ECT WAS ISRAEL REALLY SET ASIDE AND WHEN ??

[JudgeRightly]

If Israel was set aside, why would a new apostle (Paul) be raised to go to them?

Paul was chosen because Israel had rejected her God, out of their corporate relationship with Him. Paul was sent not to help nations form that kind of relationship, but to form a personal relationship (ie, one on one) with God, and not just to the Jews, but to the gentiles also.

 

[JudgeRightly]

If Israel was set aside, why would a new apostle (Paul) be raised to go to them?

In other words, Paul wasn't sent to just Israel, but to all the world, including Israel.

 

[JudgeRightly]

But the historical-grammatical method is to get as close as possible to the original meaning in the situation in the text, to avoid 'deeper' because that would only be our thoughts about many other things, far removed in time from the original situation.

This we agree upon.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Yes it does change things.

It doesn't change the fact that upon receiving the gospel of the uncircumcision Paul went immediately into Arabia and when he received the gospel which he preached to the cirumcision he went immediately into Damascus.

You have not addressed that.

 

[Interplanner]

It doesn't change the fact that upon receiving the gospel of the uncircumcision Paul went immediately into Arabia and when he received the gospel which he preached to the cirumcision he went immediately into Damascus.

You have not addressed that.

There is no gospel of the uncircumcision. That is an archaic understanding of bad English 1900 years after the originals. The NIV renders: 'the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles.' Get it? Otherwise you will spiral wildly out of control.

 

[JudgeRightly]

There is no gospel of the uncircumcision. That is an archaic understanding of bad English 1900 years after the originals. The NIV renders: 'the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles.' Get it? Otherwise you will spiral wildly out of control.

 

[DAN P]

Hi and since IP is a Greek scholar , he should recognize the Greek article ( THE ) before Un-circumcision and the Greek article , before ( THE ) word Circumcision !!

Makes a big difference between the 2 circumcisions !!

dan p

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

His followers did sing 'blessed is he who...' and saw the kingdom he was speaking of.

:chuckle:

 

[Right Divider]

There is no gospel of the uncircumcision. That is an archaic understanding of bad English 1900 years after the originals. The NIV renders: 'the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles.' Get it? Otherwise you will spiral wildly out of control.

The NIV is a complete and utter piece of trash... I can see why you use it.

 

[Interplanner]

Hi and since IP is a Greek scholar , he should recognize the Greek article ( THE ) before Un-circumcision and the Greek article , before ( THE ) word Circumcision !!

Makes a big difference between the 2 circumcisions !!

dan p

No, because the Gospel mentioned there is one. Because there is only one verb 'gospelling'. Compare the same sentence structure right after in v7: there is one God working among both. Not one God for each group.

Your conclusions and method are ridiculous.

 

[Right Divider]

No, because the Gospel mentioned there is one. Because there is only one verb 'gospelling'. Compare the same sentence structure right after in v7: there is one God working among both. Not one God for each group.

Your conclusions and method are ridiculous.

No kidding.... so one God can only do one thing?

Your logic is ridiculous, as usual.

 

[genuineoriginal]

the mark of an amateur is ever an over reliance on "a dictionary" for what a word might possibly mean.

The mark of an idiot is to assume that translations mean exactly what the original language meant and that words do not change meaning over time.

 

[genuineoriginal]

But the historical-grammatical method is to get as close as possible to the original meaning in the situation in the text, to avoid 'deeper' because that would only be our thoughts about many other things, far removed in time from the original situation.

Yep. :thumb:

 

[DAN P]

No, because the Gospel mentioned there is one. Because there is only one verb 'gospelling'. Compare the same sentence structure right after in v7: there is one God working among both. Not one God for each group.

Your conclusions and method are ridiculous.

Hi , IP , and the words CIRCUMCISION and UN-CIRCUMCISION mean the same interpretation ??

You are good as PERITOME means Circumcision !!

AKROBUSTIA means UN-circumcision and one say that it is a METONYMY , for Gentiles !!

dan p

 

[Interplanner]

Hi , IP , and the words CIRCUMCISION and UN-CIRCUMCISION mean the same interpretation ??

You are good as PERITOME means Circumcision !!

AKROBUSTIA means UN-circumcision and one say that it is a METONYMY , for Gentiles !!

dan p

I don't know what I said that made you think those were the same. There is one Gospel and one God in the text. use the sentence structure of v8 to help you see what v7 means. The structure is the same, and the point is that there is one ____ in each case.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

There is no gospel of the uncircumcision.

:chuckle:

 

[Interplanner]

:chuckle:

Damned right there is not. The Greek is 'preaching the Gospel to (either group)' in both cases. The ONE GOSPEL he just declared in ch 1 and that Abraham saw in advance in ch 3.

Your cartoons are destroying your brain.

This is the scandal of D'ism: 'there is one gospel' but in the literalism of D'ism there is actually two. Because 'literalism' in D'ism means to invent things as needed to make sense of the Bible as Chafer and Scofield felt needed.

 

[Right Divider]

Damned right there is not. The Greek is 'preaching the Gospel to (either group)' in both cases. The ONE GOSPEL he just declared in ch 1 and that Abraham saw in advance in ch 3.

Your cartoons are destroying your brain.

This is the scandal of D'ism: 'there is one gospel' but in the literalism of D'ism there is actually two. Because 'literalism' in D'ism means to invent things as needed to make sense of the Bible as Chafer and Scofield felt needed.

There are MANY gospels... go get a Bible and find out.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Damned right there is not. The Greek is 'preaching the Gospel to (either group)' in both cases. The ONE GOSPEL he just declared in ch 1 and that Abraham saw in advance in ch 3.

Your cartoons are destroying your brain.

This is the scandal of D'ism: 'there is one gospel' but in the literalism of D'ism there is actually two. Because 'literalism' in D'ism means to invent things as needed to make sense of the Bible as Chafer and Scofield felt needed.

:chuckle:

 

[Interplanner]

There are MANY gospels... go get a Bible and find out.

So as I was saying D'ism is not literal about 'there is no other Gospel...let him be anathema.' Right, got it. Just as I expected. Literal UNTIL conflict with D'ism and the nation/race.