Let's try something new: Do we agree on anything?

[Derf]

Denying it doesn't make it false, Derf.

I presented the verse from an interlinear. Paul said he was entrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, in the same way Peter was entrusted with the circumcision.

Meaning, they were both entrusted with a gospel.

Or are you asserting that Peter was given something different?

You're kicking against scripture, here.

"Just as"

Strong's g2531

- Lexical: καθώς
- Transliteration: kathos
- Part of Speech: Adverb
- Phonetic Spelling: kath-oce'
- Definition: according to the manner in which, in the degree that, just as, as.
- Origin: From kata and hos; just (or inasmuch) as, that.
- Usage: according to, (according, even) as, how, when.
- Translated as (count): as (127), just as (44), even as (7), Accordingly (1), as also (1), as usually (1), how (1), So also (1).

So whatever Paul was given, it was the same thing, same extent, same degree, that Peter was given. A gospel.

Paul was given the gospel of the uncircumcision, therefore, by inference, Peter was given the gospel of the circumcision.

If it was the same gospel, Paul could have just said "I was given the same gospel as Peter." But he didn't.

"The blue outfit was entrusted to Paul just as Peter the green."

The analogy uses the same sentence structure as Galatians 2:7.

Both Peter and Paul received an outfit. One is blue, one is green. Yet "outfit" is only used once, for Paul. Using your logic, Derf, Paul never received an outfit of his own, he was just given the same outfit Peter was given.

It makes perfect sense to read it as Peter and Paul having received their own outfits, one green and one blue, respectively, yet according to you somehow when it comes to the gospel of the uncircumcision given to Paul, it must be the same as the circumcision given to Peter.

Make it make sense.

Your analogy is flawed, because it inherently makes the outfits different--which is my main complaint about MAD.
Let me see if I can do better.
The organizer of a conference arranged for lunch through the Dave and Sally Catering Service. He wanted to serve the men in one room and the women in another. Dave and Sally prepared the meal together, then Dave took the food to the men, and Sally took the food to the women. Here's the verse, as it would look applied to my scenario:
"When they saw that the food for the men was committed unto Dave, as [the food] for the women was committed unto Sally..."

You could say that the food was different, but it isn't required. Maybe the ladies all wanted those dainty tea sandwiches, while the men all had Philly cheese steaks.

You can see this is the case because otherwise Peter would be agreeing with Paul that he (Peter) was cursed for bringing a different gospel, Gal 1:8. Peter agrees in 2 Peter, which was written to people in Galatians as well, whom had received letters from Paul.
Paul calls it the "gospel of Christ", Gal 1:7, by the way, and not just "Paul's gospel".

It's the same food, but different consumers.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Your analogy is flawed, because it inherently makes the outfits different--

Are you claiming that "of the uncircumcision" and "of the circumcision" are really saying the same thing?

Because "gospel of the uncircumcision" "just as" "of the circumcision" seems pretty clearto me that it's describing two different things.

which is my main complaint about MAD.

So they have to share the same outfit?

Of course the outfits are inherently different.

Let me see if I can do better.
The organizer of a conference arranged for lunch through the Dave and Sally Catering Service. He wanted to serve the men in one room and the women in another. Dave and Sally prepared the meal together, then Dave took the food to the men, and Sally took the food to the women. Here's the verse, as it would look applied to my scenario:
"When they saw that the food for the men was committed unto Dave, as [the food] for the women was committed unto Sally..."

You could say that the food was different, but it isn't required. Maybe the ladies all wanted those dainty tea sandwiches, while the men all had Philly cheese steaks.

The "of the uncircumcision" and the "of the circumcision" show that it cannot be the same thing given to both Paul and Peter. The "just as" shows that Paul received a gospel just as Peter received a gospel.

I'm not sure how much clearer it could be.

Even in your analogy, Philly cheese steaks are definitely not tea sandwiches, despite both being food.

A different dish, but still food.

A different gospel, which is not another.

You can see this is the case because otherwise Peter would be agreeing with Paul that he (Peter) was cursed for bringing a different gospel, Gal 1:8.

Listen here:
Part 1 https://kgov.com/galatians
Part 2 https://kgov.com/bel/20171221
Part 3 https://kgov.com/bel/20171228
Part 4 https://kgov.com/bel/20180104
Part 5 https://kgov.com/bel/20190926

Peter agrees in 2 Peter, which was written to people in Galatians as well, whom had received letters from Paul.

Cite?

Paul calls it the "gospel of Christ", Gal 1:7, by the way, and not just "Paul's gospel".

Yes. And?

It's the same food, but different consumers.

But it's not necessarily the same food, as you said.

And definitely not the same plates being given to both groups.

 

[Derf]

Are you claiming that "of the uncircumcision" and "of the circumcision" are really saying the same thing?

Because "gospel of the uncircumcision" "just as" "of the circumcision" seems pretty clearto me that it's describing two different things.



So they have to share the same outfit?

Of course the outfits are inherently different.



The "of the uncircumcision" and the "of the circumcision" show that it cannot be the same thing given to both Paul and Peter. The "just as" shows that Paul received a gospel just as Peter received a gospel.

I'm not sure how much clearer it could be.

Even in your analogy, Philly cheese steaks are definitely not tea sandwiches, despite both being food.

A different dish, but still food.

A different gospel, which is not another.



