ECT 'Euangelizo' is not even a grammatical question in Galatians--or anywhere.

I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Nick M said:
Any day now....

You didn't answer in the other threads, and likely will not answer here. Paul went to the Jew first. Peter went to the Jew first.
Click to expand...


I don't know; there were practicalities. Obviously you don't arrive at doctrinal conclusions the same way. You find exceptions in a narrative where he slapped a high priest and deserted Mark, and don't make any doctrines out of that. But if it helps 2P2P, you think it is a doctrine.

The reformation church has used a rule of thumb since Melancthon: interpret narrative incidents in light of doctrinal declarations. The idea that there is a doctrinal declaration for two gospels and two ad nauseum is too stupid to discuss.
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
I don't know; there were practicalities. Obviously you don't arrive at doctrinal conclusions the same way. You find exceptions in a narrative where he slapped a high priest and deserted Mark, and don't make any doctrines out of that. But if it helps 2P2P, you think it is a doctrine.

The reformation church has used a rule of thumb since Melancthon: interpret narrative incidents in light of doctrinal declarations. The idea that there is a doctrinal declaration for two gospels and two ad nauseum is too stupid to discuss.
Click to expand...

Huh?
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
More juvenility. Why don't you talk about the slapping of the high priest? Oh, that's because you might think it was just Paul at work, not "the Bible". And we all know I'm the one against the Bible, yeah.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
'Euangelizo' is a word that has the one gospel built in. That is all you need to know from the OP to know that 2P2P and this junk theology from Gal 2 is a fraud. If they meant 2 gospels they would have used another word.

Then, after digesting that, you might get really informed and realize that ONE gospel and go to TWO targets!!! What a concept. You're really making progress now!!!
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
'Euangelizo' is a word that has the one gospel built in. That is all you need to know from the OP to know that 2P2P and this junk theology from Gal 2 is a fraud. If they meant 2 gospels they would have used another word.

Then, after digesting that, you might get really informed and realize that ONE gospel and go to TWO targets!!! What a concept. You're really making progress now!!!
Click to expand...

Why did Paul immediately break the agreement set forth in Acts 15, if it's one gospel with two targets?
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
SaulToPaul said:
Why did Paul immediately break the agreement set forth in Acts 15, if it's one gospel with two targets?
Click to expand...


He never said what he did was 'a gospel.' It was an arrangement to keep Titus safe. He said in Rom 14 that a person is to act by faith; whatever was not of faith was sin. So its his problem. But it was not a declaration of another gospel. That is an amateur handling.

It is also narrative, not his doctrinal treatment of the subject, which I don't think you understand.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
You've left the grammar because you lost. 'Euangelizo' is to preach one gospel. They had ways of saying there were 2 and he did not use it.
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
He never said what he did was 'a gospel.' It was an arrangement to keep Titus safe. He said in Rom 14 that a person is to act by faith; whatever was not of faith was sin. So its his problem. But it was not a declaration of another gospel. That is an amateur handling.

It is also narrative, not his doctrinal treatment of the subject, which I don't think you understand.
Click to expand...

Huh?
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
two ad nauseum is too stupid to discuss.
Click to expand...

Is the fact that God offered different instructions to Abraham in uncircumcision vs. Abraham in circumcision "too stupid to discuss"?

The truth is, you never even thought about the difference because it was not mentioned in the 387 dusty books of men on your shelves.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
What matters on that topic is in rom 4. What matters in this thread is that you violate/bludgeon Greek grammar in Gal 2.

Your system is a failure for both reasons.

You have raped the NT with your system.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
SaulToPaul said:
What's a narrative?
Click to expand...



Aaaaagh, are you actually that simplistic?
Narrative: Paul rode a boat from Greece to Ephesus.
Doctrine: the grace of God in Christ saves us.

Try to learn how to think.

If Paul does something with Titus because otherwise Titus might die at the hands of Judaizers, you can't really call that a doctrinal teaching. he also slapped a high priest.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Tambora said:
Galatians 2:7 KJV
(7) But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;


"of", not "to".




"of" denotes possession

If it were the exact same gospel going to two different groups, there was no need to include "of" either of them.
Click to expand...



You've got a mind for grammar but you're in the wrong language. You forgot to ask how the verb would look if referring to two gospels and other things about indirect objects.
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
Aaaaagh, are you actually that simplistic?
Narrative: Paul rode a boat from Greece to Ephesus.
Doctrine: the grace of God in Christ saves us.

Try to learn how to think.

If Paul does something with Titus because otherwise Titus might die at the hands of Judaizers, you can't really call that a doctrinal teaching. he also slapped a high priest.
Click to expand...

Oh. Thanks.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
You've got a mind for grammar but you're in the wrong language. You forgot to ask how the verb would look if referring to two gospels and other things about indirect objects.
Click to expand...


Aren't you guys always looking for criminal translations? Oh...only if it conflicts with 2P2P. Got it.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
SaulToPaul said:
Come again, Lamont?
Click to expand...


You're just arrogant. You've insulated yourself from criticism.

If a passage supports 2P2P, you will enjoy your favorite translation.

If it does not, the translation is a criminal.

I still don't know what on earth lie you see in Mk 1:2 in the NIV. You are about the worst communicator I have encountered. Well, Danoh was worse, but he left.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top