ECT Which Gospel?

[tetelestai]

Galatians 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.


Same gospel, two audiences (allegedly)

This was Acts 15.



Acts 17:1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews:

Acts 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,



Acts 18:1 After these things Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth;

Acts 18:2 And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome and came unto them.

Acts 18:3 And because he was of the same craft, he abode with them, and wrought: for by their occupation they were tentmakers.

Acts 18:4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.

See, this is where you guys are dead wrong.

Paul agreed to preach to the uncircumcised, and Peter agreed to preach to the circumcised.

However, that doesn't mean Paul wasn't allowed to preach to the circumcised, nor does it mean Peter wasn't allowed to preach to the uncircumcised. We find examples of both in the Bible.

Paul tells us he preached to the Jew first, and Paul tells us at times he acted like a Jew in doing so. Meaning he didn't eat unclean meat, etc. even though he could have under the NC.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

See, this is where you guys are dead wrong.

Paul agreed to preach to the uncircumcised, and Peter agreed to preach to the circumcised.

However, that doesn't mean Paul wasn't allowed to preach to the circumcised, nor does it mean Peter wasn't allowed to preach to the uncircumcised. We find examples of both in the Bible.

Paul tells us he preached to the Jew first, and Paul tells us at times he acted like a Jew in doing so. Meaning he didn't eat unclean meat, etc. even though he could have under the NC.

Then why the alleged two different audiences thing?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Tet, how does this apply to you?



1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

1 John 3:5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.

1 John 3:6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

1 John 3:7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

1 John 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

1 John 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

 

[tetelestai]

Then why the alleged two different audiences thing?

When Paul preached to the Jews who were familiar with the Law of Moses he probably didn't say the same thing he did to the pagan Gentiles who had no idea what the Law of Moses was.

He most likely said the same thing Peter was saying, but probably a little different.

Peter tells his audience in 2 Peter 3 that Paul wrote to them, but that some of the things he told them were hard to understand.

 

[tetelestai]

Tet, how does this apply to you?



1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

1 John 3:5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.

1 John 3:6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

1 John 3:7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

1 John 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

1 John 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

It's a hard passage.

Remember about 7 years ago when Jerry Shugart and Sozo had that debate on who 1 John was written to?

One thing to consider, Christ Jesus returned to His Father's house to prepare a room for His bride. Both Paul and Peter were always telling their audience (the bride) to be the best they could be for when the Bridegroom returned.

Back in the days of Israel, the bridegroom always did her best to look her best, and be on her best behavior for when the bridegroom would come back to take her to her father's house.

Some people (legalists) confuse these teachings by Peter and Paul as commands to do good works.

 

[Danoh]

Danoh,
you have a really hard time with honesty. You criticize others almost every time for 'the writings of men.' Then you post an article full of 2P2P by another man. You don't mean the writings of men. You mean the writings of one Gospel men.

I need nothing other than gal 1 (the one gospel and anathema against others) and eph 4 (the seven ones), to know that your writing of (a) man is mistaken. And is therefore dismissed.

Not at all, brother, his article aligns with the Word, and my own understanding. But for the external sources he felt the need to rely on, I could have written that myself. I only posted it with his external sources because it was his article, and for those who need that sort of source.

I maintain a KJB is all I need. And that is all rely on. My "delusion" being that 2 Timothy 3:16, 17 is true, and that I have what it asserts in my KJB, Matthew 4:4.

Its taxing to write all the time. Thus; whenever I take a breather from my own studies and run across an article holding forth what is essentially my own understanding more or less anyway, I conclude I might as well rest and allow their labor to do the same work mine would have.

Which, in your case, is met with a wall, lol

You want to question my honesty. I told you sometime ago, I had nothing against you personally, as that is not the issue for me.

You asked I let Edbed know you were banned, well, in my honesty that I have nothing against you, I let him know, just as you asked.

Just recently, I defended the one person on here who's tactics I can't stand the most - Teltelestai.

Again, evidence of my honesty that you guys are not the issue, rather, your doctrines and their source are.

 

[Danoh]

Yep.

He parrots Darby, Scofield, Chafer, Anderson, Stam, Woolvard, Bullinger, O'Hair, Ryrie, Baker, Feldick, etc. but then tells everyone who disagrees with his Acts 9 Dispensationalism that they follow "the writings of men".

Funny, as I had never read most of those men [still haven't read some of those men] when I began to note the distinctions I hold to.

I look for recurrent patterns in many things in life. Its how I was able to determine you meant we are confused, not lost.

But be a consistent fool in your pattern and conclude I read what you meant in Darby or whomever.

You are being that foolish about this one size fits all Darbyites notion of yours.

I was able to see what you meant not because I read it in Darby, or whomever, but because I study things through recurrent patterns.

