Robert's Gospel According to the Apostle Paul
- Thread starter Robert Pate
- Start date
beloved57
Well-known member
It is according to the word of God. It is the Gospel of grace.
"In whom you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, THE GOSPEL OF YOUR SALVATION: in whom also after that YOU BELIEVED, you were sealed with the with the Holy Spirit of promise" Ephesians 1:13.
You have never heard, nor have you believed.
beloved57
Well-known member
You crack me up and should be ashamed of yourself for doing the very thing you condemned others of doing !
Did that come from you? How can you even talk without a free will? Perhaps the devil said it.
beloved57
Well-known member
You going around here posting thread after thread condemning folk about being religious and trying to keep the law to get saved, and you do the exact same thing. Rom 2:1
[FONT="]Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.[/FONT]
Is that from you, God or the devil?
It can't be from you because you don't have a free will. You are just a dumb robot.
beloved57
Well-known member
Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
Right Divider
Body part
He's always talking to himself.
Right Divider
Body part
Please provide scripture to support this bogus claim.
He didn't. That's why Paul calls it MY GOSPEL.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
I'm aware of Dispensationalism. What I'm asking is if the older idea, mentioned by Eusebius, that when Paul talked about "my Gospel," he was talking about the Gospel according to Luke, makes sense within the biblical text.
The reason I ask is because we have good reason to think that Luke, himself not being present to witness personally the events and sayings that he wrote about in his Gospel, wrote what someone else told him, and we have good reason to think that that person was Paul. Now, does it square with Galatians 1:11-12 KJV? Does it make sense that what Luke wrote in his Gospel, is what Paul learned from the Lord Himself?
To me, there's nothing hindering that understanding. And if that's what Paul meant when he said "my Gospel" (e.g. 2nd Timothy 2:8 KJV), then that doesn't support Dispensationalism, it not appearing in the historical record until many centuries after Eusebius wrote his history.
Right Divider
Body part
:rotfl:
Right Divider
Body part
Prove it with.... some Biblical text.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
We know that Luke wasn't there for the events that he recorded, he learned what he wrote from someone else. Half of Acts has Luke and Paul traveling all around the eastern Mediterranean basin, all the way to Rome, so we know they were very familiar with one another. Paul said he learned the Gospel from Christ directly. So that's the foundation of the idea.
And the thinking here is that Luke's Gospel Is Paul's Gospel. If you don't think that Paul instructed Luke, and that that is how Luke was able to write his Gospel account, then that's OK, but I'm curious if you have another explanation? It's also fine if you don't; I'm just curious.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
See my reasoning in post 114.
Judaism is the mother of all religions while Catholicism is the father.
Right Divider
Body part
How do you CLAIM to know that "Luke wasn't there for the events that he recorded"? How do you KNOW this? How do you KNOW that it was Paul that "helped" him with his "gospel"?
That does NOTHING to prove your other claim.
That does NOTHING to prove your other claim.
And that "thinking" is just plain wrong and you are doing NOTHING to "prove" it... except continuing to make claims that it's true.
Luke did not need Paul to write his "gospel". I don't need an explanation. You are the one making claims without proof that those claims are true.
Right Divider
Body part
Nothing there but bluff and bluster.
Right Divider
Body part
There are many religions older than Judaism.
You are a crazy man that just keeps getting crazier.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
He wrote that he "had perfect understanding of all things from the very first." So he either witnessed everything he wrote about, or he did not. I think it possible that he did not.
I don't know. I'm just saying maybe it was, and if it was, then does Paul's Gospel equal Luke's Gospel. Does it fit the text.
Why are you fighting the idea so hard?
Why is this idea so threatening?
Do you think that Luke did witness all the events he wrote about? Was he there in Bethlehem, for example? I don't think that he was, do you?
Right, if he didn't 'need Paul,' then he clearly was able to do it some other way. Any thoughts as to how?
Does it hurt to at least consider an explanation?