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

[john w]

You continue to ignore the topic of the thread.

Nope. The topic of the thread, includes your satanic premise("supporting walls"), that there is just one piece of good news in the bible


"There's one gospel ... 'two gospel' theory completely falls apart....Therefore, MAD's "two gospel" theory is false."- NoTetosterone

Tet above:

There is just one piece of good news in the bible, not 2/3/4/5/6....................................pieces of good news in the bible.

More proof that you can't even attempt to address the topic of the thread.

More proof, by your quotes above, that you are satanic, a child of the devil, asserting that your saint Judas preached the good news/gospel of 1 Cor. 15:1-4 KJV, as...


"There's one gospel"- NoTetosterone

...and you say that Judas preached the following "one gospel:"



"Hey, everyone!!! Christ is going to die for our sins, be buried, and raised again for your justification. Believe this good news to be saved!!!!"-NoTetosterone's saint Judas

Satanic. And the wimp wonders why I call him a child of the devil.



.

 

[john w]

Come on John W, haven't you heard the "good message message"?

Well, RD, I must check with Professor Demas/Nicodemas, who will tell me, "My dear misguided MAD dispensationalist wacko....There is just one piece of good news in the bible.....Just repeat that, and you'll be just fine....."

 

[God's Truth]

You continue to ignore the topic of the thread.

Paul told the Galatians that if anyone preaches a different gospel to them, that person is to be accursed.

Years later, Peter wrote an epistle to the Galatians.

MAD claims Peter's epistle was a different gospel than Paul's epistle to the Galatians.

If Peter's epistle was a different gospel (MAD's claim), then according to Paul's epistle, Peter should have been accursed.

Everyone knows that Peter wasn't accursed for his epistle to the Galatians.

Therefore, MAD's "two gospel" theory is false.

I have been telling the MADists for awhile now that if Paul had another gospel then he was cursing himself, because the MADists claim he had another gospel than that one from Jesus and the other Apostles...or, he was cursing Jesus and the other Apostles' gospel, since there is NO OTHER GOSPEL.

However, I do want to say to you that since you do not believe we have to repent of our sins to be saved and that we only have to have faith…then you do believe another gospel than that of the one Jesus and his disciples taught. Because Jesus says to repent (Luke 13:5); Jesus says if you obey my teachings you will be saved (Matthew 6:14, Matthew 6:15, John 8:31, John 13:17, John 15:10, John 15:14).

However, YOU teach that we only have to believe and nothing else. If you say Jesus said those things before the Holy Spirit was given, then tell me why Jesus tells them they will receive the Holy Spirit if they obey his commands? Why doesn't Jesus just say if you continue to only believe then you will receive the Holy Spirit?

In addition, the disciples after having received the Holy Spirit, they CONTINUED to preach that the people should believe AND REPENT of their sins and call on Jesus' name (Acts 2:38, Acts 5:31, Luke 24:47, Acts 3:19,) And, even PAUL HIMSELF PREACHED REPENT AND BELIEVE TO BE SAVED (Acts 17:30; Acts 20:21, Acts 26:20).

Now please tell me, are you going to keep preaching there is only one gospel but that we only have to believe?

 

[tetelestai]

And yet I can splain it in a few short words.

vese 33
So likewise ye when ye shall see ALL these things, know that it is near even at the doors
34
Verily I say unto you This generation shall not pass away till all these things be fulfilled.

THIS generation which sees ALL these things,

All WHAT things?

The sun darkened
the moon shall not give her light
the stars shall fall from heaven
the powers of the heavens shall be shaken

And THEN shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven.

Notice the "ye" in verse 33?

Notice the "you" in verse 34?

"Ye" is the subject form of the second person, personal pronoun, plural. "You" is the object form of the second person, personal pronoun, plural.

Therefore, what you claim it says doesn't make sense grammatically.

Not to mention that the demonstrative adjective "this" modifies the noun "generation", which can only mean Jesus was referring to the generation of His contemporaries, not a future generation.

There you are Tet no need to read whole books...just ask Totty

Don't you live in England?

If so, it shouldn't be hard to find an English 101 remedial course. :chuckle:

 

[john w]

Notice the "ye" in verse 33?

Notice the "you" in verse 34?

"Ye" is the subject form of the second person, personal pronoun, plural. "You" is the object form of the second person, personal pronoun, plural.

Therefore, what you claim it says doesn't make sense grammatically.

Not to mention that the demonstrative adjective "this" modifies the noun "generation", which can only mean Jesus was referring to the generation of His contemporaries, not a future generation.



Don't you live in England?

If so, it shouldn't be hard to find an English 101 remedial course. :chuckle:

More proof, by your quotes above, that you are satanic, a child of the devil, asserting that your saint Judas preached the good news/gospel of 1 Cor. 15:1-4 KJV, as...


