Proof that Paul didn't preach a different gospel than Peter

john w · Jul 11, 2015

Interplanner said:
JohnW,
all I notice about the post above is that you have no answer.

Wow, sport! You blind sided me, and all of TOL, as we've never heard that original twister, stumper, and you've impressed all, so much so, that we/I am/are speechless!!!!

Now, if you'd kindly provide the chapter, verse., where the ORD God demands I provide an answer, to any, and all question(s), sport, I will respond. Much obliged, sport.

aikido7 · Jul 11, 2015

They both preached a different gospel because Paul specifically mentions the dispute between him and Peter, James and others in Jerusalem.

I believe both sides were able to negotiate and reach a compromise, and this means each side had to change somewhat.

Interplanner · Jul 11, 2015

JohnW,
it's just common sense. You don't have a position. You have a target person you despise.

Interplanner · Jul 11, 2015

aikido,
Peter was shown a vision and did eat unclean food and knew God had granted the repentance that leads to life to the Gentiles. So he preached the correct thing at least some of the time; the question is whether he went back to it after Gal 2.

Dan Emanuel · Jul 11, 2015

Interplanner said:
aikido,
Peter was shown a vision and did eat unclean food and knew God had granted the repentance that leads to life to the Gentiles. So he preached the correct thing at least some of the time; the question is whether he went back to it after Gal 2.

Was Acts' Church council after Gal. 2 or before.

Daniel

Interplanner · Jul 11, 2015

Good question, and I don't recall reading a study just on that! One clue from the Gal 2 side would be v10, which I would think would be connected with the famine of 11:29 and helping the poor in Judea. The date of that famine was during Claudius reign. But that runs as late as 18:2 and the expulsion of Jews from Rome. Not too helpful.

john w · Jul 11, 2015

Interplanner said:
JohnW,
it's just common sense.

Click to expand...

Such brilliance....stunning.....Catch that, TOL members?

The old reliable............

"it's just common sense"...

..which can be used, on any subject, website, planet-covers it all-debate "clincher."

Stunning.

Interplanner said:
You don't have a position.

Click to expand...

No, rummy, don't confuse your alleged assessment, musing, that I do not have a position, with any alleged failure on my part, to have a position, due to your inadequate reading comprehension skills, and lack of spiritual discernment, on your part.

Dig?

Interplanner said:
You have a target person you despise.

Click to expand...

Psycho babble, emotional musing, muttering....

Thank you for your cooperation, and saying NADA.

Dan Emanuel · Jul 11, 2015

Interplanner said:
Good question, and I don't recall reading a study just on that! One clue from the Gal 2 side would be v10, which I would think would be connected with the famine of 11:29 and helping the poor in Judea. The date of that famine was during Claudius reign. But that runs as late as 18:2 and the expulsion of Jews from Rome. Not too helpful.

When Peter declared, as supreme pastor of the Church, that we all ought to read Pauls epistle's as Scripture (2 Peter 3:16 KJV), Peter in effect said, "Pauls Gospel is my Gospel is the Churches Gospel."

Daniel

Interplanner · Jul 11, 2015

True; but does this help us date the confrontation and the council?

I don't know when you think Peter was that one singular pastor, but he was mistaken on the foods, and that is why the vision had to be given to him. He might have been mistaken twice and had to have Paul confront him.

Dan Emanuel · Jul 11, 2015

Interplanner said:
True; but does this help us date the confrontation and the council?...

The council settled the dispute. From that point on, the Apostle's and bishop's were all on the same page re: Gentile's and food's. But especially Gentile's.

Interplanner said:
...I don't know when you think Peter was that one singular pastor...

Immediately (Matthew 16:19 KJV, John 21:15-17 KJV), and he still is, through/as the papacy.

Interplanner said:
...but he was mistaken on the foods, and that is why the vision had to be given to him. He might have been mistaken twice and had to have Paul confront him.

Maybe.

Daniel

whitestone · Jul 11, 2015

in acts 12:23 Herod dies which is ad44(well documented),,in the end you will find a discrepancy between the 17 years in Galatians and the way Luke records it in Acts (but you'll still be pretty close) so I suggest you do exactly what you are doing (add it up best you can),,,the kicker in the end is that in Rev. 17:8 the beast that received the deadly wound had already been,had received it's wound and was in the bottomless pit at the time John was shown this.

achduke · Jul 11, 2015

Interplanner said:
aikido,
Peter was shown a vision and did eat unclean food and knew God had granted the repentance that leads to life to the Gentiles. So he preached the correct thing at least some of the time; the question is whether he went back to it after Gal 2.

