Jesus and Paul -two different gospels?
- Thread starter phil36
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
You paulines do not get it.
The law is adam in reverse.
The law starts with sinful man AND SHOWCASES his sin. Under the law the way to RIGHTEOUSNESS is being RIGHTEOUS.
IOW... I CAN actually be JUSTIFIED by the law.
In order for me to do that I would need to have NEVER SINNED FROM A TODLER TO THE DAY I DIE.
Do you see the futility of the law??????
IOW ALL THE LAW CAN POSSIBLY DO IS SHOWCASE MY SIN.
You guys are so ignorant of Jesus' mission it is bizarre.
You actually believe Jesus was so misguided he came to establish a Jewish kingdom under the law.
The cross being a backup plan
The law is adam in reverse.
The law starts with sinful man AND SHOWCASES his sin. Under the law the way to RIGHTEOUSNESS is being RIGHTEOUS.
IOW... I CAN actually be JUSTIFIED by the law.
In order for me to do that I would need to have NEVER SINNED FROM A TODLER TO THE DAY I DIE.
Do you see the futility of the law??????
IOW ALL THE LAW CAN POSSIBLY DO IS SHOWCASE MY SIN.
You guys are so ignorant of Jesus' mission it is bizarre.
You actually believe Jesus was so misguided he came to establish a Jewish kingdom under the law.
The cross being a backup plan
-
1
- Show all
L
Hi, Guojing.
No offense, but it seems to me that you're nitpicking at Paul's words and trying to find fault when no such fault actually exists.
We need to qualify what Paul meant by "my gospel" in light of his own words which are recorded elsewhere.
For example, we read:
"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." (Gal. 1:11-12)
When Paul spoke of "my gospel", he was obviously referring to the gospel that he received "by the revelation of Jesus Christ".
We also need to consider that Paul was oftentimes contrasting his gospel with the false gospel or "another gospel" being preached by others.
Again, we read:
"I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 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." (Gal. 1:6-9)
Here, Paul clearly mentioned the gospel "which WE have preached unto you", so he wasn't claiming some sort of supremacy over the same.
Again, he verified the gospel that he preached with the likes of James, Peter, and John, and they were all preaching the same exact thing.
No offense, but it seems to me that you're nitpicking at Paul's words and trying to find fault when no such fault actually exists.
We need to qualify what Paul meant by "my gospel" in light of his own words which are recorded elsewhere.
For example, we read:
"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." (Gal. 1:11-12)
When Paul spoke of "my gospel", he was obviously referring to the gospel that he received "by the revelation of Jesus Christ".
We also need to consider that Paul was oftentimes contrasting his gospel with the false gospel or "another gospel" being preached by others.
Again, we read:
"I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 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." (Gal. 1:6-9)
Here, Paul clearly mentioned the gospel "which WE have preached unto you", so he wasn't claiming some sort of supremacy over the same.
Again, he verified the gospel that he preached with the likes of James, Peter, and John, and they were all preaching the same exact thing.
-
3
-
1
- Show all
Because you don't try to understand the Bible literally, that is why you interpret it as such.
You begin with an unquestionable axiom "Salvation is always by grace thru faith, apart from works"
You then interpret everything else, including James 2, to fit that axiom.
That is the defining characteristic of covenant theology, which all of us can see is the most popular method of scriptural interpretation in this thread.
You begin with an unquestionable axiom "Salvation is always by grace thru faith, apart from works"
You then interpret everything else, including James 2, to fit that axiom.
That is the defining characteristic of covenant theology, which all of us can see is the most popular method of scriptural interpretation in this thread.
-
1
- Show all
He, Live4him, failed to acknowledged that, if Paul was preaching the exact same gospel as Peter, James et al all along, there would be no need for the Jerusalem Council in the first place, nor is there a need for And when there had been much disputing, (Acts 15:7)
I mean, what is there to "much disputing", when, quoting Live4him "they were all preaching the same exact thing"?
I mean, what is there to "much disputing", when, quoting Live4him "they were all preaching the same exact thing"?
-
1
- Show all
So far the exchange has been quite cordial right?
Once you participate in such discussions long enough, you will realize this, people rarely change their minds here.
And that is perfectly understandable, once one is able to care enough for a doctrine to be able to type them out in words, they have formed that over many years of reflection.
So it is highly unlikely for people to change their minds just because a stranger over the Internet says something different, at least not until the long run.
We also tend to hang around with people who share our common view and ignore others. This is called confirmation bias.
Once you participate in such discussions long enough, you will realize this, people rarely change their minds here.
And that is perfectly understandable, once one is able to care enough for a doctrine to be able to type them out in words, they have formed that over many years of reflection.
So it is highly unlikely for people to change their minds just because a stranger over the Internet says something different, at least not until the long run.
We also tend to hang around with people who share our common view and ignore others. This is called confirmation bias.
He, Live4him, failed to acknowledged that, if Paul was preaching the exact same gospel as Peter, James et al all along, there would be no need for the Jerusalem Council in the first place, nor is there a need for And when there had been much disputing, (Acts 15:7)
I mean, what is there to "much disputing", when, quoting Live4him "they were all preaching the same exact thing"?
I mean, what is there to "much disputing", when, quoting Live4him "they were all preaching the same exact thing"?
-
1
- Show all
