Which does nothing to answer the question, and completely misses the point.
THE APOSTLES DID NOT PREACH THE SAME GOSPEL
- Thread starter DougE
- Start date
God's Truth
New member
You too have been had the truth explained to you very carefully and many times, but you refuse the truth.
You were given scriptures that PLAINLY say Paul is preaching the SAME gospel that he used to put people in jail for to destroy the church.
You have also been shown with scripture that AN APOSTLE must be one WHO NEVER HAD THE GOSPEL TAUGHT TO THEM BY MEN.
That is why explains that HE NEVER WAS TAUGHT IT BY MEN, NOT EVEN BY THE OTHER APOSTLES OF JESUS CHRIST.
God's Truth
New member
You too have had the truth explained to you very carefully and many times, but you refuse the truth.
You were given scriptures that PLAINLY say Paul is preaching the SAME gospel that he used to put people in jail to destroy the church.
You have also been shown with scripture that AN APOSTLE must be one WHO NEVER HAD THE GOSPEL TAUGHT TO THEM BY MEN.
That is why PAUL explains that HE NEVER WAS TAUGHT IT BY MEN, NOT EVEN BY THE OTHER APOSTLES OF JESUS CHRIST.
God's Truth
New member
Paul wanted to make sure that the apostles WERE PREACHING THE SAME THING LIKE HE SAID THEY WERE.
Galatians 2:21 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.
READ HERE WHAT WOULD MAKE PAUL SAY he ran IN VAIN. It is when NO ONE ELSE is in agreement with him.
Philippians 2:16 as you hold forth the word of life, in order that I may boast on the day of Christ that I did not run or labor in vain.
Galatians 2:21 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.
READ HERE WHAT WOULD MAKE PAUL SAY he ran IN VAIN. It is when NO ONE ELSE is in agreement with him.
Philippians 2:16 as you hold forth the word of life, in order that I may boast on the day of Christ that I did not run or labor in vain.
God's Truth
New member
The 12 apostles being born in due time means they were with Jesus from the beginning when Jesus was alive and walked the earth.
Paul was born unlike them in that he was made an apostle after Jesus died, risen, and ascended.
An apostle is a person directly chosen and taught by Jesus---a person who was NOT taught by man.
That is why Paul was adamant to explain that he WAS an apostle, even though unnaturally born. He knew everyone knew that he did NOT believe in Jesus when Jesus walked the earth, and not for a while after that as Paul tried to destroy those who believed in Jesus. He explained that he was taught by no other man, no other apostle, but by Jesus himself, even though this was AFTER Jesus ascended.
Paul defended his position as an apostle.
Galatians 1:16 to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not rush to consult with flesh and blood,17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to the apostles who came before me, but I went into Arabia and later returned to Damascus. 18 Only after three years did I go up to Jerusalem to confer with Cephas, and I stayed with him fifteen days. 19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother
Paul was born unlike them in that he was made an apostle after Jesus died, risen, and ascended.
An apostle is a person directly chosen and taught by Jesus---a person who was NOT taught by man.
That is why Paul was adamant to explain that he WAS an apostle, even though unnaturally born. He knew everyone knew that he did NOT believe in Jesus when Jesus walked the earth, and not for a while after that as Paul tried to destroy those who believed in Jesus. He explained that he was taught by no other man, no other apostle, but by Jesus himself, even though this was AFTER Jesus ascended.
Paul defended his position as an apostle.
Galatians 1:16 to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not rush to consult with flesh and blood,17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to the apostles who came before me, but I went into Arabia and later returned to Damascus. 18 Only after three years did I go up to Jerusalem to confer with Cephas, and I stayed with him fifteen days. 19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother
God's Truth
New member
Just because you say so??
I do answer the question, and I give scriptures. Just because you deny it doesn't make it so. DENIAL IS NO DEFENSE. Look at the scriptures I give and the explanations I give. If you don't agree, then address the scripture I gave. Just saying 'no you didn't' doesn't prove anything by you.
God's Truth
New member
Just read what Paul says why HE WAS SAVED.
It further proves there is ONLY ONE GOSPEL THAT SAVES.
Paul was saved by the one and only gospel, and it is the same that Jesus preached on earth---what Jesus came into the WORLD TO PREACH FOR ALL.
God's Truth
New member
Which does nothing to answer the question, and completely misses the point.
See how merely saying that works? It doesn't.
God's Truth
New member
Read and quote the scriptures I gave and reply to that instead of just saying uh uhh.
No, that's spin doctoring.
My question to you is...
WHY PAUL?
Where's the need for a thirteenth Apostle?
If nothing changed then how could there even be thirteenth apostles in the first place?
