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

[john w]

You call that an answer?

Danoh asked:
What do we base that which we assert on?

Tel responded with:
The false teachings of John Nelson Darby.

That is not answer. An answer would be "on such and such passages of Scripture... but the reason that is off is because..."

Hiding behind anti "on Darby" rants, like you always do, just shows your true agenda is dissimulation out of ignorance.

Its as if you do not really want to address the issue; as if you are merely pretending to want to address it.

That's noTetosrerone's MO on TOL, i.e., every third post, when he is getting picked apart, he resorts to his satanic "Darby" spam, all the while copynpasting from his AD 70-ism/Preterist teachers, plagiarizing from them, such as Hank Hanegraaf/Max King/Gary DeMars/Ken Gentry/J. Stuart Russell/ RC Sproul........................... that satanically accusing others of "following the inventions of men."

He is a deceitful punk, his wares being sophistry, deception, hypocrisy,..... because he is so obsessed with allegedly disproving the dispensational approach to interpreting the book, that he can't think straight.

 

[God's Truth]

That's noTetosrerone's MO on TOL, i.e., every third post, when he is getting picked apart, he resorts to his satanic "Darby" spam, all the while copynpasting from his AD 70-ism/Preterist teachers, plagiarizing from them, such as Hank Hanegraaf/Max King/Gary DeMars/Ken Gentry/J. Stuart Russell/ RC Sproul........................... that satanically accusing others of "following the inventions of men."

He is a deceitful punk, his wares being sophistry, deception, hypocrisy,..... because he is so obsessed with allegedly disproving the dispensational approach to interpreting the book, that he can't think straight.

Look at your avatar picture. Look at the manner in which you write. Look at what you say!

How do you ever get that you have something in your heart that I should desire?

 

[tetelestai]

You call that an answer?

Danoh asked:
What do we base that which we assert on?

Tel responded with:
The false teachings of John Nelson Darby.

Yes, that was my answer.

Darby drew a demarcation line between "the church" and "Israel" because he couldn't figure out how to reconcile OT prophecies that were fulfilled by Christ Jesus.

Darby had to invent the rapture and the "secret parenthetical dispensation". By doing this, Darby claimed that after "the church" is removed, God picks back up with Israel again, and all the OT prophecies that Darby claimed were unfulfilled, will be fulfilled.

Darby did this because he, like Dispensationalists today, take every OT prophecy literally. Darby was unable to understand that they were fulfilled by Christ Jesus.

 

[Danoh]

Yes, that was my answer.

Darby drew a demarcation line between "the church" and "Israel" because he couldn't figure out how to reconcile OT prophecies that were fulfilled by Christ Jesus.

Darby had to invent the rapture and the "secret parenthetical dispensation". By doing this, Darby claimed that after "the church" is removed, God picks back up with Israel again, and all the OT prophecies that Darby claimed were unfulfilled, will be fulfilled.

Darby did this because he, like Dispensationalists today, take every OT prophecy literally. Darby was unable to understand that they were fulfilled by Christ Jesus.

You are still ranting your ranting of Darby.

An answer would be "on such and such passages of Scripture... but the reason that is off is because..."

An answer would cite what passages we supposedly base what we assert on, followed by passages showing why our very basis, let alone what we assert on said basis, is off.

Instead, all we get from you is this same old, incessant rant against this dead man named John Nelson Darby you have some kind of a bordering on homo-erotic kind of a thing for.

Answer the question from Scripture, already.

 

[Danoh]

Look at your avatar picture. Look at the manner in which you write. Look at what you say!

How do you ever get that you have something in your heart that I should desire?

Admit it; you stare at his picture for hours on end, lol

Yea for Paul Revere and the Raiders, lol

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Darby had to invent the rapture and the "secret parenthetical dispensation". By doing this, Darby claimed that after "the church" is removed, God picks back up with Israel again, and all the OT prophecies that Darby claimed were unfulfilled, will be fulfilled.

The Apostles, who had been with the resurrected Christ for forty days while He spoke about the kindom, believed that the kingdom would be restored to Israel.

Of course you think that you know more about the kingdom that they do. How much time has the Lord Jesus spent tutoring you personally about the kingdom?

 

[tetelestai]

An answer would be "on such and such passages of Scripture... but the reason that is off is because..."

How many OT passages/prophecies do you want me to list that you Dispensationalists claim is the yet future?

