Theology Club: Is MAD doctrine correct?
- Thread starter Bright Raven
- Start date
Why is Paul the only one to ever refer to his message as "my gospel"?
Romans 2:16, 16:25
2 Timothy 2:8
It appears nowhere outside of Paul's epistles. Just like "Body of Christ." Which you also have not been able to explain.
How about you show us what the Greek says?
Explain to us why...
This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief. However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life.
-1 Timothy 1:15-16
...the same word was translated as both words in the same context.
Or why, if Paul was using hyperbole, he used the same word in the very next sentence to state that it was in him first that Jesus showed "all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life," as an elaboration on the sentence in which he called himself the chief.
Or why it was the same word he used to state that "
For Adam was first formed, then Eve."
πρῶτος prōtos
Thayer's Definition
- first in time or place
- in any succession of things or persons
- first in rank
- influence, honour
- chief
- principal
- first, at the first
I defy you to find another verse wherein this same word, πρῶτος, is used as you claim Paul was using it in 1 Timothy 1:15.
Every translator and Greek scholar disagrees with you about the semantical range of the Greek word.
Body of Christ is one of several metaphors Paul uses for the Church. He even uses 'bride', something MAD would deny. You say I have not been able to explain this? We have been around this block many times in the past.
MAD is a false teaching, but not a salvific issue. Over and out.
Body of Christ is one of several metaphors Paul uses for the Church. He even uses 'bride', something MAD would deny. You say I have not been able to explain this? We have been around this block many times in the past.
MAD is a false teaching, but not a salvific issue. Over and out.
heir
TOL Subscriber
heir
TOL Subscriber
Moses never used the term "my gospel", neither did Peter, James or John.
Romans 16:25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,
Romans 16:26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:
It has to do with Paul's "my gospel" (Paul's gospel, the one given by revelation of Jesus Christ to him not Peter, James or John) being a mystery, rulz; kept secret since the world began, but now (then) is made manifest,...
1 Corinthians 2:6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
1 Corinthians 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
1 Corinthians 2:8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
Peter didn't preach it in Acts. Anyone with any reading ability at all can see that these two things are NOT the same!
Romans 16:25-26 KJV Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest,...
VS.
Acts 3:21 KJV Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
Anyone can see that Peter did not preach the gospel of Christ as the power of God unto salvation in Acts, but Paul did! Things that are different are not the same! Paul's "my gospel" was not Peter, James or John's gospel!
heir
TOL Subscriber
:yawn:
heir
TOL Subscriber
heir
TOL Subscriber
The point stands. The who of Jesus Christ and what Christ did (the why of the cross) are not the same thing. Also, Paul uses the term "man Christ Jesus" as the one mediator Who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time( 1 Timothy 2:4-6 KJV); not Lamb (see also "Christ Jesus" in Philippians 2:5-8 KJV).
Paul made quite an announcement! It takes up an entire chapter! Have you read Romans? It opens with what I believe the Romans believed (their faith), "the gospel of God" Romans 1:1-4 KJV. The Romans had a faith spoken of throughout the whole world (Romans 1:8 KJV), but it was not the mutual faith of both Paul and them. Paul longed to see them that he may impart to them some spiritual gift to the end they may be established.
Romans 1:9-12 KJVFor God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers; 10 Making request, if by any means now at length I might have a prosperous journey by the will of God to come unto you. 11 For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established; :12 That is, that I may be comforted together with you by the mutual faith both of you and me.
Paul goes on to say that oftentimes he had purposed to come unto them, but was let hitherto.
Romans 1:13 KJV Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles.
What in the world was Paul wanting to "impart" to them?
Romans 1:15-17 KJV So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also. 16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. 17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
The spiritual gift that Paul wanted to impart unto them that they may be established was Paul's "my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, but now is made manifest,..."
Romans 16:25-27 KJV Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, 26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: 27 To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.
As to hermeneutics...2 Timothy 2:15 KJV
Shasta! You've been around here for some time now. Surely, you have seen the scriptural evidence, but in short...
Paul was committed a dispensation of the gospel (1 Corinthians 9:17 KJV); not Peter, James or John.
Romans 16:25-27 KJV, Paul's gospel was according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, but now is made manifest,...
