turbosixx
New member
It is the gospel OF the uncircumcision and the gospel OF the circumcision.
It doesn't say gospel "of" but "to"
It is the gospel OF the uncircumcision and the gospel OF the circumcision.
If so then why Paul?
It doesn't say gospel "of" but "to"
He was probably too young to be one of the twelve.
Who had the most zeal for God? Imagine the impact of taking the champion of the Jews and turning him against them.
There is no age requirement. Had God wanted him to be one of the Twelve he would have been, or at least his age wouldn't have been the issue that prevented it.He was probably too young to be one of the twelve.
This doesn't fit either. Paul was not converted through one of the twelve as was everyone else. God is no respecter of persons and so there would be no reason to make some special case for Paul's conversion if your presumption is that nothing was changing when his conversion took place.Who had the most zeal for God? Imagine the impact of taking the champion of the Jews and turning him against them.
I didn't notice the "of" in the KJV. Good point.Nope. Modern translations have it wrong. The KJV has it correct. It's "of".
I see "the" gospel in the context and they discuss no differences in the passage. They were in agreement and the only thing mentioned is 10 They desired only that we should remember the poor, the very thing which I also was eager to do.Not that it would matter. The context makes it perfectly clear. There is no reason for Paul if there is no change in message.
Incidentally, why would he have had to explain anything if he were teaching the same thing?
And no, Paul did not have two gospels. His gospel which was given to him by revelation was different than that preached by the twelve. This is why he was directed, by revelation, to go explain what he was teaching to the twelve.
The audience doesn't make the gospel different. Paul taught the kingdom message and he taught baptism and practiced it.
It doesn't say gospel "of" but "to"
There may be a passage that says to in there somewhere.
1 Corinthians 1:17 KJV - 1 Corinthians 1:18 KJV -
God is no respecter of persons and so there would be no reason to make some special case for Paul's conversion if your presumption is that nothing was changing when his conversion took place.
This was unresponsive and served only to try and steer the discussion toward your pet doctrine.You spent most of your time making speeches.
For a start there were more than the Apostles baptized in the Holy Spirit which was the authority to preach.
John said this to all who came to him to be baptized in water--
Mat 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
Mat 3:12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.
Jesus repeated it, not only to the Apostles--
Act 1:5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
Act 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
Act 1:7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.
Act 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
You make the common mistake in thinking men receive the indwelling of the Spirit before they are Baptised in the Spirit. Both begin at the same time.
Joh 7:37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
Joh 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
Joh 7:39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
Act 8:14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
Act 8:15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
Act 8:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
Act 8:17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
Act 8:20 But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.
I left a link to the relevant passage.You are suggesting the church was communist?
As I call it? The passage cited uses the phrase, "they had all things in common". That's what the word "communal" means. Those who live communally are communist, by definition. It isn't "my term" its THE term. I don't get to define words; no one even asks my opinion about what words should mean. They just mean what the mean. I have nothing to do with it.The church is still communal as you call it
You are a lunatic.and Paul taught it---
2Co 8:14 But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality:
2Co 8:15 As it is written, He that had gathered much had nothing over; and he that had gathered little had no lack.
I attend a Baptist church but do not consider myself a Baptist. Their doctrine is just the least wrong of the churches near me, that I can find. Why do you ask?What sort of church are you a member of?
Huh?The modern version is not the Bible version, but some are the Bible version.
This is the difficulty of these discussions in such a forum. The things you keep bringing up are evidence FOR Acts 9 Dispensationalism not against it. How is the gospel being for everyone not a change? And yet you use one of the most important evidences of a change as evidence of no change at all. I can't figure out a way to respond to that substantively on this forum. There's too many details. So many details that it stops being about details.I agree, Paul was a special case. Would you agree that Cornelius was also a special case? There is a complete long chapter devoted to his conversion and it’s referenced in two other chapters. Although it was special, I don’t see it changing anything. The gospel from the beginning was for everyone, not just the Jews.
Mark 16:15 And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.
The Jews just needed some help to better understand that the gospel is for everyone and this is how God showed them, but it didn't change the message.
Paul being chosen doesn’t change the message. Calling it the gospel of grace doesn't make it a different gospel. Didn't those on Pentecost believe and were baptized just as the jailer believed and was baptized? If you can show me where the message changed I would have an easier time seeing it as you do.
