ECT Which Gospel?

[Danoh]

Your explanation - that Paul used the singular word “gospel” because he was speaking only TO the Galatians about their “Gentile Gospel” - would satisfy only someone who had already made up their mind about it. It is a weak argument for anyone outside the “dual gospel” camp. All it amounts to is an attempt to explain the lack of supporting evidence in the passage. It is not a direct appeal to contextual evidence in the passage. When the actual words that are used here and elsewhere are considered, a different meaning emerges.

6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different (heteros) gospel— 7 not that there is another, (allos) one but there are some who trouble you and want to distort THE Gospel of Christ (Galatians 1:6-7 ESV).

Paul uses the singular form of the word “Gospel” adding that the Judaeizers were attempting to distort this message thereby turning it into a “different” (false) gospel. Only the gospel as he originally delivered to them could save them. He neglected to say there was yet another valid gospel. You say he just did not bring it up. The telling point is that he did not bring it up at any other time either.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that there were two gospels. First, Jewish as well as Gentile believers were living in the region of Galatia. This can be seen by internal evidence in their knowledge about the Law by also external historical evidence. The Jewish believers presumably would have been following the teachings of the “Jewish Gospel” which Paul knew very well since it was his custom to peach that message in the synagogues every Sabbath

If Jewish believers were in there would it not have been necessary to help them differentiate their Jewish Gospel which COULD save from the message of the Judaeizers which could NOT? It seems to me that the Christian Jews would have been even more tempted by the Judaizer’s teaching than the Gentiles. This would have been the perfect occasion to lay out exactly what the two gospels were in unambiguous language but Paul, the “wise master builder.” leaves this vital issue unresolved though it could have caused apostasy and Church fragmentation. This would have been an important point to make in any Church where the Judaizers were a threat.

If MAD is true then Paul consistently neglected to teach on the nature of the Jewish Gospel comparing and contrasting it to the Gentile Gospel. He does not even use the plural of "Gospel" At least with Baptism, while one scripture seems to indicate that there is only one (Ephesians 4:5) others go on to explain the different "baptisms" in unambiguous terms (e.g., Matthew 3:11). The Bible also establishes a plurality of Baptisms through using the plural form of the noun “baptism.” (Hebrews 6:2). There is no need to read between the lines to see that there is more than one baptism.

Yet, to what passage shall we turn to see a comparison and contrast of the Gospels of the Jews versus that of the Gentiles? Despite the supposed importance of making a distinction between the two, the Bible does not address this very important matter. Instead we are left to come to that conclusion through inferences and assumptions.

What the Bible EXPLICITLY says about the Gospel is not hard to discern, so long as we accept prima fascia what the passage says and avoid importing ideas from outside the text.

For I am not ashamed of THE gospel, for it is THE power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17 For in IT the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.”(Romans 1:16 ESV)

Here Paul speaks of a singular gospel but contrary to your claim in Galatians - that when he used the singular of "Gospel" he meant only the Gentile Gospel - here he says that THE Gospel is invested with THE power to save both Jew and Gentile. Two gospels need not be preached. One was sufficient for both.

Here is another passage:

18 For THE WORD of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is THE power of God…22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ THE power of God and THE wisdom of God. (Ephesians 1:18,22-24)

THE WORD of the cross is the same as THE PREACHING of the cross or the Message of the Cross all of which are equivalent to the Gospel of the Cross. As with the previous scriptures I have cited, THE WORD, is written in the singular form meaning that there is one. You can parenthetically say "not including the Jewish Gospel" but this is what the text says. This single message is invested with THE power to save BOTH Jew and Gentile. No other special gospels are needed. Paul did not even try to adapt his message to suit the Jews and Gentiles though the one message was a stumbling block to both.

Lastly, I do not know how you can say I made up anything since my conclusion was based, not on my personal opinion but on linguistic data and historical sources (which I cited). You are free to deny it, of course, but a denial is not a rebuttal and unless you can add something of substance I am going to take what you said as a gratuitous assertion. I will come back to this issue soon.

Paul was saved and called into that gospel of [concerning] Christ that he preached after Israel's fall.

In Galatians 2:2, he refers to it as "that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles."

In 2:7, he refers to it as "the gospel of the uncircumcision."

And in 2:8, he relates that his Apostleship was the Apostleship of the Gentiles [the uncircumcision].

In 2:9, he agrees to confine his preaching "unto the heathen."

Bear with me a moment...

