Proof that Paul didn't preach a different gospel than Peter

God's Truth

New member
So you believe Jesus Christ's Second Coming happened in 70AD.
I believe Jesus came for a massive amount of people then.

I believe that Jesus came for Stephen when he was dying.

I believe that Paul taught that Jesus will come for him when he was going to die.


Jesus says that he is going to prepare a place for them and that he will come back and takes them to be with him. We see in Acts that Jesus came for Stephen. See Acts 7:55 But Stephen full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. "Look," he said, "I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God." 59While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." 60Then he fell on his knees and cried out, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them." When he had said this, he fell asleep.

We see that Jesus came back for Stephen. In addition, we see in 2 Timothy 4:18 that Paul is confident that Jesus will come back to get him and bring him safely to his heavenly kingdom. See the following...

2 Timothy 4:18 The Lord will rescue me from every evil attack and will bring me safely to his heavenly kingdom. To him be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Do you believe that too? That is what he is saying.

If you need him to spell it out then you just prove you are incapable of the understanding you think you have.

Its why you are ever asking people what they meant about this, that, the other.

Examine that about yourself already...

Just because I want people to go deeper and explain clearer does not mean I am incapable of understanding them. It means how much I want to understand them.
 

heir

TOL Subscriber
You even went against glorydaz for saying she asked God to forgive her!
:doh: It's like talking to a wall...Asking to be forgiven and already forgiven all trespasses is NOT the same thing!

Ephesians 4:32 KJV, Colossians 2:13 KJV

I have NEVER said forgiveness of sins has nothing to do with salvation. Believing the Lord died for my sins, was buried and that God raised Him from the dead for my justification proves forgiveness and is the means by which I am saved (1 Corinthians 15: 1-4 KJV).
 

God's Truth

New member
:doh: It's like talking to a wall...Asking to be forgiven and already forgiven all trespasses is NOT the same thing!

Ephesians 4:32 KJV, Colossians 2:13 KJV

I have NEVER said forgiveness of sins has nothing to do with salvation. Believing the Lord died for my sins, was buried and that God raised Him from the dead for my justification proves forgiveness and is the means by which I am saved (1 Corinthians 15: 1-4 KJV).

You asked her why she asked for forgiveness!
 

john w

New member
Hall of Fame
Tet., what is the gospel?..............There is a chance that Tet. has been taught wrong about how we are saved. I hope he knows that Paul did not mean faith and no obey; however, I believe that at least Tet. knows that we have to obey to stay saved. HE KNOWS we have to listen to Jesus and obey. He knows there is only one gospel.”-“god”’suntruth


Whataya say, Craigie Tet.? Your fellow “saved” buddy asked you a question. Speak up, man pleaser.
 

God's Truth

New member
Tet., what is the gospel?..............There is a chance that Tet. has been taught wrong about how we are saved. I hope he knows that Paul did not mean faith and no obey; however, I believe that at least Tet. knows that we have to obey to stay saved. HE KNOWS we have to listen to Jesus and obey. He knows there is only one gospel.”-“god”’suntruth


Whataya say, Craigie Tet.? Your fellow “saved” buddy asked you a question. Speak up, man pleaser.

You are already not speaking the truth about him. You falsely accused him of being a man pleaser.
 

Danoh

New member
From post 483 by GT - "Just because I want people to go deeper and explain clearer does not mean I am incapable of understanding them. It means how much I want to understand them."

That's fair, GT.
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
As usual you pervert what Paul said. Here are his exact words:

"I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed" (Gal.1:6-8).​

Paul does not say that there is only one gospel.

In the above verse that you provided, the word "gospel" is singular. If there was more than one gospel (your claim), then Paul would have used the plural "gospels".


He knew that there were two gospels and he also knew that those preaching the other gospel would not be preaching that gospel to the Gentiles:

Nowhere in the NT does any writer say there were two gospels.

So there is nothing written at Galatians 1:6-8 that proves that only one gospel was preached during the Acts period.

(Gal 1:2) And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:

If there were more than one church, Paul would have said so in verse two.

In the same chapter Paul speaks of the gospel which he preached to those in the churches which he founded and he says that he received that gospel from the Lord Jesus for the express purpose to preach it among the Gentiles:

Ok, just because Paul received the gospel he preached directly from Christ Jesus Himself, in no way suggests it was a different gospel than the gospel Peter or any other Apostle preached.


We can understand that the gospel of which Paul is speaking is strictly for the Gentiles by his remarks later in the same epistle:

Again, it wasn't a different gospel. It was just that there was no reason for Paul to discuss all the OT prophecies and Mosaic Law with Gentiles who would have had no idea what he was talking about.

If there were only "one" gospel then there would be absolutely no reason to specify that the gospel that he is speaking of is the one "which I preach among the Gentiles."

It's the same gospel, preached to two very different groups of people.

If the gospel he 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.

You just refuted yourself.

Why would Paul care what Peter and the rest of the Apostles at Jerusalem had to say about the gospel he was preaching to the Gentiles?

(Gal 2:2) I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.

Why did Paul meet with Peter and the other Apostles in private to make sure what he was preaching was ok with them?
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
(Gal 2:2) I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.

In the above verse Paul meets with Peter and some other Apostles in private to make sure that what he was preaching to the Gentiles was ok.

If the gospel Paul was preaching to the Gentiles was some secret gospel that Peter and the other Apostles knew nothing about (MAD's claim), then how did Peter and the other Apostles know whether to approve it or not?
 
Top