heir
TOL Subscriber
GO would have us to believe Paul preached the gospel of the kingdom
nono, but Paul could not even have been forgiven under it (Matthew 12:31-32 KJV).
ECT Two Bodies of Believers in the NT
- Thread starter heir
- Start date
nono, but Paul could not even have been forgiven under it (Matthew 12:31-32 KJV).G.O. is a little "off kilter" if you ask me.
Right Divider
Body part
Your Greek arrogance is fully noted. How's your Hebrew?
Interplanner
Well-known member
There is nothing arrogant about it, sir, it would show up immediately by diagramming, which most people cannot even do in English anymore.
This is why there has been the pseudo-debate about Gal 2:7, because few bothered diagramming in Greek where they would have learned that the prep. phrases go with PREACHING not with (the one) GOSPEL. dUH.
Paul equated the preaching and the Gospel in Rom 16's finale (both establish) because the power of God is equal in both. That is why there is now a 'deigma' (a royal decree/order) bringing in Gentile believers. 'Royal decrees' are done in (you guessed it) reigns/kingdoms. Nothing can stop it. It is the reign of God in action whenever preached.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
If Gal 2:7 (KJV) is simply a demarcation of ministry of the same gospel, why did Paul (after the Acts 15 meeting) immediately preach to Jews in Acts 17,18,19? This would break the agreement that he had just made.
Yes, there is debate over it.
I see it as possessive.
Verse 2 should be considered.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Verse 2 is considered. He to explain to them what he would anywhere because they weren't going to the Gentiles like they should have. That does not mean it is a different Gospel when 10 verses earlier he anathematized such a thing!
If my referring to the preaching, rather than the 'task' (NIV) was confusing, my apology. But both were the act of preaching, which is what I meant.
If there's two gospels, there's no way to confront Peter! Duh. Check with the scriptwriter!
Yes it is possessive, meaning the Gospel belongs to the reign of God which is here and now. The Gospel is the reign's possession, if you like. The prep. phrase is not meant to convey that there are other gospels.
Peter gave in to dissimulation (two-facedness) in a bid for a little impression management.
He was playing up to the Gentiles by partaking of their diet with them.
But then when those of the circumcision from James showed up, he allowed himself to fear what impression THEY might go back to James about having come upon him sitting there, partaking of a Gentile diet with said Gentiles.
Acts 21 gives this impression - that those from James might not have thought highly of Peter were they to come upon him partaking of said Gentile diet.
Why, pray tell, if there was no difference in the respective content of Peter's and Paul's understandings?
Acts 21:18 And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. 21:19 And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry.
Acts 21:20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:
Acts 21:21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.
Acts 21:25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.
There was a difference in the content of their respective understandings.
Diagram all the Greek you want; THAT is NOT how language communicates intended sense.
Rather, it does so through a living, breathing, interconnected, exchange back and forth narrative between itself and its reader or hearer.
This is also why you fail to get the actual sense of Gal. 2:7-9.
You think that is all we have to point to as our argument.
Again, this thing is a living, interconnected, multifaceted tapestry comprised of many aspects that together comprise what Paul refers to as "the FORM of sound words."
And we get it from time in the book, not, in books about...
You continue to fail to see this...
He was playing up to the Gentiles by partaking of their diet with them.
But then when those of the circumcision from James showed up, he allowed himself to fear what impression THEY might go back to James about having come upon him sitting there, partaking of a Gentile diet with said Gentiles.
Acts 21 gives this impression - that those from James might not have thought highly of Peter were they to come upon him partaking of said Gentile diet.
Why, pray tell, if there was no difference in the respective content of Peter's and Paul's understandings?
Acts 21:18 And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. 21:19 And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry.
Acts 21:20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:
Acts 21:21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.
Acts 21:25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.
There was a difference in the content of their respective understandings.
Diagram all the Greek you want; THAT is NOT how language communicates intended sense.
Rather, it does so through a living, breathing, interconnected, exchange back and forth narrative between itself and its reader or hearer.
This is also why you fail to get the actual sense of Gal. 2:7-9.
You think that is all we have to point to as our argument.
Again, this thing is a living, interconnected, multifaceted tapestry comprised of many aspects that together comprise what Paul refers to as "the FORM of sound words."
And we get it from time in the book, not, in books about...
You continue to fail to see this...
Interplanner
Well-known member
No I don't; I'm not reading all the books you say to read. Just because a person is evacuating Judaism as best they know how, it does not mean there were 2-3 gospels out there. Paul did say things that did NOT require circumcision; because justification is apart from both circ and uncirc. So from day one (Gen 3, 12), a person could say circ was not necessary. Abraham believed before not after.
The "book" I'm reading is Paul, thank you.
You don't seem to be aware of what justification is in the whole theology of Paul. That's why Acts 13's claim about 'all is fulfilled' is confusing or ignored to you. All the distinctions between salvation and eschatology are obliterated by what he said in teaching justification.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Judaism did not want to include Gentiles unless all of the Law was upheld. this is the basis of the conflict Paul refers to so many times, using the expressions by faith vs through the law. this is why the grammar of Eph 3:5 falls entirely upon 'through the Gospel' because that is precisely where Judaism would say 'through the law.'
Interplanner
Well-known member
The same guy who said Judaism had voided and replaced the Promise with the Law (Gal 3:17) also said that Abraham believed before he was circ'd not after. Who does that?