Listen here:
Part 1 https://kgov.com/galatians
Part 2 https://kgov.com/bel/20171221
Part 3 https://kgov.com/bel/20171228
Part 4 https://kgov.com/bel/20180104
Part 5 https://kgov.com/bel/20190926



Cite?



Yes. And?



But it's not necessarily the same food, as you said.

And definitely not the same plates being given to both groups.

So you are now arguing that it could be the same or not the same, like my analogy? I agree. Therefore, if the passage you quoted can be read both ways, as my analogy could, the passage is not a proof text for your position.

 

[Nick M]

The obvious answer is that the gospel is the same, but different people were committed to Peter.

19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you

In what way am I contradicting the great commission?

There are 2 very important things ignored in Matthew 28. Kind of like John 3. Just ignore what you don't understand or if it contradicts your conclusions. They were to bring people to the kingdom, when it is time. It isn't like Acts 1 is some other day. It is the exact same time and day.

4 And being assembled together with them, He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father, “which,” He said, “you have heard from Me; 5 for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” 6 Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?

And as late as Acts 10, it wasn't time, and a special revelation was given to Peter to go to the gentiles house.

 

[annabenedetti]

I guess I am relying on you to protect me.

Women are good at that.

 

[chrysostom]

Women are good at that.

They were better at having babies.

 

[annabenedetti]

They were better at having babies.

Women are excellent multitaskers.

 

[Derf]

19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you

Yes?

There are 2 very important things ignored in Matthew 28. Kind of like John 3. Just ignore what you don't understand or if it contradicts your conclusions. They were to bring people to the kingdom, when it is time. It isn't like Acts 1 is some other day. It is the exact same time and day.

And what of it? As a good apostle, Paul was doing these things, even to the last chapter of Acts.
[Act 28:30-31 KJV] 30 And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him, 31 Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.

4 And being assembled together with them, He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father, “which,” He said, “you have heard from Me; 5 for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” 6 Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?

And as late as Acts 10, it wasn't time, and a special revelation was given to Peter to go to the gentiles house.

Sounds like you just refuted your position. If it wasn't yet time to restore the kingdom to Israel, but the Ho!y Spirit had already baptized them, then they could leave Jerusalem, which they did eventually.

Or am I missing your point?

 

[Derf]

Women are excellent multitaskers.

Yes, sometimes they have two or more babies at the same time.

 

[annabenedetti]

Yes, sometimes they have two or more babies at the same time.

Those are the super-multitaskers.

 

[Nick M]

And what of

You said Peter and Paul are sent to different audiences which contradicts what you also claim is the great commission where they go to all nations.

 

[Derf]

You said Peter and Paul are sent to different audiences which contradicts what you also claim is the great commission where they go to all nations.

What's different? Paul talked to Jews and Gentiles. Peter talked to Jews and Gentiles. But they divided up the territory, which would make sense.

 

[JudgeRightly]

What's different? Paul talked to Jews and Gentiles. Peter talked to Jews and Gentiles. But they divided up the territory, which would make sense.

12 people to one nation and a smattering of people in various places, vs one person to the entire rest of the known world?

Rather poorly divided up, if you ask me... extremely inefficient.

 

[chrysostom]

I would like to keep our question on one topic I'll call: Seeking to know our God.

It will not happen by itself. You have to make it happen.

 

[Ps82]

It will not happen by itself. You have to make it happen.

And I'm the worst at it. I'm so full of words.

 

[Ps82]

For all those wanting to talk about AI ... just laugh. My thoughts might be so far. It is a bit scary. I think it will become Satan's chosen way to mimic God and enter into humanity for harm and to steal the crown of our Lord's reign. Why will AI be so handy for that? Because God formed mankind after HIS own image and likeness. This is how Satan will form himself an image after our likeness. He can make it appear around the world in every household through AI. We will be commanded to worship his image whenever we see it. It will be all about injecting his words, his will and presence into this world like a tool. Handy huh? Just my opinion. I'm still watching.

Sorry I've been busy at home lately.
Now, I'd love to hear from people who agree with things regarding the topic: Seeking to know our God.

 

[Derf]

12 people to one nation and a smattering of people in various places, vs one person to the entire rest of the known world?

Rather poorly divided up, if you ask me... extremely inefficient.

Agreed, but it only lasted for less than 40 years, since Peter ended up being killed in Rome, according to tradition.

 

[Ps82]

Now, I'd love to hear from people who agree with things regarding the topic: Seeking to know our God.

 

[Ps82]

Yes to the first part, I believe in God but don't accept the invisible part. I see God everywhere I look.
It is all an illusion of a non dual nature.
Just ask AI.
Spinoza saw it as monism.

My thoughts things invisible are real; so, this is what I accept. I'm not sure what you mean by "non dual nature." Let me see: A theory or doctrine that denies the existence of a distinction or duality in some sphere, such as that between matter and mind, or God and the world.

Well, I believe God is all and is in all ... and all is in him. Is that what you believe? Colossians 1: 17 says: And he is before all things, and by him all things CONSIST.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Agreed, but it only lasted for less than 40 years, since Peter ended up being killed in Rome, according to tradition.

It makes little sense for it to be done that way, and the only reason to keep holding to that idea is a commitment to the belief that they all preached the same thing.

It makes far more sense for it to be a change in dispensations, where the leadership of the former is not aptly suitable for preaching the latter, so a new leader is hand-picked by God to take that gospel to the rest of the world.

Otherwise, why not just send one of the twelve? Or more? Surely dividing up the twelve between Israel and the rest of the world would be smarter?