Shasta
Well-known member
Is it your contention that the "Pauline Gospel" differed from the "Petrine Gospel" in that Paul and his disciples did not (1) call for the unsaved to repent or (2) baptize those of them who did ?
ECT Which Gospel?
- Thread starter Danoh
- Start date
Is it your contention that the "Pauline Gospel" differed from the "Petrine Gospel" in that Paul and his disciples did not (1) call for the unsaved to repent or (2) baptize those of them who did ?
Shasta
Well-known member
Who are these mysterious people who saw and figured things out. This sounds like more meta-narrative. Did the Early Church secretly know it and neglect to pass these keys of knowledge on to the following generations?
Interplanner
Well-known member
Aikido,
the only difficulty of your suggestion is that even Paul said we (apostles and others in Judaism) once knew Christ in the ordinary way. Was Christ just a preacher with a novel approach? It appears that way. But Paul said he was not. He said you could have been in the front row watching him and not really know what God was doing in Christ.
That was not Paul's idea. it was Christ who said that they would do greater things than christ did, and that the Counselor would come and declare all things to them (the Spirit). So there is conscious continuity by Christ about the message that would come ABOUT him.
the only difficulty of your suggestion is that even Paul said we (apostles and others in Judaism) once knew Christ in the ordinary way. Was Christ just a preacher with a novel approach? It appears that way. But Paul said he was not. He said you could have been in the front row watching him and not really know what God was doing in Christ.
That was not Paul's idea. it was Christ who said that they would do greater things than christ did, and that the Counselor would come and declare all things to them (the Spirit). So there is conscious continuity by Christ about the message that would come ABOUT him.
This sounds like someone who is deliberately being dense.
I'm saying Paul's Gospel preached salvaton is a gift we don't have to perform anything to receive. We believe unto salvation.
Interplanner
Well-known member
We don't have a record of what Peter taught when he was mistaken, but we know he was for a while. He had to be corrected 3 times; by Paul, by the sheet vision and by the tongues episode when the non-Jewish people believed.
Shasta
Well-known member
So you believe that the Gospel Jesus sent Peter and the others out to preach required that people to do good deeds as a part of being saved? Is that what repentance is to you - a good deed?
As to why there was no memory of two gospels even at the end of the First Century, I think the simplest explanation is that there was never any special Jewish Gospel.
I realize that this will fall on deaf ears where you are concerned, but perhaps someone else will receive it with ears to hear...
In Matthew 12:30-32, The warned Israel that they would be forgiven for going against the Father, and forgiven for going against the Son, but not for going against, or resisting the Spirit.
Why the one and not the other two also?
In Mark 7:27the Lord told the Syrophenician who came seeking a blessing "Let the children first be filled:"
In Acts 3, the Spirit through Peter, reminded Israel:
25. Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.
26. Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.
Inn Acts 7:51, the Spirit through Stephan "Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye."
In Acts 13: 46, we read "Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles."
The same is related by Paul in Acts 18:6, and one final time in Acts 26: 28.
In Acts 10, Peter was not being corrected, rather; he was being prepared for a change, as Israel had already been judged as unfit for their missionary role by the Spirit as they had having resisted the Spirit.
Their reply? Murdering Stephan; who then saw the Lord standing - a sign of judgment, Isaiah 3:13, for example.
Later, in Acts 15, Peter will be able to assert the following, in support of Paul's ministry among the Gentiles without their need to submit to circumcision and the Law:
7. And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
8. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
9. And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
James adds to that, in that same chapter:
14. Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
15. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
16. After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
17. That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
18. Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
19. Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
20. But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
Study out Matthew 10 in its entirety, and what you find is that when He sent them "to the lost sheep of the house of Israel," He then prophesied in that very same chapter of Matthew, what would happen to them as to that in Early Acts.
The order was the lost sheep of the house of Israel first, then His other sheep not of that fold - Judaea and Samaria [the balance of Israel's 12 Tribes], and then through them; the uttermost parts of the earth, Acts 1:8.
And all that hinged on this here - Matthew 10:
19. But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak.
20. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.
21. And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.
22. And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.
23. But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.[/B]
And that is this here - Matthew 24:
9. Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.
10. And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.
11. And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
12. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.
13. But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
14. And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
And that is tied to this, from this same Matthew 24 chapter:
34. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
35. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
36. But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
37. But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
In short, Peter and his fellow Apostles had their commission temporarily interrupted to another day.
But of course, that does not fit your 70AD errors, so it must be that Peter was the one needing the correcting, not you in your resistance of this truth.
Interplanner
Well-known member
"When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was in the wrong." Gal 2. You lose.
"Do not call anything impure that God has made clean." Acts 10. You lose.
"Who was I to think that I could oppose God!" Acts 11. You lose. At least, last I checked, if a person opposed God, they needed to be corrected.
Burn your books, sir.
As for the coming of the Son of Man: my impression is that in Mt 10 it is the Gospel event. He is not speaking of anything beyond the Gospel event yet; so add that coming to the other options (given later inc. Mt 24): the Resurrection
the 40 days of teaching
the Pentecost
the incoming of the nations
the DofJ
the final day of judgement.
All these are options when he refers to his coming in Mt 10. Obviously, the Gospel event is not an option once past that.
"Do not call anything impure that God has made clean." Acts 10. You lose.
"Who was I to think that I could oppose God!" Acts 11. You lose. At least, last I checked, if a person opposed God, they needed to be corrected.
Burn your books, sir.
As for the coming of the Son of Man: my impression is that in Mt 10 it is the Gospel event. He is not speaking of anything beyond the Gospel event yet; so add that coming to the other options (given later inc. Mt 24): the Resurrection
the 40 days of teaching
the Pentecost
the incoming of the nations
the DofJ
the final day of judgement.
