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.