i am not doing this again, i did reply fully to this and even went to well known historian for their integrity as historians, you simply wont listen all i wrote is VALID i read the post no in post
no, 3647 but i think you never read it.
Historians who rely on stories from traditions, as does Roman Catholicism and other pagan religions, there is always degrees of error. When writing my thesis for my Th.D, I was constantly pressed to remain free of writings based upon traditions unless the point being made was to compare the traditional story against what can be known as being more empirical.
So, back to the topic of this thread...loss of salvation, rooted in tradition handed down to Protestantism from Roman Catholicism's works-based system of salvation, is utterly false, and here is why:
Galatians 1:11-12 — 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.
Some believe there is only one and the same gospel going back through John the Baptist, regardless of the differences that exist in Peter's Gospel of the Kingdom in Acts 2 and Pauls Gospel of Grace in 1 Cor. 15:1-4.
What's so easily overlooked is verses like the one above. Paul was persecuting the early church comprised of converted Jews following Jesus, which was before Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus. He persecuted them on the basis of the Kingdom Gospel preached by the twelve to the circumcized, the very gospel that he learned from men, not from Christ directly.
As stated in the verse above, what Paul later preached, after his conversion, was only what Jesus had revealed to him, not what men taught from the Kingdom Gospel to Israel. This proves, along with other texts, that Pauls gospel was not the same gospel as that preached by the twelve. They both rest upon the same foundation of faith in Christ Jesus and what He accomplished on the cross, but beyond that, the similarities cease.
This, then, renders null and void the singular gospel craze that's more rooted in replacement theology than an honest, exegetical reading of scripture for what it clearly says.
Can anyone deny this without drifting off into fables from writers applying their lack of expertise in calling out fabled traditions not written and verified by true historians and certainly not inspired as is scripture? The twelve remained in Jerusalem for up to 30 years, with their disciples being dispersed out into the world because of persecutions during those three decades, preaching ONLY to fellow Jews, NOT to Gentiles. Why that's so hard for some to grasp, additionally showing to us two different gospels, it smacks of a desire to believe what one WANTS to believe in the face of failure to rightly divide the word of truth.
Two gospels...one rooted in the Mosaic Law [as demonstrated by the believing Jews being "zealous" for that Law] and other NOT rooted in the Law but rather grace. Both gospels with similar foundation of Christ Jesus, but also with distinctives. Ignoring the distinctives only to call them both one and the same is like calling a Chevy by the Ford name simply because they both can use internal combustion engines as their means for locomotion.
MM
