Paul's gospel was a mystery!

heir

TOL Subscriber
You won't find explanations like this in the bible. It's nothing but mad spin.
The Gentiles to whom Paul was first sent were in the promise (Glatians 3:29 KJV).

In other words, Paul was addressing people who were formerly pagans. That is all. No more no less.
The Gentiles to whom Paul was later sent were strangers from the covenants of promise (Ephesians 2:11-12 KJV).

One group had a hope while the other had none! The Bible believer has no problem seeing that these things that are different are not the same, yet you do. That's your problem.
 

heir

TOL Subscriber
Nope, Greeks were Gentiles, they were not a tribe from Jacob.

I know Greeks were Gentiles who sought after wisdom (1 Corinthians 1:22 KJV). Greeks were those who feared God and of the "to whom is the word of this salvation sent" (Acts 13:26 KJV) throughout the Acts period. They would have had knowledge that they could seek a blessing through Israel as per the promise (Genesis 12:3 KJV). When Paul preached in the synagogue, their blessing came in the form of the gospel of Christ!

Not so with the Ephesians to whom Paul wrote the letter! They were in time past "far hence" as in "afar off" (Ephesians 2:17 KJV) and Paul lays out why (Ephesians 2:11-12 KJV). Paul would finish his course with joy testifying to them the gospel of the grace of God (Acts 20:24 KJV, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV).

Together, in the but now (Ephesians 2:13 KJV) of the dispensation of the grace of God (Ephesians 3:1-6 KJV) they are of the twain made one new man (Ephesians 1:12-13 KJV, Ephesians 2:13-17 KJV)!

I'm trying to make you see what is the fellowship of the mystery (Ephesians 3:9 KJV), but I can't make you believe it.
 

heir

TOL Subscriber
There is a very small minority within MAD like STP and heir who hold this spin of theirs.

MAD in general holds that the Greeks were just another way of saying the Gentiles.

Sort of like how the Brits say "you Americans" while at other times use the phrase "you Yanks."

Yanks had originally been a negative that referred to the American troops within the British military before the Revolutionary War, at which point "the Yanks" were viewed as "aliens" etc.

Due to the previous, Greek Empire, the Greeks had once been held in the same contempt for their pagan idolatry by the Jew as the Romans now were.

In this, the word Greeks referred as much to a lost pagan Gentile, who was without God in the world, as to a Greek in nationality.

Just as the Romans referred to anyone not a Roman as a Barbarian.

While the word Grecian referred to a Jew who followed Greek customs, philosophy, etc - a Hellenic, or Hellenized Jew.

Just goes to show the importance of the history of a thing and what ignorance of it ends some at.

In this, you also reveal your ignorance as well, andyc.

For the views on some of these things as espoused by heir and STP are held by very few within MAD.
Leave it to Danoh to pick up lingo from O man and use it against those who are trying to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery. And just what do numbers have to do with whether or not something is true? Just look at all of those on TOL who deny that the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth is the gospel of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV). Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot who I was talking to.
 

jamie

New member
LIFETIME MEMBER
I'm trying to make you see what is the fellowship of the mystery (Ephesians 3:9 KJV), but I can't make you believe it.

What I see is that you are saying some Gentiles are Gentiles and some Gentiles are not Gentiles.

So what about the Spaniards ... Gentiles are not Gentiles?

For those in Christ the issue is moot. Are you in the kingdom of God?
 

heir

TOL Subscriber
What I see is that you are saying some Gentiles are Gentiles and some Gentiles are not Gentiles.
Nope. Different Gentiles. One group that Paul was first sent to had a hope (Galatians 3:29 KJV) the later group to whom he was sent had none (Ephesians 2:11-12 KJV). Simple stuff! If you want to know more, go back in the thread and read the scripture references I gave. You just might see what I'm talking about!
 

jamie

New member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Nope. Different Gentiles. One group that Paul was first sent to had a hope (Galatians 3:29 KJV) the later group to whom he was sent had none (Ephesians 2:11-12 KJV). Simple stuff! If you want to know more, go back in the thread and read the scripture references I gave. You just might see what I'm talking about!

What was the source of that hope?
 

Danoh

New member
What was the source of that hope?

She already gave you her off-base, Almost Acts 28 Dispy position on this read into the Scripture by her.

Where she posted that...

"The Gentiles to whom Paul was first sent were in the promise (Glatians 3:29 KJV)."

But, what can one expect from someone like heir - she actually asserts that those who Paul is writing against in Romans 2:17 are the same people he is praising in Romans 1:8.

From, their, her take on Romans just ends up as bad off as her take on Acts and Ephesians.

Her views on these things are not held by the best and the brightest of the dozens of Mad based Pastor-Teachers.

