Which gospel?
- Thread starter heir
- Start date
There were two separate Messages being preached back then:
1) The Kingdom Message was being preached by the Apostle Peter and the rest, to the House of Israel.
2) The Grace Message was being preached to the Gentiles by the Apostle Paul.
Paul was preaching: God's Grace received by faith alone. (To the Gentiles)
Peter was preaching: God's Grace through faith and works. (To the Hebrews.)
Today, both Jew and Gentile receive God's Grace through faith alone. The Grace Gospel
is the only Gospel for today in this Dispensation of Grace.
Neither one of these Cults are Christian.
Sonnet
New member
No way.
Galatians 1:8-9. Pater preached the same message.
Paul preached to Jews as well, but focused on the Gentiles. Peter, too, would have preached to Gentiles.
Peter preached to the House of Israel. His Message was different from Paul's. Paul received his Gospel from the Ascended Christ Himself. Paul was made the Apostle to the Gentiles.
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; As you can see there were two Messages. (Gospels) being taught back then.
Paul was speaking in Galations here.
Remember, Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles. It was his Message that was to go to the Uncircumcised. (Gentiles)
Romans 11:13 "For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:"
Sonnet
New member
But obviously Paul's warnings applied irrespective.
Common sense dictates, that if they all were teaching the same Message, then, why send just one man to the Gentiles and the rest to the Jews? They could easily just, all go together, if it was the same Message but, it wasn't.
Sonnet
New member
Paul taught in the synagogues. He shared the Gospel with them. Peter addressed Jews and all those in Jerusalem in Acts 2.
Paul was speaking of his Gospel. I don't wish to belabor this discussion. If you disagree we'll just have to agree to disagree, okay?
Sonnet
New member
1 Cor 15.:11
Sonnet
New member
Sonnet, you told me in the beginning that you weren't certain of where you stand so far as becoming a Christian. You said you were seeking out the truth. Well, when someone tells you something, and all you do is disagree, (Not having any knowledge to begin with about the subject) then, it doesn't seem like you really are serious about learning anything? So, I'll let you discuss these subjects with someone else. I don't wish to argue with you.
Sonnet
New member
Why would you say I don't have any knowledge?
I'm done.
Sonnet
New member
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Why should I trust Paul ?
Why should I trust Paul ?
Hi heir,
I've added more to my former post here. I believe in a universal gospel of the kingdom based on the Fatherhood of God and Brotherhood of man proclaimed by Jesus and taught by his apostles and followers, however their teachings may have changed, altered and modified certain aspects of the original teaching...as often happens within the evolution of any given religious tradition or culture.
Since Jesus didnt necessarily promise the coming of a 13th disciple, and warned of false teachers coming in his name, I dont see any precedent or imperative to believe Paul as precisely as you do but to take his words carefully and discern them in relation to the words of Jesus and the original 12 apostles. Since I also do not believe the NT contains the whole or final truth of Jesus, and the biblical record is imperfect and subject human error and embellishments....I find other sources for Jesus teaching and universal truth in general as helpful in discovering what Jesus is all about and the various ways to interpret the Christ story and message (historically, allegorically, mythically, and so on).
Your insistence then for exalting Paul's gospel as the only one that "saves" is incidental to taking the NT under the assumption that it favors a Pauline disposition, but I see that more of how it was canonized and made by scribes/editors to appear that way when there is much more to consider in the historical context. See: The Paul Problem
Why should I trust Paul ?
Hi heir,
I've added more to my former post here. I believe in a universal gospel of the kingdom based on the Fatherhood of God and Brotherhood of man proclaimed by Jesus and taught by his apostles and followers, however their teachings may have changed, altered and modified certain aspects of the original teaching...as often happens within the evolution of any given religious tradition or culture.
Since Jesus didnt necessarily promise the coming of a 13th disciple, and warned of false teachers coming in his name, I dont see any precedent or imperative to believe Paul as precisely as you do but to take his words carefully and discern them in relation to the words of Jesus and the original 12 apostles. Since I also do not believe the NT contains the whole or final truth of Jesus, and the biblical record is imperfect and subject human error and embellishments....I find other sources for Jesus teaching and universal truth in general as helpful in discovering what Jesus is all about and the various ways to interpret the Christ story and message (historically, allegorically, mythically, and so on).
Your insistence then for exalting Paul's gospel as the only one that "saves" is incidental to taking the NT under the assumption that it favors a Pauline disposition, but I see that more of how it was canonized and made by scribes/editors to appear that way when there is much more to consider in the historical context. See: The Paul Problem