As I said, the scriptural references are all provided in that summary. If you don't want to check them out, no one can make you.
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.
As I said, the scriptural references are all provided in that summary. If you don't want to check them out, no one can make you.
I know you won't change your mind so it doesn't matter.
As I said, the scriptural references are all provided in that summary. If you don't want to check them out, no one can make you.
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
L
Live4Him
Guest
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.
The “Ebionites” in church history and are characterized by paying reverence to “the words of Jesus,” while rejecting all revelation that God gave as it is related to the death of Jesus [see Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians].
E
eternally-gratefull
Guest
Your way my change your mind. Those scriptures do Not support you. Only your faulty interpretation does
face it man no person was ever saved by the law or by being circumcized
that’s the mistake the Jews made and your falling right into their trap
E
eternally-gratefull
Guest
Amen he was differentiating the gospel he received from Christ with the gospel the legalistic Jews which was not from God was preaching
No one said anything about being saved by them alone. It was always thru faith, but There were times when faith require works to show.
You are beginning with that axiom in your last paragraph, you consider that unquestionable, and it henceforth affects how you would interpret all the other scripture.
That is understandable and frequently done by many here. Thanks for sharing
E
eternally-gratefull
Guest
Never was there a time
true faith will always produce works, there is no such thing as faith which has no works, that’s called a dead faith
but works never prove faith, nor are works required, no work you could ever do would make up for sin, ever
you say ///When Paul spoke of "my gospel", he was obviously referring to the gospel that he received "by the revelation of Jesus Christ"./// What good news did Paul receive then ? Surely we can find out from Paul himself? Ok where shall we look ?
L
Live4Him
Guest
Any place where its defined ? How to appropriate? Surely the very thing that is the prerequisite to salvation is in reach ? That we can be those ' beautiful feet ' that bring good news?
Where would you begin ? From Paul ?
How are you missing this ?
Matthew 15:24
King James Version
24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Don't be offended, just believe Jesus when he said he's not talking to you. Your not Israel .
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.
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"?
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.
They wonder why I'm harping on about Calvinism all the time . Its because even non calvs have influenced by their teaching.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"?
Paul preached the same gospel as Jesus ... but they Jerusalem possums needed straightening out and Paul did straighten them out. James wrote a letter and I mean the one recorded in Acts not the the one he wrote to the 12 tribes.