would not hold to your simplistic, wrong view on these things. I know and love Jesus and the gospel. You have turned MAD and KJVO and hyper-grace into a cult.
Your proof texting KJV out of context without any regard to Greek word studies, etc. (Paul is chief of sinners, not the first one saved with a new gospel=hyperbole based on word study and context, not as clear in KJV, but more so in better versions; Tim.) is the problem, not me.
You are arrogant in your ignorance. I have no patience with those who negate the grace of God (Nick, heir, sozo, etc.) in a fellow believer's life, especially when it is you vs me who is wrong on these things?!
There are not problems in the Greek, but with KJVO English.
I have talked about Acts 15 in the past. You misunderstand the passage because of MAD paradigms. Peter, Paul, James, John, etc. stood together against the false Judaizers (that you have the nerve to call a second true gospel).
I am teachable, but you sound like KJVO freaks or JWs or Mormons. Why would I compromise evidence based convictions for a false view?! Using your logic, you are unteachable when you cling to error in the face of truth.
Let me translate. He will take it back, therefore he is not dead to sin.
Apparently you've never read Acts 15.
Really? When Christ died, I mean at the exact moment He died, were your sins forgiven?
What makes Paul the chief of sinners?
No one here negates the grace of God in the life of any other person. The issue is that we don't believe you've accepted His grace.
Why did the council raise an issue then when Paul explained to them the message he was preaching among the Gentiles? Why did Peter have to quell them if Paul was preaching the same exact message? And why did they end up asking that Paul at the least preached a few things they did? Mind you, Paul ended up preaching the opposite on at least a couple of those things.
If I'm reading it wrongly then why don't you explain to me what it truly means?
Are you forgetting that I used to agree with you on this subject?
I changed my view when faced with the actual text of Scripture. You can't even be bothered to post Scripture to make your case.
So I have your words and I have Scripture. Which one do you think I'm going to believe?
Shasta
Well-known member
Very often in these forums people will want to move away from the subject at hand without even addressing it. This is why the debates often go nowhere. You have not responded to some issues that were raised and therefore I am not ready to leave them yet.
1. The most conservative and accurate way to interpret the scriptures if to do the work of exegesis and consult the original languages before any attempt is made fit into a wider doctrinal framework. You attempted to make a point using the terms "Apostle of the gentiles, "Apostle of the Jews" Godrulz cited A. T. Robertson who is the consummate expert in First Century Greek. The genetive case can mean pertaining to or belonging to but because each received a message meant to be taken to their respective audiences does not mean the message was different. This is what Robertson said.
3. Jesus claimed to speak the "good news" as later did Paul, . Both quoting the same passages in the OT. Are we to believe that the single word "good news" had two different meanings to the ancients even when the word was taken from the same verses? What kind of hermeneutical confusion would this have engendered. The NT writers would have had to explain in detail the differences between the two gospels so readers could compare and contrast them. As far as I can tell though the content of the two (supposed) gospels have to be arrived at by inference and surmise. They are not stated explicitly. The existence of the two was so unclear that was apparently invisible to all the succeeding generations of Christians until Bullinger discovered it in the 1800. However, the most likely interpretation is that the many generations of believers since the First Century were right all along and the term "gospel" refers to only one message.
4. I am would like to know specifically what are the features of these two gospels. I have very seldom heard that discussed.
Acts 15
1And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 Therefore, when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles and elders, about this question.
5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.”
You can't make it say what it doesn't say 'rulz. They were believers who said to follow the law.
You are 180 degrees out, just like the rest of your posts.
This goes on over and over and over and over. He, nor anybody, ever says what it really means.TOL many many times said:
No kidding. That has been done.
Galatians 2 means what it says and the context proves it. The gospel of circumcision is laid out as well as uncircumcision. There is a reason Paul explicitly refers to in Romans 4. Because after circumcision, the rules changed for those people. They have an everlasting covenant. Maybe you need to look up "everlasting" in the dictionary.
When you acknowledge the very different gospels then we will move forward. Or you can be like the others in this forum who never tell us what dead to sin really means.
Romans 5
18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.
How are we saved? By some action (work) of ours, or by the action of one? If you answer this, we can move on to your phony objections.