These are NOT the same gospel

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Interesting theory, but sounds like some of the Catholic mumbo-jumbo
Literally nothing Catholic about it. It's an idea. It's a hypothesis which is sustained in my view by both the evidence and by logical analysis. The evidence doesn't conflict with it.
, that wants to use miracles, only, for authentication, when other methods are available. Such a focus tends to prepare people to fall away when presented with false signs and wonders.
I'm aware of that risk. It's not pertinent here, like with the Resurrection of Christ the evidence is consistent with the miraculous claim, the evidence isn't inconsistent with something miraculous occurring which convinced the other Apostles that Paul who persecuted the Church was actually here to fulfill King David's prophecy from 1000 years before: "Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take."

Paul took it. How'd something like that happen, what with faithful Matthias over there serving his role as Judas's replacement? Something miraculous must have happened to persuade Peter and the others to recognize Paul as 'one of them.' I'm just coloring by numbers here, 'spit ballin'. But he 'took' Judas's "bishoprick". "Let 'another' take", the scripture says. The "another" is Paul, and that 'taking' happened logically somehow.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
You still have not established that the scripture actually says "of the" instead of "to the." Except in the translation you wish to use over all others. There is no phrase in that passage that says either "to" or "of" in Greek. What you translate as "of the" is simply the Greek word for "the".

Which means you don't have a case either, with your "to the jews" vs "to the gentiles," which, by the way, is inherently part of my position.

I'm well aware that "ho" is "the."

The problem with your claim is that, regardless of which it's supposed to be, to or of, or even without either of those words, it still reads as two separate gospels:

"... I have been entrusted with the gospel the uncircumcision, just as Peter the circumcision."

There's a rule called the Granville-Sharp rule, and it applies not just to Greek, but to even the English language as well.


For example:

The father and husband went to the store.
VS
The father and the husband went to the store.

In the first sentence above, there is one person who is both a father and husband who went to the store.

In the second sentence above, while it could be read as a single person, it's not at all likely (in other words, you would have to force the meaning of it to be a single person), and it's normally read as two different people, one of them a father, the other a husband, going to the store.

The same applies to Galatians 2:7:

Paul was given the uncircumcision.
Peter was given the circumcision.

Something else to note is that the word "gospel" is only used once in the verse. It is implied the second time.

Except I pointed out two obvious people groups. Jews and Gentiles.

And?

You will have to take that up with God.

I submit that there's a perfectly valid way to answer the question without having to ask God directly, and it has to do with this very topic.

And that is, that the Twelve preached a different gospel than Paul, and so sending Paul to Israel and the Twelve to the world (as they were originally instructed to go to, by the way), or any combination thereof, would have been counterproductive, especially as they preached two different gospels, Peter and the others the gospel of the Kingdom of Israel, and Paul the gospel of the Grace of God.

But in any case, Paul also preached to the circumcised

At first, he did. Then, later He went ONLY to Gentiles, even saying that he was done going to the Jews because he was fed up with them!

When Silas and Timothy had come from Macedonia, Paul was compelled by the Spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus is the Christ.But when they opposed him and blasphemed, he shook his garments and said to them, “Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean. From now on I will go to the Gentiles.”And he departed from there and entered the house of a certain man named Justus, one who worshiped God, whose house was next door to the synagogue.Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized. - Acts 18:5-8 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts18:5-8&version=NKJV

and Peter, James and Jude also preached to Gentiles,

There is nothing in the Bible to suggest that Peter, James, and John and the rest ever wrote or went to Gentiles.

sometimes both groups were in the same place,

The only way to arrive at this conclusion is to eisegete it into the text.

Reading your beliefs into scripture is wrong.

and neither changed the gospel according to the particular people group. Peter James and John stayed in Jerusalem---

And they did so against what Christ had told them to do, didn't they.

Or did you forget the Great Commission Christ gave them?

Paul traveled among the Gentiles to spread the word of the good news to the Gentile world. If you know of Paul's personal history that we are given in Acts (mainly), you would even be able to see why he was better equipped than the other apostles to communicate successfully with the Greeks and other Gentiles in the area.

And?
 

