glorydaz
Well-known member
I'm going to be looking this one up myself. See ya later.
These are NOT the same gospel
- Thread starter Right Divider
- Start date
glorydaz
Well-known member
Yeah, very clever once again.
No, but we do have the gospel according to Mark and the gospel according to Luke.
That means we can have the gospel according to Peter, and the Gospel according to Paul.
So how about the gospel of the circumcision and the gospel of the uncircumcision?
I really think I'm winning this argument.
Right Divider
Body part
Peter said:
So, according to Peter, a person needed to fear God and worketh righteousness to be acceptable to God.
We, in the body of Christ, are NOT "accepted by God" in that way.
Last edited:
Derf
Well-known member
Peter also said
Acts 15:11 (KJV) But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
I’m not understanding why, when I point out that Paul said we should fear God and walk righteously, you try to point out that Peter didn’t say that, then say that he said essentially the same thing. If your argument is that they preached something different, then you need to show where one refutes the other in his preaching, not where they agree—that’s my argument.
Right Divider
Body part
Acts 15 is MANY years after Acts 10. Peter learned some things along the way, particularly from Paul.
Per Paul we are ALREADY accepted and should walk accordingly. According to Peter in Acts 10, it's a requirement to BE accepted.
Last edited:
Derf
Well-known member
Do you think Mark and Luke were telling a different good news? I agree that it’s right to acknowledge that Peter and Paul used different words to tell the same story, just like Mark and Luke did—and for the same reason, that they had different audiences. But both Mark and Luke were telling the same gospel—that’s why they are called THE gospel according to x or y.
So let’s use it in the same way with Peter and Paul. THE gospel according to Peter would be the same gospel as THE gospel according to Paul, but told with different words, because their primary audiences were different (possibly).
Now that you’re winning the argument, can you see how you are opposing the thread’s OP?
Paul wasn’t handed a book, like “The Gospel of Paul”, but Jesus revealed to him THE truth, most importantly that He was alive from the dead, so Paul knew those crazy (and dangerous) Christians weren’t so crazy anymore, but still dangerous, in a good way, so he joined them.
Right Divider
Body part
You have a very twisted and tortured idea of what happened.
Derf
Well-known member
You mean about how to reach the Gentiles? I agree. Peter was definitely deficient in that area.
Who’s the “we” talking about in your sentence? Of course “we” are accepted, because we already repented and came to believe in Christ. Peter was referring to those that hadn’t yet heard the gospel—Cornelius and friends—but when they did, they were accepted, because they had already shown their repentance.
Acts 10:2 (KJV) [A] devout [man], and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway.
Derf
Well-known member
You say Paul WAS handed a book? Sounds rather Mormonish to me.
Neither were the Twelve.
All thirteen, however, were taught directly by Christ, the Twelve in person, and Paul through revelation.
Right Divider
Body part
Peter was not sent to the gentiles. Peter, James and John agreed NOT to go to the gentiles.
Peter is ONE of TWELVE apostles that will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Peter's name is ONE of the TWELVE apostles of the Lamb that will be on the foundations of the new Jerusalem.
The body of Christ, the NEW creature, the one NEW man, etc. etc.
Without working righteousness.
That's NOT what the scripture says. Cornelius and his family were righteous gentiles:
Yes, feared God and "gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway."
Right Divider
Body part
Right Divider
Body part
I'd say: the twelve by Christ in the flesh and Paul through the resurrected and ascended Christ.
Arial
Active member
It does not say there are two different gospels, it says there are two different people groups to which each is going/ Peter to the Jews. Paul to the Gentiles. It is the same gospel to different people groups, and for God's purposes and by His appointing. Peter to evangelize the Jews, Paul the gentiles.
Nope.
"... I have been entrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, just as Peter of the circumcision."
Two different gospels, Paul was entrusted with one, and Peter with the other.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
The Jews are a relatively small group compared to the rest of the world.
Why send twelve men to go to the Jews, and one person to the entire rest of the world? Would it not be more efficient to send one person to Israel, and twelve to the rest of the world?
Arial
Active member
You still have not established that the scripture actually says "of the" instead of "to the." Except in the translation you wish to use over all others. There is no phrase in that passage that says either "to" or "of" in Greek. What you translate as "of the" is simply the Greek word for "the".
Except I pointed out two obvious people groups. Jews and Gentiles.
You will have to take that up with God. But in any case, Paul also preached to the circumcised and Peter, James and Jude also preached to Gentiles, sometimes both groups were in the same place, and neither changed the gospel according to the particular people group. Peter James and John stayed in Jerusalem---Paul traveled among the Gentiles to spread the word of the good news to the Gentile world. If you know of Paul's personal history that we are given in Acts (mainly), you would even be able to see why he was better equipped than the other apostles to communicate successfully with the Greeks and other Gentiles in the area.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
And also 'in the flesh.' Paul's account is consistent with a literal physical visitation by Jesus.
John's Revelation is John's writing after an also equally 'in the flesh' revelation as Paul, with the resurrected and ascended Christ. It's interesting to contrast what Paul wrote after such an encounter, with what John wrote after such an encounter.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Excellent hypothesis. Excellent evidence supporting your claim (there are four distinct accounts of the story of Jesus already in the Bible which have already been accepted as Scripture from the beginning of the whole Church).
We don't say that Matthew and Mark and Luke and John were all preaching different Gospels, even though they didn't use word-for-word identical lexicons or narratives ('rhetorical explanations'----they're all attempting to persuade the readers in some way, the New Testament isn't pretending to be independent journalism).
Have you ever heard the notion that Luke's Gospel is basically Paul's Gospel, and wonder whether basically Luke's Gospel is the reason that the other Apostles knew that Paul was legit chosen by Christ, because when Paul 'compared notes' with Peter and the others, he produced the entire basically Gospel according to Luke, and so Peter and the other Apostles were like, Yeah he's legit----he even knows stuff that I forgot!
And so they knew that it was Paul and not Matthias who was prophesied of by King David: Acts 1:20 " For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his [(Judas's)] habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take." They knew when Paul provided basically Luke's Gospel to them that it was his (Paul's) "bishoprick".
Last edited:
Arial
Active member
Peter James and John agreed not TO GO to the Gentiles.
Derf
Well-known member
Interesting theory, but sounds like some of the Catholic mumbo-jumbo, that wants to use miracles, only, for authentication, when other methods are available. Such a focus tends to prepare people to fall away when presented with false signs and wonders.