ECT What were the contents of the "other" gospel Paul fought?

I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Part of the obnoxious confusion of D'ism and MAD about its multiple gospels is that the battle of Paul gets obscured and lost.

What do registered D'ists like STP, RD, Jerry, Danoh, Must, Tam say was the problem gospel implied or declared by Paul in passages like Gal 1, Gal 3, 2 Cor 10, etc?

Was the one mentioned in Acts 15 the phony one?
 
patrick jane

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
Interplanner said:
Part of the obnoxious confusion of D'ism and MAD about its multiple gospels is that the battle of Paul gets obscured and lost.

What do registered D'ists like STP, RD, Jerry, Danoh, Must, Tam say was the problem gospel implied or declared by Paul in passages like Gal 1, Gal 3, 2 Cor 10, etc?

Was the one mentioned in Acts 15 the phony one?
Click to expand...
Phony
 
jamie

jamie

New member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Paul did not teach anything contrary to scripture and neither did the Twelve.

Paul taught Jesus is the Christ and the Twelve taught Jesus is the Christ.

Jesus as the Christ is the gospel and is good news for all.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
the battle Paul was in against Judaizers (see how inexact English is compared to Greek's case system?)

What were their doctrines?
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
jamie said:
Paul did not teach anything contrary to scripture and neither did the Twelve.

Paul taught Jesus is the Christ and the Twelve taught Jesus is the Christ.

Jesus as the Christ is the gospel and is good news for all.
Click to expand...




We know, Jamie, but I believe it will help the 'club' to clear things up finally by stating what doctrines were taught by the other gospels Paul opposed.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Ignore the other thread with same title, thanks.

I believe if the 'club' will answer this question, it will cease to exist.
 
Jerry Shugart

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
Part of the obnoxious confusion of D'ism and MAD about its multiple gospels is that the battle of Paul gets obscured and lost.
Click to expand...

You still have not figured out that the "good news" that the Lord Jesus died for our sins is not the same "good news" that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor.2:14).​
 
Last edited:
N

northwye

New member
The form of the dialectic used on this part of the forum by whatever you want to call the opposition to the Gospel of Christ is looking more and more like the same dialectic used by the political Left now in the spring of 2017. The content of the dialogue used by the political Left has been reduced down to the repetition of phrases - racist, homophobic, hate speech, Islamophobia and other byte speech of political correctness. Along with that reduction of speech is the threat of violence and actual violence.

Likewise the content of dialogue that the "opposition" here is now using to the Gospel of Christ is reduced down to byte speech and repetition of phrases. But its not possible to threaten violence or do violence on an Internet forum. Name calling and other verbal put down has to suffice.

Speaking of repetition, what Fearless Dave MacPherson said is worth repeating: "When I began my research in 1970 into the exact beginnings of the pretribulation rapture belief still held by many evangelicals, I assumed that the rapture debate involved only "godly scholars with honest differences." The paper you are now reading reveals why I gave up that assumption many years ago. "

I doubt that the "club" can be put of business by any quoting of scripture and interpretation of it. It can continue to function just for purposes of confusion about what the true Gospel is.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Jerry Shugart said:
You still have not figured out that the "good news" that the Lord Jesus died for our sins is not the same "good news" that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor.2:14).​
Click to expand...




What were the doctrines of those 'gospels' Paul fought and opposed?
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Jerry Shugart said:
You still have not figured out that the "good news" that the Lord Jesus died for our sins is not the same "good news" that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor.2:14).​
Click to expand...





So Jerry bashes with verses that protect him from thinking instead of thinking.

Did you not read the background thread on the sign of Jonah in the very synoptic section you thought was brewing another gospel (Jesus = deathless Christ)--from the calling of disciples to the Conf/Trans?

You see, Dallas has the same evasive problem. They don't want to really grasp NT history, forcing the text to be wildly different from what it says, and forcing a person to never know what some of the stranger ones actually mean, such as 'sprinkling Galilean's blood with their sacrifices' Luke 13.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
musterion said:
Which "other" gospel?

Did he say there was only one?

Did he imply there could be many?

Clarify. Make sense for once.
Click to expand...




Make sense! Once you have introduced the idea of at least one other gospel (to a person who declares anathema upon ANY other gospel) does it matter whether there is 2 or 3? No.

The other one we know of was Acts 15, which added circumcision. The same in Gal. 2 Cor 11:4 sounds like there could be others.

ONce he has explained that there is just one, it is anathema to refer to others as Gospel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top