...and some of us just generally ignore his poorly worded statements.
ECT What were the contents of the "other" gospel Paul fought?
- Thread starter Interplanner
- Start date
...and some of us just generally ignore his poorly worded statements.
SimpleMan77
New member
The curse Paul placed was on those preaching that circumcision and obedience to the Law of Moses were requirements for salvation.
Either Peter and the Apostles were preaching the same thing Paul was, or they were cursed by Paul. Only two choices here...
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
It was a false teaching that denied the gospel of grace which Paul preached.
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).
SimpleMan77
New member
The good news that Jesus is the Son of God is completely worthless if not for the cross and resurrection. He was born to die and to defeat our enemies.
He couldn't have died if He hadn't been born. Every "segment" of his story is "good news", but His story in its entirety is THE GOOD NEWS
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
So are you arguing that those who believed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, were not saved when they believed that "good news"?
SimpleMan77
New member
At the beginning of Jesus' ministry, the "good news" was one sermonette long ("the Spirit of the LORD is upon me because... this day is this scripture fulfilled").
Every sermon that He preached, the "good news" became clear. Every action that He took, the picture became even clearer.
At Calvary, then at the garden tomb, the completion of His message came into focus, and His ultimate purpose was revealed.
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
SimpleMan77
New member
In other words, to "freeze-frame" an incomplete portion of Jesus' ministry and call it a complete message would be incorrect.
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
Interplanner
Well-known member
There's a lot of freeze-framing in the D'ist club. In fact the more separations, frames, they can find, the closer they think they are to the truth.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Yes, but there were some very clear things right off. The question I can't get Jerry to take up is why the disciples mostly retracted back to their zealot Judaism so that when Jesus made it clear in the Conf/Trans, they exploded. They just weren't hearing the 'sign of Jonah' in Mt 12, for ex.
Then they are so unsettled, that God has to hide the crucifixion from them because they would try to prevent it! Lk 18.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Thanks again, Dr Phil
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Conversely, the more you ignore distinctions and blend at all costs, the closer you think you are to the truth.
Interplanner
Well-known member
That was not a separate good news. Only in the compartmentalization of Dallas theology. There is no meaning to Jesus was the Christ other than that he was the sacrificing Servant of Isaiah and the king who would be enthroned of David's Ps 16. And he was, says Acts 2. Phil 2.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
:chuckle:
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
SimpleMan77
New member
Can we agree to these 4 clear truths?
1. The other gospel was people trying to tell the Galatians they had to keep the law.
2. Paul cursed anyone teaching that, be they man or angel
3. If Peter was teaching this, Paul would have been cursing him.
4. We have no record Peter was cursed by Paul
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
1. The other gospel was people trying to tell the Galatians they had to keep the law.
2. Paul cursed anyone teaching that, be they man or angel
3. If Peter was teaching this, Paul would have been cursing him.
4. We have no record Peter was cursed by Paul
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
1. Yes, it included circumcision and keeping the law.
2. Yes, to the Galatians
3. Yes, to the Galatians
4. Agreed
SimpleMan77
New member
I agree (with what I think I am reading you to be saying between the lines) that there is a contextual element here.
Do you believe that Paul's curse applied to anyone teaching the Jews that circumcision was to be continued as a qualification for salvation?
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
Hi and as I leave for DOCTORS appointment , in Gal 2:121 Paul wrote that Peter was having been CONDEMNED !!
By 2 Cor 3:14 the Law of Moses was slowly being set aside and that happened in Acts 13:46 and Acts 18:6 and in Acts 28:28 !!
dan p
SimpleMan77
New member
Peter definitely made a mistake, and was called out for it by Paul. However, his mistake was driven by the fear of how he'd look to others, not a flaw in his convictions.
Jewish tradition was a big ship, and it took a while to turn around.
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
Interplanner
Well-known member
Paul's first warning was heeded.
Hard to understand STP's agreement because he specializes in being obtuse otherwise. Maybe he/they didn't mention to you their belief that there are 2 legit gospels in Gal 2, even though Gal 1 curses any other.
Hard to understand STP's agreement because he specializes in being obtuse otherwise. Maybe he/they didn't mention to you their belief that there are 2 legit gospels in Gal 2, even though Gal 1 curses any other.