Paul's Gospel and the Gospels

[Theo102]

If those were anti-christ in nature, why should any disciple have carried them on as truth?

Because deception is what the devil does.

And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
Revelation 12:9

 

[Bendito]

What do you think is out of context re my #17, reposted below?

I'm sorry Theo. Sometimes I put my post in the wrong place...I meant to put it as an answer to Mr. Quantrill..

 

[Quantrill]

Ok...So you split one gospe.l into three parts. Its still one gospel..... All of Pauls teaching is backed up by Jesus' teaching. As for the rest of your speil here....Yeah...well....Its garbage.....and I'll probably be chastised for not being PC for putting it that way. A gospel from the angels indeed!

No. I said there were three gospels. All of Paul's teaching is backed up by Jesus because Jesus gave Paul his gospel. That doesn't make Paul's gospel the gospel of the Kingdom which is what Jesus preached.

Well, until you can refute the 'garbage' you might be a little careful. If you checked the Scripture reference I gave for the 'everlasting gospel' you will see that it was spoken of by the angels. (Rev. 14:6-7)

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

Jesus would not have taught contrary to His New Testament gospel. Not to a single soul. Peter's preaching was right-on, confirming Paul and Jesus. Not one idea of Jesus was wasted on Jews. Take the whole together as one volume. All of Jesus' sermons are applicable to modern Christians. If those were anti-christ in nature, why should any disciple have carried them on as truth?

Let's see...let me check. No, I didn't say Jesus taught contrary to His New Testament gospel. Did I. Why do you say 'contrary'?

I didn't say anything Jesus said was wasted on Jews.

What does that mean?...."Take the whole together as one volume"?

I didn't say what Jesus said was not applicable for us.

I didn't say what Jesus said was anti-christian. Where did you come up with these strange accusations? You assume much.

Quantrill

 

[Bendito]

No. I said there were three gospels. All of Paul's teaching is backed up by Jesus because Jesus gave Paul his gospel. That doesn't make Paul's gospel the gospel of the Kingdom which is what Jesus preached.

Well, until you can refute the 'garbage' you might be a little careful. If you checked the Scripture reference I gave for the 'everlasting gospel' you will see that it was spoken of by the angels. (Rev. 14:6-7)

Quantrill

All three of your gospels are the same gospel.

 

[Theo102]

All of Paul's teaching is backed up by Jesus because Jesus gave Paul his gospel.

According to Paul. This position isn't sound because of differences like the differences in the summaries of the law.

That doesn't make Paul's gospel the gospel of the Kingdom which is what Jesus preached.

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.
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.
Galatians 1:8-9

 

[Quantrill]

All three of your gospels are the same gospel.

They are not my gospels. I showed you in Scripture. All you give me is 'no it's not' or 'yes it is'.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

According to Paul. This position isn't sound because of differences like the differences in the summaries of the law.


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.
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.
Galatians 1:8-9

Did Jesus give Paul his gospel or not? (Gal. 1:11-12) If yes, then Jesus would certainly back up Paul's teaching.

Concerning (Gal. 1:8-9)....So?

Quantrill

 

[Theo102]

Did Jesus give Paul his gospel or not?

No, because the gospels are not the same.

Concerning (Gal. 1:8-9)....So?

So Paul is effectively cursing the Messiah for preaching the gospel of the kingdom of heaven, since Paul didn't preach that gospel.

From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Mat. 4:17

 

[Quantrill]

No, because the gospels are not the same.


So Paul is effectively cursing the Messiah for preaching the gospel of the kingdom of heaven, since Paul didn't preach that gospel.

From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Mat. 4:17

Read again (Gal. 1:11-12). The only answer is yes. Do you just ignore it?

You make a foolish statement. Paul is preaching the gospel Christ gave him to preach. The gospel of the kingdom was no longer in play as the King was rejected.

Stranger

 

[Theo102]

Read again (Gal. 1:11-12).

