ECT WHO GAVE PETER AND PAUL THEIR GOSPELS ?

[DAN P]

My proof is proper Christianity, not whatever bastardized, convenient version you came up with. The proof is directly in front of your face, which you have gone out the way to avoid by compartmentalizing the Scriptures.

Hi and where is the Greek words for PURGATORY or POPE , and why are they not in the BIBLE ?

From your answer you are not even going to PURGATORY are you ??

Where is you PROOF and there are no PRIESTS in the Body Christ , will you RUN AWAY or come up with a verse , Grasshooper ??

dN P

 

[Interplanner]

You might consider that his RIGHT facts BUT SEEMING wrong conclusion is due - one; to the fact that he did NOT really tie them together.

It is NOT due to their NOT being tied together.

It is because he often posts expecting to be understood by people "without the camp," so to speak.

As if posting "to the choir" though not intending to.

Two; the simple fact is that YOU do NOT know Mid-Acts.

As a result, yours is YOUR reading INTO Dan's above assertion from WITHIN YOUR vacuum.

O but you'll post your ilinformed conclusions; no sense in allowing yourself to be stopped by such a simple, GLARINGLY OBVIOUS FACT - that you haven't even bothered to research the other side's view.

No debate format taught you at your Alma Mater; I suppose.

Danoh,
You claimed in a thread to have 'just stated' what the necessary summary of MAD is in relation to Acts 13. I looked back two pages and found nothing. What are you about--besides ending every post with the mocking icon?

Why should I deal with "views" when he has just used 5 passages and made the wrong conclusion? There is nothing else to say about this post.

Why are all of your posts advertisements for a "view" that is sacrocanct but never explained simply, just shrouded in gnosis mystery that 'it's right in front of me' if only I was a 'super-theologian' like you;
or 'I just explained it' but there is nothing for 2 pages;
or 'yes there is one gospel--after Acts 9?' thus ignoring the real question of the gospel before Acts 9?

 

[Danoh]

Danoh,
You claimed in a thread to have 'just stated' what the necessary summary of MAD is in relation to Acts 13. I looked back two pages and found nothing. What are you about--besides ending every post with the mocking icon?

Why should I deal with "views" when he has just used 5 passages and made the wrong conclusion? There is nothing else to say about this post.

Why are all of your posts advertisements for a "view" that is sacrocanct but never explained simply, just shrouded in gnosis mystery that 'it's right in front of me' if only I was a 'super-theologian' like you;
or 'I just explained it' but there is nothing for 2 pages;
or 'yes there is one gospel--after Acts 9?' thus ignoring the real question of the gospel before Acts 9?

Rotfl

Am enjoying your frustration immensely :chuckle:

 

[bcbsr]

Concerning the origin of Paul's gospel he says, '

"I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ." Gal 1:12

And the context indicates he did not get it from the other apostles.

This is not to say that Peter preached a different gospel. When Paul came to the church at Jerusalem in Acts 15 Peter agreed with him concerning his gospel and that conditions for salvation were the same for Jew and Gentile. Furthermore Peter endorse Paul's writings as scripture in 2Peter.

 

[DAN P]

Concerning the origin of Paul's gospel he says, '

"I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ." Gal 1:12

And the context indicates he did not get it from the other apostles.

This is not to say that Peter preached a different gospel. When Paul came to the church at Jerusalem in Acts 15 Peter agreed with him concerning his gospel and that conditions for salvation were the same for Jew and Gentile. Furthermore Peter endorse Paul's writings as scripture in 2Peter.

Hi and you should be able to explain Acts 15:11 ??
Let's see you do it or Col 1:26 ??

Better think again ??

dan p

 

[andyc]

Hi and just what is your point ,

Put your silly books down, and read the bible. Then you'll find out.

since your did not explain the PRESENT TENSE of the 4 verbs in Gal 3:28

Don't you mean Gal 2:8?
That was the subject verse in the OP.

If you took more interest in what the English was saying to you, you wouldn't need to try to understand the Greek tenses all the time. It confuses me why you want to make an issue out of the Greek aorist tenses in this verse. It's as if you're fighting to defend what the English translation is actually saying, while talking to people who believe what the English translation is saying. Obviously the apostle Paul is looking back at the past working of God within Peter and Paul.

NOR have explained how you were saved

This has nothing to do with the OP. And I have no desire to watch a cult member pick apart my testimony.

OR is it John 3:6-7 ?

explain by context John 3:6-7 IF YOU CAN ??

The text speaks for itself. You must be born of the Spirit in order to enter the kingdom of God.

John 1:12-13 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Romans 9:8 That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.

The people who do not have the Spirit, are worshipers in the flesh. The promise to Abraham is that he would be a father of many nations. By becoming children of God in the Spirit, we become heirs of the promise to Abraham. Through faith in Christ we adopted into the family by the Spirit.

 

[andyc]

Hi and where is the verse to back up your claims ??

dan p

Heb 9:8-10 the Holy Spirit indicating this, that the way into the Holiest of All was not yet made manifest while the first tabernacle was still standing. It was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation.

