The Idols and False Notions have Taken Deep Root

[The Lady Kate]

Aha - you mean like Global Flood nonsense and the Genesis Creation accounts.

Glad you're on board finally.

I hope Mr. Kennedy sees your humor without having a heart attack... after all, a plain literal reading of your text wouldn't show that you were being ironic.

 

[mark kennedy]

Paul putting his Rabbinical studies to good use... tying together the well-known and well-believed Creation story to illustrate a point.

Do you realize that in the words of Jesus and Paul Adam being the first man, it was just stated as fact. I think Jesus would know if Adam was the first person created or not, don't you?

But I see where you're going here, and it's tied up in the belief that Paul is writing the "Word of God." He isn't... Paul is writing the words of Paul, and if you read them closely, you'll see that Paul is writing in the voice of a deeply conflicted, troubled, even tormented soul.

Ok, that must be why ICor 15 is quoted repeatedly in the Nicene Creed because the opinion of Paul is just persuasive authority and didn't carry any real meaning beyond that.

If that conflicted, troubled, tormented soul is God's, speaking through Paul, then we're all in serious trouble. But if this is Paul talking, with all his issues, weaknesses, and emotional baggage intact, then we can take steps into a deeper understanding of both the man and his writings, and better understand what they mean to us today.

It sounds to me like you think Paul was mentally ill. I have never even heard an unbeliever, no matter how skeptical and critical of the Bible make such a repulsive characterization of the Apostle Paul.

I see no need for such games... why not just tell me how much I can take figuratively and still officially be considered a Christian?

You really have no clue do you? You think all you have to do is look in a mirror and say 'Hi, I'm a Christian' and that is all there is to it.

Let's start with this, do you believe in God? If yes, then do you mean literal or figurative?

 

[Assyrian]

Clearly, literalism is not the answer.

Clearly.

Fundamentalist dogma, of course, says that to even suggest such a thing is blasphemy of the worst order.

Would this be The Fundamentalists like James Orr who reinterpreted the six days creation to fit the Geology?

And yet, to ignore the possibility, and to persist in the belief in a literal Bible, meant for a plain factual reading and nothing more,

Is to ignore what the bible tell us about God speaking to us in parables.

is to invite academic, scientific, and theological gymnastics far worse than anything you could possibly be warning us against

[sign]10[/sign]
[sign]10[/sign] .............

[sign]9[/sign]

​

 

[Assyrian]

Would you like to tell me how you read these verses?

For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead...

Isn't this what we have been saying all along?

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. (ICor.15:21,22)

See how Paul is comparing being 'in Adam' with being 'in Christ'? How are we 'in' a historical individual who died and turned to dust millennia ago, who 'returned to the ground from which he was taken'? How can we all be in someone doesn't exist any more, if he ever did?

This is not a discussion of historical Adam but a figure who now includes the whole human race. Notice the verb Paul uses. We die, present tense, in Adam. This is describing a process continuing on today, not a past event, people are still dying 'in Adam'.

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (Romans 5:12)

as by one man: this is the beginning of the comparison that continues down through the chapter. Paul is comparing the story of Adam to what Christ has done. But as he tells us in verse 14, this is a figurative comparison, Adam is being dealt with figuratively, a figure of the one who was to come.


and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. This one phrase destroys your whole argument. Whether the one man who sins is a literal or allegorical,
Paul tells us how the consequences described in Genesis passed though the whole human race. It is not as you claim because of Original Sin passing down through the generations, but the other way round. Death spread to all men because all sinned. It is our sin that joins us in the death and condemnation spoken of in Genesis.

Then you can tell me what you take literally and figuratively in the Nicene Creed.

What happened to Sola Scriptura?

 

[Assyrian]

Church Tradition does embrace Scripture as canon. It sometimes includes extra Biblical authority but Sola Scripture does not conflict with the Nicene Creed.

It is a question of whether tradition has the authority to define the meaning of scripture or simply throws light on how our brothers and sisters in the past understood it.