Why? What point do you think that I'm missing?

 

[Quantrill]

Why? What point do you think that I'm missing?

You said Jesus did not give Paul his gospel when (Gal. 1:11-12) clearly says He did.

Quantrill

 

[Theo102]

You said Jesus did not give Paul his gospel ...

I didn't say it, but it is implied by the differences between Paul's doctrine of vicarious sacrifice and the Messiah's repudiation of sacrifice:

Matthew 9
13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Matthew 21
13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves (λῃστής).

λῃστής: Not to be confounded with thief (κλέπτης) , one who takes property by stealth.

Jeremiah 7
11 Is this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers (פרצ) in your eyes? Behold, even I have seen it, saith YHWH.

פרצ: violent one, breaker robber, murderer

Another difference is found in their summaries of the law:

Galatians 5
14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, [even] in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Matthew 22
35 Then one of them, [which was] a lawyer, asked [him a question], tempting him, and saying,
36 Master, which [is] the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

... when (Gal. 1:11-12) clearly says He did.

Paul also said that the Messiah appointed him as a minister and a witness on the road to Damascus (Acts 26:15-18), but according to earlier accounts he was simply told to continue to Damacus for instructions (Acts 9:6, Acts 22:10).

 

[Quantrill]

I didn't say it, but it is implied by the differences between Paul's doctrine of vicarious sacrifice and the Messiah's repudiation of sacrifice:

Matthew 9
13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Matthew 21
13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves (λῃστής).

λῃστής: Not to be confounded with thief (κλέπτης) , one who takes property by stealth.

Jeremiah 7
11 Is this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers (פרצ) in your eyes? Behold, even I have seen it, saith YHWH.

פרצ: violent one, breaker robber, murderer

Another difference is found in their summaries of the law:

Galatians 5
14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, [even] in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Matthew 22
35 Then one of them, [which was] a lawyer, asked [him a question], tempting him, and saying,
36 Master, which [is] the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.



Paul also said that the Messiah appointed him as a minister and a witness on the road to Damascus (Acts 26:15-18), but according to earlier accounts he was simply told to continue to Damacus for instructions (Acts 9:6, Acts 22:10).

You did say that. See post [HASH=1747]#(29[/HASH]). Say you made a mistake. Say anything. But don't sit there and say you didn't say it.

Your effort at Paul and Christ seeing a difference in sacrifice is futile. The same is true with your effort at trying to make a difference in the law. There is no difference in the Law. There is a difference when one is under Law or not.

So what is your point with Paul's accounts of his being called by God?

This brings us back to my point that Paul's gospel was given him by Jesus Christ. (Gal. 1:11-12) And this gospel had never been preached before. (Eph. 3:2-9) Thus you have different gospels. And our gospel that we preach today is that which is given to Paul.

Quantrill

 

[Theo102]

You did say that. See post [HASH=1747]#(29[/HASH])

What I said was "No, because the gospels are not the same" in response to your question "Did Jesus give Paul his gospel or not?"
You asked the question, I didn't say it outright. You left out the essential point that the gospels are not the same.

Your effort at Paul and Christ seeing a difference in sacrifice is futile.

So you're refusing to acknowledge the facts which show that there's a difference between Paul's gospel and the one that the Messiah preached, right?

There is no difference in the Law.

The difference is that Paul's summary of the law makes no reference to deity.

There is a difference when one is under Law or not.

Either someone is under the Mosiac law or they're not. What law do you think that Paul was talking about in Galatians 5:14?

So what is your point with Paul's accounts of his being called by God?

The point is that there's a contradiction. This contradiction is part of a larger pattern, for example Paul's accounts of the reason that he was brought before the Sanhedrin after the riot at the temple.

 

[Quantrill]

What I said was "No, because the gospels are not the same" in response to your question "Did Jesus give Paul his gospel or not?"
You asked the question, I didn't say it outright. You left out the essential point that the gospels are not the same.


