ECT Which Gospel?

[achduke]

So you agree that two different gospels were preached during the Acts period?

If not, then look at my last post and then answer my question:

Tell me which of those is not a good news (gospel) which saves.​

To answer your question, through out history man has been saved by only one way--by grace through faith.

However, the content of the faith has been different in some instances.

It is all good news that has been unfolding throughout history.

The reason why we are saved is by faith and the grace of God. It has always been that way. Abraham is saved by faith and grace, David is saved by faith and grace, etc. Now did they physically know Christ? No but David knew of Christ and had faith that God will deliver Him in the future. Same with other patriarchs in the Bible.

Now faith and the grace of God is the why we are saved. What is the how we become saved?

By hearing the Word of God, turning toward God, believing in his Son and being baptized in the Holy Spirit.

 

[Interplanner]

JerryS,

Right, and they eliminated the two options. There was only one. But then the question became how much/little of the torah to keep to honor Christ. They agreed not to "make it difficult" to honor Christ. Apparently the whole torah is difficult! But that is not a 2nd gospel. Because no human works are a gospel...unless you're talking about Christ.

So, in that sense, it was not about two gospels. Peter got up...mentioned one gospel (v7) and said there was no distinction (v9) which he learned the hard way.

Notice the difference between v1 and v5. It's not about being saved; it's just about requiring the whole torah in honor of Christ.

Cp later in 21:20. How much torah does it take to satisfy the zealots? Yet they are called believers. Believing another gospel? No. Believing that it takes a lot of torah to honor Christ. But that would be a difficulty that would impede Gentiles. Paul is willing to do it, though, to get inside the temple where he can speak to key people he wants to speak to. That's his interest. Actually, I think even James was with him on that. To do whatever it would take to get inside.

The accusations of the unbelieving Jews that James is afraid of were accurate: Paul had dismissed circumcision and other customs in Galatians etc. (Acts 21:21)

 

[Jerry Shugart]

It is all good news that has been unfolding throughout history.

You did not answer this:

So you agree that two different gospels were preached during the Acts period?

If not, then look at my last post and then answer my question:

Tell me which of those is not a good news (gospel) which saves​

​

 

[Interplanner]

Danoh,
see the previous to JerryS. See the difference between v1 and 5.

Those believers in ch 21 believed the one gospel, but believed more torah was necessary to honor Christ. More than what Paul required out on his mission trips. The issue was how much torah was needed to honor Christ, not whether to believe on his work. That's made clear each time. That's why the council letter was encouraging to Gentile churches. Not difficult. And there is no confusion that there might be two gospels out there. Peter is the one to say there was just one.

 

[Danoh]

JerryS,

Right, and they eliminated the two options. There was only one. But then the question became how much/little of the torah to keep to honor Christ. They agreed not to "make it difficult" to honor Christ. Apparently the whole torah is difficult! But that is not a 2nd gospel. Because no human works are a gospel...unless you're talking about Christ.

So, in that sense, it was not about two gospels. Peter got up...mentioned one gospel (v7) and said there was no distinction (v9) which he learned the hard way.

Notice the difference between v1 and v5. It's not about being saved; it's just about requiring the whole torah in honor of Christ.

Cp later in 21:20. How much torah does it take to satisfy the zealots? Yet they are called believers. Believing another gospel? No. Believing that it takes a lot of torah to honor Christ. But that would be a difficulty that would impede Gentiles. Paul is willing to do it, though, to get inside the temple where he can speak to key people he wants to speak to. That's his interest. Actually, I think even James was with him on that. To do whatever it would take to get inside.

The accusations of the unbelieving Jews that James is afraid of were accurate: Paul had dismissed circumcision and other customs in Galatians etc. (Acts 21:21)

I'd like to ask you to observe the courtesy of using the quote feature so that others do not have to read through various posts to attempt to guess at who's post you are adressing.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Right, and they eliminated the two options. There was only one. But then the question became how much/little of the torah to keep to honor Christ. They agreed not to "make it difficult" to honor Christ. Apparently the whole torah is difficult! But that is not a 2nd gospel. Because no human works are a gospel...unless you're talking about Christ.

There was a reason why Paul would communicate to the other Apostles the "gospel which he preached among the Gentiles":

"And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles" (Gal.2:2).​

If there was only one gospel then there would be no reason to bring up that gospel to them, especially since he had previously been with other Apostles when they preached a gospel.

