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

[musterion]

You are worshiping Christ and ignoring Jesus. You appear to be involved in a "belief-based" faith, a religion that only requires you to accept ancient first-century theological phrases like "Jesus was born of a virgin," "Son of God," "Messiah," or "died for our sins."

As such, you do not feel called upon to suffer the slightest urge to change your own behavior toward what Jesus preached.

You feel out of it within an "action-based" faith that demands we establish a personal relationship with Jesus.

History does inform faith. The religious, economic, social, political and cultural history of ancient times is the bedrock of evidence, facts and honest data on which we build our beliefs, faith notions, opinions and interpretations.

Your disdain for this important difference is obviously confusing for you. You are mixing up both the facts and the faith that can be found within the pages of the Holy Bible.

The more difficult (and the more historical) sayings of Jesus fail to even register for you. Whenever I bring them up there is always someone who leaps upon me and accuses me of being a heretic.

Hey, guy, that ol' global culture still keeps on a-comin' at ya. You are truly outnumbered. I think this fact is what makes you defensive and fearful of historical methodology. And fearful of Jesus and his unique "voice print."

What's your point?

 

[Danoh]

You are worshiping Christ and ignoring Jesus. You appear to be involved in a "belief-based" faith, a religion that only requires you to accept ancient first-century theological phrases like "Jesus was born of a virgin," "Son of God," "Messiah," or "died for our sins."

As such, you do not feel called upon to suffer the slightest urge to change your own behavior toward what Jesus preached.

You feel out of it within an "action-based" faith that demands we establish a personal relationship with Jesus.

History does inform faith. The religious, economic, social, political and cultural history of ancient times is the bedrock of evidence, facts and honest data on which we build our beliefs, faith notions, opinions and interpretations.

Your disdain for this important difference is obviously confusing for you. You are mixing up both the facts and the faith that can be found within the pages of the Holy Bible.

The more difficult (and the more historical) sayings of Jesus fail to even register for you. Whenever I bring them up there is always someone who leaps upon me and accuses me of being a heretic.

Hey, guy, that ol' global culture still keeps on a-comin' at ya. You are truly outnumbered. I think this fact is what makes you defensive and fearful of historical methodology. And fearful of Jesus and his unique "voice print."

Lol; you must have tripped on your Hakama.

 

[aikido7]

What's your point?

Two points:

1. Christianity has become a religion Jesus would have rejected and
2. You are obviously unable to come to a point.

 

[aikido7]

Lol; you must have tripped on your Hakama.

Mockery and name-calling are an adolescent dodge to keep from taking serious points seriously.

The very idea you would disdain historical methodology and fear that it somehow makes faith concerns wrong is astonishing to me.

 

[Danoh]

Two points:

1. Christianity has become a religion Jesus would have rejected and
2. You are obviously unable to come to a point.

Mid-Acts would agree on your first point.

In this, your second point is moot.

 

[Danoh]

Mockery and name-calling are an adolescent dodge to keep from taking serious points seriously.

The very idea you would disdain historical methodology and fear that it somehow makes faith concerns wrong is astonishing to me.

More nonsense on your part; you're just taking yourself in your books based "wisdom in its own conceits" too seriously to take you too seriously.

You and yours are ever the same - your self-concept obviously negatively impacted by the swelled head your overreliance on external sources has resulted in; you take issue with being treated the fool that has made you.

 

[aikido7]

More nonsense on your part; you're just taking yourself in your books based "wisdom in its own conceits" too seriously to take you too seriously.

You and yours are ever the same - your self-concept obviously negatively impacted by the swelled head your overreliance on external sources has resulted in; you take issue with being treated the fool that has made you.

Because there are obvious discrepancies in the Holy Bible, I am to take them all seriously. Every theology and tradition in the text is inspired and must be recognized and acknowledged.

I fail to see anything wrong with that.

It is interesting you call attention to my "swelled head." Why is the intellect so threatening to you people? Seriously.

Aren't we called to love God with all our heart, all our soul and all of our MIND?

It seems you actually enjoy playing the victim card whenever you confront intellectual truth and academic research. And science, too, for that matter.

 

[patrick jane]

Desperation on your part.

We're discussing Paul's and Peter's epistles to the Galatians.

The church at Corinth was on a different continent than the church in Galatia.

You claim Peter preached a different gospel to the Galatians than the gospel Paul preached to the Galatians.

again

2 Peter was written some 18 years AFTER Paul's epistle to Galatia
does that mean anything to you ?


Why don't you actually address what Peter said in 2 Peter 3?

Why don't YOU explain everything you want MAD to explain, because we have answered your questions and proven you wrong countless times -atrol:

 

[Danoh]

Because there are obvious discrepancies in the Holy Bible, I am to take them all seriously. Every theology and tradition in the text is inspired and must be recognized and acknowledged.

I fail to see anything wrong with that.

It is interesting you call attention to my "swelled head." Why is the intellect so threatening to you people? Seriously.

Aren't we called to love God with all our heart, all our soul and all of our MIND?

It seems you actually enjoy playing the victim card whenever you confront intellectual truth and academic research. And science, too, for that matter.

