What do you think?
What do you think?
What do you think?
I don't think it would matter, because the real objection people have to MAD is that it shows them there are things they believe are theirs -- things they rely on and take great pride in -- but which never were theirs. And no one wants to give them up.
The good news is the same for both.
Let them be different, God wanted them to be different.
The genitive has dozens of uses. KJV is weak or wrong here. I can accept it as is (the gospel of the Americans is the same as the gospel of the Chinese), but the best scholarship reflects a more accurate understanding of the genitive here (which is often 'of', but not always).
MAD falls apart at the level of original languages, as do the JW/Mormon cultic arguments from KJV only or their sectarian perversions like NWT (KJV is good, but not infallible)
There is an interpretative issue. We all believe the words on the page, yet many come up with countless interpretations on any given text. You are proof texting this out of context of all relevant verses and simplistically refusing to consider the original language grammatical issues. You want to retain a preconceived error at all costs rather than actually do the hard work of exegesis.
Try sound exegesis rather than sloppy exegesis and eisegesis.
not to mention the fair shew in the flesh:up:
All the fun stuff: religion, signs and miracles, prosperity, thinking yourself a spiritual Jew
:thumb:The good news for the circumcision (containing both Jews and Gentiles) is that Christ redeemed them, and if they by faith endure to the end, they will inherit the Holy City and be a priest and king.
The good news for the uncircumcision (containing both Jews and Gentiles) is that Christ redeemed us, forgave us, sealed us with the Spirit and has us already seated in him in the heavens, positionally, as trophies of his Grace.
Same Christ, same blood, same cross, different groups, different purposes, different inheritances.
Let them be different, God wanted them to be different.
There is an interpretative issue. We all believe the words on the page, yet many come up with countless interpretations on any given text. You are proof texting this out of context of all relevant verses and simplistically refusing to consider the original language grammatical issues. You want to retain a preconceived error at all costs rather than actually do the hard work of exegesis.
What do you think?
Equally capable, godly, equally godly, capable, believers down through the ages have agreed that MAD is a non-starter.
STP has more credible wisdom, balanced truth, maturity, discernment, love, etc. than you have in one finger.Your assertion begs clarification of context, without proper proof texting.
All the fun stuff: religion, signs and miracles, prosperity, thinking yourself a spiritual Jew
You are simplistic to think it is a matter of what the Bible says when you interpret and twist to fit a preconceived idea. It is arrogant to assume that godly, capable, great thinkers through the centuries who reject MAD (new doctrine anyway) are clueless or without the leading of the Spirit
Try sound exegesis rather than sloppy exegesis and eisegesis.