For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. (ICor.15:21,22)

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (Romans 5:12)

"it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve" (1 Tim. 2:13-14)

Great verses, but where is the one you keep quoting "all sinned in Adam"?

Paul preached Adam sinned and that we all sinned in Adam,
​

Paul says we all sinned in Adam, what do you say?
​

This should be good.

That is not what he said, He said Adam was a figure of Christ. You can no more make Adam a figure of speech then you can Christ.

If Paul is describing Adam as a figure, then Adam could be either a literal character being used allegorically or an allegorical character to begin with. There are a number of important things that come from Paul discussing Adam as a figure of Christ.

1. You claimed Moses, Jesus and Paul all were speaking literally and there isn't a shred of textual evidence of anything to the contrary. Well here here is a bit more than a shred of evidence that Paul was speaking figuratively. He tell us himself.
2. The passage is not evidence of a literal Adam as Creationists think.
3. It shows the importance of a figurative interpetation of Genesis.
4. The lessons Paul takes from Adam do not depend on a Adam being a literal individual.

I don't see what any of this has to do with Christ being figurative.

And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, (Mat 19:4)

'He which made them at the beginning' - When Adam and Eve were the first of human kind. There is not 'like' or 'as' or any indication in the context that this is an allegory. You are twisting the meaning to suit you own purposes.

Where is Adam?

Jesus used the story in Genesis as if it were a description of God's plan for marriage instead of an account of the first thoraxic surgury and cloning. That is an allegorical interpetation.
He doesn't even mention Adam

and Eve, just that God made male and female and that this shows us his plan for marriage.

The prophecy fulfilled and elaborated on by Jesus are evident in the Gospels. The Serpent is mentioned again in prophecy only when the serpents head is finally crushed.

Rev 12:9 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Luke 24:27 tells us Jesus elaborated on a lot more messianic references than are listed in the Gospels. Do you really think he missed this one, the very first Messianic prophecy, and that it was later stumbled on by his Apostles?

The snake being the spiritual enemy defeated by God is found through out the bible
Job 26:13 Psalm 74:14 Isaiah 27:1 Isaiah 51:9 Ezek 28, as well as Rev 12. Jesus himself refers to it in John 8:44 where recognises the devil as the one who brought death and deceit from the beginning.

All of these references that recognise the snake as a spiritual being are interpreting Gen 3 allegorically.

Adam is always at the top of the list when giving the annuls of the generations of mankind. (Gen. 5:1; 1 Chron. 1:1; Luke 2:38) to assume that they were not considered to be literal persons and our first parents is absurd.

And Gen 5:2 tells us that Adam wasn't a single individual. Do you have any other references to Moses even mentioning Adam?

The genealogies are a digression when you were talking about Moses Jesus and Peter. However 1 Chron. 1:1, simply lists the names of patriarchs before the flood without giving any interpretation. After the flood the genealogies are full of 'begots' and 'son ofs' and are treated as literal genealogies. Luke 3 tell us the genealogy was simply what people 'supposed', which gives it as much authority as the claim Jesus was 'one of the prophets of old risen from the dead' Luke 9.19. The verse you refer to Luke 3:38 is even more problematic. Not only is it part of a 'supposed' genealogy but is impossible to take literally unless you are a Mormon.

Gen 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make the Adam in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion. male and female he created them, and blessed them, and called their name Adam in the day when they were created.

Ever been married, did your wife take your name because mine did.

The name she was given following the 'one flesh' episode was 'Woman' not Adam. The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. She will be named woman because she was taken from man. Unfortunately the Hebrew is Ishshah from the other Hebrew word for man Iysh. After the fall she is given another name Eve. Again not Adam. There is no suggestion Eve took her husband's name, but the is plenty of evidence Adam was God's name for the human race.

Every wonder where Israel got it's name?

Because Jacob wrestled with God?

Adam is also of a place in Palestine, Israel is a proper name for Jacob and a name for the nation of Israel. It is common in Scripture to call descendants of one family by the name of their father, or a wife by the name of her husband.