Derf

Well-known member
Peter is ONE of TWELVE apostles that will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Peter's name is ONE of the TWELVE apostles of the Lamb that will be on the foundations of the new Jerusalem.
That’s good news for Peter, but isn’t necessarily good news for his audience. Why would the gospel consist of such statements as “I’m going to judge you.”?
The body of Christ, the NEW creature, the one NEW man, etc. etc.
Which then proves my point—God was accepting of anybody willing to do righteously, even if they had never done so before. It’s a concept called “repentance”.
Without working righteousness.
Not for those that have already been accepted—both Peter and Paul tell their audiences to live holy lives.
That's NOT what the scripture says. Cornelius and his family were righteous gentiles:
Yes, feared God and "gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway."
Which means they had already repented. Are you arguing that no repentance is necessary in Paul’s gospel? Here’s Paul’s gospel:
Acts 26:19-20 (KJV) 19 Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision: 20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and [then] to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.
You're off your rocker gramps.
This is a curious way to argue. Are you saying I’m wrong because I’m older than you, as if the more recent a doctrine is, the more true it is??
 

Derf

Well-known member
Literally nothing Catholic about it. It's an idea. It's a hypothesis which is sustained in my view by both the evidence and by logical analysis. The evidence doesn't conflict with it.

I'm aware of that risk. It's not pertinent here, like with the Resurrection of Christ the evidence is consistent with the miraculous claim, the evidence isn't inconsistent with something miraculous occurring which convinced the other Apostles that Paul who persecuted the Church was actually here to fulfill King David's prophecy from 1000 years before: "Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take."

Paul took it. How'd something like that happen, what with faithful Matthias over there serving his role as Judas's replacement? Something miraculous must have happened to persuade Peter and the others to recognize Paul as 'one of them.' I'm just coloring by numbers here, 'spit ballin'. But he 'took' Judas's "bishoprick". "Let 'another' take", the scripture says. The "another" is Paul, and that 'taking' happened logically somehow.
I guess the jury’s still out on whether Paul took Judas’ bishopric. I tend to agree with you that he did, but it’s hard to say whether Matthias is cut off from the office completely.
I don’t think there’s evidence that Peter called Paul one of the twelve.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
I guess the jury’s still out on whether Paul took Judas’ bishopric. I tend to agree with you that he did, but it’s hard to say whether Matthias is cut off from the office completely.

Scripture makes it explicitly clear:

“Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.”And they proposed two: Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.And they prayed and said, “You, O Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which of these two You have chosen to take part in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.”And they cast their lots, and the lot fell on Matthias. And he was numbered with the eleven apostles. - Acts 1:21-26 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts1:21-26&version=NKJV

Matthias is number 12.

I don’t think there’s evidence that Peter called Paul one of the twelve.

Because he wasn't.
 

Derf

Well-known member
Scripture makes it explicitly clear:

“Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.”And they proposed two: Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.And they prayed and said, “You, O Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which of these two You have chosen to take part in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.”And they cast their lots, and the lot fell on Matthias. And he was numbered with the eleven apostles. - Acts 1:21-26 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts1:21-26&version=NKJV

Matthias is number 12.



Because he wasn't.
And Jesus was numbered with the transgressors, but that didn’t make him a transgressor.
Mark 15:28 (KJV)
And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.

If the 12 in the kingdom are the ones specifically selected by Jesus, then Matthias doesn’t qualify, but Paul does. If the standard is the one the eleven used in selecting Matthias, then Paul doesn’t qualify but Matthias does. I’m not sure who’s standard applies to the twelve foundations of the wall in New Jerusalem, because they aren’t named.
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
I guess the jury’s still out on whether Paul took Judas’ bishopric. I tend to agree with you that he did, but it’s hard to say whether Matthias is cut off from the office completely.
I don’t think there’s evidence that Peter called Paul one of the twelve.
Yeah you're right. It just says Paul "was with them"----it's not very clear that the reason "he was with them" was because he had passed muster with them. Acts 9:28
 

Right Divider

Body part
And also 'in the flesh.' Paul's account is consistent with a literal physical visitation by Jesus.