More "intellectual truth and academic research" based in one size fits all conjecture, innuendo and presupposition going in.

Where's it say we are "called to love God with all our heart, all our soul and all of our MIND"?

I ask that for a reason I have just proven.

 

[john w]

Because there are obvious discrepancies in the Holy Bible, I am to take them all seriously. Every theology and tradition in the text is inspired and must be recognized and acknowledged.

Never trust a man/woman, that employs the stumper "obviously" in their "argument." Translated: Their argument is as shaky as Elvis' knees.

And don't confuse your lack of understanding the book, due to that 2 Cor. 4:4 KJV/1 Cor. 2:14 KJV problem of yours, with any alleged "discrepancies" in the scriptures. Many posers, chumps, smarter than you, have attempted that for thousands of years, and have been relegated to the insanity asylum, just as you will be. Thy word is truth............

" Every theology and tradition in the text is inspired .."-you

Chapter, verse, that asserts that people/tradition/theolgy are "inspired?"

You don't know what the biblical definition of "inspiration" is, do you? No shame in being "ignorant," a great biblical word. The word means "lack of knowledge," not stupid. I will give you the proverbial "benefit of the doubt," and assume that you are merely ignorant. Or, are you stupid? Your call.

 

[Shasta]

Danoh;4343417 Perhaps, but it is just as myopic and egocentric to suppose that said presupposition was in place going in. It can just as well be the case that your supposition that his is/was presupposition, is now your presupposition.

Everyone has presuppositions. At least there are few that are completely uninfluenced by a culture that is saturated in religious opinion. I was responding to his claim that he came up with all this on his own but, since he said he came up with the internet I guess he was speaking tongue in cheek.

Fact is that best students within Mid-Acts constantly challenge the Mid-Acts Perspective.

I wouldn't know about that. In here many try to "win the argument" any way they can: harassment, insults, distracting from the debate. Anything seems to be acceptable. To me it is far more important to discover something true than to win the argument

Because it reemerged as a result of what could be called Recurrent Same-Distinct Patterns that could not but be noted, the better students within the movement are ever aware of that as they study.

As a very simple example of this Recurrent Same-Distinct Patterns Principle, in Romans 6:14, the Apostle Paul relates, "For sin shall not have dominion over you; for ye are not under the Law, but under Grace," Rom. 6:14.

He is relating Distinct Systems, Viewpoints, Intents, Results, etc., that those who do not understand either, will one size fit both, even as they assert they are not doing that.

At one point, the Principle is the same - God's will as to both systems. At another, this same Principle differs - in application, etc.

That right there is Dispensational at its most basic level.

I don't understand the way you are using all those terms.

That right there is this here - Luke 12:42's "And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season?"

Dispensationalism actually being; as that passage relates: nothing more than Distinctions in Identities.

I don't know about that. I think the parable means the Lord wants us to be faithful to Him and to how He wants us to use the gifts He has given us.

The rest is the details in each's recurrent patterns that led to the reemergence of each's distinctions.

For, view the following passage how one will, the need keep certain distinctions in mind, is nevertheless the issue - note the words asserting distinctions...

Romans 11:

25. For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

The real issue being, the extent of those distinctions where, when, why, how, as to who and what - not - that there are none.

The very basis of elementary school reading comprehension, not only in reading, but in math, "science" and "history."

It might make sense if you were the one who wrote the Elementary School curriculum. Not to be disrespectful, I am just really not following you here.

 

[Shasta]

So what? Does the fact that the sacred name of the LORD God, for eg., only goes back no further, to when it was revealed to Moses, His servant, mean that it was not His sacred name, prior to that? So, you, like others, assert that when you discover truth, determines if it is, in fact objective truth? So, the Lord Jesus Christ was not Lord, God, until you discovered it? Save it-rhetorical questions.

Listen up, rummy:When you determine objective truth, when you "discover" it, in no way determines if it is, in fact, objective truth. The truth goes on eternally, regardless of when you "found out about it," or, for that matter, when you believed it. Discover of/belief in the truth, in no way determines it's veracity.


Now, please have a seat, while I teach. Understood? Great!

Let me guess your "response::" The earth was flat at one time, you see, well, uh, urr, you see....Let me check my commentaries...

Your analogy is false. We are speaking about divine truth which was revealed once for all in time and space in the First Century not about the changing opinions of science. Because the truths we are talking about were revealed in history you would expect to find evidence of it there but when you look for anything that written about Jewish gospel in the writings of those who lived in the First Century it is mysteriously absent. This is just one line of argument I have pursued, one which you have not touched.

I have also offered straightforward exegetical arguments that stayed close to the language of the text of scripture. You do not answer those either. Instead you offer puerile insults to people who oppose you or try to divide and conquer by baiting us with our doctrinal differences. Those practices are considered reprehensible in a reasoned debate of opinions.

I have also pointed out a number of times that 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 is a creedal statement which was not even written by Paul. In fact Paul did not say he wrote it only that he received it. Rather it was formulated before his conversion by the earliest generation of the Church. Estimates are that it was put together from within 5-10 years of the cross, meaning that what you call the "Gospel" was preached by the Twelve. There is abundant agreement from many sources on this point. I have not bothered to cite them because I know it would make no difference to you. So much for the pursuit of objective truth.