If it was unknown how people could stand perfectly justified in the presence of God, it was a mystery. The ceremonial law divided Jews from gentiles, and Jews from God. However, neither could enter the most Holy place, except the priest once a year, and not without blood.

How can this dividing barrier be broken down to where Jews and gentiles can enter the most Holy place (heaven), fully justified, and sanctified by a way other than animal sacrifices?

A mystery revealed by the gospel of Jesus Christ. To enter the Spiritual sanctuary, you must be born of the Spirit. But before the Spirit can enter, it must be first cleansed by the blood of Christ.

And so the mystery is, we are the temple of God, and he dwells in us.

 

[andyc]

AndyC
What does this mean?

the Jews lived in condemnation of it.

An article I wrote on the 'elements' was published and in the research on that, I didn't find any place where the expression was used before Paul.

Acts 15:10 "Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

The ceremonial law was a terrible burden, which Peter says, they were unable to bear. The nutcase madster, however, thinks that Peter was still struggling under the burden.

 

[DAN P]

Heb 9:8-10 the Holy Spirit indicating this, that the way into the Holiest of All was not yet made manifest while the first tabernacle was still standing. It was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation.

If it was unknown how people could stand perfectly justified in the presence of God, it was a mystery. The ceremonial law divided Jews from gentiles, and Jews from God. However, neither could enter the most Holy place, except the priest once a year, and not without blood.

How can this dividing barrier be broken down to where Jews and gentiles can enter the most Holy place (heaven), fully justified, and sanctified by a way other than animal sacrifices?

A mystery revealed by the gospel of Jesus Christ. To enter the Spiritual sanctuary, you must be born of the Spirit. But before the Spirit can enter, it must be first cleansed by the blood of Christ.

And so the mystery is, we are the temple of God, and he dwells in us.

Hi and can you be LOST from your temple ??

Gal 3:28 says NO !!

What say you ??

dan p

 

[Interplanner]

Danoh wrote:
If it was unknown how people could stand perfectly justified in the presence of God, it was a mystery. Right, but that's what sets up the aggressive attempt by Judaism to adhere to the Law. So when Paul comes along, he has to daringly tell Judaism that it is not going happen by adherence to the Law, no matter how refined. It's all happening by Messiah's work.

In the language of Eph 3:6, the unifying messianic age comes into existence 'through the Gospel' not through the Law. 'Through the gospel' is absolutely the operating phrase.

This means that the dismal outcome of Daniel 9's vision (it is the outcome of a prayer of repentance and petition for restoration) is where the disagreement between IT Judaism and God starts. Messiah will accomplish all those 6 redemptive things but the city and sanctuary will be ruined. They're not going to let it happen. Caiaphas is going to intervene and change what has been decreed, and knows the 490 years are about up.

 

[Interplanner]

The premise of the thread is mistaken, of course.

 

[Danoh]

Danoh wrote:
If it was unknown how people could stand perfectly justified in the presence of God, it was a mystery. Right, but that's what sets up the aggressive attempt by Judaism to adhere to the Law. So when Paul comes along, he has to daringly tell Judaism that it is not going happen by adherence to the Law, no matter how refined. It's all happening by Messiah's work.

In the language of Eph 3:6, the unifying messianic age comes into existence 'through the Gospel' not through the Law. 'Through the gospel' is absolutely the operating phrase.

This means that the dismal outcome of Daniel 9's vision (it is the outcome of a prayer of repentance and petition for restoration) is where the disagreement between IT Judaism and God starts. Messiah will accomplish all those 6 redemptive things but the city and sanctuary will be ruined. They're not going to let it happen. Caiaphas is going to intervene and change what has been decreed, and knows the 490 years are about up.

Bro, that was andyc :chuckle:

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

My proof is proper Christianity, not whatever bastardized, convenient version you came up with. The proof is directly in front of your face, which you have gone out the way to avoid by compartmentalizing the Scriptures.

It looks as if you have absolutely no answer pertaining to how or why you're even saved? Apparently, you have no testimony of faith? That doesn't really surprise me, by the way.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Your noncommunication amuses me. All you know how to do is say 'I'm right, you're ignorant.' So break it down and find one small item that is wrong. Otherwise shut up.

The one and same God put those two apostles into action spreading one Gospel, as we know from the samples of what they said. DanP concludes there are two gospels out of nothing.

You're right about one thing: "I'm right and you're ignorant."

 

[Interplanner]

There is no grammatical support for what DanP is saying. In English it may appear to be because of the prepositional phrases piled on top of each other (2) but there is no confusion in Greek, because it tells both the case and the number. It tells whether the prep. should be "for" the group or "to" the group (case).

 

[DAN P]

There is no grammatical support for what DanP is saying. In English it may appear to be because of the prepositional phrases piled on top of each other (2) but there is no confusion in Greek, because it tells both the case and the number. It tells whether the prep. should be "for" the group or "to" the group (case).

Hi and it looks as you will not comment on the verb tense that are in the Greek text as it prove what I wrote correct !!

And you can answer , by saying How Peter and/or Paul were saved ?

Give it a shot , if you have not LOST your Nerve ??
dan p