ECT Which Gospel Preached During the Tribulation Period?

[Jerry Shugart]

I think you mean Galatians 2:7 (NASB):

Yes, you are right. Here is the "Literal Translation" of the verse:

"but on the contrary, seeing that I have been entrusted (with) the gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter to the circumcision" (Gal.2:7; "Literal Translation," Interlinear Greek-english New Testament, ed. Jay P. Green).

Here Paul speaks specifically of the "gospel of the circumcision." Since he was going to those uncircumcised then that makes perfect sense. And since Peter was to go to those circumcised then the gospel which he would preach would naturally be the "gospel of the circumcision.

Nothing else would make sense. You do not think that Peter would take the "gospel of the uncirumcision" to the Jews, do you?

.. you seem to be making the assumption that Paul's first revelation of the gospel was on the road to Damascus, rather than in Damascus when Ananias spoke with him.

Earlier I asked you:

"So you think that it was possible that he was baptized with water by Ananias and was filled with the Holy Spirit before he believed a gospel?"

To which you answered:

No. I believe it is possible to receive a revelation after being converted (believing). But I believe it was by preaching/revelation (hearing the word of God) that he first believed.

So you believe that Paul received a gospel prior to being baptized. If he heard that gospel first from Ananias then it is certain that this is not the same gospel which Paul speaks about here:

"I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ" (Gal.1:11-12).

Paul states that he did not receive the gospel which he preached to those in Galatia from any man. If Paul first received a gospel earlier from Ananias then it has to be a different gospel than the one he received directly from the Lord Jesus.

So unless you want to argue that Paul was baptized and received the Holy Spirit before believing a gospel then the fact is clear--the gospel Paul received before he was baptized with water was different from the one he received directly from the Lord Jesus.

 

[Jacob]

Yes, you are right. Here is the "Literal Translation" of the verse:

"but on the contrary, seeing that I have been entrusted (with) the gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter to the circumcision" (Gal.2:7; "Literal Translation," Interlinear Greek-english New Testament, ed. Jay P. Green).

Here Paul speaks specifically of the "gospel of the circumcision." Since he was going to those uncircumcised then that makes perfect sense. And since Peter was to go to those circumcised then the gospel which he would preach would naturally be the "gospel of the circumcision.

Nothing else would make sense. You do not think that Peter would take the "gospel of the uncirumcision" to the Jews, do you?

People argue over whether the preposition should be "to" or "of". I find it sufficient to see that the gospel was communicated to both circumcised and uncircumcised. Primarily by certain individuals.

Earlier I asked you:

"So you think that it was possible that he was baptized with water by Ananias and was filled with the Holy Spirit before he believed a gospel?"

To which you answered:

So you believe that Paul received a gospel prior to being baptized.

Does the Bible have a record of when Paul was baptized, did you say?

If he heard that gospel first from Ananias then it is certain that this is not the same gospel which Paul speaks about here:

"I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ" (Gal.1:11-12).

Paul states that he did not receive the gospel which he preached to those in Galatia from any man. If Paul first received a gospel earlier from Ananias then it has to be a different gospel than the one he received directly from the Lord Jesus.

So unless you want to argue that Paul was baptized and received the Holy Spirit before believing a gospel then the fact is clear--the gospel Paul received before he was baptized with water was different from the one he received directly from the Lord Jesus.

What Paul received/accepted brought about his conversion. He was taught of God so that he would deliver what God wanted him to.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Does the Bible have a record of when Paul was baptized, did you say?

"And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Spirit. And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized" (Acts 9:17-18).

Those who received the Holy Spirit and were baptized were the ones who had first believed a gospel. I know of no exceptions. And Ananias said that he was sent so that Paul would be filled with the Holy Spirit. We can see the same exact thing when Peter was sent to Cornelius:

"And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved. And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them, as on us at the beginning" (Acts 11:13-15).

It is therefore evident that Paul was filled with the Holy Spirit when he believed a gospel preached to him by Ananias.

Earlier I asked you:

"So you think that it was possible that he was baptized with water by Ananias and was filled with the Holy Spirit before he believed a gospel?"

To this question you answered "no." So you also believe that Paul heard and believed a gospel prior to being baptized and before he received the Holy Spirit.