Not to mention the NT prophecies you guys do the same thing to.

If I listed them all, I might get reported for making too long of a post.

I already made it clear that you guys claim Ezekiel 40-48 is the yet future.

Ezekiel 40-48 speaks of animal sacrifices for sin atonement numerous times.

Yet, you Dispensationalists still claim it's the yet future.

Nothing could be further from the truth than to claim there are going to be animal sacrifices for sin atonement in the future.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

How many OT passages/prophecies do you want me to list that you Dispensationalists claim is the yet future?

When was this prophecy concerning the house of Judah and the house of Israel fulfilled?:

"And I will bring them, and they shall dwell in the midst of Jerusalem: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God, in truth and in righteousness...And it shall come to pass, that as ye were a curse among the heathen, O house of Judah, and house of Israel; so will I save you, and ye shall be a blessing...In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you" (Zech.8:8,13,23).​

 

[john w]

When was this prophecy concerning the house of Judah and the house of Israel fulfilled?:

"And I will bring them, and they shall dwell in the midst of Jerusalem: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God, in truth and in righteousness...And it shall come to pass, that as ye were a curse among the heathen, O house of Judah, and house of Israel; so will I save you, and ye shall be a blessing...In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you" (Zech.8:8,13,23).​

Watch the Preterist punk, "answer"(used loosely here)it, like he does with hundreds of verses re. prophetic events, with "Fulfilled in Christ Jesus....Don't you believe that all promises are 'Yea in Christ'".........., which "allows" him to craftily, subtly(Genesis 3 KJV) dismiss these verses, that, if you are sane, have to be taken literally. Then, in deception, when he is challenged, he falls back on/resorts to his old reliable "Do you think a thousand here is really to be taken literally?"

He is a deceptive, Preterist punk.

 

[tetelestai]

When was this prophecy concerning the house of Judah and the house of Israel fulfilled?:

"And I will bring them, and they shall dwell in the midst of Jerusalem: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God, in truth and in righteousness...And it shall come to pass, that as ye were a curse among the heathen, O house of Judah, and house of Israel; so will I save you, and ye shall be a blessing...In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you" (Zech.8:8,13,23).​

C'mon Jerry

Even Wikipedia makes your question a really east one:

"Composition:

The return from exile is the theological premise of the prophet's visions in chapters 1–6. Chapters 7–8 address the quality of life God wants his renewed people to enjoy, containing many encouraging promises to them. Chapters 9–14 comprise two "oracles" of the future."

One thing to remember about Zechariah:

(Zech 1:3) Therefore tell the people: This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘Return to me,’ declares the Lord Almighty, ‘and I will return to you,’ says the Lord Almighty.

As we see above, the promises were conditional.

 

[aikido7]

Not at all. Rather, Paul confronted Peter about his (Peter's) failure to behave according to his (Peter's) own apostolic teachings. Peter's was a lapse in proper behavior, not doctrine.

I like your proof. I agree with it, actually.

I would just add that behavior within a doctrinaire context can sometimes show us the person is actually not following "correct doctrine."

I tend to notice all of the hurt and the bragging because of that hurt in Paul's letters at different times. They all go back to his anger at those "super apostles" as he calls them and his insistence that God has chosen him as an apostle too. He sounds as if he is often in the middle of tamping down the fires of "other gospels" appearing in the churches he is addressing. He comes across as sensitive to criticism and desperately wanting to be understood by others.

Of course I could be wrong. The problem with Paul is that we are only privy to a "telephone conversation" but we can only hear one side of that relationship--Paul's.

Christians have had to guess at what the other side is really saying and this makes for a very imperfect view of his letters and of the context in which they were written.

I see a man attacked and surrounded by challenges to his theology. It's not easy to be an effective supervisor that is more than often separated from the workplace.

 

[Right Divider]

No. The kingdom of heaven is within those saved. We have the kingdom of heaven within us when we receive the Holy Spirit.

Romans 8:9 You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ.

Old post, but I'd like to correct this dimwit.

In the KJB, "you" and "ye" are ALWAYS PLURAL and "thee" and 'thou" are ALWAYS SINGULAR. This is actually a real problem with the "Modern English language".

 

[Interplanner]

Right divider,
re your motto. It can be same thing if you just allow for a group that it is hidden from--Judaism. the period of hiding is not from creation, but for long ages, in rom 16 as in Eph 3:5 where it is just "other generations."