The human race is not called Adam because they are all descended from Adam, but because adam is a common Hebrew word for man. Even in the narrative about Adam the word is more often used to mean 'the man' rather than as a personal name. The name meant 'man' in the bible before Adam was passing it on to his descendants and it was God name for the human race from the very start.

The question was what do you take literally and what do you take figuratively. You do know that I Cor. 15 is quoted repeatedly right, are we going to take the resurrection literally and Adam figuratively, would Paul?

Yes.

1Cor 15:14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. 15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised... 19 If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

Rom 5:14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a figure of the one who was to come.

1Tim 2:13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve;
14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control. Is Paul reading of Gen 3 literally here?

I agree it is a more difficult road when we can no longer rely on simple rules distinguishing the literal from the metaphorical, but who ever said try to understand God and his word was easy? One thing we do know is that literalism has failed. We are left with flat earth and geocentrism, which can't be what God intended.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Do you realize that in the words of Jesus and Paul Adam being the first man, it was just stated as fact. I think Jesus would know if Adam was the first person created or not, don't you?

What Jesus knows, and what Jesus was trying to convey to his disciples in terms they could understand are two different things.... perhaps not to you, but they are.

Ok, that must be why ICor 15 is quoted repeatedly in the Nicene Creed because the opinion of Paul is just persuasive authority and didn't carry any real meaning beyond that.

If you say so. But there's still nothing in there about literalism.

It sounds to me like you think Paul was mentally ill. I have never even heard an unbeliever, no matter how skeptical and critical of the Bible make such a repulsive characterization of the Apostle Paul.

He wasn't mentally ill, but he certainly had some issues to work through. If you'd like to start a new thread to discuss some of them, I'd welcome the opportunity to discuss them.

Clearly Paul was a human being with very human complications... complications whcih would seem seriously out of place if God were speaking through him in his letters.

And please, spare me your righteous indignation... if you're not willing to take an objective look at the Bible, then you really have nothing to offer in any realm of theology that pertains to it.

You really have no clue do you? You think all you have to do is look in a mirror and say 'Hi, I'm a Christian' and that is all there is to it.

You so want to come right out and say I'm not a Christian, but the forum rules forbid it. Your hysteria is showing.

And incidentally, what if that was all there was to it? What if it were that simple? Would it take away your sense of superiority?

Let's start with this, do you believe in God? If yes, then do you mean literal or figurative?

Yes, I do believe in a literal God. Can you find a more pointless question to ask?

 

[busterdog]

Paul putting his Rabbinical studies to good use... tying together the well-known and well-believed Creation story to illustrate a point.

But I see where you're going here, and it's tied up in the belief that Paul is writing the "Word of God." He isn't... Paul is writing the words of Paul, and if you read them closely, you'll see that Paul is writing in the voice of a deeply conflicted, troubled, even tormented soul.

If that conflicted, troubled, tormented soul is God's, speaking through Paul, then we're all in serious trouble. But if this is Paul talking, with all his issues, weaknesses, and emotional baggage intact, then we can take steps into a deeper understanding of both the man and his writings, and better understand what they mean to us today.

I see no need for such games... why not just tell me how much I can take figuratively and still officially be considered a Christian?

No doubt Paul some strong feelings about a few things. However, none of that alters the plain meaning of what is said about Adam.

I am not sure what you are saying, but it sounds like Paul is not to be taken literally, since an appreciation of his mental state is most important on these points?.

Whatever Mark may have to say, the Romans 10 confession would
appear to be the definition of a Christian.


Rom 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Elsewhere, John clarifies

1Jo 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

That being said, denying the literal truth of Gen. 1-3 is to make a confession contrary to the knowledge for which Christians are accountable. ( I will not be quibbling here about whether the devil had a three chambered heart.)