John's Revelation is John's writing after an also equally 'in the flesh' revelation as Paul, with the resurrected and ascended Christ. It's interesting to contrast what Paul wrote after such an encounter, with what John wrote after such an encounter.
Ok, any time that we try to make a one sentence statement it's likely going to be misunderstood.
  • The twelve were taught by the minister of the circumcision Who came to confirm the promises made to the fathers. That is the fathers of ISRAEL.
  • Paul was taught by the HEAD of the BODY. Paul said that WE (i.e., the body of Christ) are NOT to know Jesus as the minister of the circumcision per 2 Cor 5:16
John and Paul's encounters were different. John is also ONE of the TWELVE apostles that will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Paul is that OTHER different apostle.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
And Jesus was numbered with the transgressors, but that didn’t make him a transgressor.
Mark 15:28 (KJV)
And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.

Christ became sin for us.

I agree, He never transgressed the law, but he was still numbered as one.

If the 12 in the kingdom are the ones specifically selected by Jesus, then Matthias doesn’t qualify,

The requirements were given in the passage I quoted:

“Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.” - Acts 1:21-22 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts1:21-22&version=NKJV

Two men qualified:

And they proposed two: Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. - Acts 1:23 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts1:23&version=NKJV

So they cast lots to determine who should fill Judas's shoes:

And they prayed and said, “You, O Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which of these two You have chosento take part in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.” - Acts 1:24-25 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts1:24-25&version=NKJV

And the lot fell upon Matthias:

And they cast their lots, and the lot fell on Matthias. And he was numbered with the eleven apostles. - Acts 1:26 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts1:26&version=NKJV

Seems pretty clear-cut to me.

but Paul does.

Paul, as far as we can tell, does not fit the standard presented in Acts 1:21-22. Therefore, he is unqualified for filling the position left open by Judas.

If the standard is the one the eleven used in selecting Matthias, then Paul doesn’t qualify but Matthias does.

Exactly my point.

God gave Peter the authority to decide such matters. They did. Thus, we use their standard.

Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." - Matthew 16:17-19 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew16:17-19&version=NKJV

Peter is the one who proposed the rules for choosing a new Apostle:

And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples (altogether the number of names was about a hundred and twenty), and said, - Acts 1:15 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts1:15&version=NKJV

He is the one speaking from verse 15 all the way to verse 22.

I’m not sure who’s standard applies to the twelve foundations of the wall in New Jerusalem, because they aren’t named.

It would be whoever the twelve are:

Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. - Revelation 21:14 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation21:14&version=NKJV
 

Right Divider

Body part
That’s good news for Peter, but isn’t necessarily good news for his audience.
So what? It's just a fact.
Why would the gospel consist of such statements as “I’m going to judge you.”?
Why do you think that it's part of the gospel? Which gospel?
Which then proves my point—God was accepting of anybody willing to do righteously, even if they had never done so before. It’s a concept called “repentance”.
Nobody knew about the gospel of the grace of God in Acts 10. Don't forget that Peter was sent on a special mission to Cornelius.
Not for those that have already been accepted—both Peter and Paul tell their audiences to live holy lives.
Duh... everyone should "live holy lives" regardless of how they are saved.
Which means they had already repented. Are you arguing that no repentance is necessary in Paul’s gospel?
Nope. I'm claiming that Israel and the body of Christ are two different things.
Here’s Paul’s gospel:
Acts 26:19-20 (KJV) 19 Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision: 20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and [then] to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.
That is NOT "Paul's gospel". That is Paul defending himself against the Jews.
This is a curious way to argue. Are you saying I’m wrong because I’m older than you, as if the more recent a doctrine is, the more true it is??
No, it was meant tongue in cheek. I'm probably older than you.
 
Last edited:

Right Divider

Body part
Sorry, but He said His kingdom was not of this world.
No, He said that His kingdom was NOW not of this world. Clearly indicating that this was not permanent.
John 18:36 (AKJV/PCE)
(18:36) Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
Not to mention the fact that there is a "world to come".
Matt 12:32 (AKJV/PCE)
(12:32) And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the [world] to come.
 

Right Divider

Body part
Do you just not know that Paul taught that Israel still had a future earthly coming?
The gospel of the kingdom is NOT just that there is a future earthly kingdom coming to Israel.

It was that the kingdom was AT HAND.
Mark 1:15 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:15) And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
Matt 4:17 (AKJV/PCE)
(4:17) ¶ From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
 
Last edited:

Right Divider

Body part
Land promises to Israel are not "not of this world."
Same with "the throne of His father David".
Luke 1:31-33 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:31) And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. (1:32) He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: (1:33) And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
 
Top