genuineoriginal
New member
Oh, I can see that as an alternate interpretation of his words now.Jerry was talking about when Peter was preaching at Pentecost.
Thank you for pointing it out.
Oh, I can see that as an alternate interpretation of his words now.Jerry was talking about when Peter was preaching at Pentecost.
False accusations are also lies.If Paul is adding to the gospel that the eleven preached, then you should be wary about accepting Paul's additions, not claim that the eleven were wrong.
Then you should stop doing it.False accusations are also lies.
More childishness from a habitual liar.Then you should stop doing it.
Paul knew what the other Apostles were preaching, but when he went to Jerusalem it was not for the purpose of learning what to teach. When I was in my early 20s I moved to a new meeting and a youth leader led us in a study of Galatians and he taught us that Paul is answering the various arguments of the Judaisers who had subverted the Galatians soon after their conversion. Paul is answering their suggestion that Paul was only a second hand Apostle, in that he had learnt the Gospel from the other Apostles when he went up to Jerusalem and the Galatians should follow the example of the other Apostles who were still subject to the Law and still advocated circumcision. There is no evidence that Paul preached another Gospel, as there is only One Gospel, the forgiveness of sins through the death and resurrection of Christ and the hope of the Kingdom.I am saying that Peter was not preaching the "gospel of grace" on the day of Pentecost, the gospel which declares that believers are "justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Ro.3:24).
When Paul realized on the Damascus road that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, he immediately went to Damascus (Acts 9:6-8). But when he received the gospel which he preached among the Gentiles he went immediately into Arabia. That can only mean that two different gospels were preached during the Acts period. To that remark I said the following:
Paul was with other Apostles while they preached a gospel together (Acts 9:27-29). But according to you Paul didn't know anything about the gospel the other Apostles were preaching.You offered no response to that. I don't think that you have offered a reasonable answer to the facts revealed at Galatians 1:15-17.
Peter was there when Jesus said the following:Also genuineoriginal mentioned Passover, and this prompts the thought that Peter would now understand the significance of the bread and wine and that Jesus was the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world.
John 1:29 (KJV): The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
Kind regards
Trevor
Matthew 26:28 28 [JESUS]For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.[/JESUS] |
Paul is answering their suggestion that Paul was only a second hand Apostle, in that he had learnt the Gospel from the other Apostles when he went up to Jerusalem and the Galatians should follow the example of the other Apostles who were still subject to the Law and still advocated circumcision.
Peter was there when Jesus said the following:
Matthew 26:28
28 [JESUS]For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.[/JESUS]
I have already stated that Paul learnt the One Gospel directly from Jesus, not from the other Apostles.If Paul learned the gospel which he preached to the Gentiles from the other Apostles why would it be necessary for the Lord Jesus to tell him what to preach to the Gentiles?:
"But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus" (Gal.1:15-17).
I suggest that it is a matter of quantity and quality. I can suggest that the Gospel can be summarised as the things of the Kingdom and Name, but to elaborate and teach someone this Gospel can take some time, especially if a person has a different view.When Paul realized on the Damascus road that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, he immediately went to Damascus (Acts 9:6-8). But when he received the gospel which he preached among the Gentiles he went immediately into Arabia. That can only mean that two different gospels were preached during the Acts period.
But Paul is not writing to the Jews here, he is writing to the Jews and Gentiles at Rome. And the theme is the One Gospel Romans 1:16-17. You claim that he is preaching a particular Gospel in Romans 1:1-4, but in your next Post you claim he is preaching a different Gospel in Romans 3:24:You still have not addressed this passage with any reasonable explanation. You still throw your reason to the wind and argue that the "good news" that Christ died for our sins is the same "good news" that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.
At some point you need to abandon your mistaken idea that there was only one "gospel" preached during the Acts period. Paul preached two different gospels, and the following one was promised by the OT prophets:
"Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) 3. Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead" (Ro.1:1-4).That was the gospel which Paul preached to the Jews, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. The OT prophets foretold of the coming Messiah and that was the "good news" or "gospel" to which Paul made reference at Romans 1:1-4.
But when on the day of Pentecost did Peter preach the "gospel of grace," that believers are "justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Ro.3:24).