"There's one gospel"- NoTetosterone

...and you say that Judas preached the following "one gospel:"


"Hey, everyone!!! Christ is going to die for our sins, be buried, and raised again for your justification. Believe this good news to be saved!!!!"-NoTetosterone's saint Judas

Satanic. And the wimp wonders why I call him a child of the devil.

 

[john w]

If so, it shouldn't be hard to find an English 101 remedial course. :chuckle:

Vs.
"...spelling was never one of my strong points.."- stupid Tet. on TOL




"The rules of grammar have to be thrown out the window.."-].."- stupid Tet. on TOL in the past

vs.

"I rarely correct or point out someone's grammer and/or spelling"-stupid Tet. on TOL

vs.


"No matter what you say or do, whether it's spelling, grammer, punctuation, etc. Johnny will try so hard to make you look like you aren't smart."-].."- stupid Tet. on TOL



vs.

-stupid Tet. on TOL, to a poster:


"Do you even understand the simple basics of grammer?"-stupid Tet.

vs.

"will try so hard to make you look like you aren't smart."-stupid Tet.

"At least the TOL user who goes by the name "Colossians" understands grammer (he claims to be a grammarian). This is why when you, and him, and me were debating "This Generation" in Matt 24 he was smart enough to know that your "pronoun argument" falls apart grammatically. That is why he was forced to claim that "generation" meant something other than "generation", while you went on and on about how "this" really means "that"."-stupid Tet.


vs.


“I find it funny how you dispies obsess with the spelling and grammer errors of people who don't agree with your dispensationalism.Whether it's the improper use of "who vs. whom", or a misspelled word, you guys somehow think that if you obsess with the error it means your opponent isn't as smart as you, and therefore you win the debate……I rarely correct or point out someone's grammer and/or spelling.”-stupid Tet.




vs.

"...spelling was never one of my strong points.."-stupid Tet


You hypocritical, condescending punk.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

You continue to ignore the topic of the thread.

Paul told the Galatians that if anyone preaches a different gospel to them, that person is to be accursed.

Years later, Peter wrote an epistle to the Galatians.

MAD claims Peter's epistle was a different gospel than Paul's epistle to the Galatians.

If Peter's epistle was a different gospel (MAD's claim), then according to Paul's epistle, Peter should have been accursed.

Everyone knows that Peter wasn't accursed for his epistle to the Galatians.

Therefore, MAD's "two gospel" theory is false.

MAD made up the two gospel theory to support their rejection of the true gospel.

MAD says one only has to believe in order to be saved.

They removed the need for repentance and baptism from their gospel, thus placing themselves under the curse.

(which is why they speak as they do)

LA

 

[aikido7]

The Apostle Paul was a man under attack for his beliefs.

In Galatians 1:6-9 he complains about those who thought that his gospel was wrong and were causing people to turn away from what he had taught them. Not wanting to give voice to the opposition, he doesn’t mention the issues in dispute.

But he was not one to even consider that he may have been at fault. Paul said in that same Galatians passage that even any "angel from heaven" who dared disagree with him should be damned.

As for the identity of Paul’s opponents, in 2 Corinthians 11:13 he calls them "false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ."

But who were they?

In 2 Corinthians 11:5 he sarcastically calls them "super-apostles."

In that time, "super-apostles" could have meant only one thing: the original apostles.

This means that apostles who had known, walked with, and been taught by Jesus himself during his lifetime thought Paul was wrong about at least some of what he was teaching.

This leads to a question: Since Paul’s teachings became a basis of today’s Christian faith, would Jesus have approved of the religion that is today proclaimed in his name?

I am a Christian, but I don’t believe we should hide from the facts about our own faith.

How many pastors know about these problems, but never mention them in a sermon?

How many of them are depriving their congregations of a fuller, deeper understanding of their faith, with all of its complexities?

We must be willing to embrace some uncomfortable truths.

 

[meshak]

The Apostle Paul was a man under attack for his beliefs.

In Galatians 1:6-9 he complains about those who thought that his gospel was wrong and were causing people to turn away from what he had taught them. Not wanting to give voice to the opposition, he doesn’t mention the issues in dispute.

But he was not one to even consider that he may have been at fault. Paul said in that same Galatians passage that even any "angel from heaven" who dared disagree with him should be damned.

As for the identity of Paul’s opponents, in 2 Corinthians 11:13 he calls them "false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ."

But who were they?

In 2 Corinthians 11:5 he sarcastically calls them "super-apostles."

In that time, "super-apostles" could have meant only one thing: the original apostles.

This means that apostles who had known, walked with, and been taught by Jesus himself during his lifetime thought Paul was wrong about at least some of what he was teaching.