Then again, as a Mad, I am well aware that most of them have not only under gone a rigorous, multi year training in how to study a thing out soundly, but have decades of experience applying the principles.
 

Hawkins

Active member
That something is NOT sin. We however have to repent of our SINS.

1 John 3:4 (NIV)
Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.

By your token of reasoning, Christians don't need to repent as Law has been removed. Christians are thus unable to sin. Apparently you don't know what the Bible says.
 

jamie

New member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Then again, as a Mad, I am well aware that most of them have not only under gone a rigorous, multi year training in how to study a thing out soundly, but have decades of experience applying the principles.

Thanks for your help. Paul referred to those who were circumcised in the flesh and those who weren't. It seems to me heir is saying some of those uncircumcised in the flesh were somehow different from others who were uncircumcised in the flesh.

However, Paul said to the effect that circumcision of the flesh is no big deal. I agree, it's no big deal.
 

Wick Stick

Well-known member
I think there's some misunderstanding of "mystery." Today we use it to mean something unknown.

In Paul's day and age, knowledge was something that was often held by a select few, who only taught it to those who would enroll in their school, pledge their loyalty, and pay their dues. These were called schools of mystery. Those things that were taught were the mysteries.

Paul's gospel was a mystery... until Paul blabbed. It doesn't mean nobody before knew it. It means only a select few of those coming before understood and passed it down, selectively, to an elite few.

The emphasis of the verse is on the fact that Paul is taking something that was a mystery (known by a few), and broadcasting it publicly, on the streets, in the synagogues, etc.
 

Ktoyou

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
She already gave you her off-base, Almost Acts 28 Dispy position on this read into the Scripture by her.

Where she posted that...

"The Gentiles to whom Paul was first sent were in the promise (Glatians 3:29 KJV)."

But, what can one expect from someone like heir - she actually asserts that those who Paul is writing against in Romans 2:17 are the same people he is praising in Romans 1:8.

From, their, her take on Romans just ends up as bad off as her take on Acts and Ephesians.

Her views on these things are not held by the best and the brightest of the dozens of Mad based Pastor-Teachers.

Then again, as a Mad, I am well aware that most of them have not only under gone a rigorous, multi year training in how to study a thing out soundly, but have decades of experience applying the principles.
I do not get it? i have not noticed Heir making any mistake , nor confusing the early Christians with resistant Jews?
 

andyc

New member
I think there's some misunderstanding of "mystery." Today we use it to mean something unknown.

In Paul's day and age, knowledge was something that was often held by a select few, who only taught it to those who would enroll in their school, pledge their loyalty, and pay their dues. These were called schools of mystery. Those things that were taught were the mysteries.

Paul's gospel was a mystery... until Paul blabbed. It doesn't mean nobody before knew it. It means only a select few of those coming before understood and passed it down, selectively, to an elite few.

The emphasis of the verse is on the fact that Paul is taking something that was a mystery (known by a few), and broadcasting it publicly, on the streets, in the synagogues, etc.

I'm certainly against the mad understanding of what they think the mystery was, but scripture is pretty clear when he says he didn't receive his gospel from man, it certainly came by personal revelation. But ultimately it was the same gospel that God had revealed to the other apostles.
Not only that, the gospel has to be revealed to everyone. The gospel is a spiritual message, and it has to be understood by revelation in a person's inner man.
My gospel was not revealed to me by any man, just like Paul. Jesus said, "the words I speak to you, they are spirit and they are life". The same is true today.
 

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
I'm certainly against the mad understanding of what they think the mystery was, but scripture is pretty clear when he says he didn't receive his gospel from man, it certainly came by personal revelation. But ultimately it was the same gospel that God had revealed to the other apostles.
Not only that, the gospel has to be revealed to everyone. The gospel is a spiritual message, and it has to be understood by revelation in a person's inner man.
My gospel was not revealed to me by any man, just like Paul. Jesus said, "the words I speak to you, they are spirit and they are life". The same is true today.

:chuckle:
 

heir

TOL Subscriber
She already gave you her off-base, Almost Acts 28 Dispy position on this read into the
From, their, her take on Romans just ends up as bad off as her take on Acts and Ephesians.

Her views on these things are not held by the best and the brightest of the dozens of Mad based Pastor-Teachers.
Again, just what do numbers have to do with whether or not something is true?

Then again, as a Mad, I am well aware that most of them have not only under gone a rigorous, multi year training in how to study a thing out soundly, but have decades of experience applying the principles.
"Rigorous, multi year training"? You sound like Interplanner or rulz. What, how long and where must one train in order that they may preach the word with all lonsuffering and doctrine?
 
Top