There is absolutely no reason to believe that those who heard Peter preach on the day of Pentecost understood the truth that believers are ""justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Ro.3:24).
What was hidden was that the door was going to be opened up directly to the Gentiles “so that all the Gentiles might come to the obedience that comes from faith”. Same Gospel, different recipients.On the other hand, the gospel which he preached to the Gentiles was not promised by the OT prophets because it was" hidden from long ages past." Paul called it "my gospel...in keeping with the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past:
"Now to him who is able to establish you in accordance with my gospel, the message I proclaim about Jesus Christ, in keeping with the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all the Gentiles might come to the obedience that comes from faith" (Ro.16:25-26).A gospel which was promised by the OT prophets cannot be the same gospel which was kept secret or hidden for long ages past.
Yes, it is.And the "good news" that Christ died for our sins is not the same "good news" that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.
Same Gospel, different recipients. Yes, it is.
I appreciate the interaction and I am happy to leave this here with some disagreement.I see that you are not going to use your reason and instead throw it to the wind. According to your mistaken ideas the "good news" that Christ died for our sins is the same "good news" that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.
That is ridiculous and if you don't realize that it is ridiculous you are living in a fantasy world and not living in reality.
By baptism are you referring to baptism by water or fire?What say you?
Uhm....in your first statement, you say it is all the doing of GOD alone; then, but n your second, you say disbelief is a choice made.imCo:
The details of salvation, the fulfillment of the election promise to be conformed to the Son, are HIS worry and work, not ours. IF we are elect, our salvation will go apace and HE will direct us into all that is necessary, irresistibly.
If you are not elect, no ritual nor intellectual belief can help you escape your chosen fate.
I thought it was symbolism for being washed clean of past sins committed in relative ignorance...Greetings Jerry,I disagree with your overall perspective. Believing the Gospel and being baptised with water to identify with the death and resurrection of Jesus is part of the one process.
The same principles established with John the Baptist are true with Jesus except that the teaching of immersion, symbolising death and resurrection became clearer after the death and resurrection of Jesus.
Luke 3:3 (KJV): And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;
Luke 7:29–30 (KJV): 29 And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John.. 30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him.
Kind regards
Trevor
Perhaps you may like to show where you get this concept. Washing is associated with Paul’s baptism in the following:I thought it was symbolism for being washed clean of past sins committed in relative ignorance...
We seem to be speaking about two different things. I was speaking about baptism with water, not the Spirit. They are different. Everyone who is baptised I'm water does not receive the Holy Spirit of the Lord; nor is reception of the Spirit contingent upon water baptism.Greetings popsthebuilder1, Perhaps you may like to show where you get this concept. Washing is associated with Paul’s baptism in the following:
Acts 22:16 (KJV): And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
Nevertheless Paul in Romans 6:1-14 associates water baptism into Christ with the death and resurrection of Jesus. It is not clear whether John’s preaching and baptism fully developed the concept of repentance and a new way of life or was fully connected with burial in water (death) and rising from the water (resurrection). Part of the teaching of John the Baptist is revealed in Isaiah 40:
Isaiah 40:6–8 (KJV): 6 The voice said, Cry. And he said, What shall I cry? All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field: 7 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: because the spirit of the LORD bloweth upon it: surely the people is grass. 8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.
Peter takes up this teaching and my understanding of this is that it is teaching the mortality of man and this could lead to a wider discussion as I do not believe man has an immortal soul:
1 Peter 1:23–25 (KJV): 23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. 24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: 25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
I suggest that even the baptism by John the Baptist had more teaching than simply washing, but it is not clear how much was fully understood.
Kind regards
Trevor
You seem to have a problem understanding the Bible.According to your misguided ideas Peter was preaching the "gospel of grace" but he just forgot to mention that salvation is by the grace of God!
Uhm....in your first statement, you say all it is all the doing of GOD alone; then, but in your second, you say disbelief is a choice made.
f the "gospel of grace" you follow will keep people out of the kingdom, then you are following a false gospel created by twisting Paul's words.
You only made two statements in the post I quoted.Where were these first and second statements made? I do not follow what you are saying... it is all the doing of GOD alone does not sound like my kind of emphasis not matter what IT refers to...