Jesus and Paul -two different gospels?

I have already shown it using a picture you may have missed out, with the scriptural references

View attachment 225881
Whether or not you want to read those scriptural references and how you want to interpret them to fit your axiom, is beyond my control.

Please don't claim, however, that no one has tried to show you "where Paul, Peter, or James preached different gospels"

It's actually not "extremely hilarious", but rather extremely frightening that some people here think themselves wiser than Jesus Christ as you pointed out.

Anyhow, it may have been a typo on your part, but Paul didn't write 2/3 of the New Testament.

More like 1/2 of it.

Your chart is absolutely ridiculous.

I'll merely point out one thing from it that is a common ploy among Judaizers.

Under the "Gospel of the Circumcision", you conveniently listed (I know that you didn't make the chart, but you agree with it, so you're just as guilty) a bunch of scriptural references from Matthew's gospel which speak of "the kingdom of heaven".

As I said earlier, this is a common ploy among Judaizers who would have us to believe that Matthew's gospel was written exclusively to the Jews, and he therefore allegedly used the terminology of "kingdom of heaven" as opposed to "kingdom of God".

Here's the problem, though.

A lot of us aren't stupid.

In other words, we know that Matthew ALSO USED the terminology of "kingdom of God" in his gospel (Matt. 6:33, 12:28, 19:24, 21:31, 43), as did Mark, Luke, and John in their gospel accounts.

With this reality before us, how is Paul's usage of "kingdom of God" in his epistles any different than Jesus' usage of the same in all four gospels?

There is no difference, so what are you going on about?

All what scriptural passages?

You've yet to show where Paul, Peter, or James preached different gospels.

At best, we've seen where Peter was guilty of "dissimulation" or HYPOCRISY for not practicing what he preached, which was precisely what Paul preached.

That's not "my own interpretation from an axiom" as you allege.

Instead, it's precisely what the scripture in question teaches.

Again, we read:

Galatians chapter 2

[11] But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
[12] For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
[13] And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
[14] But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
[15] We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
[16] Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

In context, who are these "we who are Jews by nature" (vs. 15) that Paul was talking about?

Are they not Paul and Peter?

Of course, they are.

The significance of this reality?

Again, that both Paul and Peter knew AND PREACHED "that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ".

Surely, you can see that, can't you?

As for Peter knowing the Truth, he certainly did. Peter is the one who had forgotten his vision regarding Cornelius and the Gentiles who had received Christ in his home. The vision was clear that Peter could not only eat all meat but could also interact with all people, for God had made all people equal in His sight.

What happened to Peter? Could God have purposefully hardened his Heart for some sort of Spiritual Purpose? Or, was Peter a simple coward? This story of Peter is one of the most remarkable (to me).

Exactly.

Peter was shown the vision 3 times (Acts 10:16), and Paul still had to rebuke him for disobeying what God himself had shown Peter.

Well, the text tells us exactly what Peter's problem was:

"For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. " (Gal. 2:12-13)

In this particular instance, Peter was both a man-pleasing coward and a hypocrite.

With such being the case, Paul's rebuke of him was just.

I can't believe the disrespect for an appointed Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ with such impunity.

Funny seeing you here . . . considering that I got banned from the last site because I defended you. Ha! You're worth it.

Amen. Paul is my "hero," if I can say such a silly thing.

you talking about the Christianity board? I know I have seen you there I did not know you were banned..

Myself Also.

Peter (the rock) I think God shows us his flaws to show us examples of how even his greatest workers are flawed..

We need to see this for our own state of mind I believe, since we all are not perfect either. and have our issues.

And I thought I "recognized" you . . . with your handle and similar avatar.

Yep, I was banned for suggesting that the people who were mocking "Billy Evmer" be noted by the moderators. What I neglected to note was that one of the people openly mocking "Billy" was a "Staff Member"!!! They didn't like that I was calling for a more Christ-like attitude, thus I was essentially deemed a bad person. I can live with myself.

I think that you are absolutely correct!! Of course, we don't know for sure, but as we consider ALL of Scripture, especially the Old Testament, we know for sure that God is in Holy Control. These things that happened to our early Fathers, there was a reason and Purpose . . . just as there was reason and Purpose to Peter's Heart being hardened three specific times.

Peter was saved, and Scriptures point to this as a clear fact, for we know that he was Indwelt by the never-leaving Holy Spirit, the Deposit that grants the True Promised Holy Land . . . Heaven. Therefore it seems reasonable to believe that even after saved, there is still "work" to do . . . or shall we say, changing. It seems that though we are considered perfect before God, through His Son, Jesus . . . we must remain upon the path of Maturity, so that more and more we become like Christ (less and less sin).

Peter walked with Christ and saw it all. You would think he would not have problems.

I have felt the Raw, Almighty Power of God . . . I cannot ever imagine doing what Peter had done . . . and yet he had seen and experienced so much more than myself, including the raising of the dead. You'd think that such incredible evidence would cause him to be Faithful. It boggles my mind . . . considering my own experience with God.

Amen. Paul is my "hero," if I can say such a silly thing.

Funny seeing you here . . . considering that I got banned from the last site because I defended you. Ha! You're worth it.

Hi, Evmur.

Here's the account:

Galatians chapter 2

[11] But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
[12] For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
[13] And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
[14] But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
[15] We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
[16] Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Peter needed to be rebuked by Paul because he withdrew and separated himself from Gentile believers OUT OF FEAR OF THEM WHICH WERE OF THE CIRCUMCISION or out of fear of believing Jews.

And...?

This doesn't mean that Peter and Paul didn't preach the same gospel.

In fact, whereas you said that Peter and Barnabas "were carried away with the DECEPTION", the Bible uses a completely different word:

DISSIMULATION (vs. 13).

If you don't know what "dissimulation" means, then this should help:

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/dissimulation

dissimulation

noun

the act of dissimulating; feigning; hypocrisy.

"Dissimulation" is HYPOCRISY, and that is precisely what Paul rebuked Peter for.

Whereas you and others are seeking to claim that this proves that Paul and Peter preached different gospels, it actually proves the exact opposite.

In other words, Peter was guilty of HYPOCRISY because he wasn't PRACTICING WHAT HE PREACHED...which is precisely the same gospel that Paul preached.

Just for the record.

But then again, you cannot control the conclusions others want to form about your beliefs, when they don't even know you.

You got banned you rascal I am not banned but I shall not post there where mods laugh openly at Paul's doctrine. Nice to see you again ... I enjoyed our little fellowship.