This Gospel of Christ = that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles = the gospel of the uncircumcision = unto the heathen.

The key is in identifying who these Gentiles; these Uncircumcision; these Heathen, are.

Paul entered into that agreement way before he later wrote Romans 1: 17's "to the Jews first..."

Further, Paul is depicted going to the Jew from Acts 9 when he was saved, to the very last chapter of Acts.

What about this agreement he'd entered into with James; Cephas and John years before Acts 28 - that he would go unto the heathen, and they would go unto the uncircumcision?

Therein lies the answer to this two gospel assertion we of Mid-Acts hold to [though we differ with one another within Mid-Acts as to some of the particulars, neverthless we do hold to this much about this issue].

In Matthew 10, the Lord foretells the persecution the Twelve will undergo in what will later be depicted by Luke in Acts 4 thru 7.

He also tells them they will not make past the cities of Israel with "the gospel of the kingdom... the lost sheep of the house of Israel," before His return, Matt. 10:5-6; Matt. 10:23.

Then, in Matthew 12 He warns Israel as to the following [see also, Hebrews 2]:

30. He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
31. Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
32. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.
33. Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.
34. O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

In Acts 7, the height of Israel's persecution against them culminates in the following pronouncement by the Spirit speaking through Stephen just before they murder him:

51. Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.
52. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:
53. Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.
54. When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth.

Years later, Paul will note in Romans 2, as he begins to there lay out the theme he will later expand on in Romans 9 thru 11 - why God turned from Israel [albeit, temporarily, Rom. 11:25-29].

Note what he says in Romans 2 - it fist what the Spirit declared thru Stephen:

23. Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?
24. For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.
25. For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

28. For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29. But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Note how that the Lord made this very same point as to this Law keeping of the heart - John 5:

44. How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?
45. Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
46. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.
47. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

In other words, theirs was outward law keeping. In this they failed to keep the Law they only appeared to be keeping before one another.

In other words - in Acts 7 Israel was concluded uncircumcision - just another lost, Gentile nation - heathen!

Romans 11:
7. What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

Cut off from "the gospel of the kingdom" the Twelve were never able to reach all the lost sheep of the house of Israel with before the Lord's return!

Their aspect of the gospel of Christ - the gospel of the circumcision - Acts 3:

17. And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers.
18. But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled.
19. Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.
20. And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
21. Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
22. For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.

But as Paul would later relate as to that in light of Acts 7...

Romans 11:
7. What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

Now, the only chance they had was this gospel of the uncircumcision God was now having preached among the Gentiles - as is the case today. Today, if a Jew wants salvation, he has to forgo his tradition, make like a Gentile, and trust this gospel of the uncircumcision, because that is what the Spirit concluded that nation - "uncircumcised in heart and ears."

In this, it is not strange at all then, that in Acts 21, James relates to Paul their having heard he has dropped the circumcision requirement among those Jews in his ministry.

As for James, Cephas and John, after all this; they agree to confine their ministry, not as per the Matthew 28 "all nations" commission, rather "unto the circumcision."

Hunh?

A passage like Acts 10:45 identifies those as "they of the circumcision which believed." Acts 11: 2 refers to them as "they that were of the circumcision."

That is a reference to they of the circumcision which believed before Israel was cut off - Romans 11: 7. What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

Hebrews thru Revelation speaks to these of the circumcision which believed, before Israel fell, at Acts 7.

Romans thru Philemon speaks to uncircumcision Jew and Gentile after Israel's fall; Romans 3.

Now, here is an interesting question - why then do we read in Acts 11:19 "Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen [back I Acts 8] travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only" ?

And why have there numbers grown into "many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law" by Acts 21:20?

 

[Tambora]

Paul was saved and called into that gospel of [concerning] Christ that he preached after Israel's fall.

In Galatians 2:2, he refers to it as "that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles."

In 2:7, he refers to it as "the gospel of the uncircumcision."

And in 2:8, he relates that his Apostleship was the Apostleship of the Gentiles [the uncircumcision].

In 2:9, he agrees to confine his preaching "unto the heathen."

Bear with me a moment...

This Gospel of Christ = that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles = the gospel of the uncircumcision = unto the heathen.

The key is in identifying who these Gentiles; these Uncircumcision; these Heathen, are.

Paul entered into that agreement way before he later wrote Romans 1: 17's "to the Jews first..."

Further, Paul is depicted going to the Jew from Acts 9 when he was saved, to the very last chapter of Acts.