 

[Assyrian]

How is that a quibble? If you believe we will be held accountable for the literal truth of Gen 1-3 then you will be held accountable for believing God's promise about the snake. It is even an issue that concerns our salvation. If the real messiah was going to step on the snake's head, then that wasn't Jesus. He did not step on any snakes let alone a 4000 year snake one who like to chat up the girls.

I disagree with The Lady Kate about Paul (Sorry Lady Kate). There were times when he had anger management issues, ask Barnabas but we can also see him mellowing as he grew in the Lord. There are other times when he does clearly speak, and says he is speaking, from his own opinion.

Much more often the problems people have with Paul is that it is hard to follow what he is saying, and very easy to get the wrong end of the stick. As Peter summed him up, 'There are some things in them that are hard to understand' but his letters are scripture.

Do you realize that in the words of Jesus and Paul Adam being the first man, it was just stated as fact. I think Jesus would know if Adam was the first person created or not, don't you?

Where did Jesus say Adam was the first man?

You really have to stop making this stuff up.

Now Paul did say Adam was the first man, but he wasn't talking about Adam was the first man, and Cain was the second man, Abel was the third... with Jesus somewhere
around 29,786,432nd. No he said 1Cor 15:47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. Adam is the first man in the same sense that Jesus is the second man. In Paul's picture there are only two men. every one who has ever lived is included in these two men 'in Adam' or 'in Christ'. Our Gamaliel educated, Holy Spirit transformed rabbi is talking deep allegory here.

 

[The Lady Kate]

I disagree with The Lady Kate about Paul (Sorry Lady Kate). There were times when he had anger management issues, ask Barnabas but we can also see him mellowing as he grew in the Lord. There are other times when he does clearly speak, and says he is speaking, from his own opinion.

Well, I may have exaggerated, but what you're saying is my point... Paul did have anger management issues, and have you noticed that a good deal of his anger is towards himself?

His conversion does mellow him, and allows him to accept (or at least deal with) whatever was bothering him, but the point is, something was clearly eating away at the man before he found God.

 

[Assyrian]

I remember a few year ago doing a word study on
paroxusmos inciting, contention
and the verb
paroxunō to exasperate, to burn with anger

paroxusmos is used to describe the fight between Paul and Barnabas. Acts 15:39 And there arose a sharp disagreement, so that they separated from each other. Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus.

Later on, maybe after learning some lessons in Philippi, we find Paul again being paroxunōed. But it much deeper, more internalised and he doesn't lose his cool. Acts 17:16 Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him as he saw that the city was full of idols.

By the time he writes 1Cor we see a very different attitude, 1Cor 13:4 Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant 5 or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful.
Love is not paroxunōed.

If God can do this in Paul, well, there's hope for all of us.

 

[Ave Maria]

Yes, it is an essential doctrine and is tied to original sin.

 

[The Lady Kate]

No doubt Paul some strong feelings about a few things. However, none of that alters the plain meaning of what is said about Adam.

I am not sure what you are saying, but it sounds like Paul is not to be taken literally, since an appreciation of his mental state is most important on these points?.

What I am saying is that Paul is not infallible.

Whatever Mark may have to say, the Romans 10 confession would
appear to be the definition of a Christian.


Rom 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Elsewhere, John clarifies

1Jo 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

That being said, denying the literal truth of Gen. 1-3 is to make a confession contrary to the knowledge for which Christians are accountable. ( I will not be quibbling here about whether the devil had a three chambered heart.)

Say what? Nowhere in the verses you quoted is this conclusion.... Jesus was the Son of God who died for our sins and rose from the dead... how on Earth does not believing in a literal Genesis 1-3 change that?

 

[mark kennedy]

What Jesus knows, and what Jesus was trying to convey to his disciples in terms they could understand are two different things.... perhaps not to you, but they are.

I don't know what kind of a hair you are trying to split here but the New Testament witness is crystal clear that Adam was specially created and our first parent. Arguments to the contrary do not exist except in an extrabiblical modernist interpretation.

If you say so. But there's still nothing in there about literalism.

