You didn't answer the question. Again. You demon possessed pervert, go back to your hole under the rock.
Who did Paul and Peter go to first and after?
Theology Club: Is MAD doctrine correct?
- Thread starter Bright Raven
- Start date
You didn't answer the question. Again. You demon possessed pervert, go back to your hole under the rock.
Who did Paul and Peter go to first and after?
way 2 go
Well-known member
guess he crawled back under his rocklain:
Nick lost his right to be heard ages ago. He is arrogant in his ignorance and immature beyond belief, an accuser of the brethren.:bang:
You just wont say because you claim it is to whom they are sent. Even though Paul was sent to the Jews first, same as Peter. Peter did not preach grace. Nor did James. Nor is the red letters. And you know it you filthy liar.
I did say and gave my informed opinion. You just want to hear what you want to hear and are not open to correction.
Grace is a theme from Genesis to Revelation. God=grace. To limit it to Paul is rank heresy.
I may be ignorant of embracing your error, but this does not make me a liar. Quit channeling sozo.
No, you claimed a demarcation of ministry. I asked what that means. You said that explains to whom they are going. I said who did Peter and Paul go to first, then after. You have not answered.
Oh really? So then murder and rapes is ok all through the Bible, and it will not be counted against you.
All he does express what the Holy Spirit leads him to express. You are a wolf and you are to be beaten back.
Last edited:
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
This agreement didn't mean very much to Paul (Acts 15).
All we have to do is look at Acts 16-19 and see everywhere he went, he was in the synagogue, preaching to the Jew first.
So much for the demarcation of ministry theory. The right hand of fellowship didn't mean much to Paul.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Why is rulz in the MAD theology club?
To stomp out the evil?
To stomp out the evil?
At the point in Gal. 2, the intention, with Acts 15 blessing is for Paul to follow the Spirit's leading in a shift from reaching Jews to reaching Gentiles primarily vs exclusively. You guys simply don't understand missionary strategy and the unique ministry of Paul vs Peter, a demarcation of ministry, and wrongly come up with a flawed soteriology/ecclesiology based on proof texts and fringe MAD teachers who lack credibility.....but, no, I am the spawn of Satan?!:bang:
There was transition and progression as the Spirit led throughout Acts/Church history. Gal. 2 is not about two gospel messages (except one gospel contextualized for two groups). This would contradict many other verses and principles in the NT (whereas demarcation is consistent with them).
heir
TOL Subscriber
Yes, it is. You just don't believe it.
Galatians 2:1 Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.
Galatians 2:2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.
...
Galatians 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
I believe every word of these verses, but not your interpretation of them. Paul received the gospel directly, but that does not mean it was a different gospel than other NT writers received.
Gal. 2:7 has a genitive issue (if you rely on KJV only without understanding Greek issues, who can help you?) and is a demarcation of ministry. Your two gospel theory would have a false gospel of faith+works.
heir
TOL Subscriber
Riiiiiight. Let's test that. In Galatians 2:7 KJV there are TWO gospels:
the gospel of the uncircumcision
the gospel of the circumcision
Galatians 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
That's not an "interpretation". It's believing the words on the page.
You don't believe the words on the page.
www.biblegateway.com
Check out other versions. The genitive has dozens of uses. KJV is weak or wrong here. I can accept it as is (the gospel of the Americans is the same as the gospel of the Chinese), but the best scholarship reflects a more accurate understanding of the genitive here (which is often 'of', but not always).
MAD falls apart at the level of original languages, as do the JW/Mormon cultic arguments from KJV only or their sectarian perversions like NWT (KJV is good, but not infallible).
There is an interpretative issue. We all believe the words on the page, yet many come up with countless interpretations on any given text. You are proof texting this out of context of all relevant verses and simplistically refusing to consider the original language grammatical issues. You want to retain a preconceived error at all costs rather than actually do the hard work of exegesis.
I cannot help you.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
hath God said?
Until I actually heard a sermon preached on rightly dividing the word of truth, I was just as skeptical as you are about the possibility of two gospels. If you want to see for yourself go here.
http://www.understandingyourbible.com/audio/basic1.ram
Thanks.
I quote the bible when necessary...(forget exact verse).. I have books in my library that refute you in detail that you cannot refute. They do a better job than I would in a few posts…...Google may also help....If you study biblical theology (looking at books, authors, etc.) instead of systematic theology or ultradispensationalism, you would see that... As it is, commentators disagree on… I believe sound evangelical scholarship totally refutes what you are saying … He is not worth reading in light of the sound scholarship that exists ..Sound NT scholarship recognizes.... Whole books have been written on it… The vast majority of godly Christians have not heard of MAD. The best of conservative, biblical, evangelical scholarship rejects it if they have heard of it…. Exact reference again? Did you check other versions or a commentary?... Buy a good commentary for the various opinions on…
Brother Vinny
Active member
Can't get it to play. :idunno:
Brother Vinny
Active member
Nevermind, got it.
Brother Vinny
Active member
About halfway through, still skeptical.
Maybe dispensensationalism doesn't catch with the previously infected? :idunno:From the very opening, the sermon presupposes the listener is going to indulge the literalist conceit that "rightly dividing" means placing Scripture into nice and tidy containers marked "Israel" and "Church". Maybe this works on the uninitiated, and maybe this sort of approach is more befitting a sermon than a long argument that takes into account possible objections would be. Whatever the case, I'm just not finding myself convinced.