Search results

Like this: 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (KJV) 9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers...

Do you think the birth of Isaac was about the resurrection? I do. The birth of Jesus, was it about the resurrection? Absolutely! Why else did he become a man except to die for our sins so that we could live forever in our new bodies...after resurrection.

I don’t think one has to be opposed to mid-Acts dispensationalism to be opposed to the idea that Peter and Paul preached different gospels.

If he did, then it shows it’s about the resurrection.

But you didn’t answer my question. Why was His birth “good tidings”? Here’s another, from your other post: Just because a new person starts proclaiming good news doesn’t mean it’s new good news. Then the different gospels are all tied together around this same point—Jesus’s death and...

Why was His birth “good tidings”?

But the Christ is inherently part of the kingdom restoration. As such, if he left himself out of the gospel of the kingdom, it’s as bad as leaving the death and resurrection out of the gospel of grace, in my mind.

It’s not that they didn’t believe, rather that they didn’t understand. This should be comforting for those on at least one side of this debate, as they were (and we can be, too) still “in Christ” without fully understanding it.

Me, too.

You do realize that Paul went first to the synagogue in the next place he went after that statement of his. No, he didn’t wait for the Jews to seek him, him went first to them, as was his custom. And not just then, but even after the council in Jerusalem, Paul continued to go to the Jews first...

How could it be end of story before they realized Christ had to die? Listen, I’m not sure about whether one might call what they preached prior to Jesus’ death a different gospel—I might be able to go along with that. But once they understood the death and resurrection was part of the plan, it...

But he never stopped preaching his gospel to Jews. And if @Right Divider is correct about the agreement, he should have stopped, while John and Peter never should have written to Gentile churches in the body of Christ. But they did.

It does have to be a similar level if you withhold one from a group that could benefit by it, in order to only give them the other, which you’ve just admitted is less beneficial to them.

I think that’s a distinction without a difference. What you’re saying is that Paul will have to, in every city he visits, segregate all the believing Jews from the unbelieving Jews to keep from giving them the wrong gospel. Which is unbelievable from anyone, and there’s absolutely no scriptural...

So we see that Peter wrote both his epistles to the same people, right? Did anyone else of some significance also write to those same people? Yes, in fact, Paul did. How does it work for Paul and Peter to be writing to the exact same people? 2 Peter 3:15 (KJV) And account [that] the...

Why did Paul consistently break the agreement? Maybe you don’t understand very well what the agreement actually was. It wasn’t a contest to see who could push the different gospels the farthest, it was a division of territory for the same gospel. I know you don’t agree with that, but it makes...

That doesn’t mean it wasn’t the same gospel. It just means the 12 were woefully stuck in their old ways, which wasn’t a detriment at first, since they were doing the Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria part of their commission. They had trouble moving on to the “ends of the earth” part. And that would...

This may be a much simpler answer than is needed, but we can start with it. Since much of your 123 John argument rests in the above, let’s consider it. Here are a few instances Paul wrote to his children in the faith, which shows the phrase isn’t only to be used of Israel. 2 Corinthians...

That was my point—“as far as we can tell”. But that applies not just to whether Paul fits Peter’s standards, but also to whether the twelve thrones or twelve foundations are filled according to Peter’s or someone else’s standard.

And Jesus was numbered with the transgressors, but that didn’t make him a transgressor. Mark 15:28 (KJV) And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors. If the 12 in the kingdom are the ones specifically selected by Jesus, then Matthias doesn’t qualify...