Romans 16: Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began.
ECT How is Paul's message different?
- Thread starter Clete
- Start date
Romans 16: Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Nope, its a matter of dead faith, and it does not just apply to Jews. It has always been viewed that way by stable teachers.
Interplanner
Well-known member
The gospels that these two men preached are different. The question is only whether you accept Paul's gospel or not? It is the only one by which you can be saved.
Why do you say things like this and then say you know what Gal 1-2--or really the whole thing--is about? There is only one Gospel in it. Cp Gal 3:8 which is the one gospel expressed in advance to Abraham, because there is not a 2nd one to Gentiles--he's speaking to Gentiles mostly about the one as expressed to Abraham; get it?
Why do you say things like this and then say you know what Gal 1-2--or really the whole thing--is about? There is only one Gospel in it. Cp Gal 3:8 which is the one gospel expressed in advance to Abraham, because there is not a 2nd one to Gentiles--he's speaking to Gentiles mostly about the one as expressed to Abraham; get it?
turbosixx
New member
They did preach the same sermon and they converted believers the same way by baptizing them in the name of Jesus.
Acts 18:8 Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household. And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized.
If it's the same it can't be different.
How can we look at letters written to those who are already in Christ and determine they got there differently? If they are in Christ then it applies to ALL those in Christ.
You have not proven that they converted Christians differently.
turbosixx
New member
I've read it an know, that's why I ask. Mad chooses verses and take them out of context and make them trump verses. Context is not mads friend.
turbosixx
New member
Yep, thousands of years of observing God's commands takes time for some to understand they have changed. Paul says they are weak in the faith.
turbosixx
New member
Formatting didn't stick but you get the idea.
alla tounantion idontes oti pepisteumai to euaggelion
G235 G5121 G1492 G3754 G4100 G3588 G2098
but THE-IN-INSTEAD PERCEIVING that I-HAVE-been-BELIEVED THE WELL-MESSAGE
on-the-contrary I-have-been-entrusted-with
ths akrobustias kaqws petros ths peritomhs
G3588 G203 G2531 G4074 G3588 G4061
OF-THE uncircumcision according-AS Peter OF-THE ABOUT-CUTTing
Circumcision
How many gospels do you see and how many audiences?
Be nice if I knew what verse this was...
turbosixx
New member
whitestone
Well-known member
lol, IP said "by reducing (IT) to four lines" in the post you quoted,, ask him "reduced what?"...
Sorry, I thought you slept with it under your pillow
Gal. 2:7
Formatting makes it hard for my brain to parse. Thanks, though.
Ok, so here's Galatians 2:7
ἀλλὰ τοὐναντίον , ἰδόντες ὅτι πεπίστευμαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς ἀκροβυστίας , καθὼς Πέτρος τῆς περιτομῆς --
[but] [on the contrary] , [having seen] [that] [I have been entrusted with] [the] [gospel] [of the uncircumcision] , [just as] [Peter (with that)] [of the] [circumcision] --
Turbo, I think I asked you this earlier, but didn't get an answer, but if not, I'll ask it here:
About how many people are each of the following sentences speaking?
"The father and the husband went to the store."
"The father and husband went to the store."
(I'll quote this post when I quote your response to this post, so that I can build off of it.)
If my point is irrelevant, then it shouldn't be so hard to answer my question, which you seem extremely unwilling to do. I can assure you, though, that the point I'm attempting to make is extremely relevant.
How many people are the sentences I provided above each speaking about?
Argument from repetition. Repeatedly asserting that I'm wrong does not make me wrong.
Which is completely irrelevant to what we're talking about. So what? We're not talking about verbs. We're talking about nouns.
Again, saying it doesn't make it so.
You can, as [MENTION=1851]john w[/MENTION] would say, "pound the podium" and say I'm wrong all day long, but that doesn't make me wrong.
No idea what you're talking about here. I just want an answer to my question.
How many people are each of the sentences below speaking of?
"The father and the husband went to the store."
Number of people in this sentence: ___
"The father and husband went to the store."
Number of people in this sentence: ___
turbosixx
New member
I understand your point. Two in the first and possibly one or two in the second.
In the Greek I see one "the" gospel and two groups as "the" audience.
Thank you for answering my question.
Yes, two in the first one, and one in the second.
This is called the Granville Sharp rule. Throughout the entire Bible, this rule affects verses like Galatians 2:7 and John 1:1, and even Matthew 28:19.
This is how we know that there are two "gospels" being spoken of in Galatians 2:7.
The King James version reads like this:
But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; - Galatians 2:7 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians2:7&version=KJV
Now, I don't know about you, but I'm willing to trust the translators of the KJV bible, give them the benefit of the doubt, in their translation, even considering the differences between it and the Greek. (For my reasoning, see http://kgov.com/kjo.)
