2 different versions of the gospels?

[danandirma]

I have been talking the Bible with my dad, and he says the gospel version that Jesus taught to the jews was different then what was taught to the gentiles. Can anyone help me with this topic?

YBIC
Dan

 

[theistgal]

I have been talking the Bible with my dad, and he says the gospel version that Jesus taught to the jews was different then what was taught to the gentiles. Can anyone help me with this topic?

YBIC
Dan

Why don’t you ask your dad to elaborate? If he said that, he must have had a reason.

 

[teachccd]

HMMM…That’s news to me being that Jesus ***is ***the Gospel and there is only one of Him. I would love to hear where this came from…teachccd

 

[danandirma]

He said Paul and Peter got in an argument about Peter’s teaching the jewish laws??? I don’t remember reading anything like that, Paul and John had a disagreement…??? I’m not a scholar any means, but this view he has is just too far fetched for me.

YBIC
Dan

 

[danandirma]

he said the jews and gentile could not get along together, so the gospels had to be taught differently. this still sounds wrong to me. there was only one Jesus.

 

[rwoehmke]

The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were not written until at least a decade after Jesus’ death, so how could he have taught “from” them? Jesus taught from the Old Testament and any new stuff from his own knowledge. I too am curious as to what you Dad is getting at. Paul’s teaching to the gentiles for the most part preceded the Gospels as well. Paul taught “the Gospel” or the Good News but not the four written Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, although Matthew may have been available to him late in his ministry.

Perhaps your Father is referring to the fact that the gentiles were not required by Paul to be undergo circumcision or to follow the Mosiac dietary laws.

 

[RWMorris]

He said Paul and Peter got in an argument about Peter’s teaching the jewish laws??? I don’t remember reading anything like that, Paul and John had a disagreement…??? I’m not a scholar any means, but this view he has is just too far fetched for me.

YBIC
Dan

Paul and Barnabas had a sharp disagreement - Acts 15:36 - 41

 

[lak611]

he said the jews and gentile could not get along together, so the gospels had to be taught differently. this still sounds wrong to me. there was only one Jesus.

Maybe he was referring to the Council of Jerusalem which determined that the Gentiles did not need to follow the Jewish ceremonial laws in order to be Christian. From Acts:

Act 15:1 Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”
Act 15:2 And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue.
Act 15:3 Therefore, being sent on their way by the church, they were passing through both Phoenicia and Samaria, describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles, and were bringing great joy to all the brethren.
Act 15:4 When they arrived at Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they reported all that God had done with them.
Act 15:5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed stood up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses.”
Act 15:6 The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter.
Act 15:7 After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.
Act 15:8 "And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us;
Act 15:9 and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith.
Act 15:10 "Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?
Act 15:11 “But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.”
Act 15:12 All the people kept silent, and they were listening to Barnabas and Paul as they were relating what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.
Act 15:13 After they had stopped speaking, James answered, saying, "Brethren, listen to me.
Act 15:14 "Simeon has related how God first concerned Himself about taking from among the Gentiles a people for His name.
Act 15:15 "With this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written,
Act 15:16 ‘AFTER THESE THINGS I will return, AND I WILL REBUILD THE TABERNACLE OF DAVID WHICH HAS FALLEN, AND I WILL REBUILD ITS RUINS, AND I WILL RESTORE IT,
Act 15:17 SO THAT THE REST OF MANKIND MAY SEEK THE LORD, AND ALL THE GENTILES WHO ARE CALLED BY MY NAME,’
Act 15:18 SAYS THE LORD, WHO MAKES THESE THINGS KNOWN FROM LONG AGO.
Act 15:19 "Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles,
Act 15:20 but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.

(from the NASB)

 

[RWMorris]

He said Paul and Peter got in an argument about Peter’s teaching the jewish laws??? I don’t remember reading anything like that, Paul and John had a disagreement…??? I’m not a scholar any means, but this view he has is just too far fetched for me.

YBIC
Dan

Paul disagreed with Peter “face to face” because of Peter’s inconsistent witness at Antioch - Galatians 2:11 - 14.

 

[Nita]

Hi danandirma,

Your father is taking Scripture texts and arriving at exaggerated erroneous interpretations.

Regarding Paul and John having an argument - he’s right. But “John” is not the apostle John, it is “John called Mark” (Acts 12:12, 25). It appears Paul was upset with John/Mark when he chose not to accompany him to Perga (See Acts 13:13 and 15:38). They were later reconciled.

Regarding Peter and Paul:
Your father is probably referring to the incident recorded in Acts 11. Paul speaks of it again in Galatians 2.

*Gal 2:11-12 But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 2:12 For before certain men came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. *

It may be Paul’s statement in Gal 2:7-9 that underlies his thoughts regarding two different gospels. *("…when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised…") * Your father is just wrong in his interpretation. “The gospel”, the same gospel, is preached to both; it is the audience that is different. There is nothing about a “different” gospel. Here is what Scripture has to say about a “different gospel”:
Gal 1:6-8 “…turning to a different gospel–not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you … But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed.”

Take some time to read the Book of Acts - especially Acts chapters 9 through 15. Also, read all of Galatians 2. It will give you some background to see the texts your father is misinterpreting.

God bless,
Nita

 

[danandirma]

Hi danandirma,

Your father is taking Scripture texts and arriving at exaggerated erroneous interpretations.

Regarding Paul and John having an argument - he’s right. But “John” is not the apostle John, it is “John called Mark” (Acts 12:12, 25). It appears Paul was upset with John/Mark when he chose not to accompany him to Perga (See Acts 13:13 and 15:38). They were later reconciled.

Regarding Peter and Paul:
Your father is probably referring to the incident recorded in Acts 11. Paul speaks of it again in Galatians 2.

*Gal 2:11-12 But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 2:12 For before certain men came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. *

It may be Paul’s statement in Gal 2:7-9 that underlies his thoughts regarding two different gospels. *("…when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel *to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised…") Your father is just wrong in his interpretation. “The gospel”, the same gospel, is preached to both; it is the audience that is different. There is nothing about a “different” gospel. Here is what Scripture has to say about a “different gospel”:
Gal 1:6-8 "…turning to a different gospel–not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you … But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed."

Take some time to read the Book of Acts - especially Acts chapters 9 through 15. Also, read all of Galatians 2. It will give you some background to see the texts your father is misinterpreting.

God bless,
Nita

Thank you Nita. You are most likely correct. I will do as you recommended.

God Bless
Dan

 

[bengal_fan]

peter even acknowledges that paul preaches the same gospel in 2peter. also, mark was the first gospel written, not matthew. paul might have had a copy of it near the end of his life. mark’s gospel is basically a recorded version of peter. paul put himself under peter and the other apostles before he ever started preaching. his teachings were supported by the apostles and paul himself was made an apostle. yes, there was a disagreement between paul and peter but it had nothing to do with teaching, it had to do with behavior.

 

[Spirithound]

he said the jews and gentile could not get along together, so the gospels had to be taught differently. this still sounds wrong to me. there was only one Jesus.

A good teacher knows his audience and tailors the lecture so that they will get the most out of it. In this way, different cultures such as Jews and Gentiles may be taught using different metaphors (definitely), or with a different focus (possibly), but it is still the same Message.

 

[rwoehmke]

also, mark was the first gospel written, not matthew.

That is a more recent opiion, but earlier authorities did not agree on this and most lately some scholars are going back to the original opinion/teaching that Matthew was indeed first.

Several folks have posted in this forum a document that asserts this.
churchinhistory.org/pages…-gospels-1.htm
THE AUTHORS OF THE GOSPELS
[According to the Clementine Tradition]
By
Dennis Barton