These are NOT the same gospel

[Idolater]

As opposed to “I’m ignorant and I want to stay that way”?

Everyone who believes in Jesus's either in heaven now and or you're going to heaven when you die. That's my sophisticated Catholic take on "Neochristians" (as opposed to ancient Christians, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, another one, maybe two, and Catholic Christians).

Eschatology is difficult, it's not like the Trinity. When my experience was that someone draws a hard line on eschatology, that's when I became a political liberal, someone who fiercely believes in our God-given rights and their protection and defense. Against eschatological fundamentalists, among others. (Not just Christians!)

Catholics I think just believe to be ready for the day, because it's coming. Which day? That's when we get into eschatological disputes and discussions. I can't tie a 'proper' or correct eschatology to salvation. If someone's eschatology is 'off', that's just not very important in the 'scheme of things'.

I think we just think that 'the day' of some sort is coming, but there's really only one day for all of us, because we're either going to live to see the Lord return from the clouds, descending gently in mid air, or we'll die. Either way, that's the day. Once you die, there's no reason to think we will consciously look forward with anticipation to the day He returns in the way that we might be looking at our looming death now. With dread. I would expect that once we are dead, that we would not look forward to any day except to the Second Coming, and that it would be in great positive anticipation and without any fear of further death, which is difficult to achieve without dying first; perhaps impossible.

 

[Right Divider]

Maybe you read it backwards. I never said it’s “because”, but rather “because of” that we work righteousness.

And that's not what Peter said.

 

[Derf]

Are you a Greek scholar? No, I didn't think so. You're hoping to change the meaning of the verse when it is very clear the subject is the gospel.

Not a Greek scholar—that’s why I include multiple translations. I have no idea even how to form an opinion on which one is better. But I don’t have to, since the word is only present once in each.

But you know the truth, and it bothers you for some reason. Your very words betray you: “the subject is the gospel.”

Galatians 2:7 Greek Study Bible (Apostolic / Interlinear)
ἀλλὰ τουναντίον ἰδόντες ὅτι πεπίστευμαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς ἀκροβυστίας καθὼς Πέτρος τῆς περιτομῆς.
KJV with Strong's
But contrariwise when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter

Here’s what your link led to for
STRONGS NT 2098: εὐαγγέλιον
the glad tidings of the kingdom of God soon to be set up, and subsequently also of Jesus, the Messiah, the founder of this kingdom: Mark 1:15; Mark 8:35; Mark 10:29; Mark 13:10; Mark 14:9; Mark 16:15; Matthew 26:13; with a genitive of the object added: τῆς βασιλείας, Matthew 4:23; Matthew 9:35; Matthew 24:14; Mark 1:14 R Lbrackets After the death of Christ the term τό εὐαγγέλιον comprises also the preaching of (concerning) Jesus Christ as having suffered death on the cross to procure eternal salvation for men in the kingdom of God, but as restored to life and exalted to the right hand of God in heaven, thence to return in majesty to consummate the kingdom of God; so that it may be more briefly defined as "the glad tidings of salvation through Christ; the proclamation of the grace of God manifested and pledged in Christ; the gospel"


You’ll have to explain why you included the following:

Galatians 2:7 Hebrew Bible
ותהי להפך בראותם כי הפקדה לי הבשורה אל הערלים כמו שהפקד כיפא אל המולים׃
Galatians 2:7 Aramaic NT: Peshitta
ܐܠܐ ܐܚܪܢܝܐܝܬ ܚܙܘ ܓܝܪ ܕܐܬܗܝܡܢܬ ܤܒܪܬܐ ܕܥܘܪܠܘܬܐ ܐܝܟ ܕܐܬܗܝܡܢ ܟܐܦܐ ܒܓܙܘܪܬܐ ܀

 

[Derf]

Everyone who believes in Jesus's either in heaven now and or you're going to heaven when you die. That's my sophisticated Catholic take on "Neochristians" (as opposed to ancient Christians, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, another one, maybe two, and Catholic Christians).

Eschatology is difficult, it's not like the Trinity. When my experience was that someone draws a hard line on eschatology, that's when I became a political liberal, someone who fiercely believes in our God-given rights and their protection and defense. Against eschatological fundamentalists, among others. (Not just Christians!)

Catholics I think just believe to be ready for the day, because it's coming. Which day? That's when we get into eschatological disputes and discussions. I can't tie a 'proper' or correct eschatology to salvation. If someone's eschatology is 'off', that's just not very important in the 'scheme of things'.

