The grammar of Gal 2 and the folly of 2P2P

Status
Not open for further replies.

Interplanner

Well-known member
No we didn't, liar. The baptism required in Acts 2:38 refutes you into the dirt.

The real point is that you're a semi-autistic perseverant. You've been told many times what MAD believes AND DOES NOT BELIEVE but you continue to slander us with your vain imaginings anyway.



the baptism doesn't add anything to the Christ accomplishment. It is an expression of honor, belief, but not an 'addition' to 'it is finished.' Where do you get such ridiculous ideas?

What I was referring to was an offer of a Judaic/theocratic kingdom 'for a while' until later in Acts, even though Lk 21 already said that the mission of the grace of the gospel was going to all nations, STARTING in Jerusalem. But it never says it was going to be a different offer, and then switch if the Jews didn't 'get' it.
 

musterion

Well-known member
the baptism doesn't add anything to the Christ accomplishment. It is an expression of honor, belief, but not an 'addition' to 'it is finished.' Where do you get such ridiculous ideas?

Acts 2:38 shows a Jewish water rite was REQUIRED - NOT OPTIONAL - just as Christ Himself REQUIRED it in in Mark 16:16. It was required of Jews under the Gospel of the Circumcision before and after the cross.

Paul, conversely, said for today there is only ONE baptism for EVERYONE, and this baptism has nothing to do with H20.

Has your man-made eschatology made you so stupid that you can't see that?
 

northwye

New member
The conflict is seen clearly in John Chapter Eight - between the Pharisees and Jesus Christ. The religion of the Pharisees was based upon that which is physical. "If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; 32. And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
33. They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?." John 8: 31-33

To become saved in Christ requires a spiritual change. "There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
2. The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
3. Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
5. Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
John 3: 1-7

The Pharisees claimed to have a chosen status with God because of their physical bloodline. But Christ says they everyone must be born of the Spirit to become saved and of God's elect.

This is where the dialectic of direct opposition to the Truth of Christ begins to work as the anti-thesis to God's Truth as the thesis. And that opposition is often seen in the form of dialogue which is deceptive. If the dispensationalists stuck to presenting their point of view against the Truth stated above in a didactic way that would not work as well as using various tactics of the dialectic within a dialogue.

In fact, the Pharisees in John 8 did make use of some tactics of the dialectic of a somewhat nasty variety, saying "Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?......52. Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death.
53. Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself?"
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
Acts 2:38 shows a Jewish water rite was REQUIRED - NOT OPTIONAL - just as Christ Himself REQUIRED it in in Mark 16:16. It was required of Jews under the Gospel of the Circumcision before and after the cross.

Paul, conversely, said for today there is only ONE baptism for EVERYONE, and this baptism has nothing to do with H20.

Has your man-made eschatology made you so stupid that you can't see that?



No, it doesn't hinge on that, because justification is by God's righteousness, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS as the Jer passage says. fussing about baptisms is elemental as Heb 6 says, v2 (plural). Time to move on to maturity.

Watch your blood pressure; it's not worth it.


The Gospel was preached to the circ, but it was identical: THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS. There is no separate gospel.
 

northwye

New member
The dialectic operates best in dialogue. Dialogue leads to more dialectic. This does not mean you cannot state your understanding of scripture and point out how dispensationalist understanding is different.
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
Christ was not your righteousness unless and until you submitted to water baptism under the Gospel of the circumcision.

You're still refuted.


Nope, that is a totally mistaken understanding of what was going. Lots of people in the gospels believed Christ and there is nothing about your compartments, departments or computations.
 

musterion

Well-known member
Nope, that is a totally mistaken understanding of what was going. Lots of people in the gospels believed Christ and there is nothing about your compartments, departments or computations.

You're lying. It says exactly what it says, in context. It was good news THEN. It just wasn't speaking to or about us today.

Paul's gospel DOES speak to us today. It's the only one that does.

Conclusion: two different good news. Both from God. Both centered on Christ. Both 100% true. One intended for us, one not.
 

john w

New member
Hall of Fame
The point is they--MAD-- added neo-Judaism back in to early Acts. It's not there, and the conflict is between the one gospel and Judaism as it was then.

Catch that-again?


"the one gospel"


Again, droids like interloper, because they merely read what others say the bible teaches, not studying, surveying the book themselves, are absolutely clueless as to what the term "gospel" means, and thus, assert only one piece of good news in the book.


Challenge this IP droid(He has me on ignore)-pin him down....Ask him to give us a concise definition, of his understanding of the term.....


gospel....

without any high filootin' words, "greek grammar".

Tell him to lay it out for us, in a few sentences, as we are all busy men/women.
 
Last edited:

Interplanner

Well-known member
You're lying. It says exactly what it says, in context. It was good news THEN. It just wasn't speaking to or about us today.

Paul's gospel DOES speak to us today. It's the only one that does.

Conclusion: two different good news. Both from God. Both centered on Christ. Both 100% true. One intended for us, one not.


Which one is in Lk 21--hint, its the one from the whole OT.

Why do you care to know another gospel that doesn't have anything to do with us?
 

john w

New member
Hall of Fame
the baptism doesn't add anything to the Christ accomplishment. It is an expression of honor, belief, but not an 'addition' to 'it is finished.' Where do you get such ridiculous ideas?

No scripture testifies that baptism, regardless of the particular baptism that is in view, "is an expression of honor, belief..." You made that up, getting this "ridiculous idea" from what others say the bible teaches, your stack of commentaries, booklets.....................that bury your bible, certainly not from the bible itself.
 

john w

New member
Hall of Fame
Nope, that is a totally mistaken understanding of what was going. Lots of people in the gospels believed Christ and there is nothing about your compartments, departments or computations.

"Lots of people in the gospels"

Still clueless as to what the term "gospel" means......In a funk...
 

musterion

Well-known member
btw, why would God confuse people with a two-headed gospel?

For the same reason He would confuse people by saying they could eat shrimp and couldn't eat shrimp.

Answer: He didn't confuse anyone. But you are confused.

EDIT: Oh, and nice try at deception with "two headed Gospel." Not falling for the false premise.
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
For the same reason He would confuse people by saying they could eat shrimp and couldn't eat shrimp.

Answer: He didn't confuse anyone. But you are confused.

EDIT: Oh, and nice try at deception with "two headed Gospel." Not falling for the false premise.



OH, if it is not two headed, why have two? why not just say there is one gospel, and be biblically honest?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top