The gospel which was preached of Paul is not after man. Paul neither received it of man, neither was he taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ
Galatians 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Paul writes that it was a mystery and why
1 Corinthians 2:6-8 KJV Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: 7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: 8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
Last edited:
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
I believe Paul was writing to them as if they would be alive at the coming of the LORD, here.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Says the Pharisees about the dumb ole fisherman who followed "Jesus" around.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Says the Pharisees about "Jesus" as he read in the Temple, and stopped IN THE MIDDLE OF THE VERSE.
"He's a Bible chopper"!!!!
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Who received "all longsuffering" before Paul?
"Semantical" is not a word. The word you were looking for is "semantic."
And if this is all you have in response to my question, then all you have is weakness, epitomized.
You couldn't even find another passage in which the word was used in the same manner as you claim Paul was using it in 1 Timothy 1:15.
There is not one single use of "Bride of Christ" in the entire Bible. This makes that a non-issue. It matters not that Paul compares the relationship between God and Christians with a marriage, or that anyone else does. I don't deny its use, so how about you try moving along?
And also try to explain why Paul is the only one to use "Body of Christ."
o you run away without ever having defended your position. Why am I not surprised?
I know. I was expounding on the question because his answer was vapid.
As you can see he was still unable to answer.
Shasta
Well-known member
Using the same logic I could say that you deny the "pure" words as they were first breathed out in Greek but prefer to filter them through the fallible minds of a small number of Anglican translators who lived in the 1600s. Regardless of what you seem to suggest, the KJV is not of equal authority to the original writings of the Apostles in the First Century. The inspired scriptures consists of the words contained in the original autographs of the NT.
The goal of any translator should be to produce a Bible as close to the meaning of the original languages as possible. The men behind the KJV made a worthy attempt but, after all, they were human and their work contains inconsistencies, mistranslations, and additions. If the 1611 KJV, is definitive then why not the even earlier 1599 version of the Geneva Bible? Is it just because the KJV survived.
With respect to translations older is not necessarily better. Our understanding of Koine Greek has grown substantially over the centuries as historical documents of various kinds have been found and studied. There are a number of translations today some loose and periphrastic, to those that attempt to be exacting and literal. There are also various ways in which the translators prioritize their use of manuscripts. The Majority Text decides which word to use based upon statistics. The Critical Text gives weight to manuscripts mostly according to their age. With respect to manuscripts older is usually better. Thus this seems to be a sensible method to me but some object.
I use a number of translations and as well as the Greek text. You have suggested that the Greek language is my "final authority." I would like to think the Holy Spirit and His word is my final authority. However, insofar as I really want to know what the writer said (apart from what I think) I do look to the language. God spoke through men in words Therefore I believe in the historical grammatical method.
Having been deceived before I am concerned about getting it right. I tend to work from the ground up. No matter how solid a structure appears whether it is stable depends on the foundational structure. I do not do on to compare higher spiritual meanings until I first do that.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Then Paul was just spouting nonsense to Timothy. Timothy could NOT be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
2 Timothy 3:15-17 (KJV)
What a cruel prank.
heir
TOL Subscriber
It was "IS" then as it IS now just as the scripture saith!
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Their god lost it. God preserved it Psalms 12:6-7 KJV.
heir
TOL Subscriber
You'd like to think that, but by your own admission of using corrupted books you can't nail what is the word of God down to one. You don't believe any of them.
Shasta
Well-known member
"All scriptures are God breathed and profitable for...." Our translations are useful for this purpose in as far as they reflect the meaning of original scriptures that God breathed. In the days when men lost their lives or were persecuted for translating the Bible from Latin into the common language of the people their goal was not to make a new holy book but a one that was as close to the meaning of the original Holy Book as possible.
Shasta
Well-known member
What are these corrupt books you are speaking of and what specifically makes them "corrupt? What is your evidence? This sounds like conspiratorial mythology.
I do not need to settle on a single version. In fact since no two languages correspond exactly to one other it is probably better to keep several around. What matters is what is true not whether I give my heart to one and only one. There are four translations that I think are closest to the original. Out of these I mainly use one but, if I have a question I go back and read the Greek text. In this way I can arrive at an understanding that might have been incomplete had I relied only on one.
I certainly not think this means I do not believe any of them. I want to know the word as it was written. This is better I think than committing yourself wholly to the work of one group of translators who lived centuries ago. Also, I cannot see how you can claim that the Greek text is more corrupt and less reliable than the KJV when they themselves relied on the Greek Text Receptus.
Last edited:
Prove it, legion. Show one scholar that says "prototype" is not the first in the pattern.
Last edited: