Different Gospels

[Old_Scholar]

For some time there has been a source of confusion for many Christians concerning Paul’s comment in 2 Timothy. I hope I can properly place it in perspective.

Paul says: *“Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel…”*2 Tim 2:8

Why would Paul say “My gospel?” He explained that in Galatians 1:11-12 that he did not learn the gospel from any man, but was taught it *“…by the revelation of Jesus Christ.” *This was the “ascended” Lord Jesus Christ who revealed the mystery of the gospel to Paul. It was called a mystery because no one knew it before; it had been a secret.

But let’s look at the gospel that John the Baptist, Jesus, John, Peter and the other apostles taught. They preached the gospel of the kingdom to the people of Israel only. This good news was that the kingdom, as promised in the Old Testament, was ready to come. All that had to happen was that the entire nation of Israel had to repent and the kingdom would have come at that time. Right away. The message was: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matthew 3:2, 4:17, 10:7) After the resurrection, the kingdom was still offered to Israel again in Acts 3:19-21 if they would only repent as a nation. “Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.”
Israel would not do so and the kingdom was postponed and God called Paul and made him “the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles.” (Romans 15:16 and “the apostle of the Gentiles.?" (Romans 11:13) Therefore Paul was made “our apostle.” Not Peter or any other.

Peter’s gospel was to Israel only. On the day of Pentecost the Holy Spirit was given and in Acts 2:126-21, Peter said, “… this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come: And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
(cont’d)

 

[mercygate]

For some time there has been a source of confusion for many Christians concerning Paul’s comment in 2 Timothy. I hope I can properly place it in perspective.

Paul says: *“Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel…”*2 Tim 2:8

Why would Paul say “My gospel?” He explained that in Galatians 1:11-12 that he did not learn the gospel from any man, but was taught it *“…by the revelation of Jesus Christ.” *This was the “ascended” Lord Jesus Christ who revealed the mystery of the gospel to Paul. It was called a mystery because no one knew it before; it had been a secret.

No one knew it? No one knew that the Lord was Son of God and had ascended into heaven. Why the quotation marks on “ascended?” “Paul’s Gospel” is the SAME gospel as preached by the eyewitnesses – he actually went up to Jerusalem to talk to them about it and boasted of it when he got back home.

But let’s look at the gospel that John the Baptist, Jesus, John, Peter and the other apostles taught. They preached the gospel of the kingdom to the people of Israel only. This good news was that the kingdom, as promised in the Old Testament, was ready to come. All that had to happen was that the entire nation of Israel had to repent and the kingdom would have come at that time. Right away. The message was: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matthew 3:2, 4:17, 10:7) After the resurrection, the kingdom was still offered to Israel again in Acts 3:19-21 if they would only repent as a nation. “Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.”
Israel would not do so and the kingdom was postponed and God called Paul and made him “the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles.” (Romans 15:16 and “the apostle of the Gentiles.?" (Romans 11:13) Therefore Paul was made “our apostle.” Not Peter or any other.

All of the eleven are referred to as apostles in John 20 and elsewhere. That’s how we know to call them “Apostles.”

Peter’s gospel was to Israel only.

Not according to Acts 15:7:

And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.

 

[Old_Scholar]

(Cont’d)

Peter obviously thought the great tribulation was going to begin shortly as he described the wrath of God by Joel above. He did not imagine any delay and foresaw no going to the gentiles first. The Old Testament was pretty clear; **if Israel had repented, the great tribulation would have come right in followed by Jesus Christ’s return to set up the kingdom. ** Israel id not believe however so everything was delayed. Although God still gave much more time to Israel as Peter preached to them continuously, as did the other apostles.

In Acts 2:22, Peter says, “Ye men of Israel, hear these words …” A few verses later, he again calls them “Israel”: “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36). No mention here of gentiles. Acts 2:37-39 “… they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.”

Peter’s gospel was: “Jesus is the Messiah and the kingdom can still come if Israel will repent and be baptized.”

That is why it was necessary for God to convert Paul for the reasons I have already given.

Paul’s gospel was the gospel of grace. The gospel of grace is that “Jesus Christ, the Son of God, freely gave His life as the perfect sacrifice to pay for our sins. He was crucified, was buried, and rose from the dead on the third day.” (l Cor 15:1-4)

Peter and the others had taught that the Jews had murdered Jesus, not that Jesus had given His life for our sins. You never see the apostles talking about Jesus Christ’s redeeming blood or saying how He died for our sins. They mention His death and resurrection but only to give a miracle to prove to Israel the He is alive and can return as their king as was prophesied in the Old Testament. Check Acts closely. The apostles do not associate Jesus’ death with forgiveness of sins. The mystery was that His death and forgiveness of sins was related. That was not known until the mystery was revealed to Paul. “But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” (1 Cor 2:7-8)

It is clear that God, even though He knew the future, had to keep the plan of redemption (our gospel) a secret (a mystery), and He did not reveal the secret until after He had called forth Paul. Romans 16:25 “Now to him that is of power to establish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,”

(cont’d)

 

[Neil_Anthony]

(Peter and the others had taught that the Jews had murdered Jesus, not that Jesus had given His life for our sins. You never see the apostles talking about Jesus Christ’s redeeming blood or saying how He died for our sins.

