Galatian Conundrums

[Guojing]

to believe there are 2 viable gospels is to be accursed. Galatians 1.
God doesn't bless that. God's blessing is essential for salvation.

i hope you are able to work this out with Him

Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded:
and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.
(Philippians 3:15) ​

You are again anticipating revelation here. There is no problem on my part.

I have already stated that Galatians was written after the events in acts 15.

Only after the decision of the council was given and Paul given the right hand of fellowship to the gentiles, then Paul could proclaim his double curse on those Jews who tried to bring the gentiles under the gospel of the kingdom.

As for the Jews, as the events in James 21 showed, the Jews who believed still had to keep the law. The agreement was that only the gentile believers were exempted.

 

[posthuman]

would it be fair to call it 'semi-Pelagianism' when someone holds as doctrine that there are two paths to salvation, a fully Pelagian one & a fully Augustinian one?

also, what do you call it when someone holds as doctrine that it doesn't matter if they have right doctrine or not?

((trying to brush up on vocabulary))

 

[posthuman]

You are again anticipating revelation here. There is no problem on my part.

I have already stated that Galatians was written after the events in acts 15.

Only after the decision of the council was given and Paul given the right hand of fellowship to the gentiles, then Paul could proclaim his double curse on those Jews who tried to bring the gentiles under the gospel of the kingdom.

As for the Jews, as the events in James 21 showed, the Jews who believed still had to keep the law. The agreement was that only the gentile believers were exempted.

intricacies of timelines really have no bearing on this. at just the right time, Christ died for the ungodly.
i'm sure in your own mind, you sound cool & froody.

 

[tourist]

intricacies of timelines really have no bearing on this. at just the right time, Christ died for the ungodly.
i'm sure in your own mind, you sound cool & froody.

That's probably better than sounding cool & frumpy as I would consider that to be a conundrum.

 

[posthuman]

That's probably better than sounding cool & frumpy as I would consider that to be a conundrum.

frumpy sounds like an conundrum all on it's own.

 

[posthuman]

frumpy sounds like an conundrum all on it's own.

actually, 'cool' raises a conundrum, all by itself, too:
if my coffee has become 'cool' - is that really 'cool' ? because i like it hot, i.e. cool coffee is uncool.

i dunno, maybe 'cool' just has to 'agree to disagree' with itself for the sake of common usage. which is another conundrum of its own!

confounded thread, lol, why do we talk for 20 pages about whether there's 'another gospel' -- that is the conundrum!

 

[Guojing]

You are again anticipating revelation here. There is no problem on my part.

I have already stated that Galatians was written after the events in acts 15.

Only after the decision of the council was given and Paul given the right hand of fellowship to the gentiles, then Paul could proclaim his double curse on those Jews who tried to bring the gentiles under the gospel of the kingdom.

As for the Jews, as the events in James 21 showed, the Jews who believed still had to keep the law. The agreement was that only the gentile believers were exempted.

It’s acts 21, particularly v25 instead. 🤗

 

[Guojing]

intricacies of timelines really have no bearing on this. at just the right time, Christ died for the ungodly.
i'm sure in your own mind, you sound cool & froody.

To dispensationalists, the idea of progressive revelation is important.

 

[posthuman]

​

​

I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ:
for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth;
to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
(Romans 1:16) ​

 

[posthuman]

It’s acts 21, particularly v25 instead. 🤗

I am ready not only to be bound, but also to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.
(Acts 21:13) ​

 

[Absolutely]

Let me grant you the premise that, by the time Acts 15 came about, Peter had the complete revelation of that gospel of grace, that Paul called "my gospel".

But what gospel was Peter preaching from Matthew-John, for example in Luke 9:6?

Was it that "gospel of grace" that Jesus died for their sins, was buried, and rose again for their justification?

Jesus told Nicodemus "you must be born again"
What part of Jesus gospel do you not understand?
Jesus preached salvation through Himself.
Paul preached the same.
Same gospel.
Salvation through Jesus.

 

[Guojing]

Jesus told Nicodemus "you must be born again"
What part of Jesus gospel do you not understand?
Jesus preached salvation through Himself.
Paul preached the same.
Same gospel.
Salvation through Jesus.

I am asking you what gospel was Peter preaching in Luke 9:6.

Is it that difficult to answer?

 

[Dino246]

Oh, I dunno. I don`t go around treating women like they are men. Scripture shows varience on the issue as well. I know that doesn`t fit modern american immorality but I gotta goes with God`s program on that one.

I don't see anywhere in Scripture that tells us to treat men and women differently in discussion about Scripture. Perhaps you think it's okay to have two standards.

 

[Guojing]

So if we say Jesus preached another gospel,we also need to say Paul detested and cursed Jesus's gospel.

Once you accept the concept of progressive revelation, you don't have to worry about Galatians 1-2. I realized that is maybe why many of you here resist the idea that the gospel of the Kingdom differs from the gospel of Grace.

 

[Guojing]

LOL!

no he isn't

he is saying it is being proclaimed in all the world

you people are a riot

you are forcing scripture into your own theology and it does not fit and will never fit

I'm laughing here because it is so ridiculous, but again, I am not laughing should a new Christian or one not well studied come across this nonsense of yours and the op's

if you are just discussing this here that is one thing, but if you are out in the real world and actually this, as the op appears to be doing?

y'all are going to have alot to answer for

Is it that hard for you to agree to disagree politely?

All of us reason in part here. There is no need to go LOL, or "you people", when others view scripture differently from you.

 

[Absolutely]

Only thing you show is your own incompetence. The conversion of Paul and his beginning to preach, Acts 9 pre dates Peter`s dream Acts 10.

Gal 1
15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,

16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:

17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.

You are assuming Paul went directly to the gentiles.
He went to Arabia to sort out and be instructed by Jesus and the Holy Spirit The Gospel of Jesus Christ to the world.
meanwhile Peter had also received the revelation of the gospel to the gentiles.

But later in the council in Jerusalem,It was PETER who spoke of the gospel to the gentiles with Paul present and silent.

 

[Absolutely]

I am asking you what gospel was Peter preaching in Luke 9:6.

Is it that difficult to answer?

9 Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases.

2 And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God

What do you come away with since it says in acts Paul preached the kingdom of God?

keep in mind Gospel means "good news"
What good news did they have?

 

[Guojing]

9 Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases.

2 And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God

What do you come away with since it says in acts Paul preached the kingdom of God?

keep in mind Gospel means "good news"
What good news did they have?

So you do agree that Peter was not preaching the "death burial and resurrection of Jesus" correct?

He was preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom, which is based on the identity of Jesus. (John 20:31).

Look, if you want to insist that these 2 gospels are the same, that is your prerogative. You are still a Christian even if you do.

 

[Guojing]

​

I am ready not only to be bound, but also to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus. ​

(Acts 21:13) ​

Is there a reason why you decline to quote v25 instead, since you are replying to my point?

 

[Locoponydirtman]

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you,
1 Peter 1:3‭-‬4 NASB
https://bible.com/bible/100/1pe.1.3-4.NASB

Looks like Peter preaching the death and resurrection of Jesus.