Yours the fool notion that if some guy in Italy comes up with a transistor - due to the recurrent patterns he was looking at things from - well, actually, he read it in a book by some North American or someone in Japan, working from his own study of recurrent patterns they'd not yet published!

Fool, I am not the first to study things according to recurrent patterns!

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

When Paul preached to the Jews who were familiar with the Law of Moses he probably didn't say the same thing he did to the pagan Gentiles who had no idea what the Law of Moses was.

He most likely said the same thing Peter was saying, but probably a little different.

Peter tells his audience in 2 Peter 3 that Paul wrote to them, but that some of the things he told them were hard to understand.

That doesn't really explain why there was an alleged demarcation of ministry in Acts 15, but Paul didn't obey it.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

If there are actually two gospels, then there's a typo or two here :

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
Romans 1:16-17

The correct understanding of the verses is as follows:

"For I am not ashamed of the good news of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth."​

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 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).​

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

It's a hard passage.

It can be, if you do not realize that people under the new covenant cannot sin...for God causes them to walk in his statutes, and do them.

 

[Danoh]

When Paul preached to the Jews who were familiar with the Law of Moses he probably didn't say the same thing he did to the pagan Gentiles who had no idea what the Law of Moses was.

He most likely said the same thing Peter was saying, but probably a little different.

Peter tells his audience in 2 Peter 3 that Paul wrote to them, but that some of the things he told them were hard to understand.

Sorry, but there is no room for building things on a "he probably."

Its recurrent pattern ever reveals the same issue - the guy saying "probably" does not understand what he supposedly asserts he understands.

 

[achduke]

It's a hard passage.

Remember about 7 years ago when Jerry Shugart and Sozo had that debate on who 1 John was written to?

One thing to consider, Christ Jesus returned to His Father's house to prepare a room for His bride. Both Paul and Peter were always telling their audience (the bride) to be the best they could be for when the Bridegroom returned.

Back in the days of Israel, the bridegroom always did her best to look her best, and be on her best behavior for when the bridegroom would come back to take her to her father's house.

Some people (legalists) confuse these teachings by Peter and Paul as commands to do good works.

I do not believe this has happened yet but it will. I think the 10 Virgins are the House of Joseph aka House of Israel which consists of 10 tribes. Not all of them will be ready when the bridegroom comes for the bride.

Matthew 25:1-13
1 “At that time the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom.
2 Five of them were foolish and five were wise.
3 The foolish ones took their lamps but did not take any oil with them.
4 The wise ones, however, took oil in jars along with their lamps.
5 The bridegroom was a long time in coming, and they all became drowsy and fell asleep.
6 “At midnight the cry rang out: ‘Here’s the bridegroom! Come out to meet him!’
7 “Then all the virgins woke up and trimmed their lamps. 8 The foolish ones said to the wise, ‘Give us some of your oil; our lamps are going out.’
9 “‘No,’ they replied, ‘there may not be enough for both us and you. Instead, go to those who sell oil and buy some for yourselves.’
10 “But while they were on their way to buy the oil, the bridegroom arrived. The virgins who were ready went in with him to the wedding banquet. And the door was shut.
11 “Later the others also came. ‘Lord, Lord,’ they said, ‘open the door for us!’
12 “But he replied, ‘Truly I tell you, I don’t know you.’
13 “Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour.

 

[achduke]

It can be, if you do not realize that people under the new covenant cannot sin...for God causes them to walk in his statutes, and do them.

People are not under the new covenant unless they have the holy spirit.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

People are not under the new covenant unless they have the holy spirit.

Do you sin?

 

[Shasta]

I gave it a shot. If not right, I can delete. Greek fonts?????

Are there two different gospels in Scripture?
To translate the Greek genitive (possessive) case for nouns into English, there are two
primary choices. You can either add of before the noun or add ‘s to the end of the noun.
In Galatians 2:7 both nouns; uncircumcision (ακροβυστιας) & circumcision (περιτομης)
are in the genitive (possessive) case in all available Greek texts validating the use of
“of” in the KJV & the ERV. This correctly indicates that the two gospels aren’t the same
gospel. We first have the “gospel of the grace of God” (uncircumcision), followed by the
“gospel of the kingdom” (circumcision). All one needs to do is read the two gospels, in
Scripture, to understand the difference.
Gospel of the Kingdom (circumcision) - KJV:
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of
Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
(Acts 2:38)
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. (Acts 3:25)
And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached
before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. (Galatians
3:8)
Gospel of the Grace of God (uncircumcision) - KJV:
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which
also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless
ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for
our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the
scriptures: (I Corinthians 15:1-4)
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of
God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. (Ephesians 2:8,9)
Galatians 2:7 - KJV - 1611 (true to the Greek genitive case)
But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed
unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
Galatians 2:7 - English Revised Version - 1885 (true to the Greek genitive case)
but contrariwise, when they saw that I had been intrusted with the gospel of the
uncircumcision, even as Peter with the gospel of the circumcision
Galatians 2:7 - NKJV - 1982 (not true to the Greek genitive case)
But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been
committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter​