If he heard that gospel first from Ananias then it is certain that this is not the same gospel which Paul speaks about here:

"I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ" (Gal.1:11-12).

Paul states that he did not receive the gospel which he preached to those in Galatia from any man. If Paul first received a gospel earlier from Ananias then it has to be a different gospel than the one he received directly from the Lord Jesus.

 

[Jacob]

"And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Spirit. And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized" (Acts 9:17-18).

Those who received the Holy Spirit and were baptized were the ones who had first believed a gospel. I know of no exceptions. And Ananias said that he was sent so that Paul would be filled with the Holy Spirit. We can see the same exact thing when Peter was sent to Cornelius:

"And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved. And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them, as on us at the beginning" (Acts 11:13-15).

It is therefore evident that Paul was filled with the Holy Spirit when he believed a gospel preached to him by Ananias.

Earlier I asked you:

"So you think that it was possible that he was baptized with water by Ananias and was filled with the Holy Spirit before he believed a gospel?"

To this question you answered "no." So you also believe that Paul heard and believed a gospel prior to being baptized and before he received the Holy Spirit.

If he heard that gospel first from Ananias then it is certain that this is not the same gospel which Paul speaks about here:

"I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ" (Gal.1:11-12).

Paul states that he did not receive the gospel which he preached to those in Galatia from any man. If Paul first received a gospel earlier from Ananias then it has to be a different gospel than the one he received directly from the Lord Jesus.

Now you are just confusing me. I have said, I believe, that what Paul communicated to others is not necessarily what was communicated to him when he first believed. The words may have been different, but what you seem to be missing is that it is still the truth. What Paul preached is the truth, just as what was preached to him was the truth.

Remember those who lied to the Holy Spirit? They lied to God. Not man. But men were there. So, I'm not sure of what you say. Plus, we already talked about Paul receiving his revelation. I said it happened sometime between his conversion and his preaching to the gentiles (or, going up to Jerusalem).

I don't speak in terms of "a gospel" as if there are different messages.

Somehow God communicated to Paul that he would be an effective minister for His sake.

1 Corinthians 11:23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread;

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Now you are just confusing me.

You have been confused from the beginning of this discussion due to your preconceived ideas.

I have said, I believe, that what Paul communicated to others is not necessarily what was communicated to him when he first believed. The words may have been different, but what you seem to be missing is that it is still the truth. What Paul preached is the truth, just as what was preached to him was the truth.

That is the point which I made and the same point that you have not been able to refute.

Paul received and believed a gospel from Ananias when he was saved.

Later he received a different gospel directly from the Lord Jesus. That has to be a different gospel from the one which he received from Ananias because of what Paul says here:

"I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ" (Gal.1:11-12).

Remember those who lied to the Holy Spirit? They lied to God. Not man. But men were there. So, I'm not sure of what you say. Plus, we already talked about Paul receiving his revelation. I said it happened sometime between his conversion and his preaching to the gentiles (or, going up to Jerusalem).

So now you are saying that Paul was baptized and filled with the Holy Spirit even though he did not believe any gospel?

Earlier I saked you:

"So you think that it was possible that he was baptized with water by Ananias and was filled with the Holy Spirit before he believed a gospel?"

To this question you answered "no." So you also believed that Paul heard and believed a gospel prior to being baptized and before he was filled with the Holy Spirit.

But now you have changed your mind, right?

I don't speak in terms of "a gospel" as if there are different messages.

Why not? The Greek word translated "gospel" means "good news" or "glad tidings."

Do you think that there was only one set of good news about the Lord Jesus? Was not it good news to the Israelites when they were told that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God?

Of course it was. And that "good news" can stand on its own even though another item of good news was preached--that Christ died for sins.

 

[godrulz]

Gal. 1 contrasts the true gospel with a false, Judaizer gospel (does MAD or neo-MAD say that the other gospel that is condemned was Peter's gospel that is now supplanted by Paul's?!).

Gal. 2 is a demarcation of ministry, not two true gospels.

IMHO.

 

[Jacob]

You have been confused from the beginning of this discussion due to your preconceived ideas.

How so?

That is the point which I made and the same point that you have not been able to refute.