This leads to a question: Since Paul’s teachings became a basis of today’s Christian faith, would Jesus have approved of the religion that is today proclaimed in his name?

I am a Christian, but I don’t believe we should hide from the facts about our own faith.

How many pastors know about these problems, but never mention them in a sermon?

How many of them are depriving their congregations of a fuller, deeper understanding of their faith, with all of its complexities?

We must be willing to embrace some uncomfortable truths.

I wholeheartedly agree. There are too many inconsistent comments of Paul. That's why I focus on what Jesus says.

 

[meshak]

Jesus also says "don't let anyone call you a teacher because He is the Teacher."

 

[Jerry Shugart]

MAD made up the two gospel theory to support their rejection of the true gospel.

No the first two presidents of Dallas Theological Seminary (Acts 2), the largest dispensational seminary in the world, recognized that Paul was the first to preach the "gospel of God's grace."

That means that the gospel which was preached prior to Paul was another gospel other than the "gospel of the grace of God."

Hence, two gospels were preached during the Acts period.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

There are people who did obey it perfectly.

have you obeyed it perfectly?

I have explained that to you before. James was speaking of the ROYAL LAW OF LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR.

No, it is referring to the Ten Commandments, as the context shows:

"For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law" (Jas.2:10-11).​

Have you kept the law perfectly? If not, you are guilty of all and therefore any obedience which you are counting on to save you will only condemn you.

Or perhaps you want to argue that being guilty of all can somehow make you acceptable to God and thus lead to your salvation?

 

[Shasta]

"because the message was not completed did not mean it is yet ANOTHER gospel"

Lie. Made up, and you are distancing yourself from your previous "argument," that asserts everyone preached the good news of 1 Cor. 15:1-4 KJV, that Paul preached. No such thing as a "The Gospel message"-that's you talking, not the book's words.

This "Jesus" you cite, at least prior to the dbr, never taught the dbr good news of 1 Cor. 15:1-4 KJV. Nether did the 12. And you can't provide one scripture, that shows that the 12 did. It was hid from them. Even satan did not know.


You lie, when you spam that the gospel/good news of 1 Cor. 15:1-4 KJV, is equivalent to the "gospel of the kingdom" that the 12, including Judas, preached, as the Lord Jesus Christ commanded them to preach, and which He preached, and it had NADA to do with the dbr.

You continue to lie.

1 Cor. 15:1-4 is a creed and as such summarizes in a few points a much larger body of truth. It rests on a lot of theology that was revealed about and by Jesus in the Synoptic gospels. Outside the facts and context of Matthew Mark Luke and John what was in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 is incomplete and incoherent.

The idea of two gospels was never accepted in the first three centuries of the Church except by the Marcionites. In fact no mention is made of anyone believing such a thing until the 1800s. If there was a Jewish gospel why did it vanish so quickly and completely? Your beliefs are fringe. The fact that you cannot answer the OP of this thread or challenge the arguments I have presented are evidence of the weakness of your case.

 

[Shasta]

In my reading of scripture I have observed one simple fact – that the word “Gospel” is never used in the plural. You would expect that it would at SOME point if there were really two Gospels. For example:

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of THE gospel (not gospelS) of Christ: for it is THE power of God unto salvation to EVERYone that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Paul writes this as if there were only one Gospel and as if it were singularly invested with the power of God to bring salvation to both Jew and Gentile. One message that can save BOTH peoples – not TWO message, one for each.

This is consistent with the idea that Galatians 2:7 concerned not two gospels but ONE that was to be carried to TWO different ethic groups.

Galatians 2:7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised

http://biblehub.com/galatians/2-7.htm

The emphasis was on a mission to a people, a thought which was continued in the next verse:

Galatians 2:8 (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles),

http://biblehub.com/galatians/2-8.htm

The focus was not on the message (not after the initial interview, anyway) but on their respective Apostleships. The word apostle means "sent forth with a message,” or an emissary.

The question the Twelve had to answer was not “Shall we accept a new revelation (from Paul)?” but rather “Shall we give Paul our support in his apostolic outreach to the Gentiles?” In the end they were all in agreement.

But it was one Message ---- two recipients

 

[Shasta]

have you obeyed it perfectly?



No, it is referring to the Ten Commandments, as the context shows:

"For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law" (Jas.2:10-11).​

Have you kept the law perfectly? If not, you are guilty of all and therefore any obedience which you are counting on to save you will only condemn you.

Or perhaps you want to argue that being guilty of all can somehow make you acceptable to God and thus lead to your salvation?

At the same time it is the Fathers will that we do the things that please Him. That is why He put the Holy Spirit in us - to make it possible to be what we cannot be in ourselves (Romans 8:3-4). Our "law" is not external but internal and it is not a dead letters. He did not give us a flight manual but a living co-pilot.