What about this agreement he'd entered into with James; Cephas and John years before Acts 28 - that he would go unto the heathen, and they would go unto the uncircumcision?

Therein lies the answer to this two gospel assertion we of Mid-Acts hold to [though we differ with one another within Mid-Acts as to some of the particulars, neverthless we do hold to this much about this issue].

In Matthew 10, the Lord foretells the persecution the Twelve will undergo in what will later be depicted by Luke in Acts 4 thru 7.

He also tells them they will not make past the cities of Israel with "the gospel of the kingdom... the lost sheep of the house of Israel," before His return, Matt. 10:5-6; Matt. 10:23.

Then, in Matthew 12 He warns Israel as to the following [see also, Hebrews 2]:

30. He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
31. Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
32. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.
33. Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.
34. O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

In Acts 7, the height of Israel's persecution against them culminates in the following pronouncement by the Spirit speaking through Stephen just before they murder him:

51. Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.
52. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:
53. Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.
54. When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth.

Years later, Paul will note in Romans 2, as he begins to there lay out the theme he will later expand on in Romans 9 thru 11 - why God turned from Israel [albeit, temporarily, Rom. 11:25-29].

Note what he says in Romans 2 - it fist what the Spirit declared thru Stephen:

23. Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?
24. For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.
25. For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

28. For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29. But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Note how that the Lord made this very same point as to this Law keeping of the heart - John 5:

44. How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?
45. Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
46. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.
47. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

In other words, theirs was outward law keeping. In this they failed to keep the Law they only appeared to be keeping before one another.

In other words - in Acts 7 Israel was concluded uncircumcision - just another lost, Gentile nation - heathen!

Romans 11:
7. What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

Cut off from "the gospel of the kingdom" the Twelve were never able to reach all the lost sheep of the house of Israel with before the Lord's return!

Their aspect of the gospel of Christ - the gospel of the circumcision - Acts 3:

17. And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers.
18. But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled.
19. Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.
20. And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
21. Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
22. For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.

But as Paul would later relate as to that in light of Acts 7...

Romans 11:
7. What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

Now, the only chance they had was this gospel of the uncircumcision God was now having preached among the Gentiles - as is the case today. Today, if a Jew wants salvation, he has to forgo his tradition, make like a Gentile, and trust this gospel of the uncircumcision, because that is what the Spirit concluded that nation - "uncircumcised in heart and ears."

In this, it is not strange at all then, that in Acts 21, James relates to Paul their having heard he has dropped the circumcision requirement among those Jews in his ministry.

As for James, Cephas and John, after all this; they agree to confine their ministry, not as per the Matthew 28 "all nations" commission, rather "unto the circumcision."

Hunh?

A passage like Acts 10:45 identifies those as "they of the circumcision which believed." Acts 11: 2 refers to them as "they that were of the circumcision."

That is a reference to they of the circumcision which believed before Israel was cut off - Romans 11: 7. What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

Hebrews thru Revelation speaks to these of the circumcision which believed, before Israel fell, at Acts 7.

Romans thru Philemon speaks to uncircumcision Jew and Gentile after Israel's fall; Romans 3.

Now, here is an interesting question - why then do we read in Acts 11:19 "Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen [back I Acts 8] travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only" ?

And why have there numbers grown into "many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law" by Acts 21:20?

BOOYAH!

And that's the rest of the story.

Ya'll come on in to TOL and get schooled.

 

[oatmeal]

In Acts 10:34-43

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.

36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all

37 That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;

38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:

40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;

41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.

42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.

43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

Did Peter teach anything to these Gentiles that he did not, in some form teach before?

The gospel he had previously spoke in Jerusalem, Judea and in Samaria, worked for the Gentiles as well.

 

[Interplanner]

Check that 43rd verse: all the prophets testify that he would provide for the forgiveness of sins in his work.

 

[Danoh]

In Acts 10:34-43

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.

36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all

37 That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;

38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:

40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;

41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.

42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.

43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

Did Peter teach anything to these Gentiles that he did not, in some form teach before?

The gospel he had previously spoke in Jerusalem, Judea and in Samaria, worked for the Gentiles as well.

A Using Scripture alone, what is your understanding of...