If I'm talking with you and presenting the truth you think I am trying to refute you? If you agree with what I say, then why do you find reason to disagree or think I should rather refute you?

Paul received and believed a gospel from Ananias when he was saved.

You are saying "A gospel".

Later he received a different gospel directly from the Lord Jesus.

Why not earlier? I'm just asking. Paul met Jesus before Ananias.

That has to be a different gospel from the one which he received from Ananias because of what Paul says here:

"I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ" (Gal.1:11-12).

So now you are saying that Paul was baptized and filled with the Holy Spirit even though he did not believe any gospel?

I never said any such thing.

Earlier I saked you:

"So you think that it was possible that he was baptized with water by Ananias and was filled with the Holy Spirit before he believed a gospel?"

To this question you answered "no." So you also believed that Paul heard and believed a gospel prior to being baptized and before he was filled with the Holy Spirit.

Right. Now, what was your point that I don't believe what I said I believe?

But now you have changed your mind, right?

Nope. I have asked the question to be sure, not remembering the point.

Why not? The Greek word translated "gospel" means "good news" or "glad tidings."

That's fine. I understand gospel means good news. Sometimes though people classify a body of teaching as a gospel, and this is what I find you are doing. Then you compare and contrast, saying I presume which gospel is better and which gospel is really not the gospel. Some people even go so far as to say that the gospel of the kingdom is only for Jews and that we should accept nothing other than the gospel to the uncircumcised. I am weary of those teachings, and hoping to guide the conversation toward you seeing the error of those teachings. You must accept the gospel that is for circumcised and uncircumcised alike. That salvation is found in the name of Jesus. Forgiveness of sins from the life given on our behalf.

Do you think that there was only one set of good news about the Lord Jesus? Was not it good news to the Israelites when they were told that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God?

Which Paul proclaimed. You seem to think Paul proclaimed something that the others "just didn't get". But they did, and so did Paul... and now we don't have to bicker about it but can instead proclaim this good news upon the rooftops.

Of course it was. And that "good news" can stand on its own even though another item of good news was preached--that Christ died for sins.

Not just Paul. They all knew. As you have said by referencing this verse with me:

Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

 

[beloved57]

Scriptures that evidence God's Sovereignty and predestination in salvation!

Scriptures that evidence God's Sovereignty and predestination in salvation!

Acts 18:

10For I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee: for I have much people in this city.

That is, Jesus Christ had yet many more of His Sheep in Corinth that should hear His voice through Paul's and his co-laborers speaking the word of the gospel !

God sends his gospel to those He prepares to hear it ! Its to them, the gospel of their salvation eph 1:13

Jn 11:

52And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.


The Gospel is for gathering in of the children of God [those born of God] both of jew or gentile descent, but never for the gathering in of the children of the devil. To them, God has ordained that the gospel shall be death unto death ! 2 cor 2:

14Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place.


15For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:

16To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?

For either purpose, the servant of God will make manifest the savour of His Knowledge in every place.

So it is, this gospel of the kingdom shall preached in all the world, for a witness to all nations !

Jn 17:

6I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.

God the Father gives some men to His Son Jesus Christ out of the world, to die for and make Himself known to them. They were the Fathers by eternal election, and given to the Son as His eternal bride. These will always keep God's word.

Jn 17:

2As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

Thou Jesus Christ has power over all flesh, yet its only as many as the Father hath given Him that He will give to them eternal life, which be his sheep!

Jn 10:28

And I give unto them[sheep] eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

So, the sheep here in vs 28 are the many in jn 17 :2

Jer 1:

5Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

This is being of the foreknown, the elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father.

This knowing is one of favor. God and Jesus do not know all men this way Matt 7:

23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

This is the exact opposite of jer 1:5 , Jesus did not know these like that !

gal 4:

28Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

Children of promise are not all of mankind, but only some. These are promised Children to Jesus Christ, as Isaac was a promised child to Abraham, brought about by the power and promise of God, and not by the power and ability of the flesh.

Thats why its written of those who received Jesus Christ in His day, that they were born:

13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

None can receive God in the Flesh except them born of God ! None can believe on His name, except they be born of God.

Those are the children of promise !

rom 4:

16Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

To all the children of promise, rather, jew or gentile, Abraham was promised to be the Father of many nations Gen 17:


5Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.