Where does it say he ate unclean foods?

whitestone · Jul 12, 2015

I realize that you might not trust me(being dispy. and all,lol) but at the same time if you continue doing the very thing you are you are in my opinion doing a very wise thing in reasoning through when all these events took place.

At one time in my life I had heard so many different people say "I think it means this,and I think that" until I took the little earmarks you are looking at and pinned them up on the wall so I could move them back and forth as to what happened before or after the other. Some of the things I thought I had in the right order I found in reading in other books needed to be moved forward or backward a year or so.

If you consider the wording in the Gospels concerning "the one that smote off the ear" none give the name "Peter" except for John. If Peter had been named by name what he did was a crime so while he was still living he was not named,after he died it no longer mattered so John included who he was.

Danoh · Jul 12, 2015

Interplanner said:
True; but does this help us date the confrontation and the council?

I don't know when you think Peter was that one singular pastor, but he was mistaken on the foods, and that is why the vision had to be given to him. He might have been mistaken twice and had to have Paul confront him.

You assert Peter was given the vision because he was mistaken on the foods.

In your mind; what passages either specifically relate or imply that he was mistaken, thus, the need for the vision - what are you basing your assertion on?

I ask because - from my understanding of the overall dynamic ~~under which Peter was operating when he received that vision in Acts 10 - your assertion appears to be off-base.~~

achduke · Jul 12, 2015

Danoh said:
You assert Peter was given the vision because he was mistaken on the foods.

In your mind; what passages either specifically relate or imply that he was mistaken, thus, the need for the vision - what are you basing your assertion on?

I ask because - from my understanding of the overall dynamic ~~under which Peter was operating when he received that vision in Acts 10 - your assertion appears to be off-base.~~

Acts 10 is already INTERPRETED By Peter.

Act 11:3 saying, "You went in to uncircumcised men and ate with them!"

Peter and the Jewish apostles would not sit and eat with non-Jewish as was their custom. It was not a law from God or Moses. It was a manmade custom. Read Acts 11. It was not about eating unclean food.

Even Paul chastises Peter about this.

Gal 2:11 But when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed;

Gal 2:12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision.

Once again this was not about Peter eating unclean food.

Gal 2:15 "We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,

tetelestai · Jul 12, 2015

Dan Emanuel said:
The council settled the dispute.

If there was a dispute, there wasn't two gospels.

There would only be a dispute if there was one gospel.

IOW, if Peter and Paul were preaching two different gospels, why would there be a dispute?

Interplanner · Jul 12, 2015

Because there could be a disagreement about how much ceremonial law was to be kept as a response by members of Judaism (Acts 2:26) that honored the one Gospel. See Acts 21:20+. As much or as little as Peter?

And it wasn't just ceremonial law. I don't really like the idea of eating meat that was used in a pagan ritual. Why does there have to be any ritual at all? And one of the 4 items at the council was sexual immorality. It better be!

Danoh · Jul 12, 2015

tetelestai said:
If there was a dispute, there wasn't two gospels.

There would only be a dispute if there was one gospel.

IOW, if Peter and Paul were preaching two different gospels, why would there be a dispute?

Not necessarily. You just don't care to examine the validity of our assertion for the one reason you do not care to - because it does not fit your tradition.

Not that pointing that out to you will actually motivate you to at least consider examining the issue free of prejudice going in this time around.

Fact is; the issue that arose was not due to whatever number of gospels there may or may not have been.

Dan Emanuel · Jul 12, 2015

tetelestai said:
If there was a dispute, there wasn't two gospels.

There would only be a dispute if there was one gospel.

IOW, if Peter and Paul were preaching two different gospels, why would there be a dispute?

I really don't follow you. They're was a dispute, and the council settled the dispute. After that, all the Apostle's and bishop's were on the same page. Thats what I know.

Daniel

Jerry Shugart · Jul 12, 2015

tetelestai said:
IOW, if Peter and Paul were preaching two different gospels, why would there be a dispute?

There were two different gospels preached during the Acts period and we will look at this verse to illustrate the two different gospels:

"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)

There is more than one instance of the "good news" which is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth.

For instance, one thing which is the "good news" of Christ is the fact that He died for our sins. And believing that good news brings salvation (1 Cor.15:1-3).

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 it:

"But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name" (Jn.20:31).

Those who believe that truth receive life by being born of God:

"Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God...For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?" (1 Jn.5:1-5).

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

Proof that Paul didn't preach a different gospel than Peter

New member

BANNED

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

New member

Active member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

New member

Active member

LIFETIME MEMBER

Well-known member

New member

Active member

Well-known member