 

[aikido7]

The Apostle Paul was a man under attack for his beliefs.

In Galatians 1:6-9 he complains about those who thought that his gospel was wrong and were causing people to turn away from what he had taught them. Not wanting to give voice to the opposition, he doesn’t mention the issues in dispute.

But he was not one to even consider that he may have been at fault. Paul said in that same Galatians passage that even any "angel from heaven" who dared disagree with him should be damned.

As for the identity of Paul’s opponents, in 2 Corinthians 11:13 he calls them "false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ."

But who were they?

In 2 Corinthians 11:5 he sarcastically calls them "super-apostles."

In that time, "super-apostles" could have meant only one thing: the original apostles.

This means that apostles who had known, walked with, and been taught by Jesus himself during his lifetime thought Paul was wrong about at least some of what he was teaching.

This leads to a question: Since Paul’s teachings became a basis of today’s Christian faith, would Jesus have approved of the religion that is today proclaimed in his name?

I am a Christian, but I don’t believe we should hide from the facts about our own faith.

How many pastors know about these problems, but never mention them in a sermon?

How many of them are depriving their congregations of a fuller, deeper understanding of their faith, with all of its complexities?

We must be willing to embrace some uncomfortable truths.

 

[God's Truth]

MAD made up the two gospel theory to support their rejection of the true gospel.

MAD says one only has to believe in order to be saved.

They removed the need for repentance and baptism from their gospel, thus placing themselves under the curse.

(which is why they speak as they do)

LA

This is good to hear. You believe the truth that we must obey Jesus and repent of sins if we want Jesus to save us.

Tet. does not believe that.

 

[God's Truth]

have you obeyed it perfectly?

There are people who kept the law perfectly. Do you want scriptures?
No one can obey the old law anymore the temple is gone.
I obey the new law; it is the old law with changes.
There was a change to that old law, see Hebrews 7:12.

No, it is referring to the Ten Commandments, as the context shows:
"For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law" (Jas.2:10-11).

It is about the law of love your neighbor.

You are too ensnared to consider the truth.

Have you kept the law perfectly? If not, you are guilty of all and therefore any obedience which you are counting on to save you will only condemn you.

I keep the Royal Law perfectly.
I am wondering what you are doing wrong to your neighbor.

Or perhaps you want to argue that being guilty of all can somehow make you acceptable to God and thus lead to your salvation?

Feeling guilty and not stopping your sin is not obeying.

 

[patrick jane]

Yep.

Dispensationalism claims Ezekiel 40-48 is the yet future.

Numerous times in Ezekiel 40-48 animal sacrifices for sin atonement are given in detail.

Dispensationalists believe these events will take place in the future.

When pressed about this belief of theirs, they get real squirmy, and come up with different excuses like "they will be for memorial purposes only", and other ridiculous excuses.

But, that's life when you choose to be a follower of John Nelson Darby.

you are way off course, Tets -
i see you do this alot - you like to lump any and all dispensationalists into 1 big group of geniuses. MAD's are all individually gifted geniuses; unique, each sharing the gospel of grace with the BOC. the true BOC -

MAD DOES NOT RECRUIT, NOR DO THEY IMPOSE OR PLEAD THEIR BELIEFS, attempting to defend and prove themselves. MAD's rightly divide the word of truth - 2 Timothy 2:15 KJV - we simply believe God's written Word and understand it the way God intended, that's all. there is no special requirement or 'twisting' of scripture with MAD's -

1 Corinthians 15:1-2 KJV - 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV -

Romans 10:9 KJV - Romans 10:10 KJV -

Colossians 1:25 KJV - Colossians 1:28 KJV -

Ephesians 1:7-9 KJV - Ephesians 1:10 KJV - Ephesians 1:11-12 KJV -

Ephesians 1:13 KJV -

 

[tetelestai]

you are way off course, Tets -

No, it's based on what Dispensationalists say and believe

Example:

Nothing in the book to the Hebrews precludes a future memorial sacrificial system in honor of what Christ accomplished. He ended SACRIFICE FOR SIN, just like it says. It does NOT says "to end all sacrifices". That's something that you had to make up on your own.

Another example:

During the kingdom age God will require sin offerings instead of a confession of sin so that people can be cleansed from their sins. These sin offering will be "memorial" in nature just like the following sacrifice: - Jerry Shugart

Another example:

Certain Jewish issues in the future will be memorial, not meritorious.

As I said, Dispensationalism teaches that Ezekiel 40-48 is the yet future. In Ezekiel 40-48 many times an animal sacrifice for sin atonement is given in detail.

Dispensationalism is a mess.