1 Why the 12 had yet gone to the Gentiles
2 The vision given Peter in Acts 10
3 Peter's problem with its instruction
4 Peter's having to be told to go nothing doubting
5 Peter's explanation to Cornelius about his hesitation
6 Peter's still not knowing why he was sent to him
7 Peter's words about every nation, fear, working righteousness
8 Peter's preaching being cut off before he was finished
9 The Gentiles speaking in tongues
10 Their astonishment the Gentiles spoke in tongues
11 Peter's water baptizing them afterwards
12 Peter's what was I to resist comment in chap. 11

B Again, based on Scripture alone - as the answers to any that and the like issues, have far too often been based on the notions of book writers parroting the notions of book writers before them down through the centuries - none of which have appeared to:

1] have invested time in Scripture alone

2] not only as to the answers to these issues,

3] but as to the perspective the Scripture alone reveals

4] such issues must first be identified through Scripture

5] and then viewed through for their proper understanding

C Acts 17:

2. And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
3. Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.
4. And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few.
5. But the Jews which believed not, moved with envy, took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, and gathered a company, and set all the city on an uproar, and assaulted the house
of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people.

8. And they troubled the people and the rulers of the city, when they heard these things.
9. And when they had taken security of Jason, and of the other, they let them go.
10. And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.

11. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
12. Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.
13. But when the Jews of Thessalonica had knowledge that the word of God was preached of Paul at Berea, they came thither also, and stirred up the people.

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that...

1] they received the word with all readiness of mind,

2] and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

3] Therefore many of them believed.

D Also - perhaps for some other time...

Per the added witness of Romans 15 and 1 and 2 Thessalonians, et al, it is obvious that Paul had been given new information not found in Scripture previous to Paul's own writings, that Paul had related to these people.

Information the Spirit would make evident through signs and wonders, as Paul was sharing said information with them, that it too was from God.

Luke does really go into this in Acts. And all this too, is worth exploring as to why, why not - and from passages that relate said why, why not - and not from our notions...

Thanks...

 

[john w]

Check that 43rd verse: all the prophets testify that he would provide for the forgiveness of sins in his work.

1 Peter 1 KJV

10 Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:

11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.

 

[Shasta]

[heir;4398772]And Galatians 2:7 KJV shows us there were two gospels! Peter didn't even know "that gospel" that Paul preached until Paul went up by revelation and communicated it unto them! It was then that "they saw" it (Galatians 1:1-7 KJV)!

Peter did not know precisely what was going on in Paul’s ministry or what he was teaching. He would have known something about him from the conversations they had immediately prior to Paul 's deportation to Tarsus.

According to Paul he went up to Jerusalem, according to a revelation he had received. ( http://biblehub.com/interlinear/galatians/2-2.htm ) This “revelation” had nothing to do with Paul's revelations on matters of doctrine. The “revelation” was that that he should go and meet with them at that particular time. It turned out to be a strategic move since the Judaizers were preparing to forge an alliance with the Apostles against Paul. Paul and company thwarted their scheme and ended up joining in fellowship with the Apostles.

Your description of what took place at this meeting does not appear in the text but is part of the MAD meta-narrative. For instance, the meta-narrative has Paul dazzling the Disciples with all his revelatons but the Biblical narrative says nothing of the sort. Paul himself said he “set before them” the gospel he had been preaching to the Gentiles “to see if he had been running in vain.” This does not sound like a man who intends to give instruction but one who is open, if necessary, to receive it.

One of the primary purposes of that meeting was to establish in the eyes of the Church at large that Paul was united to the Apostles in fellowship and doctrine. The best way to do that was to have the original Disciples review and give their approval of his teaching. The only way the Apostles had of authenticating his gospel was by comparing it to what they already knew - which was what Jesus had taught them. From Paul's statement that that they had “nothing” to add to him we gather that the they thought his teaching was complete, satisfactory and in need of no corrections.

Now I do not think Paul doubted for a moment that his doctrine was correct. He met with those reputed to be “pillars of the Church,” not because he was in awe of them but to join forces in order silence those who were opposing him.

It was then that they "perceived the grace" given unto Paul (Galatians 2:9 KJV)!While I agree that God wrought effectually in Peter and mighty in Paul (Galatians 2:8 KJV), there was a difference in the salvation each preached.

Contrary to what you seem to think the word “grace” has nothing to do with revelation. Grace can mean “Divine enabling” Contextually it means the power to undertake and administer the apostolic office (Thayer, http://biblehub.com/greek/5485.htm). See also B]Romans 15:15-16[/B]. In other words, the Apostles were able to see how the Lord had worked through Paul and his companions to reach the Gentiles. Their effectiveness in ministry was taken as a sign of their calling.

BTW what in the world do you mean by different salvations?