I think we just think that 'the day' of some sort is coming, but there's really only one day for all of us, because we're either going to live to see the Lord return from the clouds, descending gently in mid air, or we'll die. Either way, that's the day. Once you die, there's no reason to think we will consciously look forward with anticipation to the day He returns in the way that we might be looking at our looming death now. With dread. I would expect that once we are dead, that we would not look forward to any day except to the Second Coming, and that it would be in great positive anticipation and without any fear of further death, which is difficult to achieve without dying first; perhaps impossible.

My thought is that when you’re dead, you aren’t doing any looking or anticipating at all.

 

[Idolater]

...you have to use another translation or ignore the verse that explains what you post.

Try the front door. It always works so much better.

I know, if the gospels are the same, then show me where any of the apostles preached the body of Christ is a new creature.

2 Corinthians 5:17
Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

As far as I'm concerned it's saying that you are a new creature, so that you can be received into this already existing creature (the Church). 'You have become a new creature so that you can become an individual member of the Body.' If you aren't a new creature, then you're not going to be received into the Body of Christ.

 

[Idolater]

My thought is that when you’re dead, you aren’t doing any looking or anticipating at all.

I know. So that's consistent with your view, it doesn't conflict with it, right?

 

[JudgeRightly]

There was no postponement for an earthly kingdom, it was not yet time for it.

The problem with this is that it makes Jesus out to be a liar, as per the following verses.

I submit that Jesus meant exactly what he said in the following verses, and that He fully expected to return within a short period of time (and not what is now almost 2 thousand years since then):

When they persecute you in this city, flee to another. For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes. - Matthew 10:23 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew10:23&version=NKJV

So you also, when you see these things happening, know that the kingdom of God is near.Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all things take place. - Luke 21:31-32 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke21:31-32&version=NKJV

However, due to Israel's rejection of her Messiah, God (as He said He would in Jeremiah 18) changed His mind, and decided to not come back when He said He would.

 

[glorydaz]

You have it completely backwards. We are NOT accepted because we "worketh righteousness". We have no works righteousness.... Christ is our righteousness.

P.S. I noticed that you claim Paul affirmed it, but you left out any scriptural support.

I love this.

Acts 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: 35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

Peter had the sheet experience, and this must have been hard for him. It also prepared the way for Paul's gospel where working righteousness was no longer required to be accepted, not only with Him, but IN HIM.

Ephesians 1:6
To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

 

[Derf]

I know. So that's consistent with your view, it doesn't conflict with it, right?

I’m not sure I understand your question.

 

[JudgeRightly]

On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumsised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised. ESV

Instead they saw that God had given me the responsibility of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as He had given Peter the responsibility of preaching to the Jews. NLT

On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted to preach the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised. BSB

But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised' NASB

etc., etc., etc.

Sorry, but the Greek makes it abundantly clear:



Even granting your point, it doesn't change the fact that "the gospel to the uncircumcised"/"the gospel of the uncircumcision" and "the gospel to the circumcised"/"the gospel of the circumcision" are two different gospels, because of the fact that they have different modifying phrases attached to each "gospel"

 

[Derf]

And that's not what Peter said.

Can you explain?

 

[Idolater]

I’m not sure I understand your question.

Whether or not we're unconscious in death, once you die, then you won't be afraid of death anymore. That's all I was saying.

 

[glorydaz]

Not a Greek scholar—that’s why I include multiple translations. I have no idea even how to form an opinion on which one is better. But I don’t have to, since the word is only present once in each.

But you know the truth, and it bothers you for some reason. Your very words betray you: “the subject is the gospel.”

My very words betray me? lol
Yes, the subject is the gospel.

The gospel (of, for, to) the circumcision, as preached by Peter, was that their Kingdom on earth was at hand.

The gospel (of,for, to) the uncircumcision was that they could be saved apart from Israel through grace.

Here’s what your link led to for
STRONGS NT 2098: εὐαγγέλιον
the glad tidings of the kingdom of God soon to be set up, and subsequently also of Jesus, the Messiah, the founder of this kingdom: Mark 1:15; Mark 8:35; Mark 10:29; Mark 13:10; Mark 14:9; Mark 16:15; Matthew 26:13; with a genitive of the object added: τῆς βασιλείας, Matthew 4:23; Matthew 9:35; Matthew 24:14; Mark 1:14 R Lbrackets After the death of Christ the term τό εὐαγγέλιον comprises also the preaching of (concerning) Jesus Christ as having suffered death on the cross to procure eternal salvation for men in the kingdom of God, but as restored to life and exalted to the right hand of God in heaven, thence to return in majesty to consummate the kingdom of God; so that it may be more briefly defined as "the glad tidings of salvation through Christ; the proclamation of the grace of God manifested and pledged in Christ; the gospel"


You’ll have to explain why you included the following:

I included all that because it was fun to copy stuff like you did. You didn't understand it any better than I did.


