SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
In other words, you cannot refute the logic?
What logic
In other words, you cannot refute the logic?
:nono:As Heir said, there is no evidence that anyone was saved there.
Jerry Shugart said:Paul did not preach a gospel once he was mocked. Instead, he left their presence.
:nono:
But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them.
(Act 17:34-18:1 ESV)
What logic
yep!Indeed, I'm afraid heir is guilty of being a simple simpleton.
yep!
:wave2:
John taught only one gospel even by your definition. In 1 John 1:7 he wrote both that Christ's blood took away our sin and that He is the Son of God. (1 John 1:7)
In 1 Co. 15 Paul is not saying he was the first to PREACH the message of the cross. He is saying he was the first one to preach this message TO THEM
It seems to me that much of MAD doctrine is built upon what was NOT said in particular sermons even when elsewhere in the Bible the speaker evidences that he has the understanding of the missing doctrine.
Next He visited the Twelve[/CENTER]
44 Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the scriptures, 46 and said to them, “Thus it stands written that the Christ would suffer and would rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and repentance for the forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
Luke 24:44-47
[Jerry Shugart;4047016]The translators of the KJV (1611), who had no dog in this fight, certainly believed that two different gospels were spoken by Paul here:
The Greek word translated "gospel" means "good news" or "glad tidings." How would it be possible to make those meanings plural?
I always have said that two different gospels were preached during the Acts period. The Hebrew epistles were written after the end of the Acts period. Now a question for you. Do you think that those in the Jerusalem church were taught what Paul says here?:
[/INDENT]the law was a schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ[/B], that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster"[/I] (Gal.3:24-25).[/INDENT]
If your answer is "yes" then tell me why the Jewish believers in Jerusalem remained "zealous of the law" and continued to partake of the ordinances of the Law of Moses?:
"And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest , brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe ; and they are all zealous of the law" (Acts 21:20).
I never said that the verses say that Paul was the first to preach that gospel message.
But let us look at this verse:
"And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain" (Gal.2:2).
In The Bible Knowledge Commentary written by the Dallas Seminary faculty we read Donald K. Campbell say that "there was one gospel though it was preached by different apostles to two distinct groups of people" (Walvoord & Zuck, The Bible Knowledge Commentary; New Testament, 594).
However, on his commentary on Galatians 2:2 he turns around and says:
"Paul seized this oppurtunity to consult with the other apostles 'privately' connerning the message he was preaching to the Gentiles. This does not mean that Paul sought their approval of its truth and accuracy, for he had received the gospel from God by revelation. Rather, he wanted them to consider its relationship to the gospel they were proclaiming" [emphasis added] (Ibid., 593).
If the gospel Paul preached among the Gentiles was the same gospel which he preached among the Jews then why would he need to go to Jerusalem in order to consider its relationship to the gospel which he had preached earlier in the company of some of the Apostles (Acts 9:27-29)? Of course there would be no reason for him to do that if the gospel which he earlier preached with other apostles was the same one that he was preaching to the Gentiles.
Again, we have an uninterrupted sermon preached by Peter on the day of Pentecost beginning at Acts 2:14 and ending at Acts 2:36. In that sermon there is not a word about the purpose of the Lord Jesus' death on the Cross. Yet those who believed the gospel message which he preached that day were saved.
Do you deny that?
Yes, their minds were opened to understand the REVEALED things in the OT Scriptures. But the gospel which Paul first preached was in regard to a "mystery" truth, or something kept secret and not revealed in the OT Scriptures:
"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" (Ro.16:25).
I have answered many of your points in this post so please return the favor and answer my points.
All of them did not hear everything Paul preached.
They needed to know that they were on the same page so they could work in partnership.
What I think is that you assume this text is the be all end all of what was said and taught. For one, the people already had a great deal of background even about what the Rabbis had seen in the scriptures about the paradox of of the Suffering Messiah "Son of Joseph" (the Patriarch) and the Triumphant Messiah "Son of David." Jesus was both. Peter, the Twelve knew the blood of Christ was the offering for the forgiveness of sin.