In rom 16 you have: 'chronois aioniois' and there is nothing about it having to reach clear back to creation. When Peter is trying to refer to since creation he uses 'ap' arches ktiseos' (ever since creation) and says the heavens were made 'ekpalai' (a long time ago). Rom 16 is about the generations of Israel's history; that the Gospel is hidden even in the OT by the nature and dynamic of the Law.

 

[heir]

Old post, but I'd like to correct this dimwit.

In the KJB, "you" and "ye" are ALWAYS PLURAL and "thee" and 'thou" are ALWAYS SINGULAR. This is actually a real problem with the "Modern English language".

Yep!

 

[heir]

In rom 16 you have: 'chronois aioniois' and there is nothing about it having to reach clear back to creation. When Peter is trying to refer to since creation he uses 'ap' arches ktiseos' (ever since creation) and says the heavens were made 'ekpalai' (a long time ago). Rom 16 is about the generations of Israel's history; that the Gospel is hidden even in the OT by the nature and dynamic of the Law.

If Paul's gospel was "kept secret since the world began, but now is made manifest,...", then it wasn't known before that! :duh:

Romans 16:25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

Romans 16:26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

 

[Ben Masada]

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

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

Proofs that Paul did preach a different gospel than Peter. Here is the way to rationalize about the title of this thread: Jesus was a Jew whose Faith was Judaism and, obviously, Peter, having been one of his apostles could not preach a different gospel. Therefore, Peter preached the gospel of Jesus which was Judaism.

Now, let us see how different from Peter, Paul preached his gospel. Peter, just like Jesus, preached the gospel that as long as the heaven and the earth remain, the Law will never pass away. (Mat.5:17-19) We still have the heavens and earth. The Law hasn't passed away yet. How about Paul? He said that the Law was abolished on the cross. (Ephes. 2:15) Obviously, for Paul, the Law had passed away.

Paul preached that Jesus was the son of God. (Acts 9:29) According to the gospel of Jesus which Peter used to preach, the son of God is Israel. (Exod. 4:22,23)

Paul preached that Jesus was resurrected. (II Tim. 2:8) Peter preached according to the Prophets whose gospel is that the dead will never return to life again. (Isa. 25:14; II Sam. 12:23; Job 10:21)

And so on, throughout the NT, Paul preached a different gospel from that of Peter.

 

[Interplanner]

To explain the status of the law is not in itself the Gospel. Paul meant that the law was stopped as a (mistaken) way of justification before God (Col 2:14). He never stopped it about use in society (I Tim 1).

The mistake was made by Judaism, Rom 9 and 10A. It never was said to be good for that. But Judaism voided and replaced the promise of the Gospel and said that the Law was the basis of acceptance and blessing. The Law became one part of Judaism's trinity. Making it even harder to accept what the prophets said was coming, and saying that the prophets weren't even divine because they dared mention things like a new covenant and a law written on hearts.

 

[john w]

.
I already made it clear that you guys claim Ezekiel 40-48 is the yet future.

Ezekiel 40-48 speaks of animal sacrifices for sin atonement numerous times.

Yet, you Dispensationalists still claim it's the yet future.

Nothing could be further from the truth than to claim there are going to be animal sacrifices for sin atonement in the future.

"Not to mention, Darby followers deny that Christ Jesus' one time sacrifice for sin was good enough. They claim people in the future will have to sacrifice animals for sin atonement."-Craigie Tet.

Tell us, punk, that one can:

Deny that Christ Jesus' one time sacrifice for sin was good enough.,..


And still be saved.


Go ahead, Craigie. Grow some spine, and show it.


Tet: Er, no.....Darby......You're in denial....Don't you believe the bible/'Jesus'/Paul?.....AD 70...


Demon, false accuser.



He won't touch this post-I've asked the wimp over 20 times.


Chilld of the devil.

 

[Interplanner]

JohnW,
all I notice about the post above is that you have no answer.

 

[Interplanner]

JerryS,
re the 40 days seminar on the kingdom etc. If the disciples were really listening, why is the first question cut off like a bad odor? How come they didn't know that "it was not for them to know"?

Why does Paul say in Acts 26 that he limits himself to what the OT and the prophets say about the suffering and glorification of Christ that followed it (the Res)? He would not teach anything beyond that!