"little?" Tough junkie, are you, squirt?
ECT How is Paul's message different?
- Thread starter Clete
- Start date
popsthebuilder
New member
Actually lol d on that one...
I am relatively tough, yes....and used to be a junkie too.
Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
musterion
Well-known member
The reply of a duplicitous Catholic, a troll, or both. Best ignored either way.
popsthebuilder
New member
It's called a logical conclusion or a logical fallacy
Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
This amounts to little more than a proof-texting storm. This, at best, demonstrates similarities between the two gospels. It doesn't even attempt to establish that there aren't two gospels! No one has denied that both groups believe in the death and resurrection of Christ and that our salvation would be impossible without Calvary and the resurrection.
I'm surprised at how disappointed I am in such an argument. It shows that you have no idea what is even being debated. Missing details because of paradigm blindness and simply not paying any attention are two different things. In what way, just to give an example of what I'm talking about, would any of this even begin to answer the question I posed to you in my last post? Did that issue even crack the surface of your thought process when making this argument?
Here's what it boils down too...
At minimum, any defense of the idea that there is only one gospel has to explain the existence of Paul and the events surrounding His conversion, his ministry, what he refers to as "his gospel", the actions of the Twelve and their coverts as well as their ceasing their pursuit of the great commission.
Why would you be required to meet that bar in defense of your theological paradigm?
Because mine does.
Mine does that and a lot more. Any system of theology that accomplishes less than that is inferior on its face.
Resting in Him,
Clete
What do you mean where? Are you suggesting that the Twelve didn't preach that Christ was crucified and rose from the dead?
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
So there are two gospels which declare that the Lord Jesus died in payment for our sins?
I know that the gospel of grace declares that but the other gospel which was preached, the one preached at Luke 9:6, said nothing about the Lord Jesus dying in payment for sins.
So where can anyone find another gospel besides these two, another one which declares that the Lord Jesus died in payment for sins?
Here Paul speaks of two gospels but where can we find another one which declares the Lord Jesus' death was the payment of sins:
"But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter" (Gal.2:7).
Last edited:
musterion
Well-known member
No, of course not. I'm asking where this was preached:
My question is what I think Shugart is asking...who before Paul preached as good news that Christ died for our sins?
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Don't you know that Clete doesn't answer irrelevant questions?
The concept of sins being a debt that must be paid is not Pauline in origin.
I don't have time to do this justice so I'll just throw out some verses to demonstrate the point and leave it at that.
Exodus 29 & 30 (this is where the idea of atonement is first mentioned)
Leviticus 16 (all about the "Day of Atonement")
Ezekiel 23:49
Matthew 18:21-35
Luke 7:36-50
I John 2:2 & 4:10
Debt free in Him,
Clete
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
So all those verses make up the second gospel which you say preaches that the Lord Jesus died in payment for our sins?:
musterion
Well-known member
Again, no argument but that is not what I'm asking.
Who before Paul preached the cross, as Paul did, as saving good news for all?
turbosixx
New member
I could say the same for you or everyone for that matter.
I believe it's important to understand when the two groups became one body.
The root I'm referring to is what did the new converts hear and believe that caused them to be added to the body?
turbosixx
New member
I strongly disagree. How can they preach the same sermon and those who believe Paul are added to the body and those who believe Peter are not?
I suggest your question is speculative in nature.
I’ve been a Christian for 40 years and have never questioned that there was not one gospel. None of what you pose as problems are a problem believing in one gospel.
Why would we not compare the “two” gospels to determine if they are in fact different? Peter and Paul are just messengers.
Everyone from Moses on.
How did I not already answer this?
I mean Moses didn't mention "the cross" but there's no question that Christ was the Passover Lamb. Calvary occurred on the actual date of the Passover, He was in the grave on the Feast of Unleavened Bread and rose on the Feast of First Fruits. The entire episode is PURELY Jewish and I mean Old Testament - Moses - Levitical - Jewish, as was Pentecost, by the way.
How could the cross possibly be any more Jewish?
The question doesn't even make any sense when you get right down to it. It implies that the cross could have to do with something other than salvation, that it was something other than a direct fulfillment of the Old Testament and/or that those feasts weren't about salvation. How could the Passover be about anything other than Salvation? How could the Day of Atonement not be about the atonement for sins (i.e. salvation)?
The plan was for the Twelve to preach Christ as the Messiah. Showing how He fulfilled scripture and that the whole Torah was all about Him, including His death and resurrection. Jesus told them to go to all the world preaching and they'd not have time to make it through all the cities in Israel before He would return. The message they preached was one of repentance, the same sort of message that Jesus Himself preached before the cross. But even when He preached it before the cross it was all based on the cross, even if it wasn't stated as such. The whole Jewish faith was about Jesus, including the events at Calvary. When the Twelve received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, a Jewish Feast Day, they fully understood this. Israel, however, officially rejected Jesus as their Messiah, in sprite of the presentation of "irresistible wisdom" by Stephen and, in response, God decided that He would not send Jesus back to set up Israel's Kingdom and instead He cut Israel off and turned to the Gentiles with a modified gospel that has nothing to do with the Law in regards to entering or maintaining a relationship with God. One day, God will return to Israel and will lift up the Law and make it honorable. At that time, the gospel will still hinge on Calvary, it will still hinge on the shed blood of the Passover Lamb of God, as it always has since before Adam left Eden.
Now, I don't know where this is coming from but it really makes no sense to me. The question feels contrived because it is. My recommendation for you is to put Shugart on your ignore list. He is a waste of your time.
