ECT Do those who believe MAD have no problem disregarding what Jesus actually taught ?

[SaulToPaul 2]

I do know what you believe, and you have made it pretty clear. There is a lot to be destroyed about it. It clearly does not sound or feel or read like the apostles about the OT.

Feeeeeeeeelings......woah woah woah, feeeeeeelings

 

[Interplanner]

:doh:

Exactly: another 'victorious' non-discussion.

Any young student can see that all believers are enjoined to be 'envoys' or 'ambassadors' for the new covenant. We work in it now, as all chs 3-5 confirm. Actually, I don't know a mission organization that fails to use that language. Only 2P2P people.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Exactly: another 'victorious' non-discussion. Any young student can see that all believers are enjoined to be 'envoys' or 'ambassadors' for the new covenant. Actually, I don't know a mission work that fails to use that language. Only 2P2P people.

Huh?

 

[Interplanner]

Feeeeeeeeelings......woah woah woah, feeeeeeelings

In this case, that would be the feeling of relief from not having to be tangled by Judaism so that you can enjoy people. It is found in Acts 15 about the burden no one can bear, or Gal 3 or Col 2 about 'there is no difference (between these different people groups), Christ is all (of them) and in all.'

The Gospel produces feelings but is not in essence 'a feeling' if that's what you meant.

It will take a long time to clear up your ignorance.

 

[Interplanner]

Huh?

At least you're admitting you don't know. Most mission groups use the ambassador for Christ theme found in the new covenant section of 2 cor 3-5.

As for you, I don't know if you know the new covenant is the main theme of 2 cor 3-5.

 

[Right Divider]

You are celebrating your victory but not discussing the question.

I don't need to celebrate facts.

The Gospel is that God was in Christ clearing up the debt of man's sin with His righteousness. This event, and the work of broadcasting it, is the new covenant. Unfortunately some people do not receive this.

What is the gospel of the circumcision?

 

[Right Divider]

2P2P is well known. The first thing it does is depart entirely from the NT on how to read the OT. That's why everything you read in 2P2P from the OT is as though the NT never happened. Like Judaism.

I am more, not less, familiar with you saying; you just are not shocked at what you do.

:french:

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Huh?

I don't think he even knows what he's saying.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

At least you're admitting you don't know. Most mission groups use the ambassador for Christ theme found in the new covenant section of 2 cor 3-5.

As for you, I don't know if you know the new covenant is the main theme of 2 cor 3-5.

I have always admitted that I do not understand your riddles.
Plain speech goes a long way.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

I don't need to celebrate facts.


What is the gospel of the circumcision?

For it is better, if the will of God be so, that you suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.

Now the uncircumcision....

Now therefore, there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one against another. Why do ye not rather accept wrong? Why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

I don't think he even knows what he's saying.

Not all the implications anyway.

 

[Interplanner]

I have always admitted that I do not understand your riddles.
Plain speech goes a long way.

"Ambassadors for Christ" is perfectly plain speech about the mission in 2 cor 3-5. 2P2P is convoluted, circuitous junk theology about the 3 main NT statements about the new covenant.

Judaism and 2P2P alike are a way of reading the OT as though the NT never happened is entirely plain speech but will make you puke when you realize what you are doing.

 

[Interplanner]

For it is better, if the will of God be so, that you suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.

Now the uncircumcision....

Now therefore, there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one against another. Why do ye not rather accept wrong? Why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?

re previous quote 'what is the gospel of the circumcision?'
This is the belief that Gal 2's grammar supports a 2nd gospel. It is an elementary greek grammar mistake, and the passage does not support it. The grammar shows that the preaching was one and the same, especially given the context of the anathema by the same writer, 10 verses earlier, about 2nd gospels. But 2P2P never was good at paying attention or context, only at creating discord and incoherence.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

re previous quote 'what is the gospel of the circumcision?'
This is the belief that Gal 2's grammar supports a 2nd gospel. It is an elementary greek grammar mistake, and the passage does not support it. The grammar shows that the preaching was one and the same, especially given the context of the anathema by the same writer, 10 verses earlier, about 2nd gospels. But 2P2P never was good at paying attention or context, only at creating discord and incoherence.

Maybe some of them mistake dishonesty with craftiness.

 

[Right Divider]

re previous quote 'what is the gospel of the circumcision?'
This is the belief that Gal 2's grammar supports a 2nd gospel. It is an elementary greek grammar mistake, and the passage does not support it. The grammar shows that the preaching was one and the same, especially given the context of the anathema by the same writer, 10 verses earlier, about 2nd gospels. But 2P2P never was good at paying attention or context, only at creating discord and incoherence.

Does it NOT include the phrase "the gospel of the uncircumcision"?

What is that?

 

[Interplanner]

the question is 'what case is it?' (what prepositional case). Both expressions were for the INDIRECT object. the direct object was the gospel, because the verb calls that out.
the verb was preaching
the subject/s was Paul/Peter.

The same one gospel was preached the same way, the same content to two targets.

It is humorous that you would pick this passage out of so many to use! it has a landmine next door. the landmine is that Paul had just said, at risk of you being cursed anathema, that there is only one gospel. The meaning of the grammar could not be more clear.

But ignore grammar for a moment if you need to: it was one God who was 'at work.' v.8. This is the God who has one Gospel or else every other page in my Bible was written by Marx or Heffner or Dawkins, got it? Quit messing around with the obvious.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

Does it NOT include the phrase "the gospel of the uncircumcision"?

What is that?

Same gospel as the gospel to the circumcision--


Rom 4:9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
Rom 4:10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
Rom 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
Rom 4:12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.
Rom 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
Rom 4:14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:
Rom 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
Rom 4:16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

 

[Interplanner]

Same gospel as the gospel to the circumcision--


Rom 4:9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
Rom 4:10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
Rom 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
Rom 4:12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.
Rom 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
Rom 4:14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:
Rom 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
Rom 4:16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

Thanks LA maybe he'll realize some day that his Gal 2 view is one of the handful of 'proof-texts' that 2P2P clings to life upon.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

the question is 'what case is it?' (what prepositional case). Both expressions were for the INDIRECT object. the direct object was the gospel, because the verb calls that out.
the verb was preaching
the subject/s was Paul/Peter.

The same one gospel was preached the same way, the same content to two targets.

It is humorous that you would pick this passage out of so many to use! it has a landmine next door. the landmine is that Paul had just said, at risk of you being cursed anathema, that there is only one gospel. The meaning of the grammar could not be more clear.

But ignore grammar for a moment if you need to: it was one God who was 'at work.' v.8. This is the God who has one Gospel or else every other page in my Bible was written by Marx or Heffner or Dawkins, got it? Quit messing around with the obvious.

Huh?

 

[Right Divider]

Huh?

:french:
He is quite the learned one, eh?