Interplanner
Well-known member
I'm sure he believed in a few exceptions to what he said, but it takes some general lay out to get a point across.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
ECT Basic Principles of Gal 3:17
- Thread starter Interplanner
- Start date
Interplanner
Well-known member
Bumped to be near 'There is only one Gospel'
Do you then call Paul an oversimplifier for writing Gal 4:4-5? That's a complete NT history--or is the history that matters. If you can't fit that summary why should I accept your summary? Why don't we take the NT's own summaries of such things? We, you, take I Cor 15:1-4 as 'summarizing the Gospel'. But you don't take this as summarizing the NT.
You fail to realize that as with any summary, your "summary" is based on your years on a thing; whether confused, or not.
Might as well say "the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor" and expect anyone reading such "a summary" will not only have looked into all the dynamics behind that history; but will have done so from within your perspective.
But yours has ever been a very rigid black not white, take it and be right, or leave it, and be wrong, perspective.
You are ever asserting the Dispy "has to" this and that, he approaches a passage.
I can see where such might be the case, at times, as that is human nature; when allowed.
But you appear ever blind to your own culpability in same.
Interplanner
Well-known member
You fail to realize that as with any summary, your "summary" is based on your years on a thing; whether confused, or not.
Might as well say "the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor" and expect anyone reading such "a summary" will not only have looked into all the dynamics behind that history; but will have done so from within your perspective.
But yours has ever been a very rigid black not white, take it and be right, or leave it, and be wrong, perspective.
You are ever asserting the Dispy "has to" this and that, he approaches a passage.
I can see where such might be the case, at times, as that is human nature; when allowed.
But you appear ever blind to your own culpability in same.
And notice how little of the passage you dealt with. It's PAUL whose writing I asked you to tangle with. You turned it into a contest with me. Why do you do that?