Clete
musterion
Well-known member
What I asked did not come from Shugart, it just happened to coincide with what he asked.
Also, my question is not contrived, and I guess you clarified it: no one preached the death of Christ and His resurrection as, itself, THE saving good news before Paul did. I now see that you're not saying anyone did. But for a moment I thought you were saying someone had done so.
Some of that went past you.
But it often does for many.
See if this makes sense, as a case in point...
Clete is still off - the gospel preached of by Paul was neither a response to Israel's fall, nor a modified version of the gospel the Twelve had preached.
Fact is that Israel's fall was prophesied and that God had planned the Mystery Paul's gospel is based on, before the world began, Dan. 9; Rom. 16.
From God's perspective through Paul's writings, The Mystery is more like "at this point in history, Israel will fall again. But this time, instead of My turning from them for a season prior to My pouring out My Wrath before blessing them at at last, as in Hosea, for example, this time around I'm going to turn from them, and unfold this Mystery. For I first need to solve for those fallen Heavenly places, that My Will might then be able done in Earth, as it is in Heaven. That My Will be done, un-impeded at last, by the prince of this word."
This book "Satan and His Plan of Evil" does a really great job of laying all that out...
http://www.forgottentruths.com/satanandhisplanofevil.aspx
Rom. 14:5; Rom. 5:6-8.
They didn't preach the same sermon!
Saying it doesn't make it so.
The fact is that Jesus already had Twelve apostles, all twelve of whom received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (A JEWISH FEAST DAY) and He had instructed them to go into all the world preaching all the things He had taught them (i.e. repent and obey the Law). THEY DID NOT DO THAT! Instead, they agreed with Paul, who was not even known by the Twelve nor was he in any way affiliated with nor even associated with the ministry of Jesus or the Twelve. Indeed he was actively engaged in persecuting the faith prior to his supernatural conversion on the road to Damascus. Paul was then given what he repeatedly calls "his gospel" not by men nor through man but by direct divine revelation. A gospel which he was required to go, again by revelation, and explain to the Twelve! When that meeting was over, the Gentile that was with Paul was not compelled to be circumcised and the Twelve agreed with Paul that they would stick around and minister in Israel while Paul went to the whole world teaching things that the Apostle John said some of which was "hard to understand".
These are all facts and there are many more (like the fact that the Twelve required, on penalty of God Himself executing you on the spot, that their converts sell everything they owned and live in a commune). It isn't my opinion, it isn't speculative, it's all clearly recorded in black and white in every bible that has ever been printed and none of it - none of it - makes a dime's worth of sense from within your doctrinal paradigm. All of it is usually ignored and when it is looked at, it gets explained away as meaning little or nothing of any significance. The facts of the events are acknowledged but why they happened and what they mean isn't even questioned never mind explained.
Of course they are but I understand what you mean.
The verses that talk about the things I point out are invisible to you. Until I or some other Mid-Acts Dispensationalist pointed these facts out to you, you barely knew that they happened and you never thought of them in the context of the gospel or in relation to Paul's arrival on the scene or his distinct ministry. Everyone one you've ever head speak, did so in terms of all of it being the same and so that's what you see.
But that doesn't mean you can answer my question. You likely won't even make the attempt. If you do, you'll be forced to do one of two things. You'll either have to turn passages on their heads, making them say something other than what the plain text would seem to indicate, or you'll have to drop your multi-decades long history of belief in your particular theological paradigm. God Himself will need to get involved for the later to occur. There's not one person in a million who would even be capable of dropping a lifetime's worth of doctrine by their own strength, never mind willing to do it. Any Christian over the age of thirty-five who isn't already a Mid-Acts Dispensationalist probably never will be this side of Heaven's gates.
The two gospels are similar, as your verses clearly indicate. But things that are similar are not the same. "Similar" and "same" are not synonyms. Both gospels are based on Jesus and what He accomplish at Calvary. But no one before (other than) Paul taught a syllable about righteousness apart from works. No one but Paul taught about righteousness apart from the Law. No one since Abraham ever suggested that circumcision was PROHIBITED except the Apostle Paul. If there was no Paul and all you had was the gospels and Hebrews through Revelation, you would be circumcised on the eighth day of you life, you would observe the Sabbaths including every Saturday and all the Feasts, etc, etc. You would practice your Christianity pretty much exactly the way many Messianic Jews do. The book of Acts is the ONLY reason you don't reject Paul as a heretic, as many modern Messianic Jews do. That's how different his message is from that of every other Biblical author.
In fact, a very great many of the doctrinal disputes that exist in the church today hinge on - you guest it - the Apostle Paul.
Can you lose your salvation?: "No" is Pauline, "Yes" is the whole rest of the Bible.
Are works required for salvation?: "No" is Pauline, "Yes" is the whole rest of the Bible.
Will the Rapture occur before the Tribulation?: "Yes" is Pauline, "No" is the whole rest of the Bible.
Should Christian be circumcised?: "No" is Pauline, "Yes" is the whole rest of the Bible.
Should Christian avoid "unclean" foods?: "No" is Pauline, "Yes" is the whole rest of the Bible.
Is water baptism require for salvation?: "No" is Pauline, "Yes" is the whole rest of the Bible.
Should Christians observe the Sabbath?: "No" is Pauline, "Yes" is the whole rest of the Bible.
Etc, etc, etc.
The fact that Paul's message is different than everyone else's in the bible couldn't be clearer and yet you cannot see it.
Resting in Him,
Clete