Search results

Would you like to offer a few for discussion? And I would prefer you start with john’s letters, but I’m ok doing others.

I guess the jury’s still out on whether Paul took Judas’ bishopric. I tend to agree with you that he did, but it’s hard to say whether Matthias is cut off from the office completely. I don’t think there’s evidence that Peter called Paul one of the twelve.

That’s good news for Peter, but isn’t necessarily good news for his audience. Why would the gospel consist of such statements as “I’m going to judge you.”? Which then proves my point—God was accepting of anybody willing to do righteously, even if they had never done so before. It’s a concept...

Interesting theory, but sounds like some of the Catholic mumbo-jumbo, that wants to use miracles, only, for authentication, when other methods are available. Such a focus tends to prepare people to fall away when presented with false signs and wonders.

Sure, but to then say that you know it was written to Jews is purely without any evidence at all.

You say Paul WAS handed a book? Sounds rather Mormonish to me.

You mean about how to reach the Gentiles? I agree. Peter was definitely deficient in that area. Who’s the “we” talking about in your sentence? Of course “we” are accepted, because we already repented and came to believe in Christ. Peter was referring to those that hadn’t yet heard the...

Do you think Mark and Luke were telling a different good news? I agree that it’s right to acknowledge that Peter and Paul used different words to tell the same story, just like Mark and Luke did—and for the same reason, that they had different audiences. But both Mark and Luke were telling the...

Peter also said Acts 15:11 (KJV) But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. I’m not understanding why, when I point out that Paul said we should fear God and walk righteously, you try to point out that Peter didn’t say that, then say that he...

Any of the three uses still require consistency. If you say “the gospels” it’s clear you’re talking about more than one. If you say “the gospel”, it’s equally clear you’re talking about only one. No scripture ever says “the gospels” as far as I know, but Gal 2:7 definitely uses a single instance...

No—it has to be in a single sentence with only a single instance of “the good news”. But nice try.

I don’t usually copy stuff like that just for fun, but I’m hoping to learn. Just so you know, “the” is a definite article. Used before singular or plural nouns and noun phrases that denote particular, specified persons or things. Used before a noun, and generally stressed, to emphasize one...

Yes, I agree— though I would put that point of conscious fearlessness after the resurrection.

I’d like to talk about the target audience of the non-Pauline epistles, if anyone’s interested. It seems to be fairly high on the response list for MADs, so I hope it’s ok to post here. I’m not trying to dissuade anyone from the MAD point of view, at least not intentionally in this thread...

Can you explain?

I’m not sure I understand your question.

My thought is that when you’re dead, you aren’t doing any looking or anticipating at all.

Not a Greek scholar—that’s why I include multiple translations. I have no idea even how to form an opinion on which one is better. But I don’t have to, since the word is only present once in each. But you know the truth, and it bothers you for some reason. Your very words betray you: “the...

Compared to I, nor @Arial, haven’t said the translations are contradicting, but it seems you are saying so. Yet your own citation, your choice of translation, agrees with me:

Us people? Here’s the Greek, in 4 different versions: Galatians 2:7 (TR) ἀλλὰ τοὐναντίον ἰδόντες ὅτι πεπίστευμαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς ἀκροβυστίας καθὼς Πέτρος τῆς περιτομῆς Galatians 2:7 (MGNT) ἀλλὰ τοὐναντίον ἰδόντες ὅτι πεπίστευμαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς ἀκροβυστίας καθὼς Πέτρος τῆς περιτομῆς...