When you make things up, expect to be corrected! Paul never says there "was no other gospel than his".

I thought I made my point clear on that. I will have to come back to it.

The key to understanding what Paul is saying is number one, believe what IT says. Second, the key to understanding Galatians 1:8-9 KJV is "unto you". And look at how many times Paul writes it. He's emphatic! Paul is telling the Galatians that if any man including himself and an angel from heaven preached any other gospel UNTO THEM (the Galatians) than that which Paul and those who accompanied him preached UNTO THEM, let him be accursed!

Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Galatians 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

If someone were to preach the old Jewish gospel now would they be accursed also and how would a believer know if they were doing it?

 

[Danoh]

You are not being "objective" Shasta; compare Galatians 2 with Acts 15 and it becomes obvious why Paul met with the Jerusalem leadership privately first - because he had already had his time wasted by those not in authority and he had no desire for another round of that.

And Paul relates that when he met with their Apostles and elders, they added nothing unto him, rather, that when they perceived the grace that was given unto him, they agreed they were no longer under the "go ye unto all nations" of Matthew 28; Luke 24; Acts 1, but were to now confine their ministry to the circumcision.

Sure enough, both before and after Paul's private meeting with their Apostles and elders, he is met with those against his ministry among the Gentiles absent circumcision and the Law twice more.

As for this grace given Paul; he relates what it is in 1 Corinthians 3; in Ephesians 3, and elsewhere, as does Peter in 2 Peter 3.

And it was information that radically changed the course of the Twelve's so called Great Commission.

A commission you and yours have yet to show you have ever properly understood.

Fact is Paul was not needed for that commission; the Twelve had been empowered from on High. There is another dynamic at work you and yours have never looked into - all you and yours do is parrot the same old off-base conclusions as to these issues.

 

[heir]

Check that 43rd verse: all the prophets testify that he would provide for the forgiveness of sins in his work.

remission of sins!

To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

There is NO mention of the gospel of Christ in Acts 10 to Corne and his house!

Study!

 

[heir]

Peter did not know Peter did not know precisely what was going on in Paul’s ministry or what he was teaching. He would have known something about him from the conversations they had immediately prior to Paul 's deportation to Tarsus.

According to Paul he went up to Jerusalem, according to a revelation he had received. ( http://biblehub.com/interlinear/galatians/2-2.htm ) This “revelation” had nothing to do with Paul's revelations on matters of doctrine. The “revelation” was that that he should go and meet with them at that particular time. It turned out to be a strategic move since the Judaizers were preparing to forge an alliance with the Apostles against Paul. Paul and company thwarted their scheme and ended up joining in fellowship with the Apostles.

Peter did not know "that gospel" that Paul "preached among the Gentiles" until Paul went up by revelation to communicate it unto them. It was then that they "saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto Paul"! It was then that they "perceived the grace that was given" unto Paul!perceived the grace that was given unto Paul. There's no need for YOU or anyone else to change what it says. I believe it means what it says.

Galatians 2:1 Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.

Galatians 2:2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

Galatians 2:3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:

Galatians 2:4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:

Galatians 2:5 To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.

Galatians 2:6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:

Galatians 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

Galatians 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles

Galatians 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

 

[Jacob]

Did Paul preach the (his) gospel among the Gentiles after he went up by way of revelation?

 

[heir]

If someone were to preach the old Jewish gospel now would they be accursed also and how would a believer know if they were doing it?

If someone were to preach any other gospel unto us than that which Paul preached, let him be accursed! That includes someone/anyone preaching the gospel of the kingdom as to us, the gospel of the circumcision as to us, the everlasting gospel in Rev as to us.

 

[Shasta]

[Danoh;4400604]Paul was saved and called into that gospel of [concerning] Christ that he preached after Israel's fall.

I would say, to put it mildly, that the public execution of Steven was certainly a grave offense against the Holy Spirit but so was the execution of the prophets by their forefathers and the Lord did not give up on them. It is ironic that Steven's remark about their killing the prophets was what enraged them to the point of killing him. Still I do not see that this incident as the final demarcation of their apostasy. Did Steven himself not ask God to forgive them? The fact is, many people continued to come to Christ. Of course, we cannot forget the conversion of Saul of Tarsus who was not only present but was the ringleader at Steven's execution.