6And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.

7And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

8And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

All these promises are based on God's I will, His Sovereignty !

Amen, there is a seed of Abraham that God has promised to be A God in covenant to, in many nations, and many generations, according to a everlasting covenant !

This seed comprises the children of promise, as Isaac was.

Isa 53:

10Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

Christ death was accomplished with His seed in view. He died and rose again for them rom 4:


25Who was delivered for our [The seed] offences, and was raised again for our [the seed] justification.

I am preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom for a witness !

 

[Sheila B]

So your answer is "yes," that the "good news" that "Christ died for our sins" is the same "good news" that "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God"?

Hi Jerry, Sorry for not keeping up. Our family is moving and the project has taken over my days!

Anyway, "yes". To clarify my thinking, I will add: the Mohammadens have missed the most imporatnt part of their testimony of Jesus. They attest to the Virgin birth, but deny the sacrifice of that Body as the salvation of man. Therein lies the denial of the Gospel. The sacrificial death of the God-man, He alone and no other, paid the sin debt humanity owed God.

As all of humanity was in the loins of Adam, so to speak, we all sinned and have come short of the glory of God. So, even the best and most virtuous person is "short of the glory of God" which can only be obtained by the blood of the Lamb. Unless you eat My flesh and drink My Blood you have no life in you. So, while Christians my debate what the eating and drinking consists of... the bottom line is still the Blood - that Holy Sacrifice - atoned for humanity.

That is Good News! That is Great News! That is Divine Charity, the greatest of the great.

 

[Sheila B]

I am retired now but for fifteen years I was the owner and operator of a motel here in Mexico.

How about that. For 10 years I was owner-operator of a motel on the Gulf of Mexico; retired also. Don't Stop the Carnival by Herman Woulk, par excellence!

 

[Sheila B]

"It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain" (Gal.2:2; NASB).

That event did not happen until years after he was baptized with water and received the Holy Spirit.

Therefore we can understand that Paul received a gospel before he was baptized with water and then he received another gospel later.

That means that there were two different gospels.

That does not automatically follow that Paul received a different gospel at all. It shows he wanted to be sure he was correctly passing on the one true gospel once for all delivered to the saints.

 

[Sheila B]

No mention. What about these words?:

"But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter" (2 Cor.2:7).

At Galatians 1 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:

"But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ...But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the Gentiles" (Gal.1:11-12; 15-16).

Two different gospels!

That does not automatically mean two gospels. St. Paul spent several days on an island with natives and never once gave those souls the Good News. They were simply not ready to receive any teaching about The Word yet. That does not automatically follow that Paul's refusal to give those souls the good news means there are three gospels!

You are confusing the many necessary methods of transmitting salvation knowledge - The One Truth- to humanity, with there being multiple gospels. There are only infinite methods, based on the approach to each soul who receives it necessarily in different methods, as each is able to understand.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Here Paul names two different gospels:

"But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter" (2 Cor.2:7).

Anyone with just a little common sense can understand that the "the gospel of the uncircumcision" is NOT the same gospel as the "the gospel of the circumcision."

That means that since they are NOT the same then there must be TWO gospels. But you can throw reson to the wind ans say:

That does not automatically mean two gospels.

 

[Sheila B]

I you seem to be making the assumption that Paul's first revelation of the gospel was on the road to Damascus, rather than in Damascus when Ananias spoke with him. How would we know if Paul received the gospel at either time? Look to those words (Jesus and Ananias).

Great thought. As I ponder Paul's three days of darkness, it seems to me that he would have been going back over all he knew about Judaism and prophecy and thinking hard on how they pointed to Jesus! How was this coming of the messiah so misunderstood? With all his brilliant Hebrew training he missed it completely.

That is what you want to believe. But why should I make the same conclusion that you do? I'm not denying the verses... but think on this: When Paul said "we are turning to the Gentiles" did he already know what he was "going to preach to the Gentiles"? Are you saying he was then communicating to the Jews he was speaking with that he was going to be preaching a different message?!!! Why would he be bringing them (Gentiles) the same message he was preaching (Jews) IF IT WAS DIFFERENT?

Excellent point.

Paul submitted himself to evaluation, that his message would be not of himself, but of God.