How is the gospel being for everyone not a change?
I know precisely what it means and I am not being dishonest in the least.Do not pretend that you do not know what the word communism means today, and what you were trying to infer by it.
You are being dishonest.
I haven't slipped.You have slipped from your carefully crafted responses designed to insult to the real you which MAD doctrine almost always produces.
I found an article about a city in the Philippine Islands that has a serious garbage disposal crisis on their hands.Look up Cebu rubbish dump.
Again, you are a lunatic.Psa 37:25 I have been young, and now am old; yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread.
Is that as big a sin as lying?Like many, you sin the sin of presumption.
Is that a yes or a no? Its so typical of lunatics, when backed into a corner that can't escape to just avoid the issue. You scared to give a straight answer! Afraid that your lunacy will be fully exposed for what it is?Why not believe what Paul teaches?
None that I am aware of, no.Are there no MADists in your area, you could get together with and do nothing with.
Of course I am. If you read carefully, I even said as much in my last post. Everyone wears glasses. The trick is figuring out a way to evaluate their effectiveness. Of all theological pursuits, it is by far the most difficult.I agree this is very difficult to do in a forum. I agree I am wearing glasses but I am honestly trying to see without them but it’s hard please bare with me. From my view point you’re wearing glasses too.
Acts 9 is when Saul was converted and became Paul. He was the first member of the Body of Christ but its difficult to say precisely when the Gospel of Grace became available to Jew and Gentile. Certainly not prior to Paul preaching that gospel message.It’s amazing and sad all the different beliefs people have by reading the same words. I try hard to read what it says without reading into it and that’s were talking with others helps to see things from a different perspective.
I think if we stick with one important point maybe that would help and I think one of your comments would be a good one to look at.
Clete said:How is the gospel being for everyone not a change?
When did this change take place? I assume you believe Acts 9 but that is not my understanding based on what I read.
Yes, without Calvary there is no gospel for either group.1) Can we agree the foundation of the gospel is Christ’s D,B &R?
Paul explicitly stated as much.2) Can we agree the gospel was to be preached to the Jews first?
Which one?3) So after Jesus’ D,B&R when do you see the gospel first preached?
Of course I am. If you read carefully, I even said as much in my last post. Everyone wears glasses. The trick is figuring out a way to evaluate their effectiveness. Of all theological pursuits, it is by far the most difficult.
Acts 9 is when Saul was converted and became Paul. He was the first member of the Body of Christ but its difficult to say precisely when the Gospel of Grace became available to Jew and Gentile. Certainly not prior to Paul preaching that gospel message.
Pinning down the precise timing isn't really important though, is it? There came a time when God cut off Israel and turned to the Gentiles. What was expected (by the Twelve and their followers), even prophesied in scripture and preached by Peter in Acts 2 was that Israel would repent and that God would send Jesus back and they'd get their Kingdom. That was the gospel according to Peter. What actually happened was that Israel officially rejected that Gospel which was delivered by Stephen to the rulers of Israel in Acts 7. Note at the end of chapter 7 Stephen sees Jesus standing. Standing is often associated with judgment. It is my belief that it was the stoning of Stephen, an event Saul was present at and likely headed up, that triggered the cutting off of Israel.
So whether you say the change occurred in Acts 7 or Acts 9 or at some point shortly after that is somewhat irrelevant. The point is that there was a change from getting to God through the nation of Israel (i.e. observance of the law) to getting to God through faith alone apart from the law.
Yes, without Calvary there is no gospel for either group.
Paul explicitly stated as much.
Which one?
The gospel of Grace was never ever preached at all by anyone, anywhere before Paul preached it.
Ephesians 3:1 For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles— 2 if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you, 3 how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, 4 by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), 5 which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets:
Galatians 1:1 Paul, an apostle (not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead),
Galatians 1:11 But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Resting in Him,
Clete
I see the point of contention, but I’m not sure which approach is best to discuss it. Here it goes.
I don’t understand your answer to #3 based on your answers to 1 & 2. Maybe if you can show me what is different from Peter’s sermon in Acts 2 verses Paul’s sermon in Acts 13:16- based on what’s contained in the sermons, I might be able to better understand how you see two gospels. I know they're not exact or word for word but the message is the same.
The message isn't remotely the same.
Peter's message was to the Jews about Jesus being their Messiah.