The reason why Paul brought up the gospel which he preached to the Gentiles was because that gospel declares that the believer is "justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Ro.3:24).

And the language in "bold" is referring to the "liberty" of which Paul spoke of here:

"And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage" (Gal.2:4).​

 

[Interplanner]

JerryS,
this last post is an incredibly simply grammatical question. The question is does 'to the Gentiles' modify the verb or the Gospel. All a person has to do is go to a Greek parsing guide or analytical lexicon to find out! You are wrong. It is modifying where he went, not another Gospel!

You willfully dismiss what Acts 15 is saying in v7 , which is Peter, saying there is one singular Gospel. And there is no distinction, v9, and there is salvation, by grace, just as they are, v11.

The difference at the council became how much torah to observe to truly honor Christ. The official answer: not much.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

JerryS,
this last post is an incredibly simply grammatical question.

As usual you answered nothing about what I said in my last post.

 

[achduke]

"for I am not ashamed of the good news of the Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation to every one who is believing, both to Jew first, and to Greek" (Jn.1:16; YLT)​

This is from Romans 1:16.
Romans 1 also talks about Jesus being the Son of God.


Rom 1:4 and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead,

Another thing which is the "good news" of Christ is the fact that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. And belief of that good news also brings life to all who believe...

Tell me which of those is not a good news (gospel) which saves.

I am afraid I do not see a difference. They both speak of Jesus being the Son of God among other things. This is all good news that apply to everyone.

 

[Interplanner]

JerryS,
Paul went to the Gentiles with the Gospel. He did not take a Gospel for the Gentiles (only) to them. He took the same Gospel and the context of Gal 1 says so.

The line goes 'euangelizomai auton en tois ethnesin' (in order to take [it--the Gospel] to the nations.' It's one gospel taken to the nations.

To say what you think it says it would have been: 'euangelizomai to euangeliou pros/eis tois ethnesin en autois.' (in order to take a gospel just for the nations to them.').

It does not.

Your misunderstanding is solved by looking at the grammatical 'case' (nominative, genitive, dative, possessive) of the word Gospel. It is not a gospel just for them. It was the same Gospel to them. Gentiles is accusative (the direct object) recieving the nominative Gospel (the subject). In fact 'auton' is intentionally singular, almost 'to take the thing--the one Gospel--to the nations.'

At least read commentaries on this, and don't do English grammar poorly.

 

[Danoh]

JerryS,
Paul went to the Gentiles with the Gospel. He did not take a Gospel for the Gentiles (only) to them. He took the same Gospel and the context of Gal 1 says so.

The line goes 'euangelizomai auton en tois ethnesin' (in order to take [it--the Gospel] to the nations.' It's one gospel taken to the nations.

To say what you think it says it would have been: 'euangelizomai to euangeliou pros/eis tois ethnesin en autois.' (in order to take a gospel just for the nations to them.').

It does not.

Your misunderstanding is solved by looking at the grammatical 'case' (nominative, genitive, dative, possessive) of the word Gospel. It is not a gospel just for them. It was the same Gospel to them. Gentiles is accusative (the direct object) recieving the nominative Gospel (the subject). In fact 'auton' is intentionally singular, almost 'to take the thing--the one Gospel--to the nations.'

At least read commentaries on this, and don't do English grammar poorly.

Huge mistake; this reliance of you and yours on the Greek and that; through the eyes of commentaries writers.

 

[musterion]

Huge mistake; this reliance of you and yours on the Greek

Well, that is how the KJ committee did it.

 

[Danoh]

Well, that is how the KJ committee did it.

You missed my point.

In other words,"Huge mistake; this reliance of you and yours on the Greek and that; through the eyes of commentaries writers" ["who put unbelieving Josephus above the Bible"].

Also, the KJV translators were not writing a commentary - they saved that for their notes in the margins.

They were basically involved in the Process of Further Refinement, as the text was mostly already fine in the prior Bibles.

Inspiration - Preservation thru Multiple Witnesses - Restoration to One Witness - Refinement.

Their Margin notes indicate their views. Thus, its remarkable their views did not creep in to greatly impact passages about and or related to the Mystery.

 

[Tambora]

The question is does 'to the Gentiles' modify the verb or the Gospel. All a person has to do is go to a Greek parsing guide or analytical lexicon to find out!

I would like to see you lay this out for us.

 

[musterion]

You missed my point.