What would you call your position, figuritivism? How about Ecumenical Naturalism, if you are going to invent an exclusively naturalistic assumption for Christian theism you should at least make up a name for it.

He wasn't mentally ill, but he certainly had some issues to work through. If you'd like to start a new thread to discuss some of them, I'd welcome the opportunity to discuss them.

Sounds like fun but lets see where you go with this one.

Clearly Paul was a human being with very human complications... complications whcih would seem seriously out of place if God were speaking through him in his letters.

Romans 14:34-38

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.​

And please, spare me your righteous indignation... if you're not willing to take an objective look at the Bible, then you really have nothing to offer in any realm of theology that pertains to it.

Lady believe me when I tell you, you really have no idea who you are talking to. I have taken Biblical Theism into the most secularized area of study in the modern world using an evidential approach. I have all but abandoned the presuppositional apologetics I used when studying the New Testament as history and focused almost exclusively on molecular biology and genetics in my arguments for special creation. If you want to really get into this I really hope you are up to some heavy reading.

You so want to come right out and say I'm not a Christian, but the forum rules forbid it. Your hysteria is showing.

I am far from hysterical and the rules do not forbid using the Nicene Creed as a guideline for who is and is not a Christian. You have just made the statement that Paul was not inspired by God when writing his letters. You came right out and said that not realizing that Paul is quoted repeatedly as a primary authority for it.

Like I said, you really have no idea who you are talking to.

And incidentally, what if that was all there was to it? What if it were that simple? Would it take away your sense of superiority?

I have a very dim view of people who have no respect for Christian conviction. Evolutionists are the worst of them and you are a fairly typical example of someone jumping into these debate with both feet and no real interest in the core issues. I don't feel superior, I'm just not going to sit here and pretend that there is something remotely Christian about an argument that reject Paul as God's Apostle to the Gentiles.

Let me guess, you have no idea what I'm talking about do you?

Yes, I do believe in a literal God. Can you find a more pointless question to ask?

I cannot quite wrap my mind around you not being willing to answer it. I'm sitting here reading it and I still can't quite grasp the audacity. You do know that God is an essential article of faith right?

I ask again, do you believe that God is literal or figurative? It's a simple question unless you believe the latter and don't want to admit it.

 

[mark kennedy]

What I am saying is that Paul is not infallible.

Paul's epistles are canon and there is not real question about that. I've heard this from Theistic evolutionists before and it concerns me greatly that we are just supposed to pretend that this is not a rejection of the fundamental basis for the Gospel.

Say what? Nowhere in the verses you quoted is this conclusion.... Jesus was the Son of God who died for our sins and rose from the dead... how on Earth does not believing in a literal Genesis 1-3 change that?

You don't know how they are related, Adam and Jesus I mean. You don't know how original sin is related to Paul's most important doctrinal statement with regards to the resurrection of Christ?

You really don't understand, are you putting me on?

 

[The Lady Kate]

I don't know what kind of a hair you are trying to split here but the New Testament witness is crystal clear that Adam was specially created and our first parent. Arguments to the contrary do not exist except in an extrabiblical modernist interpretation.

Fair enough... and fitting well into my theological belief that Sola Scripture is not sound doctrine.

What would you call your position, figuritivism? How about Ecumenical Naturalism, if you are going to invent an exclusively naturalistic assumption for Christian theism you should at least make up a name for it.

I'm really not interested in labeling things... or people. I'm sure you or someone else can come up with some clever pejorative for my beliefs.

But if it makes you feel better, how about "Liberal Christian"?

Sounds like fun but lets see where you go with this one.

Wouldn't want to go off-topic... specifically into Paul's embrace of Platonism and Neoplatonism, since you'd reject such ideas as "extrabiblical."

Romans 14:34-38

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.​

How fortunate that modern civilization, for the most part, doesn't share Paul's archaic views of women... although those that do still, like Paul, claim divine reasoning.