So you're refusing to acknowledge the facts which show that there's a difference between Paul's gospel and the one that the Messiah preached, right?


The difference is that Paul's summary of the law makes no reference to deity.


Either someone is under the Mosiac law or they're not. What law do you think that Paul was talking about in Galatians 5:14?


The point is that there's a contradiction. This contradiction is part of a larger pattern, for example Paul's accounts of the reason that he was brought before the Sanhedrin after the riot at the temple.

Please. You stated my question. You replied 'No'. How is that not 'outright' ? Now your crawfishing. You savy 'crawfish'?

Go back to post [HASH=1775]#(9[/HASH]). Tell me then that I make no distinction in the gospels. You have moved from ignorance to lying.

Again, there is no difference in the Law. Quit trying to change the subject matter. You only reveal you don't know what you are talking about.

There is no contradiction. But you do reveal your own false belief.

Quantrill

 

[Theo102]

Please. You stated my question.

After I replied to it.

You replied 'No'. How is that not 'outright' ?

Because I didn't define the terms of the question, you did. This is relevant because since you framed the terms of the question, any ambiguity in that question works in my favour, not yours. The ambiguity is in whether or not you were asking my opinion or whether you were asking for the truth. You're attempting to own the dialogue so that you can evade the point that my response to your question was based on facts, not simple opinion.

You've made it clear that you won't address the facts, so you're attempting a collateral attack because that's your best chance to make to it appear as though you've got a point to make.

The primary fact is that there's a difference between Paul's doctrine of vicarious sacrifice and the Messiah's repudiation of sacrifice.

A secondary difference is found in their summaries of the law, since Paul's summary makes no reference to deity, while the Messiah's does.

Galatians 5
14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, [even] in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Matthew 22
35 Then one of them, [which was] a lawyer, asked [him a question], tempting him, and saying,
36 Master, which [is] the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

 

[Quantrill]

After I replied to it.


Because I didn't define the terms of the question, you did. This is relevant because since you framed the terms of the question, any ambiguity in that question works in my favour, not yours. The ambiguity is in whether or not you were asking my opinion or whether you were asking for the truth. You're attempting to own the dialogue so that you can evade the point that my response to your question was based on facts, not simple opinion.

You've made it clear that you won't address the facts, so you're attempting a collateral attack because that's your best chance to make to it appear as though you've got a point to make.

The primary fact is that there's a difference between Paul's doctrine of vicarious sacrifice and the Messiah's repudiation of sacrifice.

A secondary difference is found in their summaries of the law, since Paul's summary makes no reference to deity, while the Messiah's does.

Galatians 5
14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, [even] in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Matthew 22
35 Then one of them, [which was] a lawyer, asked [him a question], tempting him, and saying,
36 Master, which [is] the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

It was my question. That is how it works. You don't have to answer if you don't want to. But you answered ignorantly. Now you're trying to cover your tracks.

The question was and still is, did Jesus give Paul his gospel. (Gal. 1:11-12) says "...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."

Do you still say no?

Paul's view of the sacrifice of Christ is no different than Jesus view. Just because the law can be summarized does not mean there is any difference in the law.

Quantrill

 

[Theo102]

It was my question. That is how it works.

You own the ambiguity. That's how it works.

You don't have to answer if you don't want to.

I've already answered.

But you answered ignorantly.

What do you think I was ignorant of?

 

[Quantrill]

You own the ambiguity. That's how it works.


I've already answered.


What do you think I was ignorant of?

There was no ambiguity. It was a simple question. Did Jesus give Paul his gospel?

Yes you answered. You said 'No'. No ambiguity there. Just ignorance. When you read (Gal. 1:11-12) the only answer is yes. Now, for you to say the answer is still 'no', is not ignorance, but rejection of Scripture.

I just explained how you were ignorant but now reject the plain teaching of Scripture. All the while, hiding behind your creation of 'ambiguity'.

Quantrill