Did Jesus just forget about Paul when He gave John the visions he recorded in Revelation where there are thirteen foundations under the wall of the New Jerusalem, each with a name of an apostle on it? (Rev. 21:14)
Jesus had spent His earthly ministry training the twelve. One was a devil and was replaced by the other eleven, which Jesus had given them authority to do (Matthew 16:17-19 and John 20:21-23), and which the Holy Spirit confirmed by filling indwelling him along with the rest of the Apostles (Acts 2:1-4)
If nothing changed...
Why was Paul given the gospel by direct divine revelation?
Why was Paul adamant about separating his ministry from that of the Twelve to the point of emphatically stating concerning that point, "I do not lie!" (Galatians 1:15-20)
Why does Paul repeatedly refer to the gospel as "my gospel"? (Romans 2:16; Romans 16:25; 2 Timothy 2:8)
How it is possible that Peter didn't get the gospel to the extent that Paul had to get literally in his face about his hypocrisy? (Galatians 2:11-13)
Why is Paul's entire ministry about "Do not put yourself under the law." (Galatians 5:2)(Acts 21:20) while James and his converts were "all zealous for the law"?
Why did Paul have to go, by divine revelation, to the twelve Apostles in order to explain the gospel of grace to them? (Galatians 2:2)
Why did the Twelve agree with Paul that they would forgo the great commission and stay and minister to Israel while Paul went to the rest of the world? (Galatians 2:6-10)
And could go on and on. None of that touches the fact that the Acts 2 church lived communally nor any of the several doctrinal differences found between Paul's epistles and the rest of the New Testament.
And so I ask again, if nothing changed...
WHY PAUL?
Clete
He wasn't defending his office, he was seperating himself from the twelve. The text could not be clearer.
Further, there is no biblical definition of the office of Apostle that says anything like "An apostle is a person directly chosen and taught by Jesus". That's your own rationalization.
Clete
P.S. I do not read every post in the thread. If you do not use a quote tag or otherwise mention me in your post, I may never see your post. In your case, it's doubly hard to get my attention because I've had you on ignore for so long I've forgotten why and so I don't get notified of any of your posts anyway. This post was half way cojent and so I'll take you off ignore and see how it goes once you get back from being banned.
Clete
You are right in what you are saying about qualification of apostles.
Acts 1:21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
1:22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
Perhaps the confusion between "disciple" and "apostle" is the issue. Jesus' disciples were the 12. They were then charged with going out and spreading the word. Then they became apostles. As you see, the NT uses "apostle" to describe those who are His advocates, not limited to the 12 disciples.
There were many new apostles as the word spread. Like Paul, they were ordained by one of the disciples, or by those authorized by the disciples. Paul was ordained by the Presbytery of Antioch, becoming like Barnabas, an apostle.
Acts 14:13 Which, when the apostles Barnabas and Paul had heard, rending their clothes, they leaped out among the people, crying, [14] And saying: Ye men, why do ye these things? We also are mortals, men like unto you, preaching to you to be converted from these vain things, to the living God, who made the heaven, and the earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them:
So you're saying that Barnabas also got his commission directly from Jesus? As the apostle to the Gentiles, Paul had a great effect on the spread of Christianity. Reading his words, I think he'd be the last to overemphasize his place in the Church.
Right Divider
Body part
There were more disciples than 12.
Mat 27:57 KJV When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus' disciple:
You will not find Joseph of Arimathaea as one of the twelve.
Mat 10:1-4 KJV And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease. (2) Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; (3) Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; (4) Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.
bibleverse2
New member
To focus primarily on preaching to the Gentiles (Acts 9:15).
Note that there was no separation, but only fellowship (Galatians 2:9).
Because it was the Gospel that he preached, which was the same as the Gospel of Christ (Romans 1:16) and of the other apostles (1 Corinthians 15:11).
Galatians 2:11-16 means that all Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles, should stop trying to keep the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Galatians 2:16,19,21). For Galatians 2:11-21 is about what the apostle Paul, a Jew (Acts 22:3), said to the apostle Peter, also a Jew (Galatians 2:14), while they were up in Antioch living among Gentile Christians. Before certain men came from Jerusalem, where some Church leaders mistakenly thought that Jews still had to keep the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Acts 21:17-25), Peter had been rightly living "after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews" (Galatians 2:14). For he knew the truth that the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law was a "yoke" which "neither our fathers nor we [Jews] were able to bear" (Acts 15:10), and that "through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we [Jewish Christians] shall be saved, even as they [Gentile Christians]" (Acts 15:11). So in Galatians 2:16, Paul was simply reminding Peter what he already knew.
Paul then went on to show that even Jewish Christians are "dead" to the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Galatians 2:19), and righteousness does not come even to Jews by trying to keep the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Galatians 2:21). So Jewish Christians, just as Gentile Christians, must not "frustrate the grace of God" by trying to keep the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law:
Galatians 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
Right Divider
Body part
Just where in that verse does it say that Paul was "to focus primarily on preaching to the Gentiles"?
