Yes, I am! :banana: Go Hawks!
:thumb:
Yes, I am! :banana: Go Hawks!
How's life treating you, rulz?
So, they are both the uncircumcision?
Why don't you start a thread where you show us Peter and the eleven teaching "neither Jew/Gentile (male/female)" after the cross?Circ vs uncirc can refer to Jew vs Gentile. After the cross, there is neither Jew/Gentile, but all are one in Christ through faith in His person and work. This is the one gospel with no room for a secondary one. If Paul wrote the verse to North Americans, he might have said the gospel of the Americans for STP and the gospel of the Canadians for rulz. Same gospel, but we take it to our specific people groups.
If he wrote in English, he would probably have said 'to' vs 'of' (which is true in Greek, but obscured by KJV).
You mean where Peter keeps saying "Men of Israel", etc. etc.? :comeout:Acts 2 does teach this, but you guys refuse to admit it. Peter, John, Paul, James, etc. know one gospel post-cross. Pre-cross has transition, so look at their writings after the resurrection, not in the Gospels (though there is not even a problem there).
You mean where Peter keeps saying "Men of Israel", etc. etc.? :comeout:
Circ vs uncirc can refer to Jew vs Gentile.
The DBR is in Acts 2 and I Cor. 15.
Yep!The DBR alone in Acts 2 is not the same as 1 Cor 15:1-4.
It is missing the WHY of the cross.
Christ death is not said to be "good news" in Acts 1-5. It is make to be a murder accusation.<cut>
The DBR is in Acts 2 and I Cor. 15.
Christ death is not said to be "good news" in Acts 1-5. It is make to be a murder accusation.Act 2:22-23 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: (23) Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:That's that a proclamation of GOSPEL (good news).
</cut><cut> Act 2:36-37 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. (37) Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?</cut>Do you think that is was the GOSPEL (good news) that they had crucified the Lord that "pricked their hearts"?
<cut></cut>
You have a bogus "interpretation" of the book of Acts.
Yep! It was presented as a murder indictment, but that God had raised Him up! Peter didn't glory in the cross! He did not preach the WHY of the cross, but a murder and a shame! And why Christ was raised from the dead according to Peter differs from Paul too, but shown over and over from the scriptures rulz rejects the evidence in favor of his allegiance to pentecostalism/denominationalism.
Christ death is not said to be "good news" in Acts 1-5. It is make to be a murder accusation.Act 2:22-23 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: (23) Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:That's that a proclamation of GOSPEL (good news).
</cut><cut> Act 2:36-37 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. (37) Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?</cut>Do you think that is was the GOSPEL (good news) that they had crucified the Lord that "pricked their hearts"?
<cut></cut>
You have a bogus "interpretation" of the book of Acts.
Is it possible that Jews/Gentiles were in the circumcision and Jews/Gentiles were in the uncircumcision?
How would that affect your view?
The DBR alone in Acts 2 is not the same as 1 Cor 15:1-4.
It is missing the WHY of the cross.
Yep! It was presented as a murder indictment, but that God had raised Him up! Peter didn't glory in the cross! He did not preach the WHY of the cross, but a murder and a shame! And why Christ was raised from the dead according to Peter differs from Paul too, but shown over and over from the scriptures rulz rejects the evidence in favor of his allegiance to pentecostalism/denominationalism.
You cannot be Pentecostal if your aren't Acts 2, and you can't be Acts 2 if Peter wasn't preaching to you.
Rulz is bound and determined to remain Acts 2, at all costs.
If someone could logically, from the scriptures (meaning exactly what they say), prove to me I am mistaken, I would abandon MAD in short order.
I think your view is refuted, but you are to invested to reject it. You overestimate how theologically astute you guys are. If you were, you would not fall for MAD, KJVO, cessationism, etc.
MAD separating the person (who) and work (what) of Christ/cross/gospel strains credulity and is easily refutable (you cannot divorce the person and work of Christ....Paul, Peter, John, etc. did not, but MAD does).