MAD engenders a sort of "logical positivistic" hermeneutic so that the lack of a sentence, phrase or word is taken prima facie as evidence that the concept was unknown by the speaker. Yet we know Peter had been given a crash course in all of scripture about the reasons Christ came and what was accomplished by His death.
Your definition of what a "mystery" is - something kept secret and not revealed in the OT Scriptures - is idiosyncratic and has no basis in scripture.
This is a double standard since Paul often left what might be regarded as "key" truths out of his sermons. If men in Athens were saved even though Acts does not mention that Paul preached the propitiatory death of Christ then I think it is safe to say it could happen with Peter.
What was written of single sermons was not the sum of what they taught.
Jerry Shugart;4048901]You are obviously misunderstanding what Paul wrote here:
"And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain" (Gal.2:2).
Certainly when Paul communicated the gospel which he preached to the Gentiles the other Apostles understood what he had preached to the Gentiles. So what you said makes no sense.
If there was only one gospel and Paul had previously preached a gospel while he was with some of the Apostles (Acts 9:27-29) then why would Paul need to know if they were on the same page in regard to the gospel which he preached to the Gentiles?
You have not answered that.
The only thing that makes sense is the idea that the gospel which Paul preached to the Gentiles was not the same gospel which he earlier preached with some of the other Apostles. But because of your preconceived ideas you cannot see that.
If the fact that that the death of Christ for the forgiveness of sins was openly revealed in the OT Scriptures then why did those closest to the Lord Jesus not even know that He was going to die (Lk.18:33-34)?
Since the Apostles did not even know that the Lord Jesus must die until shortly before the Cross then why should anyone believe that those whom Peter addressed on the day of Pentecost understood the "purpose" of the Lord Jesus' death?
Your whole argument is based on the assumption that they did!
They were given a crash course on the things openly revealed in the Scriptures. But the purpose of the Lord's death was a "mystery" truth, a truth which was not openly revealed in the OT:
You are proving the point. Jesus spoke about about his suffering on the cross explaining that it had to happen so that repentance for the forgiveness of sins would be possible."But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory" (1 Cor.2:7-8).
If the princes of the world would have known the "purpose" of the Lord's death then they would not have crucified Him. Therefore, that purpose was kept secret and was not openly revealed, as you imagine.
Do you deny that the "wisdom" spoken of here and referred to as a "mystery" was something which was hidden?:
Do you deny that the word "mystery" as it is used here refers to things which were hidden and not openly revealled?:
Yes, their minds were opened to understand the REVEALED things in the OT Scriptures. But the gospel which Paul first preached was in regard to a "mystery" truth, or something kept secret and not revealed in the OT Scriptures:
No one was saved in Athens because Paul left them after he was mocked.
Now let us look at what Peter said at the end of his sermon on the day of Pentecost:
"Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ" (Acts 2:36).
Dr. Stanley D. Toussaint, Senior Professor Emeritus of Bible Exposition at Dallas Theological Seminary (Acts 2), writes the following commentary on Acts 2:36:
"Here is the conclusion to Peter's sermon. The noun 'Lord', referring to 'Christ', probably is a reference to Yahweh. The same word 'kyrios' is used of 'God' in verses 21, 34, and 39 (cf. Phil. 2:9). This is a strong affirmation of Christ's deity" [emphasis added] (The Bible Knowledge Commentary; New Testament, ed. Walvoord & Zuck, [ChariotVictor Publishing, 1983], 359).
The Jews who believed that Jesus is Christ, God come in the flesh, were "born of God". Dr. Zane Hodges, past Chairman of the New Testament Department at Dallas Theological Seminary (Acts 2), writes the following in regard to Peter's words:
"Peter concludes his address with the assertion that 'God has made this Jesus, whom you have crucified, both Lord and Christ' (2:36). His hearers then reply, 'Men and brethren, what shall we do?' (2:37). But such a reaction presumes their acceptance of Peter's claim that they have crucified the one who is Lord and Christ. If this is what they now believe, then they were already regenerated on Johannine terms, since John wrote: 'Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God' (1 John 5:1; cf. John 20:31) " [emphasis added] (Hodges, The Gospel Under Siege, 101).