I do not see that God's dealings with Israel stopped abruptly. That is not usually how individuals harden their hearts much less whole nations. Sharp demarcations do exist and if there is a particular event we can use to identify the changes in how God deals with us then we have a valid point. However men like to get things squared away so that they will fit neatly into charts and Study Bibles. According to history most all of the Twelve eventually left the homeland and went into the Gentile nations following the instructions given to them by their Master to "go into all the world."

James, the brother of Jesus, continued to lead the Jewish mission in Jerusalem until he was executed in 70 AD. Josephus said James was highly respected by the Jewish people. Josephus even thought his murder was the reason God allowed the temple to be destroyed. Talk about a testimony! Still, it was not enough to convince the majority of Jewish people that his brother was the promised Messiah.

In Galatians 2:2, he refers to it as "that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles."

He is referring to what he commonly taught and proclaimed. There is no need to infer that he meant anything else. That would mean importing ideas INTO the passage that were not actually stated

The Judaizers had been trying to drive a wedge between Paul and the Apostles by misrepresenting what Paul had been teaching. What they said was probably troubling to the Apostles. Specifically, they accused Paul of trying to eradicate certain practices of the Jewish religion like circumcision, the celebration of the Festivals and eating non-Kosher foods. Probably they also accused him of antinomianism.

In 2:7, he refers to it as "the gospel of the uncircumcision."

Corinthians 1:18-24 & Romans 1:16 link the singular noun THE GOSPEL with TWO nouns representing the populations that were to receive it. The Jews were referred to as “the circumcision” and the Gentiles, “the uncircumcision” (or the Greeks because they were the main ethic group). According to these passages only one gospel is necessary to save both groups. Did Paul changed his mind in Galatians 2:7 to say that TWO gospels are necessary? I do not think so, We should always look for the unity in the scriptures not the disunity.

Still, there is a scripture in Galatians that seems to be saying this:

But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; (Galatians 2:7 ]KJV [COLOR="Red"-Cambridge Edition[/COLOR])

The KJV italicizes the second mention of the noun “gospel” to show that those words [U]did not appear in the original text[/U]. Unless italicized words are also part of the verbal plenary inspiration of the KJV then we have to take into account what the verse says WITHOUT the added words.

Here is the word-for-word translation of the original. Observe that it omits the italicized words: [url]http://biblehub.com/text/galatians/2-7.htm[/url]

When the word is omitted as it is in the HCSB, the NASB and the NET Bible it reads like this

[I]But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with THE GOSPEL to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised[/I] (Galatians 2:7 NASB)

Now the word gospel is [B]singular[/B] while the target audience is [B]plural[/B] just as it is in the scriptures I cited at the outset of this post. It is easy to be misled if we read too much into the preposition OF (the circumcision and uncircumcision) until we remember that the preposition “of” does not appear in the original text but was added to facilitate translation. Actually it just indicates that the noun is in the genitive case. "OF" is a general default way to translate the sense of the genitive but only context can determine whether it is the best. Instead of the preposition “OF” the NASB uses “TO” while the HCSB uses “FOR”

[I]On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised, just as Peter was for the circumcised,[/I] ([B]Galatians 1:6-7 [/B]HCSB)

Historian and Greek Linguist Philip Schaff, editor of the encyclopedic translation of the writings of the Early Church Fathers said that when when the scriptures speak of the

[QUOTE]“[U]gospel of the uncircumcision...means simply... the evangelization of the Gentiles. The gospel is the same, but the sphere of labor is different Paul was directed to the field of heathen missions at his conversion (which coincided with his call and apostleship)[/QUOTE]

Greek Linguist Adolf Deissman wrote that the Greek term “[COLOR="DarkRed"]entrusted[/COLOR]” refers to

“the secretary who was charged by the emperor with his Greek correspondence ( quoted in the Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges).

THE (one) Gospel was given to the care of couriers who would deliver the mail to their assigned recipients. This did not mean there was something essentially different about their messages.

From what you have said it seems you have contempt for the ideas of “men” although you apparently are okay with accepting the views of MAD which had disappeared without a trace by the end of the First Century only to make a late reappearance in the 1800s. Still, I thought to include those quotations for those who make it their business to study the original language of the Bible.

After hearing Paul explain what he had been teaching, the Apostles realized his doctrine was not false but that it was congruent to what the what they had been taught by Jesus. This was the only template they had for ascertaining the correctness of any doctrine or system of theology. I doubt if anyone outside the meeting, those who had doubts about Paul and his teachings would have been reassured to learn that he had come to town with fresh revelation unheard of by the Apostles of Jesus that they knew so well. Continuity in the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles was the only way to assure them Paul was orthodox and this the Apostles could affirm for they had been with Jesus.