Again, excellent. An evaluation. It seems to me that Jesus gave the revelation to Paul to go to the Apostles so that the One Church would be moving along as a unit, that is, to keep Paul from being a lone wolf, which would deter the message and it's unity.

And, it would not mean that people are saved by primitive gospel as well as updated gospel.

We interestingly see the development of doctrine in Apollos' preaching, which was said to "be accurate...although he knew only the baptism of John."

What does that tell us, but that every crumb of information pointing to Christ is "accurate" even if it is not complete! It is a journey of faith that we are undertaking. It is not necesary to be a scholar and know it all. Apollos was accurate with John the Baptist!

The Kingdom of God belongs to such as these little ones...

 

[Jerry Shugart]

That does not automatically follow that Paul received a different gospel at all. It shows he wanted to be sure he was correctly passing on the one true gospel once for all delivered to the saints.

Evidently you are ignoranant of the fact that before this Paul had already had an opportunity to find out of the gospel he preached then was the same gospel which the other Apostle were preaching:

"But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem. And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians: but they went about to slay him" (Acts 9:27-29).

Don't you think Paul would have known by then whether or not the gospel which he preached in the synagogues was a true gospel or not?

So you still have no explanation as to why Paul would go to the other Apostles at a later date in order to learn whether or not he had been preaching the gospel which he preached "among the Gentiles" in vain:

"I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain" (Gal.2:2).

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Earlier Untellectual said:

"I you seem to be making the assumption that Paul's first revelation of the gospel was on the road to Damascus, rather than in Damascus when Ananias spoke with him. How would we know if Paul received the gospel at either time? Look to those words (Jesus and Ananias)."

To this you replied:

Great thought.

When do you believe that Paul received a gospel? Do you believe that he could be baptized and be filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17-18) at a time before he believed a gospel?

 

[Sheila B]

Nothing else would make sense. You do not think that Peter would take the "gospel of the uncirumcision" to the Jews, do you?

Jerrry,

You are missing one very important detail here. And that is this:
The Jewish nation were a chosen, holy, royal nation, already well versed in the ways of God. They had the oracles, the visions, the Holy of Holies among them. They knew what God required of holiness to approach Him. In case they forgot, Ananias and sapphira were cut down to remind them. What was the result? Acts 5:11

To put it another way:
Jesus is the Messaih for the Jews. No other nation expected Him in the same way if at all. So, when the messiah came He fulfilled all of the Hebrew Traditions and Law. To explain this to the Hebrews would of necessity be a different language almost, a truly different dialogue than explaining Jesus to the pagans. we see the variety of ways Paul speaks to Jews vs gentiles. To Felix and drusilla, he speaks a certain way, of "...justice and self control and future judgement." Why? Because they were instructed already in these things. John 5:29 He is tough on those who have knowledge of what the Hebrew life demands.

To the pagans the message is more basic- that is, they need to turn from basic sins that the Hebrews knew were wrong for centuries, like homosexuality, adultery, fornication, etc, having been instructed in Moses' law.

Jews knew what holiness was, and were holy; pagans did not know, and they were unclean.

Same message of repentance, belief, baptism, etc, but two completely different target audiences.

 

[Sheila B]

Does the Bible have a record of when Paul was baptized, did you say?

Jesus sent Ananias to administer the sacraments; Paul's entrance into the church was similar to everyone else's.
Acts 9:15
Acts 9:17 and 18

Laying on of hands, receiveing the Holy Spirit, and baptism.

 

[Sheila B]

"I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ" (Gal.1:11-12).

Paul states that he did not receive the gospel which he preached to those in Galatia from any man. If Paul first received a gospel earlier from Ananias then it has to be a different gospel than the one he received directly from the Lord Jesus.

Are you implying that the other gospel was made up by man?

Or are you saying both Gospels are from heaven but different? Paul makes a clear distinction here about his being from God and not man.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jews knew what holiness was, and were holy; pagans did not know, and they were unclean.

If the Jews were holy then why did john preach a baptism "for the remission of sins?:

"John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins" (Mark 1:4).

If the Jews were holy why did they "confess their sins"?:

"Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan, And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins" (Mt.3:5-6).

You prove once again that you are clueless. You are nothing but a waste of time.