Search results

"So let me now spend the rest of my post commenting on what you beg to differ about." Here's the thing. If idols are nothing, and it doesn't matter if anyone eats meat sacrificed to idols, why do Jews have to abstain from eating meat sacrificed to idols? Is God's command to them of no import...

Yes--it was because he was preaching it. He also used the terms: "the gospel" "the gospel of God" "the gospel of Christ" "the gospel about Christ" "this gospel" "the gospel of your salvation" And he used "the gospel" in connection with Peter: [Gal 2:14 NET] 14 But when I saw that they were not...

Paul said he was preaching the same gospel: [1Co 15:9, 11 NET] 9 For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. ... 11 Whether then it was I or they [the other apostles], this is the way we preach and this is the way you believed...

That doesn’t mean he takes pleasure in the eternal punishment of the wicked.

So why was the gospel of the kingdom good news for Cornelius, who wasn't part of the kingdom? How would he benefit from hearing the gospel of the kingdom? Not yet...keep talking. That's what I was asking you. Why would Peter offer anything to Cornelius except the best good news he had for...

In other words, you just start with that presupposition, and use your presupposition to reject what the Bible plainly says, that Christ died for all, but all will not believe. That puts your presupposition in a position of higher authority than the Bible. That’s what Adam and Eve did with God’s...

But the good news Peter offered to Cornelius was the same good news Paul offered to the Gentiles, right? If so, then Peter was preaching the gospel of the uncircumcision, which you said he had agreed not to do. If not, then Peter was preaching the gospel of the circumcision to a Gentile, which...

Maybe you don't understand the gospel. Maybe the good news Peter was preaching to Cornelius was that he could be resurrected, which included the remission of sins. Do you think Cornelius was unaware that Jesus couldn't actually be resurrected unless He first had died? I mean, you seem to think...

Those are big claims. Do you make those claims with scriptural support that you can share with me? Why? Would that change the target of your posts, to only shoot at those that I might be persuaded by? You seem to think little of your persuasive powers. Should I think the same?

I guess that can be true of almost anyone. So you like to think of the gospel as a formula that you have to express in exactly the same way every time for it to be effective? Shall we return to the Phillipian Jailer story, where Paul said nothing (at least from the text we have) about the...

I did, but you rejected it. I can’t do more for you, except try one more time: Acts 10:39-43 (KJV) 39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree: 40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly...

Of course they’re related. But Acts 13:32-33 is about the defeat of death promised in the Garden, (God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again) so it applies to the Jews and Gentiles, alike, whereas the land promise to Abraham was to provide a place...

I don’t think the land covenant and the Mosaic law are the same thing. The people who aren’t priests partake as well. What’s the difference?

It’s an example of a covenant that was in effect, then put on hold, or “paused”, then in effect again (then put on hold again in 70 AD, then in effect again as of 1948). That is to say, the nation of Israel, the beneficiary of the covenant, ceases to receive the benefit of it for a time. That...

I’m not convinced. Genesis 13:15 (KJV) For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever. There weren’t any conditions placed on this, and God letter confirmed it as a covenant by walking between the halves by Himself. Yet He “paused” the covenant when the...

You say they are. I showed that they weren’t. Of course they needed to hear the bad news of their sin before hearing the good news of the gospel. Just like Gentiles need to hear the bad news of their sins before they know they need a savior. 1 Corinthians 6:11 (KJV) And such were some of you...

Is Acts 10 the only scripture we look to for Peter’s version of the gospel? what about this: Acts 2:38 (KJV) Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. If he...

Genesis 25:16 (KJV) These [are] the sons of Ishmael, and these [are] their names, by their towns, and by their castles; twelve princes according to their nations. But what was preached to the Jew after Paul’s conversion? Even Peter had to admit Paul had good things to say to the Jew. 2 Peter...

I guess you have to include the tithe in the liturgy, then, if we describe what happened as a liturgy.

If you think "fulfill" is better, that's fine, but you complained about that term, too. Jesus did both. Was Cornelius required to be circumcised? Was Cornelius required to be circumcised before Peter learned from Paul? No, "technically" they are not. Neither did the Jews think Samaritans were...