Proof that Paul didn't preach a different gospel than Peter
- Thread starter tetelestai
- Start date
(2 Peter 3:16 KJV) As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
"As also in all his (Paul's) epistles"
According to MAD, Peter is writing 2 Peter 3 to the "kingdom believers". According to MAD, Pau's epistles were to "body believers".
If so, why in the world was Peter referencing Paul's "body gospel" to the kingdom believers who were allegedly being taught the "kingdom gospel"?
More MAD nonsense:
(Eph 1:2) Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:
(Rev 2:1) Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write;....
Once again, MADists claim Paul's epistle to the Ephesians is to the "body believers", while John's book of Revelation is written only to "kingdom believers".
MAD claims one verse is part of the "uncircumcised gospel" and the other verse is part of the "circumcised gospel".
So, depending on which epistle/book you think was written first, how did the recipient churches of each epistle/book know which church in Ephesus (kingdom & body) to take the letter to?
MAD is a mess.
(Eph 1:2) Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:
(Rev 2:1) Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write;....
Once again, MADists claim Paul's epistle to the Ephesians is to the "body believers", while John's book of Revelation is written only to "kingdom believers".
MAD claims one verse is part of the "uncircumcised gospel" and the other verse is part of the "circumcised gospel".
So, depending on which epistle/book you think was written first, how did the recipient churches of each epistle/book know which church in Ephesus (kingdom & body) to take the letter to?
MAD is a mess.
Please don't tell that is the extent of what you supposedly have as to 2 Peter 3.
Then again, requesting this of you just might have the opposite effect and you'll actually produce some actually sound evidence.
Though, good luck finding it.
Geez, what charACTER you are...
these teachings by Paul are not for us today.Paul also taught that believers were sealed until the Day of Redemption. Since that already took place, believers today do not need to be sealed until the Day of Redemption.
Ssssssssssssssssssssssssssss.
Some Preterist moron like yourself taught you the above. You won't find it in the book.
Satanic Craigie.
the date written is key - at some point Peter finally understood, imo -
You already said that 2 Peter was written many years after Galatians.
If so, why did Peter preach a different gospel to the Galatians (your claim)?
Paul told the Galatians not to let anyone preach a different gospel to them.
Two lost people shaking hands. And wimp Craigie won't call this Silly Goose "god'suntruth" on her perversion of the gospel of Christ, because Craigie Tet. is a man pleaser, not having any friends, and this is his only outlet for making friends. Hence, his wimpiness, not wanting to offend anyone.
(Gal 1:2 KJV) And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:
MAD claims there were "body" churches and "kingdom" churches in Galatia.
If there were, then why didn't Paul specify which churches his epistle was to go to?
MAD claims there were "body" churches and "kingdom" churches in Galatia.
If there were, then why didn't Paul specify which churches his epistle was to go to?
God's Truth
New member
Peter said people misunderstand Paul, and then Peter warns us to obey, see 2 Peter 2:16, and 17.
(Eph 1:2 KJV) 2 Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
(1 Peter 1:2 KJV) Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
Isn't it funny how two allegedly different churches that were allegedly preaching two different gospels, were both greeted the same way by both Paul and Peter?
One would think the "kingdom" churches would be much different than the "body" churches.
(1 Peter 1:2 KJV) Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
Isn't it funny how two allegedly different churches that were allegedly preaching two different gospels, were both greeted the same way by both Paul and Peter?
One would think the "kingdom" churches would be much different than the "body" churches.
Shasta
Well-known member
Gal1:6-9 (ESV) I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort THE gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.
There are two words in this verse that bear on the issue of whether there are one or two gospel messages. The first is the Greek word HETEROS translated into the English word “different.”
Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance defines this word as “another of a different kind.” The “gospel” the Galatians were turning to was a Judaized Christianity. Being based on legalism it was fundamentally different from the Gospel of Grace that Paul taught.
The second word, translated as“another,” is the Greek word ALLOS which means “another” of the same or similar type.
http://biblehub.com/greek/2087.htm
http://biblehub.com/greek/243.htm
If there were an alternate Jewish Message, blessed and ordained by God, it would be called “another” (ALLOS) gospel (of the same or similar kind). It would not be called a “different” (HERTEROS) gospel (in kind or nature). Yet here Paul says there is not another gospel (ALLOS)
Lest anyone think I am improvising here let me call two witnesses, both recognized for generations as preeminent linguists. First, premier linguist of the Greek language A. T. Robertson makes the following comments:
Next Richard Trench in his classic work “Synonyms of the New Testament.” compared and contrasted allos and heteros as they are used in here and in other scriptures.
The Expositors Greek New Testament says the following:
There are two words in this verse that bear on the issue of whether there are one or two gospel messages. The first is the Greek word HETEROS translated into the English word “different.”
Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance defines this word as “another of a different kind.” The “gospel” the Galatians were turning to was a Judaized Christianity. Being based on legalism it was fundamentally different from the Gospel of Grace that Paul taught.
The second word, translated as“another,” is the Greek word ALLOS which means “another” of the same or similar type.
http://biblehub.com/greek/2087.htm
http://biblehub.com/greek/243.htm
If there were an alternate Jewish Message, blessed and ordained by God, it would be called “another” (ALLOS) gospel (of the same or similar kind). It would not be called a “different” (HERTEROS) gospel (in kind or nature). Yet here Paul says there is not another gospel (ALLOS)
Lest anyone think I am improvising here let me call two witnesses, both recognized for generations as preeminent linguists. First, premier linguist of the Greek language A. T. Robertson makes the following comments:
Next Richard Trench in his classic work “Synonyms of the New Testament.” compared and contrasted allos and heteros as they are used in here and in other scriptures.
The Expositors Greek New Testament says the following:
God's Truth
New member
Aw, come on, we don't want you MAD
Sure you do. ha
can and did, hundreds, if not thousands of times
obviously Peter didn't get it when Jesus was here, Peter didn't get it when Paul wrote Galatians, and Peter finally understood more of Paul's gospel by the time he wrote 2 Peter -
2nd Peter was written 3 years after 1st Peter - AD 62-64 for 1 and AD 67 for 2 - both possibly from Rome. some 15 years or more AFTER Paul's first writings. i take nothing away from Peter, he just didn't know Paul's revelations received directly from Christ -
you have seen all the scriptures proving more than one revelation of good news and 2 different gospels yet you continue to beat a dead horse. you will never see it, and it doesn't bother me. some of us see exactly what the Bible plainly says -
Whatsoever is not of faith; is sin.
And your plate is already laden down with it that last word.
Wouldn't want you to add more to it.
Its best you remain in your error.
you see two identical greetings ? no wonder you can't understand scripture. what do the greetings have to do with anything -
people have been known to use the word grace without knowing fully what it means. even now -
No you didn't.
Once again, Paul told the Galatians that if anyone preaches another gospel they are to be accursed.
Years later Peter wrote an epistle to the Galatians that you claim was another gospel.
The question has nothing to do with Peters alleged comprehension problems.
You claim Peter preached a different gospel to the Galatians after Paul told the Galatians that if anyone preached a different gospel to them they were to be accursed.
Therefore, please explain why Peter shouldn't have been accursed for allegedly preaching a different gospel?
God's Truth
New member
God's Truth
New member
It takes faith to believe Jesus' blood cleans me and reconciles me to God. It takes faith to trust Jesus and do what he says to get to the Father.