By Galatians 2:7 the focus had ALREADY turned from the content of Paul’s message to that of their respective mission fields. The verses that follow confirm that this is now the focus.

And in 2:8, he relates that his Apostleship was the Apostleship of the Gentiles [the uncircumcision].

In 2:9, he agrees to confine his preaching "unto the heathen."

Bear with me a moment...

The word “confine” is too strong a word since, as you know, Paul continued to preach to the Jews every Sabbath in the synagogues and Peter preached to Gentiles. In fact, as the number of Gentiles in the Church grew the distinction between them and the Jews became less distinct so that in the Corinthian Church Peter, Paul and Apollos were all considered co-laborers. By the end of the First Century, long after Paul and Peter had been executed, the Apostle John, the only remaining member of the original Twelve is living in Ephesus and preaching the truths contained in his gospel and letters to primarily Gentile Christians.

This Gospel of Christ = that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles = the gospel of the uncircumcision = unto the heathen.

The key is in identifying who these Gentiles; these Uncircumcision; these Heathen, are.

The term by definition meant non-Jews

Paul entered into that agreement way before he later wrote Romans 1: 17's "to the Jews first..."

Further, Paul is depicted going to the Jew from Acts 9 when he was saved, to the very last chapter of Acts.

What about this agreement he'd entered into with James; Cephas and John years before Acts 28 - that he would go unto the heathen, and they would go unto the uncircumcision?

Therein lies the answer to this two gospel assertion we of Mid-Acts hold to [though we differ with one another within Mid-Acts as to some of the particulars, neverthless we do hold to this much about this issue].

It only crucial in the MAD paradigm. I agree that the outreach to the Jews was conducted in a somewhat different manner than that to the Gentiles. For instance Paul when working among Jews sometimes followed the customs of the law. James the Brother of Jesus was very Jewish. Even now, outreaches to Jews emphasize Jesus as a fulfillment of OT prophecy. Paul who understood more about the Gentile mind was able to reach out to them very effectively. Still none of this necessitates the existence of two different gospels.

MAD is never explicitly stated but always must be inferred. It is never all in one place either. When one examined the text evidence evaporates and ones attention is drawn elsewhere. Chasing down the MAD paradigm is like snipe hunting. I went on such a hunt when I was a boy and while none of us actually saw any snipes, somewhere in the process we all got into the enthusiastic pursuit, so that we believed we saw them everywhere.

Although my questions have not been answered here I commend your effort to put forth all the ideas. Of course, it seems no one has given as detailed an argument for MAD as Jerry (and I did not believe either). I did not want to denigrate the work you put into this post by ignoring it.

 

[Danoh]

Shasta, you continue to assert things based on your notions and supposed history. I was going by the Book in a Mid-Acts manner way before I ever even heard of Mid-Acts.

Why? Scope, context, who, what, when, where, why, and how.

You fools never stop to consider that such has been a possibility outside of recorded history, let alone, outside of what the victors in history have always been known to leave out of their rewrite of history.

You fools are still watching John Wayne movies depicting how the "Christian" European saved the day he himself made a great genocide out of, starring paleface as the Indian.

 

[Shasta]

BOOYAH!

And that's the rest of the story.

Ya'll come on in to TOL and get schooled.

It is the rest...of the MAD meta-narrative. When it is examined in specific passages it evaporates and is found only to be a story. There is a reason why the majority of Christendom did not see it from the First Century until today except the heretical Marcionite cult of the Second Century and the group in the 1800s from which you inherited the teaching.

 

[Danoh]

It is the rest...of the MAD meta-narrative. When it is examined in specific passages it evaporates and is found only to be a story. There is a reason why the majority of Christendom did not see it from the First Century until today except the heretical Marcionite cult of the Second Century and the group in the 1800s from which you inherited the teaching.

And all you have to do is prove your case.

But you can't. Your every other sentence is the history is this, the history is that...

You are book learned, rather than Book learned.

That you would find difference given this great error of yours is no surprise.

That you would conclude we got ours out of a book is no surprise either - its where you and yours think all the answers are, so long as said so called books match your endless books.

Try your nonsense with Jerry - now he did get his Mid-Acts out of books.

This is evident in his/your same practice of isolating one passage that it fit the error he asserts through one or another passage.

I gave you passage after passage after passage. You gave me your books learned manner of reasoning into a thing.

You are, in short, one more books learned fool.