Here’s a quote from John

1 John 2:2 and he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world.

John was one of the apostles.

 

[Old_Scholar]

(Cont’d)

I will end with one example of what I have been saying. While Jesus was in His earthly ministry, He said:* “For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if you forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.” * First you have to forgive others, then you will be forgiven.

But now see what the gospel of Paul teaches. (remembering this was revealed to Paul after Christ’s ascension)
“And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you.” If we are believers, God has already forgiven us; not of just some sins, but of all the sins we will ever commit. Col 2:13 “And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;”

Christians should forgive others as God wants us to do, and we will receive rewards in heaven according to our works (1 Cor 3:10-15). * “According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. 11) For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12) Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; 13) Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is. 14) If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 15) If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. But our salvation does not depend on the works at all:”*

But our salvation does not depend on the works at all: Romans 4:5 * “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.”*

Though Peter and Paul taught different gospels, they were not contradictory at all. Their messages were to different people and in different dispensations. Jesus Christ was teaching Jews who were under the law of Moses, but later Jesus, through Paul, was teaching Christians, mostly non-Jews who were not under the law of Moses, but under grace. We are still in the dispensation of grace today.

Our salvation comes by believing the gospel of grace that our Lord Jesus Christ revealed to our apostle Paul.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Peter and the others had taught that the Jews had murdered Jesus, not that Jesus had given His life for our sins.

Peter said:

and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed

 

[Janet_S]

Secret Gospel of Paul? Isn’t this Gnosticism?

Old Scholar, you don’t get this from the Bible. You get it straight from Luther: You may or may not be aware of this, but that’s where it comes from.
ccel.org/ccel/luther/galatians.iv.html
Luther’s commentary on Galatians

Paul minutely recounts his personal history to stop the cavil of the false apostles. Paul does not deny that he had been with some of the apostles. He went to Jerusalem uninvited, not to be instructed, but to visit with Peter. Luke reports the occasion in the ninth chapter of the Book of Acts. Barnabas introduced Paul to the apostles and related to them how Paul had met the Lord Jesus on the way to Damascus, also how Paul had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. Paul says that he saw Peter and James, but he denies that he learned anything from them.
Why does Paul harp on this seemingly unimportant fact? To convince the churches of Galatia that his Gospel was the true Word of Christ which he learned from Christ Himself and from no man. Paul was forced to affirm and re-affirm this fact. His usefulness to all the churches that had used him as their pastor and teacher was at stake…

There’s no historical (or biblical for that matter) evidence for the “secret Gospel of Paul” theory. Even Luther admits his theory goes against the teachings of the Church Fathers, but he doesn’t seem to care:

The arguments which the false apostles advanced impress people to this day. “Who are you to dissent from the fathers and the entire Church, and to bring a contradictory doctrine? Are you wiser than so many holy men, wiser than the whole Church?” When Satan, abetted by our own reason, advances these arguments against us, we lose heart, unless we keep on saying to ourselves: “I don’t care if Cyprian, Ambrose, Augustine, Peter, Paul, John, or an angel from heaven, teaches so and so. I know that I teach the truth of God in Christ Jesus.”

Also, in his Preface to Romans, he claims he is the authoritative interpretor of this book:
ccel.org/ccel/luther/romans/files/romans.html

Be on guard, therefore against any teacher who uses these words differently, no matter who he be, whether Jerome, Augustine, Ambrose, Origen or anyone else as great as or greater than they.

If Pope Benedict said something like this, what would you think?

Are you willing to believe this secret Gospel of Paul (revealed by Luther) lay hidden from the world for 1500 years?

You told me in another thread “You would do well to read the Bible and not what someone else tells you it says.” You surely should heed your own advice, for you are doing this when you buy into Luther’s view of the “secret Gospel of Paul.”

No one could ever come to this theory by looking at the NT in its entirety. Luther takes many quotes from Paul’s epistles out of context and pieces them together to come up with his theory.

I have to ask you, where in the Bible does it say that Luther’s interpretations of the epistles of Paul are the one we should believe, especially considering no one before Luther taught this?

 

[Janet_S]

Peter and the others had taught that the Jews had murdered Jesus, not that Jesus had given His life for our sins. You never see the apostles talking about Jesus Christ’s redeeming blood or saying how He died for our sins. They mention His death and resurrection but only to give a miracle to prove to Israel the He is alive and can return as their king as was prophesied in the Old Testament. Check Acts closely. The apostles do not associate Jesus’ death with forgiveness of sins. The mystery was that His death and forgiveness of sins was related. That was not known until the mystery was revealed to Paul.

I’m not sure if you think we Catholics got our Gospel from Peter or Paul (I assume you think we got it from Peter), but we definitely think Jesus gave his life freely and died for our sins.

This is from the Catholic Mass, Eucharistic Prayer II:

Before he was given up to death, a death he freely accepted, he took bread and gave you thanks, He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples, and said:

Take this, all of you, and eat it;
this is my body which will be given up for you.