So, if Paul said, "But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as that of the circumcision was committed unto Peter", you wouldn't be able to understand he referring to the gospel of the uncircumcision and the gospel of the circumcision, simply because the word gospel might be used once?

 

[Derf]

Whether or not we're unconscious in death, once you die, then you won't be afraid of death anymore. That's all I was saying.

Yes, I agree— though I would put that point of conscious fearlessness after the resurrection.

 

[Idolater]

Yes, I agree— though I would put that point of conscious fearlessness after the resurrection.

Yes, understood.

 

[Derf]

My very words betray me? lol
Yes, the subject is the gospel.

The gospel (of, for, to) the circumcision, as preached by Peter, was that their Kingdom on earth was at hand.

The gospel (of,for, to) the uncircumcision was that they could be saved apart from Israel through grace.

I included all that because it was fun to copy stuff like you did. You didn't understand it any better than I did.


So, if Paul said, "But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as that of the circumcision was committed unto Peter", you wouldn't be able to understand he referring to the gospel of the uncircumcision and the gospel of the circumcision, simply because the word gospel might be used once?

I don’t usually copy stuff like that just for fun, but I’m hoping to learn.

Just so you know, “the” is a

definite article.​

1. Used before singular or plural nouns and noun phrases that denote particular, specified persons or things.
2. Used before a noun, and generally stressed, to emphasize one of a group or type as the most outstanding or prominent.
3. Used to indicate uniqueness.

Thus, it can’t be used properly before a singular noun like “gospel” and mean more than one gospel.

 

[glorydaz]

I don’t usually copy stuff like that just for fun, but I’m hoping to learn.

Just so you know, “the” is a

definite article.​

1. Used before singular or plural nouns and noun phrases that denote particular, specified persons or things.
2. Used before a noun, and generally stressed, to emphasize one of a group or type as the most outstanding or prominent.
3. Used to indicate uniqueness.

Thus, it can’t be used properly before a singular noun like “gospel” and mean more than one gospel.

Very clever. Why doesn't number 1 apply? What about number 3? There is certainly a uniqueness between the circumcised and the uncut.

Let's give it a test run.

The good news can be good news today but bad news tomorrow.
The good news can be concerning land and promises, or salvation unto eternal life.

The good news to the Jews was their King in their earthly kingdom.
The good news to the Gentiles was they could be saved apart from the Jews.

Did I follow the rules?

 

[glorydaz]

As far as I'm concerned it's saying that you are a new creature, so that you can be received into this already existing creature (the Church).

Hmmm.....I think it's because we are created IN Christ Jesus. He is the head of the body...yes, the church.

'You have become a new creature so that you can become an individual member of the Body.' If you aren't a new creature, then you're not going to be received into the Body of Christ.

This may be what you're saying, too, but it's late and I'm having a hard time following you on this one.

 

[Derf]

Very clever. Why doesn't number 1 apply? What about number 3? There is certainly a uniqueness between the circumcised and the uncut.

Let's give it a test run.

The good news can be good news today but bad news tomorrow.
The good news can be concerning land and promises, or salvation unto eternal life.

The good news to the Jews was their King in their earthly kingdom.
The good news to the Gentiles was they could be saved apart from the Jews.

Did I follow the rules?

No—it has to be in a single sentence with only a single instance of “the good news”.

But nice try.

 

[Derf]

Very clever. Why doesn't number 1 apply? What about number 3? There is certainly a uniqueness between the circumcised and the uncut.

Any of the three uses still require consistency. If you say “the gospels” it’s clear you’re talking about more than one. If you say “the gospel”, it’s equally clear you’re talking about only one. No scripture ever says “the gospels” as far as I know, but Gal 2:7 definitely uses a single instance of a singular “gospel”, which is tied to both Peter and Paul.

Btw, here it is from kjv. Notice how brackets are used in the second instance? That’s because the words are in the Greek, but are added for clarity by the translators. Since the addition is a repetition of the previous instance, it is referring to the same exact thing as the first instance.
Galatians 2:7 (KJV) But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as [the gospel] of the circumcision [was] unto Peter;