 

[God's Truth]

You have misunderstood their error - that is not what they assert - they assert that He calls an elect He long ago chose - and - that He - then - gives them the faith to believe - and - the ability - to obey.

You're both off.

I have not misunderstood anything. You say I do not understand and then repeat what I said. You are deceitful acting as if you corrected me.

Calvinists believe that God chose people before the creation of the world, and that they cannot obey or believe until they are saved.

 

[God's Truth]

lol - you must be off somewhere, googling their view.

I have been debating Calvinists for many years. I had people who were Calvinists try to get me to become one too. I know what they believe.

 

[God's Truth]

Here is what Paul wrote:

"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love" (Eph.1:4).​

That is about the plan of salvation.

And here is how we are chosen:

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess.2:13).​

God choses those who fear Him and who do what is right. See Acts 10:35.

In the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary we see that the words "from the beginning" refers to "before the foundation of the world":

"from the beginning--"before the foundation of the world" (Eph 1:4; compare 1Co 2:7; 2Ti 1:9); in contrast to those that shall "worship the beast, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Re 13:8)" [emphasis added] (Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary, Commentary at 2 Thess. 2:13).​

The plan for salvation was made before the creation of anything.

People are chosen by God according to what is in their heart.

 

[john w]

Your analogy is false. We are speaking about divine truth which was revealed once for all in time and space in the First Century. Because it was revealed in history you would expect to find evidence of it there but when you look back for evidence of a Jewish gospel in the writings of those who lived in that time period it is mysteriously absent. This is just one line of argument I have pursued, one which you have not touched. To do that you would have to think.

I have also offered exegetical arguments that stayed close to the language of the text of scripture. You do not answer those either. Instead you offer puerile insults to people who oppose you or try to divide and conquer by baiting us with our doctrinal differences.

I have also pointed out a number of times that 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 is a creedal statement which was not even written by Paul. In fact Paul did not say he wrote it only that he received it. Rather it was formulated before his conversion by the earliest generation of the Church. Estimates are that it was put together from within 5-10 years of the cross, meaning that what you call the "Gospel" was preached by the Twelve. There is abundant agreement from many sources on this point. I have not bothered to cite them because I know it would make no difference to you. So much for the pursuit of objective truth.

Made up, and stuff your "false analogy" jazz-that's a standard cliché, employed, when an argument(reasons for a conclusion), is being picked apart, as I did yours. This is your "argument:

"As for the genealogy of MAD, it goes back no further than the 1800."-you




You are on record:

-The earth was flat at one time,
-The Lord Jesus Christ was only such, until "recently," so He is not,
-Pluto was a planet at one time, but not anymore, as we "discovered" recently the truth, that it is not a planet,
-The sacred name of the LORD God, as revealed to Moses, is not, as this is a "recent" discovery,
-"God the Father" is not "God the Father," as this was only a "recent" discovery/revealed truth, not known until the Saviour revealed it.


Slick....Real slick on your part....Slick as a pig, sliding down a plank.


Sit down, and also shuck your "Instead you offer puerile insults to people who oppose you or try to divide and conquer by baiting us with our doctrinal differences" "wounded soul," emotional appeal, dribble, and stock cliche. We are intelligent men/women on this board, and we've seen that tired, debating "technique" hundreds of times. You're not surprising/fooling/impressing anyone. Just whom do you think you are talking to on TOL, Little Joe? Your Uncle Joe, whoosamovin' kinda slow?

 

[God's Truth]

You'll need God to be saved. Regeneration precedes faith. You have it backwards and have no proofs. The only option you have is to save yourself and pretend God is watching you obey and refrain from pork and wordhip on the 7th day without burning fire meaning no sparks in your car on Saturday. No heat on that day in the winter

Regeneration happens when a person is saved.

God does not regenerate unbelievers to cause them to believe.

That false teaching is nowhere in the Bible.

Show one scripture that says God saves unbelievers.

 

[God's Truth]

Paul got into trouble when he preached a different gospel than those who were Jesus' original followers (Peter, John, James the brother of Jesus and others) in Jerusalem.

You Paul haters do not respect the Holy Bible as God's written Word. You do not believe God can preserve His written Word for us. God knew what would be in the Bible. You do not understand Paul so you blasphemy what he says. It is blasphemy because Paul speaks what the Holy Spirit had him say.

 

[patrick jane]

You Paul haters do not respect the Holy Bible as God's written Word. You do not believe God can preserve His written Word for us. God knew what would be in the Bible. You do not understand Paul so you blasphemy what he says. It is blasphemy because Paul speaks what the Holy Spirit had him say.

yes ! ! that is the best thing i have ever heard from you, good work !

 

[God's Truth]

If she meant what I substituted above, then she's actually correct. You both are.

Saved is being regenerated, but Calvinists believe it is a pre salvation move by God that can end in no other way than in salvation. What nonsense.

I am glad though that you could see beyond Danoh's confusion and false accusations.