Proof that Paul didn't preach a different gospel than Peter
- Thread starter tetelestai
- Start date
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
You answered nothing but instead you asked a question:
Throughout history there has been only one way whereby men are saved-- by grace through faith. However, in some instances the thing which they are to believe is not the same.
Now look at my last post and answer my question:
Tell me which of those is not a good news (gospel) which saves.
Proof that Paul didn't preach a different gospel than Peter
I agree with you, there was one gospel
The dispute proves it
If there were two gospels they wouldn't have had a dispute
The dispute resolution assured that they both were on the same page
I agree with you, there was one gospel
The dispute proves it
If there were two gospels they wouldn't have had a dispute
The dispute resolution assured that they both were on the same page
Interplanner
Well-known member
JerryS,
The reason Gal 3 was written was to clear this up. The one gospel was preached to Abraham, that he would be justified or credited righteousness through faith. It would result in many offspring, and it was symbolized by the stars he saw, but it was clearly about justification, because the Genesis text says righteousness was credited, the same message as Paul taught in Romans, etc.
The reason Gal 3 was written was to clear this up. The one gospel was preached to Abraham, that he would be justified or credited righteousness through faith. It would result in many offspring, and it was symbolized by the stars he saw, but it was clearly about justification, because the Genesis text says righteousness was credited, the same message as Paul taught in Romans, etc.
I don't see anything in the text about a vision that Peter had. Are you referring to the Gospel of Peter that was not included in the canon?
I see a conflict between Paul and those who knew Jesus when he was alive (Peter, James and others in Jerusalem). Paul is very interested in proving that he, too, is an apostle. He refers to the Jerusalem church's members sarcastically as "Super Apostles."
Much of his passion comes from his belief that he is being marginalized or left out of the "in group."
If these points are disruptive to you and seem blasphemous, please know that they are my own conjectures from studying Paul's letters.
Since these events happened 2,000 years ago and with Paul we are only getting one side of a dispute, there is no way that I can claim that I am right.
Plus, I also believe that some of the letters attributed to Paul are clear forgeries.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Look at my post #1400. Then answer my question:
Tell me which of those is not a good news (gospel) which saves.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Aikido,
You don't seem to know the whole account of Peter in Acts 9-11. In 11, it is retold by him.
The super-apostles Paul referred to was the neo-Judaism of that area. Most of it was centered in the west coast of Little Asia, but that is not that far from Corinth. The letter to Colossians is about it. They were intent on dis-qualifying or dis-justifying believers in Christ's Gospel. They also claimed to have had first hand contact with the same angels that delivered the law to Moses. A true cult. They are called super in the sense that they relied on more than the Gospel as their message. It was too "mere" to just preach the cross of Christ.
Show me a forgery, and more important, how you got your conclusion.
btw, 2 Cor 5 says Paul did have contact with Christ as an ordinary historical figure, and did not know what it was all about. He didn't understand what it was about until being apprehended by God en route to Damascus and the 14 years etc. That God was in Christ, not charging men with their sins.
You don't seem to know the whole account of Peter in Acts 9-11. In 11, it is retold by him.
The super-apostles Paul referred to was the neo-Judaism of that area. Most of it was centered in the west coast of Little Asia, but that is not that far from Corinth. The letter to Colossians is about it. They were intent on dis-qualifying or dis-justifying believers in Christ's Gospel. They also claimed to have had first hand contact with the same angels that delivered the law to Moses. A true cult. They are called super in the sense that they relied on more than the Gospel as their message. It was too "mere" to just preach the cross of Christ.
Show me a forgery, and more important, how you got your conclusion.
btw, 2 Cor 5 says Paul did have contact with Christ as an ordinary historical figure, and did not know what it was all about. He didn't understand what it was about until being apprehended by God en route to Damascus and the 14 years etc. That God was in Christ, not charging men with their sins.
This coming from a guy who believes Christ returned in 70AD
in the form of the Roman Army.
Were you there?
Can you show proof of that? Were you there to witness those forgeries?
Please tell us if YOU were there?
Another Paul hater! A7, you're just as silly as Meshaks hat.
Dan Emanuel
Active member
Right Divider
Body part
Wow, another scripture twister.
Scripture does NOT say that God preached to Abraham "that he would be justified or credited righteousness through faith", but that -->
Gal 3:8 KJV 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.
THIS was the gospel that God preached unto Abraham.
Why to you feel the need to twist the scripture to say what is does not say?
Interplanner
Well-known member
It's there RightD, the Gospel has never been just having more seed. He had that promise because there was one Seed that the promises were about and his children would come because they had faith in that Seed.
There are many places where the NT doesn't quote everything it could from an OT passage. But the rest of Gal 3 tells you the content of the Gospel he heard: that he would be righteous by faith, and it would be credited righteousness. Ever read Hebrews? There was a guy there in the Abraham episodes who was the King of Righteousness, hundreds of years before Jeremiah would say the King of Righteousness would come as the Lord Our Righteousness. Abraham, and all who believed, were credited that guy's righteousness.
As you can see from Gal 3:8, "All nations will be blessed in you" means God will provide justification from sins to the nations. It doesn't look like that at first, but we have to go with the NT interp over our own.
There are many places where the NT doesn't quote everything it could from an OT passage. But the rest of Gal 3 tells you the content of the Gospel he heard: that he would be righteous by faith, and it would be credited righteousness. Ever read Hebrews? There was a guy there in the Abraham episodes who was the King of Righteousness, hundreds of years before Jeremiah would say the King of Righteousness would come as the Lord Our Righteousness. Abraham, and all who believed, were credited that guy's righteousness.
As you can see from Gal 3:8, "All nations will be blessed in you" means God will provide justification from sins to the nations. It doesn't look like that at first, but we have to go with the NT interp over our own.
"If there was a dispute, there wasn't two gospels."-Demon Craigie
="..there is not two pieces of good news in the book"
How did you get so stupid, Craigie, as, in youre fraud of quoting this non existing "the Greek," which you cannot speak/read/understand/write, and, admit, on record, that you cannot spell, in "the English," and yet, you are clueless, what the term "gospel" means?
For over the 50th time Craigie:
Did Judas preach this "one gospel?"
Afraid to answer, punk, this question, that I've asked you, for over 3 years, sweetie?
(Gen 16:6) And Abram believed the LORD, and the LORD counted him as righteous because of his faith.
(Gal 3:6) In the same way, "Abraham believed God, and God counted him as righteous because of his faith."
(Rom 4:22) And because of Abraham's faith, God counted him as righteous.
How is your saint Judas statue working for you, Punk?
Ah, so that's how that works - read things into a passage it does not say.
This, out of your having failed to see that what Paul is doing is making use of a principle common in both contexts the application of which differs in each.
A practice of Paul's common throughout Acts thru Philemon.
Interplanner
Well-known member
But it is what Gal 3:8 says. A = B. God was going to justify the Gentiles, and that was the Gospel.
Don't forget, in this context, anything like "blessing" is in Christ anyway; 3:16. It's not seeds plural, it's not land, it's not Judaism, it's not the temple. Paul is in Christ now, who fills all in all.
2P2P cannot survive Gal 3:6-9.
As another example of Christ taking over everything, When Dt 21 said 'cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree' it was also about Christ.
Don't forget, in this context, anything like "blessing" is in Christ anyway; 3:16. It's not seeds plural, it's not land, it's not Judaism, it's not the temple. Paul is in Christ now, who fills all in all.
2P2P cannot survive Gal 3:6-9.
As another example of Christ taking over everything, When Dt 21 said 'cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree' it was also about Christ.