The NKJV reads similarly:
But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter - Galatians 2:7 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians2:7&version=NKJV
Even the 1599 Geneva:
But contrariwise, when they saw that the Gospel over the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the Gospel over the circumcision was unto Peter: - Galatians 2:7 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians2:7&version=GNV
All of them mention two gospels, one "of the circumcision," and one "of the uncircumcision."
[MENTION=17235]Interplanner[/MENTION] the fact that the 1599 Geneva Bible has two "gospels" in verse 7 should quell any qualms you have with Darby and whoever else you have problems with, as they were not the first to recognize the existence of two gospels being mentioned.
[MENTION=16603]turbosixx[/MENTION] all that to say that having two "the"s in front of two gospels clearly indicate that, at the very least, men who are far smarter than you or I am recognized that Paul was saying there were two gospels, one which had been committed to the twelve to be preached to the Jews, and one committed to himself, to be preached to the Gentiles. And their translation is vindicated when we loom at the overall picture of what Paul teaches compared to what the twelve teach.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Why didn't Paul EVER say Peter could preach his gospel to the Jews? Why didn't Paul also say there were 2 Gods at work?
The verse does not at all say there were two gospels. Paul 'gospeled' the Gentiles, Peter the Jews. The same gospel.
Notice in 3:8 that the one Gospel is expressed in advance to Abraham and Paul explains that one...TO GENTILES!!!
You are so dumb-downed by D'ism, it is pathetic.
The verse does not at all say there were two gospels. Paul 'gospeled' the Gentiles, Peter the Jews. The same gospel.
Notice in 3:8 that the one Gospel is expressed in advance to Abraham and Paul explains that one...TO GENTILES!!!
You are so dumb-downed by D'ism, it is pathetic.
Interplanner
Well-known member
It is pointless. diagram the Greek you obfuscator. THERE IS ONLY ONE VERB, LIKEWISE IN V8 WHICH IS STRUCTURED THE SAME WAY ABOUT ONE ENERGIZING GOD.
That parallel structure is the only thing 'relevant' to know grammatically, and some people can see this without Greek knowledge.
Interplanner
Well-known member
So now we once again have the definition of literal meaning from JR: if it disagrees with D'ism it is not the literal meaning. The literal meaning is the one that matches D'ism through elementary grammar tricks and traps.
There is one Gospel in the verse, one that is warned has exclusive rights to be heard, and one in 3:8 explained to Abraham in advance and preached to the Gentiles in that passage. I'm not avoiding a damned thing; I'm tripling the evidence against you.
There is one Gospel in the verse, one that is warned has exclusive rights to be heard, and one in 3:8 explained to Abraham in advance and preached to the Gentiles in that passage. I'm not avoiding a damned thing; I'm tripling the evidence against you.
Fraud Sheldon Basil. There is no such thing as "the Greek," clown, poser, as you know no "the Greek," cannot read it/understand it/write it/ speak it, and could not get a job at a "the Greek" restaurant, mopping floors. You can't even construct legible, coherent sentences in "the English," you "butt of jokes" on TOl, as you are so stupid, you don't even know that TOL members are "ROTFLOL"(you taught us "the Modern English"), laughing at your kindergarten spam, and your posing as a "The Greek" scholar. Scammer. Troll.
turbosixx
New member
No surprise but I'm going to disagree with you. I would like to step back and see if that conclusion agrees with the rest of scripture.
If Paul was given a different gospel from Christ, not man, than Peter, then why did he preach the same thing as Peter did on his journeys to convert souls and why did he baptize those believers as did Peter?
And this is why I do not proof text with people.
Every verse, every passage, every chapter, every book that says something someone disagrees with is being "taken out of context".
It's the most stultifying thing that anyone could say in any discussion about theology. The fact that you're even capable of making such an accusation means that you've either stopped trying or have never understood what is even being discussed in the first place. Either way, this is getting to be a total waste of my time pretty quickly.
I've not only not taken anything out of context, this entire discussing is ABOUT THE CONTEXT!!!!
The whole discussion is about what is being preached to whom and why? That's all context is! I mean, to say that context is not Mid-Acts Dispensationalism's friend is just flat out stupidity. It's like saying color is not light's friend. A color simply defines a specific sort of light and Mid-Acts Dispensationalism defines the context of whole sections of the bible. To charge Dispensationalism with taking things out of context is to simply say that you disagree with Dispensationalism and prefer to presume a different context for the New Testament. It means nothing and contributes nothing whatsoever to the discussion.
Bored and disappointed,
Clete