Search results

That conclusion doesn't follow logically. That they added nothing says that Paul already had the entire gospel. If anything, this re-confirms that it is the same gospel, because they were comparing... it's not a contrast.

The church was afraid of Paul because up until the Damascus road he had been hunting them down and arresting them. So while they could have just taught it to him, they didn't, because they were actively avoiding him.

Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. Paul is referring to God's promise to Abraham to make Him a "Father of Nations" which the New Testament interprets as...

I think this hits at it. Repentance brings us into unity with Christ, under His authority in the Kingdom of God. Mark 1:14 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,

Yes, I think we'd have a better than 50% chance of winning. Historically, the church has been very favorable to statements of "only one." Paul: Ephesians 4:4 [There is] one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 One God...

So far, I contend that: A) There is one certain Gospel which the Bible refers to as THE Gospel, whose proclamation is vital and necessary for salvation (whatever that is) B) That I know what THE Gospel is C) Acts 7 doesn't proclaim THE Gospel D) Acts 7 doesn't proclaim ANY gospel at all - it is...

Could you list them? That would be helpful for comparison's sake. I don't think that frames the argument correctly. The claim isn't that "no other gospel exists." If so, then Paul is speaking nonsense when he refers to an "other gospel." Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven...

Message? Hmph... μαρτύριον (martyrion) is legal testimony. That's why it's sometimes translated as 'witness.' More specifically, it is legal testimony given by the accused/condemned at their OWN trial (hence the whole martyr thing). Stephen didn't use his final words to deliver a message to...

I love Acts 7, but this is NOT the gospel. This is Stephen's μαρτύριον (martyr) - the testimony for which his life's blood was spilled. For the Jews, this is the opposite of "good news." This is INCREDIBLY BAD NEWS for the Jews. Stephen accuses them of killing their Messiah. Their hope is...

There's only one gospel - that God is present, active, powerful, and working through us. The idea that there are two is the basis of one of the more successful modern heresies.

I would not call #1, #2, or #4 "tongues." Paul prohibits #3 where there is no interpretation.

My grandfather. He was a missionary to the Navajo native Americans. He received the gift of speaking their language.

Those aren't the gift of tongues, despite what those who practice them will tell you. Those are properly termed as "prayer language" or "groanings of the spirit." (As long as they aren't given publicly for interpretation, I have no problem with these) Real tongues are for evangelism...

I think we had a whole topic on how prophecies were acquired or misappropriated. I think that's the intended functionality - that's a feature rather than a bug. The church of my youth was not short on prophecy, or tongues. It had, perhaps, some problems with the authenticity of all the...

That's interesting. The Hebrew language of the OT deals in pictures. Not really... The church misunderstands the nature of prophecy, thinking it is about foretelling. It's more about patterns and inspiration.

Except, there aren't prophets in every church. There are a lot of churches that would expel someone if they claimed to prophesy.

That gets to the point. There isn't a single answer, and the answers aren't confined to those two options. The workS here come from periods before Israel existed. The editor (Moses?) is of Israel, though. Genesis 1:1 - 2:4: Mythological, of Canaanite origin Genesis 2:5 - 4:26: Euhemeric...

Seems like this question is for me. I don't find that infallibility for every book is necessary. If 1Kings has errors, that doesn't mean that Isaiah is flawed, or that Matthew is somehow wrong. The idea of infallibility really rests on the idea of inspiration. It turns out that a bunch of...

All this addresses the reliability in transmitting what-was-written down through the centuries. But it does not address the reliability of the original documents.

In seminary, the name for that is "Systematic Theology." It certainly exists. In fact, more than one such system exists, and they compete with each other. o_O Consensus... not so much. There are some basics on which everyone agrees - God created the earth, Jesus died for our sins, etc...