Lady believe me when I tell you, you really have no idea who you are talking to. I have taken Biblical Theism into the most secularized area of study in the modern world using an evidential approach. I have all but abandoned the presuppositional apologetics I used when studying the New Testament as history and focused almost exclusively on molecular biology and genetics in my arguments for special creation. If you want to really get into this I really hope you are up to some heavy reading.

I hope it's heavier than what you used to post over on the open C/E forum... I've noticed you don't spend that much time over there anymore.

I am far from hysterical and the rules do not forbid using the Nicene Creed as a guideline for who is and is not a Christian. You have just made the statement that Paul was not inspired by God when writing his letters.

I said no such thing... What I am saying was that Paul, inspired by God as he was, was still writing the words of Paul. And Paul, even inspired by God, is still a mere mortal, and shows many of his mere mortal limitations.

You came right out and said that not realizing that Paul is quoted repeatedly as a primary authority for it.

Paul is quoted repeatedly as the primary authority for what? His own inspiration? I have no objection to that.

I am not doubting that Paul was inspired... but an inspired Paul is still a Paul, not a God.

Like I said, you really have no idea who you are talking to.

Would it matter if I did?

I have a very dim view of people who have no respect for Christian conviction.

There is a line between conviction and stubborness... All too often I see people pole-vault over that line.

Evolutionists are the worst of them and you are a fairly typical example of someone jumping into these debate with both feet and no real interest in the core issues.

And as such, you have a very dim view of me.

I don't feel superior, I'm just not going to sit here and pretend that there is something remotely Christian about an argument that reject Paul as God's Apostle to the Gentiles.

God's literal, infallible apostle?

Let me guess, you have no idea what I'm talking about do you?

Guess again.

I cannot quite wrap my mind around you not being willing to answer it. I'm sitting here reading it and I still can't quite grasp the audacity. You do know that God is an essential article of faith right?

You do know that I answered your question... why do you then feign surprise that I was "unwilling" to answer it?

Are you reading these posts, or are your responses pre-selected?

I ask again, do you believe that God is literal or figurative? It's a simple question unless you believe the latter and don't want to admit it.

Didn't I just say that I believe that God is literal? Again, is there a point to your inquisition?

 

[The Lady Kate]

Paul's epistles are canon and there is not real question about that. I've heard this from Theistic evolutionists before and it concerns me greatly that we are just supposed to pretend that this is not a rejection of the fundamental basis for the Gospel.

And not all the canon is literal. This should neither concern nor surprise you.

You don't know how they are related, Adam and Jesus I mean.

I know how Paul tried to relate them.

You don't know how original sin is related to Paul's most important doctrinal statement with regards to the resurrection of Christ?

I know perfectly well the point Paul was trying to make... I simply don't believe the point hinges on a literalist interpretation of the entire Bible.

You really don't understand, are you putting me on?

I understand perfectly... You seem to be the one having difficulties with figures of allegory.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Paul's epistles are canon and there is not real question about that. I've heard this from Theistic evolutionists before and it concerns me greatly that we are just supposed to pretend that this is not a rejection of the fundamental basis for the Gospel.

Um... so which Gospel would that be? That includes Paul's epistles, I mean?

 

[mark kennedy]

Um... so which Gospel would that be? That includes Paul's epistles, I mean?

I have no idea what you are asking me. When I say the Gospel I'm talking about Christ and Him crucified. It doesn't matter who is preaching it, Matthew, Mark, Luke or Paul, the message remains essentially the same.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I have no idea what you are asking me. When I say the Gospel I'm talking about Christ and Him crucified. It doesn't matter who is preaching it, Matthew, Mark, Luke or Paul, the message remains essentially the same.

Is that the standard definition of "gospel"? I Thought that Gospel refers specifically to Mathew, Mark, Luke and John...

 

[Assyrian]

I have no idea what you are asking me. When I say the Gospel I'm talking about Christ and Him crucified. It doesn't matter who is preaching it, Matthew, Mark, Luke or Paul, the message remains essentially the same.

Repeated for truth.

Also for its presentation of the gospel without any reference to Adam.