There is no preposition "of" in the key verse (Galatians 2:7). Like you said that is just an inference made by the translators of the KJV but in using that word they were not intending to convey the idea of two gospels for that would have been utterly contrary to the teachings of the Anglican Church. In fact, the idea that there were two gospels would not be "discovered" for another two hundred years. Therefore you cannot use your perception of what the KJV says as a point of reference. What counts is what the translators meant not what you think they meant. The gospel "of" the Jews and Gentiles, given their theology would have meant the (one) message that would be sent by the hand of the Apostles and Paul respectively to each group.
The other use of the genetive which you alluded to includes the idea of belonging, and is joined with the English prepositions "for" or "to." This is used by many current translations such as the NASB, the ESB, the NET Bible, and the HCSB.

I have noticed in following up on the claims of hyperdispensationalism that the plural form of the word "gospel" is never used in the Bible. If Paul and the others knew of more than one gospel they never mentioned it directly. I think it is an illusion which people read into the Bible after they think they see it in Galatians. No one who spoke Koine Greek - and I am referring to the Greek Church Fathers of the first 400 years of the Church ever saw the idea of two gospels expressed in the language of the New Testament. They of course had only reference to the original Greek text and not the KJV. With all due respect. I believe you are wrong on this one exegetically, historically and theologically.

 

[achduke]

Do you sin?

Did Paul?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Did Paul?

Since he wasn't under the new covenant, yes he did.

I know about 2 Cor 3.

 

[Danoh]

There is no preposition "of" in the key verse (Galatians 2:7). Like you said that is just an inference made by the translators of the KJV but in using that word they were not intending to convey the idea of two gospels for that would have been utterly contrary to the teachings of the Anglican Church. In fact, the idea that there were two gospels would not be "discovered" for another two hundred years. Therefore you cannot use your perception of what the KJV says as a point of reference. What counts is what the translators meant not what you think they meant. The gospel "of" the Jews and Gentiles, given their theology would have meant the (one) message that would be sent by the hand of the Apostles and Paul respectively to each group.
The other use of the genetive which you alluded to includes the idea of belonging, and is joined with the English prepositions "for" or "to." This is used by many current translations such as the NASB, the ESB, the NET Bible, and the HCSB.

I have noticed in following up on the claims of hyperdispensationalism that the plural form of the word "gospel" is never used in the Bible. If Paul and the others knew of more than one gospel they never mentioned it directly. I think it is an illusion which people read into the Bible after they think they see it in Galatians. No one who spoke Koine Greek - and I am referring to the Greek Church Fathers of the first 400 years of the Church ever saw the idea of two gospels expressed in the language of the New Testament. They of course had only reference to the original Greek text and not the KJV. With all due respect. I believe you are wrong on this one exegetically, historically and theologically.

You bring up some interesting points.

And, as usual, where people will differ on these things, depends upon where they are looking at them from, to begin with:

Through the Scripture, through their own eyes, or through the eyes of others looking at these things, if not through some combination of each of those.

You have made yours in this obvious.

Most my life, I have looked at most things I have attempted to understand in many areas of life in general through recurrent patterns I then attempt to backtrack a thing through to its origin and or general rule of thumb as to its inner workings.

I look for recurrent patterns and the principles they are a symptom of, or appear to manifest.

In this, while others might focus on a Greek article, mood, and so on, I tend to focus on "the volume of the book" as its own key witness - through its own, recurrent patterns as to what general principles they point back to.

I hold to a two gospel understanding as a result of that.

 

[achduke]

Since he wasn't under the new covenant, yes he did.

I know about 2 Cor 3.

Why do you think Paul is not in the new covenant?

2 Corinthians 1:22 who also has sealed us and given us the Spirit in our hearts as a deposit.

Romans 8:11 But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.




As for me, Paul who said he was least of the apostles. I am lesser then Paul.

 

[john w]

Yep.

He parrots Darby, Scofield, Chafer, Anderson, Stam, Woolvard, Bullinger, O'Hair, Ryrie, Baker, Feldick, etc. but then tells everyone who disagrees with his Acts 9 Dispensationalism that they follow "the writings of men".

Spam.

You parrot Russell, King, Dennis, Sproul, Hanegraaf, DeMars, Gentry................................but then you tell everyone who disagrees with your satanic AD 70-ism/Preterism that they follow "the writings/inventions of fallabe men."


You vile actress, fraud.