What did Paul preach to the Corinthians?

[guuila]

When you put it simply, I might be able to provide and answer. But not with this convoluted way of your doing it.

Please tell me what your specific question is.

Thanks,
Oz

I gave you the links. Do some reading and you'll figure it out. You're a smart guy.

 

[OzSpen]

So some folks will be justified by how good they are?

Why must you do this in skewing to what you want John NZ to say. John actually said, 'Thus, all people have some measure of knowing right and wrong and will be judged accordingly'.

So you interpret it in relation to justification when John did not mention a word about justification. Why do you do this straw man stuff?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I gave you the links. Do some reading and you'll figure it out. You're a smart guy.

Why are you resistant to do what I asked you to do? I asked you to put it simply, but you don't want to do that.

Bye,
Oz

 

[guuila]

So will the Amorites stand before God on judgment Day and have an excuse (Rom 1:20)?

Did they know about Jesus?

 

[guuila]

Why must you do this in skewing to what you want John NZ to say. John actually said, 'Thus, all people have some measure of knowing right and wrong and will be judged accordingly'.

So you interpret it in relation to justification when John did not mention a word about justification. Why do you do this straw man stuff?

Oz

So they'll be let into heaven based on how well they followed their sense of right and wrong?

 

[guuila]

Why are you resistant to do what I asked you to do? I asked you to put it simply, but you don't want to do that.

Bye,
Oz

Hello pot. I'm kettle. Answer my question that I've been asking you to answer for the last week. Stop being resistant.

 

[Jack Terrence]

Jan,

That's a good one that clearly states that Philip preached/proclaimed the Gospel (good news) to unbelievers.

Thanks for doing the work to show us that the early preachers of the Gospel did preach to unbelievers. Or is someone going to say that Simon, a sorcerer, was a believer?

Oz

The narrative does NOT say that Philip preached Christ to Simon the sorcerer. The context indicates that Simon "believed" because he saw the power of the apostles over demons and NOT because Christ was preached to him.

Peter then exposed Simon's wicked heart and said that Simon had no part in the manner and pronounced judgment upon him. Simon then begged for Peter to essentially call back his judgment. Nothing is mentioned about Peter calling back his judgment.

So you see, Janz did not do a good job at all. He totally ignored the verses which immdediately precede and follow the text he gave. In other words, Janx took the text he used out of its context. This is nothing new with Janx.

 

[Hammster]

Why are you being nebulous like this?

I don't know what you mean.

 

[Hammster]

So will the Amorites stand before God on judgment Day and have an excuse (Rom 1:20)?

Of course not.

 

[OzSpen]

Hello pot. I'm kettle. Answer my question that I've been asking you to answer for the last week. Stop being resistant.

I will not be replying again to you if you continue this kind of harrassing.

Bye!

 

[OzSpen]

Did they know about Jesus?

How could they? They were before the incarnation. I didn't come down in the last shower.

 

[OzSpen]

Hello pot. I'm kettle. Answer my question that I've been asking you to answer for the last week. Stop being resistant.

I asked you to put it simply. You obviously have a beef with what I wrote. If you don't put your issue simply to me, I'll not reply again.

 

[janxharris]

I don't know where to start...

How about here. Exactly how can you prevent Jesus from being crucified for you?

I made the point that your analogy did not fit. My 'attempt' to put it right doesn't work either.

I guess you are still maintaining your analogy?

 

[janxharris]

You've just admitted to me the last time you said this that changing antecedents to match the audience does not constitute modifying the gospel.

I think that you will have to be a little more specific. I may have conceded your point on first and second person plural pronouns, but regarding 1 Cor 15, there are a number of elements involved in addition to our understanding of clusivity.

 

[janxharris]

Thanks. Point made.

Not at all, for to be consistent with 1 Cor 15, you also say to them them, 'This is what we preach, and this is what you believed.'

Paul preached to unbelievers. The Corinthians believed the gospel.

 

[janxharris]

You are making no sense.

I merely asked a question.

 

[janxharris]

WHOM He did foreknow, THEM He also predestinated to be conformed the the image of His own Son. And WHOM he predestinated, THEM He also called. And WHOM He called, THEM He also justified. Romans 8:30

It sure sounds like individual predestination to me.

Predestination is a fact. Agreed.

What was predestined? A conforming to the image of His own Son.

 

[janxharris]

The narrative does NOT say that Philip preached Christ to Simon the sorcerer. The context indicates that Simon "believed" because he saw the power of the apostles over demons and NOT because Christ was preached to him.

Peter then exposed Simon's wicked heart and said that Simon had no part in the manner and pronounced judgment upon him. Simon then begged for Peter to essentially call back his judgment. Nothing is mentioned about Peter calling back his judgment.

So you see, Janz did not do a good job at all. He totally ignored the verses which immdediately precede and follow the text he gave. In other words, Janx took the text he used out of its context. This is nothing new with Janx.

One moment the people are following a sorcerer, then next minute they are believing the gospel that Philip preached to them. What is left to argue?

Regarding Simon:

13 Simon himself believed and was baptized. And he followed Philip everywhere, astonished by the great signs and miracles he saw.....

18When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money 19and said, “Give me also this ability so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.” 20Peter answered: “May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money! 21You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God. 22Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord in the hope that he may forgive you for having such a thought in your heart. 23For I see that you are full of bitterness and captive to sin.” 24Then Simon answered, “Pray to the Lord for me so that nothing you have said may happen to me.”​

Simon may have been a true believer - I don't know. But the fact remains:
1. The apostles preached the gospel to unbelievers
2. Paul made no attempt to modify the gospel outlined in 1 Cor 15:3-4 when he later said: This is what we preach.

 

[guuila]

I will not be replying again to you if you continue this kind of harrassing.

Bye!

U mad bro?

 

[Epiphoskei]

I made the point that your analogy did not fit. My 'attempt' to put it right doesn't work either.

I guess you are still maintaining your analogy?

I wouldn't call what I said an analogy. Analogies liken foundationally different things which happen to have pedagogically useful similarities. "Chess is like war" is an analogy. A comparison of two foundationally similar things is not an analogy, for instance, "Winning a football game is like winning a baseball game" in that both are winning.

Christ saved us in the same way that one man saves another by throwing himself in the path of a bullet. Christ intercepted that which was coming to us. He literally, not metaphorically, received the death which was due to us. That is what Biblical salvation and biblical atonement are.