Here are the verses to which Hodges makes reference: "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God...Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?" (1 Jn.5:1,5).
What Peter taught in his sermon said absolutely nothing about the "purpose" of the Cross but yet those who believed what Peter preached were saved when they believed that jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.
If there was only one gospel, as you imagine, then we must believe that those who were saved on the day of Pentecost were saved by believing only a part of the gospel.
Is that what you think?
Don't truncate Paul's message in order to justify your failing theology.There is nothing in that verse which even hints that anyone believed the gospel. Here is what they believed:"Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead" (Acts 17:31).
Do you really think that the Jews could have come to salvation without the blood of Christ? "Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin." Also look at what Peter says elsewhere (1 Peter 1:19).
You are proving the point. Jesus spoke about about his suffering on the cross explaining that it had to happen so that repentance for the forgiveness of sins would be possible
Your definition of what a "mystery" is - something kept secret and not revealed in the OT Scriptures - is idiosyncratic and has no basis in scripture.
John the Baptist knew Jesus was the Lamb who would take away the sin of the world
I can assure you neither Toussaint nor Hodges would be your willing accomplices in propagating the dual gospel doctrine.
[Jerry Shugart;4049357]The death of Christ was essential for everyone who has ever lived to be saved. But that is not the subject we are discussing. The subject we are discussing is whether or not a person can be saved by believing the "good news" that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God?:
"Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name" (Jn.20:30-31).
"Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God...for everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith. Who is it that overcomes the world? Only the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God" (1Jn.5:1-5).
Now please answer my question. Do you believe that a person can be saved by believing the "good news" that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God?
Next, I said:
But the purpose of the Lord's death was a "mystery" truth, a truth which was not openly revealed in the OT:
"But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory" (1 Cor.2:7-8).
If the princes of the world would have known the "purpose" of the Lord's death then they would not have crucified Him. Therefore, that purpose was kept secret and was not openly revealed, as you imagine.
To this you said:
I take it that you were referring to the Lord Jesus' words here?:
"This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins" (Mt.26:28).
There is no evidence that the Apostle understood the meaning of the Lord Jesus' words here on the eve of His crucifixion to be referring to the fact that "He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him" (2 Cor.6:21).
Instead, the Apostles would be aware of the Scriptures that promises to the house of Israel a "New Covenant," and according to that promise the Lord would "remember their sins no more" (Jer.31:34). Therefore when the Lord Jesus said that "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins," they would understand that His death was the "earnest" or "surety" of the New Covenant. Charles Spurgeon said that "the blood is the symbol, the token, the earnest, the surety, the seal of the covenant" (Spurgeon, Sermon delivered on September 4th, 1859,#273).
So what I said about the following passage stands:
But the purpose of the Lord's death was a "mystery" truth, a truth which was not openly revealed in the OT:
"But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory" (1 Cor.2:7-8).
I guess it is a good thing that Jesus did not teach the disciples about the purpose of His sufferings until AFTER He had been crucified. If He had the enemy might have been eavesdropping
You really think the enemy could have figured out the plan of God that would bring about justification and redemption just through his knowledge of the Bible? No, he was blinded from it even as many of Israel's enemies were blinded. Besides, I don't think Satan would ever would figure that God would love us that much. It is not in his nature. You greatly over-estimate him.
Earlier you said:
To this I said:
Do you deny that the "wisdom" spoken of here and referred to as a "mystery" was something which was hidden?:
"But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory" (1 Cor.2:7).
Do you deny that the word "mystery" as it is used here refers to things which were hidden and not openly revealled?:
"Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints" (Col.1:26).
You did not answer!
And no wonder! If the "purpose" of the Cross was hidden until it was revealed by Paul then it could not be said that it was revealed in the OT. But that is the argument which you continue to make.