Act 9:15 KJV But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:
There is NO indication that there is a "primary focus" there.
The "right hands of fellowship" were HANDSHAKES to confirm the agreement to separate their ministries. NOTE exactly what was confirmed by the handshakes.
Gal 2:9 KJV And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
There are many gospels in the Bible. Some, like the gospel of Christ, were preached by both.
Paul repeatedly stated that HE received REVELATION from the Lord. If Paul simply received what the others already taught, that would NOT be revelation.
Last edited:
Exactly! That and there's the fact that Matthias wasn't chosen by Jesus Christ Himself but by the other Apostles and he was later confirmed as one of the Twelve when they were all filled by the Holy Spirit on Pentecost.
No, this is more spin.
Revelation 21:14
Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
There are exactly 12 and only 12 Apostles to/for the Nation of Israel.
Thirteen doesn't work - period.
No, there absolutely were not.
Paul was not made an apostle by any man. He was called supernaturally by the risen Jesus Christ Himself and given his gospel by direct divine revelation. He didn't get it ministry from any man nor was he taught the gospel.
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.
13 For you have heard of my former conduct in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it. 14 And I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my own nation, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.
15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, 16 to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.
18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see [c]Peter, and remained with him fifteen days. 19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. 20 (Now concerning the things which I write to you, indeed, before God, I do not lie.)
13 For you have heard of my former conduct in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it. 14 And I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my own nation, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.
15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, 16 to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.
18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see [c]Peter, and remained with him fifteen days. 19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. 20 (Now concerning the things which I write to you, indeed, before God, I do not lie.)
I added emphasis to that last sentence because that sentence is utterly meaningless and inexplicable if what you are suggesting where even partly true. Why on Earth would Paul feel any need to separate himself and his ministry from that of the Twelve Apostles if nothing had changed?
Paul was not ordained by anyone other than the risen Christ Himself. See Acts 9.
What?
How does that make any sense? When did I ever suggest any such thing and by what line of reasoning would those two verse suggest anything of the sort?
Paul and Barnabas got upset about some idiot wanting to worship them and make sacrifices to them. How does that translate to me suggesting that Barnabas also got his commission directly from Jesus?
I mean we know for a fact that Paul got his commission directly from Jesus because the bible tells us that. It doesn't say anything of the sort about Barnabas.
Clete
Last edited:
The Twelve were perfectly capable of that and had, in fact, been ordered by Jesus to do exactly that. But they didn't.
The first chapter of Galatians comes just nine verses prior to the single verse you cite. That's the chapter where Paul emphatically states that he is not lying about having not been given his ministry or message by anyone (except God), most especially the twelve apostles.
And just two or three verses before the one you cite specifically and explicitly states not only that the Twelve added nothing to Paul but that there are two gospels!
Wishful thinking does not make for good theology.
This amounts to nothing but simply restating your position in hopes that someone will take it as a rebuttal of the argument presented.
The fact is that it cannot be the same. Not only did the twelve rescind the great commission but Paul tells us in more than one place that his gospel isn't the same and that he didn't get it from the twelve but instead got it directly from God Himself.
If not for the book of Acts, everyone would think Paul was a heretical lunatic.
This is just your doctrine.
I really do not understand how you guys don't see how that isn't a valid response to the argument. It's text book question begging - at best.
In reality it doesn't even qualify as that because it isn't even an actual argument. All you've done here is restate your position in hopes that it'll be taken as a rebuttal argument. If it were taken as that then it would be question begging because your doctrinal interpretation of that passage is only valid if your understanding of Paul's ministry is valid and that's what's being debated. So whether it's taken as an argument or not, it doesn't move the discussion one inch closer to getting any answer to the question of why Paul's ministry existed in the first place.
Of course, I have to remind myself that I can't really expect much else because the whole point of the question "Why Paul" and all of it's various iterations that I've presented is that you don't have any answer for them. You can't possibly have any answer. There isn't any rationally possible answer from within your doctrinal paradigm.
That should be sufficient to cause you to reevaluate the veracity of your doctrine but I know from long experience not to expect any thing approaching that. That seems always to be a bride too far.
Regardless, the seed has been planted. Before you came here (to TOL), you had no idea that Paul ever got in Peter's face about anything; You had no idea that Paul emphasized how distinct his ministry and message was from the Twelve; You probably didn't even know that Paul was called as an Apostle by Jesus Christ Himself and given "his gospel" by direct divine revelation; You had no idea that God sent Paul, by revelation, to the Twelve so as to explain "his gospel" to them and that when they heard it, they decided to drop the great commission for themselves, to stay in Jerusalem to minster to Israel only (i.e. The Circumcision) and that Paul would go to the rest of the world, etc, etc, etc.
Clete
Last edited: