Proof that Paul didn't preach a different gospel than Peter

[john w]

We have debated this before and let me say that, while I still disagree with you I have found you to be a serious student of the Word, not a mocker like many here or one of the many distractors who attempt to "win the argument" by getting the thread off topic.

As I recall you hold that the Jewish Gospel omitted truths that concerned the work of the cross. (Let me know if I have it wrong) I believe this proposition - that they did not know that the sacrificial work of Christ was efficacious to take away sins of all who put their faith in Him -to be mistaken. While it is true that the themes of their sermons (at least what little was written down and recorded in the Book of Acts) concerned, not the cross, but Christ the Son risen from the Dead ascended and seated on the throne, this does not mean they did not understand the Sacrifice. It was necessary to make that point about Christ's divinity to vindicate His claims for which he has suffered an ignominious death. He was crucified for blasphemy, for saying He was equal to God. The resurrection and ascension answered the question.

The Twelve were not unaware of the purpose of the cross, not just as a means to make His death a public display, but as a means of affecting redemption. They knew it because Jesus Himself came after the resurrection and told both them and another group of disciples.

44 Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, 47 and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
(Luke 24:25-26)

He taught them all about Himself, His mission, and the reasond for His suffering in the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms which was pretty much the whole OT. Do you think Jesus might have included key scriptures like Isa. 53:5 or verses on the New Covenant like Jeremiah 31:33 without which the ritual of the Eucharist would have made no sense (Matthew 26:28). Everything they knew and taught were obviously not contained in their sermons.

"The Twelve were not unaware of the purpose of the cross, not just as a means to make His death a public display, but as a means of affecting redemption. They knew it because Jesus Himself came after the resurrection and told both them and another group of disciples."-you

The Twelve had no idea, that the Master would die, and be raised, at a time when they were preaching "the gospel of the kingdom"-it was hid from them.


" but as a means of affecting redemption."

Made up. They had no idea of the cross, as to be the means, by which they were reconciled.............redeemed.

 

[Shasta]

"The Twelve were not unaware of the purpose of the cross, not just as a means to make His death a public display, but as a means of affecting redemption. They knew it because Jesus Himself came after the resurrection and told both them and another group of disciples."-you

The Twelve had no idea, that the Master would die, and be raised, at a time when they were preaching "the gospel of the kingdom"-it was hid from them.


" but as a means of affecting redemption."

Made up. They had no idea of the cross, as to be the means, by which they were reconciled.............redeemed.

I never said they knew about it beforehand. I said they did afterwards when Jesus Himself came to them and explained it. Chronologically Luke 24 happened after those scriptures that said the disciples did not know or could not accept what he was talking about.

44 Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, 47 and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
(Luke 24:25-26)

He revealed the scriptures to them throughout the OT. They understood it because He opened their minds. He told them the cross was for the forgiveness of sin and that they must proclaim the message to all nations. The word "nation" (ethos) is equivalent to the Hebrew goyim meaning in all the gentile nations.

 

[God's Truth]

Ah yes, your Paul, which is not another; a hypocrite Paul...

Acts 17:

16. Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry.
17. Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him.

Shame on you Paul - following your "my gospel" over GT's.

Paul, you need to obey Jesus, "according to" GT's "gospel."

Then you will understand not to go into different towns and "upset cultural teachings."

Come on, GT, isn't it obvious you know not of what you speak?

Isn't it obvious the Spirit is not leading you?

Isn't it obvious to you that it is obvious to us; by your recurrent patterns, that you have been reading ideas out of all those wacked out books out there that are supposedly "Bible based"?

After all "God don't make no junk."

You just do not understand the salvation that saves.

Think for yourself, is long or short hair sin? Is worshiping false gods sin?

 

[God's Truth]

Danoh,

Where is the blood of Paul's covenant?

 

[Shasta]

Galatians 1:7 Says there is only one gospel

Galatians 1:7 Says there is only one gospel

In my previous post I mentioned that a proper understanding of Galatians 1:7 depends on the definitions of two key Greek terms. The first word is heteros and the second is allos

2087 HÉTEROS – another (of a different kind). 2087 /héteros ("another but distinct in kind") stands in contrast to 243 /ALLOS ("another of the same kind"). 2087 /héteros ("another of a different quality") emphasizes it is qualitatively different from its counterpart (comparison).

http://biblehub.com/greek/2087.htm

243 ALLOS (a primitive word) – another of the same kind; another of a similar type.

http://biblehub.com/greek/243.htm

Keeping this this in mind let us look at Gal. 1:7

A. v7 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different (heteros) gospel—

This “gospel,” of the legalistic Judaizers, was essentially different from the Gospel of Grace that Paul had taught them. However, Paul did not want to give the impression that there really were a lot of other gospels so he follows up immediately with this statement:

B. v7 not that there is another (allos) one,

If the Dual-Gospel Paradigm" were true then alongside the “Gentile” Gospel Paul preached there would have been a legitimate God-given "Jewish Gospel" capable of bringing (Jewish) people to salvation. It would not have been different essentially like a false gospel (not eteros). Rather it would have been similar (allos) to Paul’s own gospel except in certain respects, parallel, but derived from the same source.

Even if we went no farther than this simple analysis it is apparent that Paul was telling them there was no other gospel which is either the same or similar.

If a “Jewish Gospel” did exist it would have been necessary at this point to delineate the differences between the “Kingdom Gospel” and the message of the Judaizers lest the Galatians take a stand against a message that was an avenue by which many Jews, perhaps in their very midst, could be saved. However instead of making these distinctions Paul reasserts his “obsession” about there being only one gospel.

C. v7 but there are some who trouble you and want to distort THE gospel of Christ.

“The” is a singular article which agrees with the singular noun “Gospel.” As far as I remember the singular form of the noun “Gospel” is always used when speaking of the true message given by God

 

[Lazy afternoon]

Danoh,

Where is the blood of Paul's covenant?

SDTP and John W are not under any covenant.

They are not under the old or under the new.

In other words they are not in the Kingdom of God and they speak like it.

LA

 

[Lazy afternoon]

Ah yes, your Paul, which is not another; a hypocrite Paul...

Acts 17:

16. Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry.
17. Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him.

Shame on you Paul - following your "my gospel" over GT's.

Paul, you need to obey Jesus, "according to" GT's "gospel."

Then you will understand not to go into different towns and "upset cultural teachings."

Come on, GT, isn't it obvious you know not of what you speak?

Isn't it obvious the Spirit is not leading you?

Isn't it obvious to you that it is obvious to us; by your recurrent patterns, that you have been reading ideas out of all those wacked out books out there that are supposedly "Bible based"?

After all "God don't make no junk."

Heb 5:8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
Heb 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

Tit 1:15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.
Tit 1:16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

LA

 

[God's Truth]

SDTP and John W are not under any covenant.

They are not under the old or under the new.

In other words they are not in the Kingdom of God and they speak like it.

LA

That is for sure.

 

[tetelestai]

If a “Jewish Gospel” did exist it would have been necessary at this point to delineate the differences between the “Kingdom Gospel” and the message of the Judaizers lest the Galatians take a stand against a message that was an avenue by which many Jews, perhaps in their very midst, could be saved. However instead of making these distinctions Paul reasserts his “obsession” about there being only one gospel.

:thumb:

The "two gospel" theory falls apart when tested with scripture.

 

[tetelestai]

This thread is about there being one gospel. Tet. does a pretty good job at that. Why not focus on the topic?

STP is doing everything he can to distract from the topic of the thread.

He's doing it because he cannot reconcile 2 Peter3 and Galatians with his "two gospel" theory.

 

[Danoh]

Heb 5:8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
Heb 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

Tit 1:15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.
Tit 1:16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

LA

The Principle of Obedience is a Constant Throughout Scripture.

Its Application, however, Has Differed Throughout.

Yours is a one size fits all principle - case in point, try this on for size.

Its by Jesus Himself - Matthew 8:

4. And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

Your response to that - yes, or no - will determine how you are following the above Obedience Principle.

After that, its a matter of looking into whatever principle you will have followed in your answer to my above. As to whether or not you are being consistent in your application of whatever principle you will have based your answer on.

 

[tetelestai]

Tet's only purpose on TOL is to destroy dispensationalism by any means necessary,

I'm destroying Dispensationalism with verses from the Bible.

Why is it that you make post after post in this thread, but refuse to address the OP, or even the topic of the thread?

 

[tetelestai]

Galatians 1:2 And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:

Who were the brethren with Paul?

 

[tetelestai]

Was Matthew 5-7 old covenant doctrine?

Every single thing that Jesus preached is not mutually exclusive from the New Covenant.

 

[Danoh]

STP is doing everything he can to distract from the topic of the thread.

He's doing it because he cannot reconcile 2 Peter3 and Galatians with his "two gospel" theory.

Lol, as if you have.

 

[tetelestai]

why was the gospel of Christ to the Jew first, then?

Because Jerusalem was about to be destroyed, and the Jews were going to perish with it.

We know now that from 66AD - 70AD, over one million Jews died in Jerusalem, the city was destroyed, and millions were taken away as slaves.

The gospel told the Jews that when they saw Jerusalem surrounded by armies, they were to run to the hills.

(Luke 21:21) Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city.

That's why it was really important for the gospel to go to the Jews first.

 

[Danoh]

Every single thing that Jesus preached is not mutually exclusive from the New Covenant.

We know that, fool.

Matthew 26:

27. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28. For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Romans 15:

25. But now I go unto Jerusalem to minister unto the saints.
26. For it hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem.
27. It hath pleased them verily; and their debtors they are. For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister unto them in carnal things.

As is obvious there, its the same, yet different, oh endlessly clueless one...

 

[God's Truth]

STP is doing everything he can to distract from the topic of the thread.

He's doing it because he cannot reconcile 2 Peter3 and Galatians with his "two gospel" theory.

A person who hears the truth and cannot reconcile their beliefs with the truth in the scriptures, they should give up any beliefs they have and believe God's Truth.

 

[God's Truth]

The Principle of Obedience is a Constant Throughout Scripture.

Its Application, however, Has Differed Throughout.

Yours is a one size fits all principle - case in point, try this on for size.

Its by Jesus Himself - Matthew 8:

4. And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

Your response to that - yes, or no - will determine how you are following the above Obedience Principle.

After that, its a matter of looking into whatever principle you will have followed in your answer to my above. As to whether or not you are being consistent in your application of whatever principle you will have based your answer on.

Do you really think that Jesus told everyone never to tell anyone about him?

 

[tetelestai]

Is one work enough to prove that my faith is alive?
How many?

I asked you to explain Titus 3:8

How do you maintain good works?

Do you not believe what the Apostle Paul says?