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
:idunno:
If you agree it is possessive, then it would be two different gospels.
The gospel OF the circumcision and the gospel OF the uncircumcision.
One belonging to the circumcision ( of the circumcision) and another belonging to the uncircumcision ( of the uncircumcision).
One of those gospels committed to Paul, and one of those gospels committed to Peter.
Peter even says that some of the things Paul preaches are hard to understand.
It wouldn't be hard for Peter to understand if he was preaching the same thing.
Not to mention that there would be no need for God to chose another apostle just to preach the gospel of the uncircumcision, if it were the same gospel the 12 were to preach to the whole world.
That one apostle (Paul) was separate from the 12.
The BOC is separate from Israel.
It is why we see so many differences between what the disciples preached and what Paul preached.
Things that differ:
THE DISCIPLES
Matthew 28:19 KJV
Matthew 28:19 KJV
(19) Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
PAUL
1 Corinthians 1:17 KJV
(17) For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Tambora,
I think you have in mind the question of the 'gospel of the kingdom' and you think that it means a gospel ABOUT the kingdom there, and that these in Gal 2 mean a gospel for the circ and still another for the uncirc. (Three so far!) If he meant it that way, those would be nominative phrases by the way (nominative--naming). So these are possessive, but not going where you think. Or the owner--possession relation is confused.
I started with 'the gospel of the reign of God' meaning the gospel that belongs to that reign, which is here, and the power or force of it is sensed each time it is proclaimed. This is an expression in the Gospels, but in Gal 2, he is defining the tasks of preaching the (same) gospel to the uncirc and the circ. It is the TASK that is being modified, not the gospel.
After all, it is Paul who calls down the anathema on any one who says there is another gospel; so we won't be going that direction, will we?
Interplanner
Well-known member
PLease have a good look at I cor 1:17 again, just quoted. What do you notice about the Gospel?
heir
TOL Subscriber
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Still waiting for interplanner to respond to this directly.
While you're at it, Interplanner, please tell us also why Paul would have to go up by revelation and communicate unto them "that gospel" that he preached among the Gentiles, if it were the same one the 12 preached.
Interplanner
Well-known member
The Aeropagus was not Jewish, Acts 17.
The Judean-based disciples were drifting weren't they? It wasn't just Peter, it was James, and it was John, and then 'certain men from James.'
I'm not saying it was easy for people to withstand the pressure of Judaizers but these verses are just 10 removed from Paul anathematizing any other gospel.
After the desert, he was reported as 'preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.' Ie, the one Gospel.
Right Divider
Body part
More twisting to make your "story" fit.
That scripture does NOT say that Paul "taught ALL and ONLY the same thing" as the TWELVE apostles for the TWELVE tribes of Israel.
Gal 1:21-24 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:21) Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia; (1:22) And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ: (1:23) But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed. (1:24) And they glorified God in me.
So it was SECOND HAND that "they had heard". Hardly convincing that Paul received NO NEW revelation from the risen LORD.
Paul's gospel does NOT contradict what had come BEFORE. That does NOT mean that he did NOT receive new and MORE revelation than the others.
The fact that Paul CONFIRMED what the TWELVE had taught does NOT invalidate HIS revelation from the LORD.
You remain an ignorant story-teller.
Problem is "the Law and the Prophets" WERE a gospel.
This is clear, say, in John 1, etc.
This is also clear Gal. 3.
It was Israel's gospel concerning "he that should come."
In this, Paul's point in Galatians 1 is that to mix that gospel with Rom. 3:21's "BUT NOW the righteousness of God WITHOUT the law" is to preach "another gospel: which is not another."
To mix the Law (that gospel - "the righteousness which is of the law" Rom. 10:5) with "the truth of the gospel" Gal. 2:14, that Paul "preached among the Gentiles" Gal. 2:2, is to preach "another gospel: which is not another" Gal. 1:6, 7.
Even your Greek points out this is a numeric issue "one where there may be more than one."
Both systems were of God. This is a Dispensational issue.
To mix them is to end up at "another...which is not another" of those two.
But you miss this. You think "the Pharisees which believed" in Acts 15, were wrong because their system had been misunderstood by them.
But they only concluded what they concluded about the need to circumcise the Gentiles and have them keep the Law because that had been Israel's gospel.
Romans 10:5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.
Again, even your Greek shows this is a numeric issue - two legitimate gospels those "Pharisees which believed" were unwittingly attempting to corrupt in their unawareness that a change in Dispensation (meat, its due season, its household, its steward, etc.) had taken place.
Note: I maintain that what Paul laid out to James, Cephas, and John, in Gal. 2, was that content he would later lay out in Romans.
Galatians is Romans from beginning to end, what, a decade or more, before he wrote Romans.
Last edited:
Interplanner
Well-known member
You are way too favorable to the Law, and you are trying (like Israel?) to subsume the Gospel into the Law. But Isaiah 60 said it was outside, coming later. You're reading those expressions in Rom 9-10 about the righteousness of the Law as though it was appropriate then. You're trying to say there is no contrast in Jn 1, so I don't know why you would touch it. You are trying to say 1 is 2, which is Hegelian.
Israel's misunderstandings are not included in Paul's theology. Gal 3:17, however, is.