Col. 1:26 was not about the cross, per se it was about another mystery. Be that as it may, though, Paul does not claim to be the only one ever to know that it is through the cross that God can forgive us of our sin.
Once again Luke contradicts you. Jesus tells the Twelve and a number of other believers:
1. why he had to suffer,
2. and rise again
3. that this message would be proclaimed[/COLOR]
to the nations
4. and that it would bring about repentance and
5. the FORGIVNESS of sin.
How could the Lord show the Apostles the truth of the "purpose" of the Lord Jesus' death from the Scriptures if that purpose was kept secret and not to be found in the OT Scriptures?
You seem to think a "mystery" is extra-Biblical revelation rather than a revelation hidden in the Bible. I do not think this is the proper understanding of the term. As for How Jesus knew - well I take it for granted that the Lord Christ knows the mind of the Father. I believe that He even knows more about His purposes than the Apostle Paul.
There is a lot in there about the death burial resurrection. We can see it now though they could not. For instance, hints of the burial and resurrection, for instance have been discovered in the Psalms. Since Jesus was specifically talking about the reasons for His passion and Luke writes that part of what He said referenced the Psalms it is highly probable that He would have covered Psalm 16:10).
I will get back with you on the rest of this post. I have work to do.
As Nick M the Magnificent has repeatedly asked you, why shake hands on a demarcation of ministry, then immediately break it?
They did not...
Amen!:up:
Better than being one of those who are "ever learning, but never able to come unto the knowledge of the truth".
The most you can get out of Acts 17 is the gospel of God; Who Jesus Christ is and that God raised Him from the dead (Acts 17:31 KJV).What gospel did Paul preach on Mars Hill.
They weren't saved. If they were to hear the gospel of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV), the only gospel that establishes one into the Body of Christ (Romans 1:11 KJV, 16:25-27), they would need to:And what gospel were those who believed saved by?
Sometimes people seem to be saved with only a minimal amount of truth: however, I think it is the exception rather than the rule hence Paul's injunction to preach in every place.
When people are brought in with "minimal truth" I wonder if they continue in the faith.
In the narrative of MAD the Jews in the first part of Acts have to somehow get saved without their knowing about the doctrine of the atonement.
A simple way to get the complete truth of Christ would be for God to have told the Twelve about the cross. Why would he not?
Still, from MAD position of doctrinal logical positivism the Twelve did not know Christ died for them.
Taking ALL scriptures into account I see more than adequate justification for saying that the Twelve did know that Christ died for their sin.
From that I conclude that they must have been teaching about it. Your hypothesis is based on a surmise of what was NOT said.
If "the death of Christ was essential for everyone who has ever lived to be saved" then it was also necessary for the salvation of the Jews in the First Century. In this light, how can you postulate the existence of a SAVING gospel that is bloodless?
You have insisted that the "message of the cross (which has the power to save all who believe) was totally unknown to the Twelve, hidden so completely that it had to be revealed supernaturally many years later to the Apostle Paul . Now why would such a long delay be necessary? Why deprive all those multitudes of coverts of the glorious truths of Christ death?
The disciples were shocked by the torture Jesus had to endure and by his death. This is why Jesus immediately addressed the reasons for His suffering.
What he chiefly explained is why he "ought to have suffered or WHY He had to suffer. What does His SUFFERING refer to if not to his scourging and ultimately his being nailed to a cross?
Christ HAD to suffer for the reasons given in the Law, prophets and psalms. This sounds like revelation.
I will get back with you on the rest of this post. I have work to do.
And said unto them,
1. Thus it is written, (already known)
and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations,
2. beginning at Jerusalem. (Paul never preached gospel at Jerusalem, he began his ministry outside Jerusalem, did Yeshua have it wrong? Starting in Jerusalem?
And ye are witnesses of these things. (*Luke *24:*46-48 KJV)
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: (*1 Corinthians *15:*3-4 KJV)