 

[Shasta]

Shasta, you continue to assert things based on your notions and supposed history. I was going by the Book in a Mid-Acts manner way before I ever even heard of Mid-Acts.

Why? Scope, context, who, what, when, where, why, and how.

You fools never stop to consider that such has been a possibility outside of recorded history, let alone, outside of what the victors in history have always been known to leave out of their rewrite of history.

You fools are still watching John Wayne movies depicting how the "Christian" European saved the day he himself made a great genocide out of, starring paleface as the Indian.

I was talking about the Big Picture, that is, large numbers of people and how they have typically read the scriptures throughout the centuries. Regardless of what you believe you discovered in your private studies the majority of Christendom never saw two gospels in the NT not even those who lived in the earliest centuries who could read the Bible in the original Greek because it was their native language. While that is not exegetical proof the historical argument is compelling, to me at least. It does not make sense that the Apostles did not teach even the first few generations that followed them about the so called Jewish and Gentile gospels.

I have no idea what you are talking about with this about John Wayne analogy. Your point, I suppose, is that those Westerns did not reflect true history but were a myth. Yet what I have said is historical. Have you read the history of the Church or have you in your private meditation come up with a myth to support your belief system? You know the knowledge of history, is not something you can learn through intuition and revelation. You actually have to find facts which you do by reading. Sometimes you have to read literature other than the Bible, something which you seem to put people down for doing. Whenever Jerry quotes a source you mock as if you have a bias against reading.

Do you think I do not know what writers from the First through Fourth Centuries said about the "Gospel" I checked not because their word was canon but because I wanted to see if the concept of dual gospels existed in their minds or developed. If you want to find out what was taught you too can read their works which have been preserved.

You seem to have taken the path of the liberals and non-believers in saying that "The Church" censored out everything that it did not believe. The conspiracy theory holds that somewhere a long time ago Christians believed just like I do but that their views were suppressed until even the mention of it was redacted from their writings. Well the Catholic Church did not come into existence for many centuries. I generally read what was taught in the earliest centuries Copies of what the Greek speaking Apologists and Expositors of that era were saying were written and preserved long before the Catholic Church. Besides, the Catholics, having already canonized some of them were not in any position to suppress their writings even when they disagreed with their changing doctrines. So no - there is no evidence of any concerted effort to redact the "true" teaching of dual gospels if that is what you were implying.

If they were able and willing to do redact whatever writings they wished, why did they not suppress the writings of all the heretics? They allowed them to exist in the Early Centuries choosing rather to refute them. Men like Clement of Alexandria made it a point to collect and read heretical writings. Apologists like Tertullian and Ireneus quoted them extensively in order to refute them.

No calling me a fool is not the proper way to debate me. Unless you have evidence to prove your claims about what I have said this is no more than a personal attack, the kind favored by so many here.

Come Danoh I expected better of you

 

[heir]

It is the rest...of the MAD meta-narrative. When it is examined in specific passages it evaporates and is found only to be a story.There is a reason why the majority of Christendom did not see it from the First Century until today...

flat out rebellion against 2 Timothy 2:15 KJV!

 

[glorydaz]

And all you have to do is prove your case.

But you can't. Your every other sentence is the history is this, the history is that...

You are book learned, rather than Book learned.

That you would find difference given this great error of yours is no surprise.

That you would conclude we got ours out of a book is no surprise either - its where you and yours think all the answers are, so long as said so called books match your endless books.

Try your nonsense with Jerry - now he did get his Mid-Acts out of books.

This is evident in his/your same practice of isolating one passage that it fit the error he asserts through one or another passage.

I gave you passage after passage after passage. You gave me your books learned manner of reasoning into a thing.

You are, in short, one more books learned fool.

It's really the same thing the Catholic Church does. They've been doing it for years so it must be right. :nono:

 

[glorydaz]

I was talking about the Big Picture, that is, large numbers of people and how they have typically read the scriptures throughout the centuries. Regardless of what you believe you discovered in your private studies the majority of Christendom never saw two gospels in the NT not even those who lived in the earliest centuries who could read the Bible in the original Greek because it was their native language.

Paul spoke of his Gospel for a reason. So, yes, others have seen it.

You just don't think anyone saw it because they didn't necessarily call it such. But surely you don't think no one could tell the difference between "repent and be baptised" with "believe unto righteousness" or the "obedience" to "commandments" with the "obedience of faith". Of course they have seen it and many have wondered and others have figured out why.