All these are options when he refers to his coming in Mt 10. Obviously, the Gospel event is not an option once past that.
No idiot, I got that information from Scripture. My four years in College were in secular subjects. not your four to six in the notions of men as to Scripture and or how to approach it according to their tradition.
You wasted your money, "learned" to gainsay the Word "by your tradition."
While I received a very useful education that does not demean the Word while blindly pretending otherwise you fool.
None of those passage you just cited are in the sense you cited them.
Fact is that "ye do always resist the Holy Ghost," by your errors, Interplanner, "as your fathers did, so do you."
Interplanner
Well-known member
Danoh
prove these are not the plain sense that Peter was mistaken:
"When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was in the wrong." Gal 2. You lose.
"Do not call anything impure that God has made clean." Acts 10. You lose.
"Who was I to think that I could oppose God!" Acts 11. You lose. At least, last I checked, if a person opposed God, they needed to be corrected.
Fascinating that each one is spoken by three different people: Paul, God and Peter himself.
Burn your books.
prove these are not the plain sense that Peter was mistaken:
"When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was in the wrong." Gal 2. You lose.
"Do not call anything impure that God has made clean." Acts 10. You lose.
"Who was I to think that I could oppose God!" Acts 11. You lose. At least, last I checked, if a person opposed God, they needed to be corrected.
Fascinating that each one is spoken by three different people: Paul, God and Peter himself.
Burn your books.
Interplanner
Well-known member
If Danoh can't read these three passages rightly and likes this:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=110898
what's the point of reading that club's thread?
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=110898
what's the point of reading that club's thread?
First, off, my apology for calling you an idiot, as I have always liked you. That'll be the last time I use such language against you.
As for your above request, frankly, your bias going in will not allow me to prove from my own, what you ask.
It is that simple.
Often, in Scripture, the LORD will institute some change, request it be followed, and only after this throws off the person or persons He has made said request to, does he then let them know His request is based on a change He has already made.
Interplanner
Well-known member
PETER WAS WRONG. What part of that don't you understand?
He was wrong to doubt, yes. But, as with when Zechariah doubted, in Luke 1; when the Angel Gabriel related to him that he was to have a son: his doubt was the result of what the LORD had just sprung on him - not because he'd been wrong up until that vision, as you assert.
They were to go to Israel first. What part of that do you not understand?
Where he was wrong was in Galatians 2.
As I see it, that is your blind spot as to these various issues, they appear the same to you. As a result, you conclude they are.
Tell ya, what; let's compare notes on this from another of its aspects:
1] What is your understanding of when God concluded Israel as having resisted the Holy Spirit?
2] And of when He made that known?
Also, keep in mind the understanding you assert about 1 Thessalonians 2:16 - written way before Acts 28 - way before.
Paul knew the existence of one Jesus of Nazareth and made his crucifixion and non-bodily resurrection the centerpiece of a new theology that gained many, many converts "among the nations."
Jesus did not think highly of Gentiles. He referred to them as "dogs" and mocked their religious activities. He said his mission was to the House of Israel and it wasn't until Paul's mission began to take hold that the gospel writers put into Jesus mouth retroactively a desire to take the gospel to the entire world.
The trouble is, both traditions are in the Bible and both are contradictory.
I see Peter, John and Jesus' brother James and others in the Jerusalem church as followers OF Jesus. And when those apostles met with the self-appointed apostle Paul, the faith changed direction.
I see all theology and dogma ABOUT historical events. They are interpretations that are faith-based. History DOES inform faith, but the two are different. Jesus is quite different from the Christ.
So how far back does this conspiracy go?
What do you do with the many passages in the OT like these?
Deuteronomy 32:
43. Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people: for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, and to his people.
Psalm 117:
1. O praise the LORD, all ye nations: praise him, all ye people.
Isaiah 60:
1. Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the LORD is risen upon thee.
2. For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the LORD shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee.
3. And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising.
Zechariah 8:
22. Yea, many people and strong nations shall come to seek the LORD of hosts in Jerusalem, and to pray before the LORD.
23. Thus saith the LORD of hosts; In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you.
Interplanner
Well-known member
He added to the Gospel he had already preached at Pentecost. He had already preached Christ plus nothing. If you add to Christ, you are preaching another Gospel. The thing added was circumcision, if I understand Gal 2 further down. This is why at Acts 15, circumcision is not one of the things that the Gentiles are advised to observe. And they weren't observing them ("the list") for salvation but in honor of Christ.
Paul said the place was already desolate because of the declaration of Mt 23 etc. In Luke, that is half way through the ministry. Luke was Paul's chronicler. There were already rumors of the extent of rebellion from as far back as Judas the Galilean in 6 AD (Acts 5).
Maybe the problem is you guys are reading this material for theology instead of history. Paul is speaking historically here.
This would not be the first time Luke said something ahead of time. when he speaks of the cleansing of the temple, he says it has become a den of insurgents or terrorists or brigands. 'Leistes' is not the average pickpocket at the market. That makes it have the effect of predicting what would happen several years ahead of time.
I do not understand your characterization of the gospel writers (or the authors of the Hebrew Bible) as formulating some conspiracy.
Just like any normal human beings (inspired or not) they put their own history in an understandable light and justified their own personal theologies.
The verses in the Hebrew Bible that Matthew used to entice Jews to take Jesus more seriously are interpretations. He took passages totally out of context to prove that these ancient people knew all about Jesus before he was even born.
For example, his "I called my Son out of Egypt" did not refer to Jesus being moved by his parents back to Judea. The original phrase meant the nation of Israel that left Egypt to escape persecution.