You haven't put in any effort. That's why you deserve to be mocked.
And "channeling" only has one "l."
Thx. I rarely get spelling wrong
You haven't put in any effort. That's why you deserve to be mocked.
And "channeling" only has one "l."
Why is Paul the only one to ever refer to his message as "my gospel"?I also call it my gospel.
The mystery of Jew/Gentile being one in Christ was not prophesied, but hidden, in the OT (compared to first and second coming of Christ).
How about you show us what the Greek says?This is the problem with KJVO. Check the Greek and other translations. Paul is using hyperbole, the chief/worst of sinners to show the great grace of God. It is not what MAD says it is.
That's what I wanted to know from little g rulz, too.Why is Paul the only one to ever refer to his message as "my gospel"?
Romans 2:16, 16:25
2 Timothy 2:8
Why does Paul call it my gospel?
Moses never used the term "my gospel", neither did Peter, James or John.I also call it my gospel.
The mystery of Jew/Gentile being one in Christ was not prophesied, but hidden, in the OT (compared to first and second coming of Christ).
:yawn:MAD is a false teaching, but not a salvific issue. Over and out.
MAD and KJVO are anti-intellectual and thrive on ignorance. This is arrogance, not rightly dividing the Word or upholding it.
It's not "rightly dividing the Word" (why did you capitalize word?). It's rightly dividing the word of truth. You don't even know what the word of truth is, do you?
The point stands. The who of Jesus Christ and what Christ did (the why of the cross) are not the same thing. Also, Paul uses the term "man Christ Jesus" as the one mediator Who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time( 1 Timothy 2:4-6 KJV); not Lamb (see also "Christ Jesus" in Philippians 2:5-8 KJV).What Christ did and Who He was are not the same but what He did was certainly contingent upon who He was. For instance, if He did not have a divine origin He could not have become the Lamb who mediated between God and man.
First you say Romans 1:1-4 is and example of the general Petrine Gospel. A little later, in Romans 1:16, the Pauline gospel is being presented. So without announcement or introduction Paul switches to the different message. This does not even sound like good writing though I suspect its the hermeneutics that are not sound. I mean what internal evidence is there?
Shasta! You've been around here for some time now. Surely, you have seen the scriptural evidence, but in short...Also your have said I Corinthians 15:1-4 is a specifically Pauline gospel while. Again on what basis do you do so?
Would you say He was wholly sanctified in the way Paul talks about here? In His humanity preserved blameless?
1 Thessalonians 5:23
And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Again, anti-intellectualism is why fads, cults, sects, false teachings thrive.
Proof texting is the pitfall of cults and false teachings, not biblical, balanced views.
This is the problem with KJVO. Check the Greek and other translations. Paul is using hyperbole, the chief/worst of sinners to show the great grace of God. It is not what MAD says it is.
"Semantical" is not a word. The word you were looking for is "semantic."Every translator and Greek scholar disagrees with you about the semantical range of the Greek word.
There is not one single use of "Bride of Christ" in the entire Bible. This makes that a non-issue. It matters not that Paul compares the relationship between God and Christians with a marriage, or that anyone else does. I don't deny its use, so how about you try moving along?Body of Christ is one of several metaphors Paul uses for the Church. He even uses 'bride', something MAD would deny. You say I have not been able to explain this? We have been around this block many times in the past.
o you run away without ever having defended your position. Why am I not surprised?MAD is a false teaching, but not a salvific issue. Over and out.
I know. I was expounding on the question because his answer was vapid.That's what I wanted to know from little g rulz, too.
Anything, but compare spiritual things with spiritual and believe the KJB means what it says, as it says it and to whom it says it.
Greek is your final authority. Poor dear, doesn't have the pure words of the Lord (or should I say, rejects it).
The inspired scriptures consists of the words contained in the original autographs of the NT.
It was "IS" then as it IS now just as the scripture saith!Then Paul was just spouting nonsense to Timothy. Timothy could NOT be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
2 Timothy 3:15-17 (KJV)
What a cruel prank.
I use a number of translations and as well as the Greek text.
You'd like to think that, but by your own admission of using corrupted books you can't nail what is the word of God down to one. You don't believe any of them.You have suggested that the Greek language is my "final authority." I would like to think the Holy Spirit and His word is my final authority.
Then Paul was just spouting nonsense to Timothy. Timothy could NOT be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
2 Timothy 3:15-17 (KJV)
What a cruel prank.
You'd like to think that, but by your own admission of using corrupted books you can't nail what is the word of God down to one. You don't believe any of them.
Every translator and Greek scholar disagrees with you about the semantical range of the Greek word.