In other words,"Huge mistake; this reliance of you and yours on the Greek and that; through the eyes of commentaries writers" ["who put unbelieving Josephus above the Bible"].

Ah, sorry to have misread you.

 

[Tambora]

The question is does 'to the Gentiles' modify the verb or the Gospel. All a person has to do is go to a Greek parsing guide or analytical lexicon to find out!

It is in the genitive case, meaning possessive (belonging to). Thus qualifying the noun (gospel) rather than the verb.

 

[Danoh]

JerryS,
this last post is an incredibly simply grammatical question. The question is does 'to the Gentiles' modify the verb or the Gospel. All a person has to do is go to a Greek parsing guide or analytical lexicon to find out! You are wrong. It is modifying where he went, not another Gospel!

You willfully dismiss what Acts 15 is saying in v7 , which is Peter, saying there is one singular Gospel. And there is no distinction, v9, and there is salvation, by grace, just as they are, v11.

The difference at the council became how much torah to observe to truly honor Christ. The official answer: not much.

Interplanner is asserting - that Paul is talking about who he preached [Peter's same gospel] to - to the Gentiles - that Paul is not talking about a [different, or] Gentile gospel.

But we know Interplanner is off-base.

And we know this due to what we focus on - on identifying what it is that Paul and Peter, or any one else, for that matter, preached. That is, the Mid-Acts "camp" I am more or less in agreement with follows this.

And we do that through the characteristics of the content of what they preached, And we have found there are similarities, but also, "Things That Differ."

In fact, even that label "Things That Differ" has a history as to its origin. One few even within Mid-Acts have understood.

Anyway, parsing the text - this mood, that modifier, and so on - will only take one so far; will allow one to see only so much.

For example, Interplanner, it is obvious I am strongly against your view.

Were North American English not your "original" language, you could proceed to attempt to parse the various aspects of my words all you want, but that would only get you so far.

What would really help you establish my intended sense would rely on much more than that. Like the fact that I refer to you as "brother," for example.

Meaning you are not the issue for me, your views and its approach are. And this will "modify" the "sense" of my words to you.

As to your "modifying the verb or the gospel" per the Greek and or your commentaries based understandings, what you need to do is put all that away for a bit and just get to studying out the characteristics of the content of what Peter preached and of what Paul preached - both as to their sameness, as well as to their distinctions.

 

[Interplanner]

Forgiveness from God is one and the same.

The promises to Abraham are one and the same; and they are the Gospel too. See how similar Rom 4, 9 and Acts 3 and 13 are. How similar Peter sounds once he'd been schooled in Acts 11 (poor guy--to have both visions and Paul hounding him)

Have you totally lost what Gal 1-2 is about? Peter left the Gospel! How dare you!!! How dare you talk about there being two gospels, when the whole point of Gal 1-2 is that Peter momentarily left the one Gospel, which Paul protects with an anathema, and had to come back. yes, there were two gospels for a moment--the one that the Judaizers wanted to use to continue on in human effort (Gal 3:1-3). That one was cursed. Peter was cursed for mentioning it.

It is not THAT you are mistaken that is so bothersome and wearisome. It is WHY. Why do you WANT there to be a dividing message that Paul spoke against in no uncertain, passionate terms? Why does futurism generally see all kinds of things that are not in these passages, this one being one more wasteful fabrication like the others?

So again to be clear: the two possessive case prepositional phrases 'to the circ' vs 'to the uncirc' are the SAME gospel being taught to two commonly-used labeled groups. They are not dative case phrases.

Just go learn how to diagram English.

 

[Interplanner]

Tambora,
the gospel is singular all through Gal 2; what other contextual proof do you need? The genetive matches what Paul was entrusted with to what Peter was entrusted with (TEV the task of): THE SAME SINGULAR GOSPEL. (Actually 'euanggelion' here has the flavor of the task in it--message plus task).

2:8:

N
The Gospel (singular)
V
(passive) to be entrusted/given
DOs
(Paul--assumed from context to be the receiver of the task), as Peter
MOD
to the nations, to the circumcised

 

[Tambora]

the two possessive case prepositional phrases 'to the circ' vs 'to the uncirc'

Good grief, what a mess.
Prepositional phrases have prepositions in them.
There are no prepositions in the phrases of Gal 2:7.

The Greek word translated 'of the' or 'to the' in Gal 2:7 are articles, not prepositions.