When the supper was ended, he took the cup. Again he gave you thanks and praise, gave the cup to his disciples, and said:

Take this, all of you, and drink from it;
this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me.

Also, if you believe Matthew wrote Matthew, and Matthew was one of the 12 Apostles, read his account of the Agony in the Garden where it’s clear Jesus “freely” gave His life: “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; yet, not as I will, but as you will.” Matt 26:39.

Also in Matthew 26:28, at the last supper, Jesus speaks of shedding His blood for the forgiveness of sins: " for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins."

I really think if you read “all” the NT, you will discover your 2 Gospel theory doesn’t hold up.

 

[Rightlydivide]

To Old Scholar
So, when do you contend the dispensation of Grace began?

 

[Old_Scholar]

Neil_Anthony

It is true that John was one of the apostles. I never said he wasn’t.

In your post, you also quoted Peter from 1 Peter 2:24.

I am sure you are aware that Paul had been preaching his gospel for more than 31-32 years before Peter wrote that. Give me a similar quote from Peter that predates Paul’s teaching, please.

Also, your quote from John was made between 85 - 90 A.D., many years after Paul had been preaching his gospel.

When Paul was converted, Christ taught him for an unknown time but it could have been as much as 3 years. We don’t know for sure. Perhaps it could have been done instantly. It really doesn’t matter because Paul preached for three years before going to Jerusalem to see Peter and James and was there for 15 days. The next time he saw them he had been preaching for 14 more years and then he found it necessary to rebuke Peter for not living the gospel he preached.

Be sure when you make quotes, you know the timeline.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Janet S

I’m sorry but I have read very little of what Luther wrote. I am not aware that he considered Paul’s gospel different. I do know that he did not like Paul and thought he was a heretic. That’s why he dismissed so many of Paul’s writings. He did not agree with what Paul was teaching. That’s known.

Your quote of Luther’s on Galatians is certainly true to a great extent. Paul did not go to Jerusalem for instructions from Peter or James. He went to convince them he was genuine and to counter those that hated him for his preaching. He did not take instruction from either of them but it would be naive to believe he did not listen to whatever they had to say. There was a great deal of animosity towards Paul as some did not believe he had been converted from what he was before.

When Paul returned 14 years later, he made sure to tell his gospel to those present and apparently convinced them of his teachings. Peter certainly endorsed Paul’s writings as Scripture.

Paul did not try to get anyone to believe a different gospel. I believe many miss the point here. I do not say there were two gospels in order to say they taught differently. I say it because Christ made Paul aware of much more than any of the other apostles knew. There is no other reason for Christ to have converted Paul and to lead him to seek audience with the other apostles. Until Paul had met with them, they taught as I have previously stated. They did not teach grace as Christ taught Paul.

What would you say that is different about Paul’s gospel compared to what the others had taught until Paul came on the scene? The big difference was that they started teaching how to achieve salvation by grace and not good works. I believe I gave a very good explanation of the difference earlier.

And no I do not believe the secret lay hidden for 1500 years. It is Scriptural, if one looks. It is all there. Luther did not add anything to it. It would appear he wanted to take some away from it by denying certain of the books.

What is Luther’s theory? I am unaware of that except for what Luther found out by reading and translating the Bible himself and not relying on what he was told was in it. Do you not agree with most of his theses?

You also asked me what would I think if Pope Benedict said something like what Luther said. Well I am sure you realize that I put no more faith in what a Pope would say than any other bishop, preacher or other man of God. I see no special position for a Pope.

Again, regarding Matthew, realize that it was also written about 20years or more after the resurrection, but I have no problem with anything he said.

Rightlydivide

I believe the dispensation of grace began at the calling of Paul and still is in effect and will probably be until Christ returns for his people.

Grace be with you!

 

[Old_Scholar]

Mercygate

What no one knew, because it was a mystery and although Christ kept telling them, the apostles did not believe it, was that Christ would be crucified for our sins, be buried and after three days and three nights in the earth would be resurrected and ascend to heaven. Christ kept trying to get the Jews to believe He was the Messiah but they scorned Him. He promised them everything but they did not believe Him.

Even the apostles did not believe Him. When he was arrested, they scattered like lost puppies and Peter even denied him three times after he was crucified; as Christ had said he would do. Even after His death they did not believe him until the resurrection and then only when He appeared to them. The great transformation they made after that shows that their disbelief was genuine but they finally believed.

Paul received the gospel of grace by direct revelation from the Lord Jesus Christ. Christ appointed him the apostle of the gentiles to reveal mysteries previously kept hidden. He did that throughout his ministry. You will read of him revealing several mysteries.

Paul wrote: **“Praying always … for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel for which I am an ambassador in bonds …” **Ephesians 6:18-20 His gospel had been a mystery, not known to anyone before God revealed it to him. Or maybe you don‘t believe the Scriptures?

Bear in mind that Ephesians was written about 30 years after the ascension. “For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles, If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery: (as I wrote afore in few words Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) …” (Ephesians 3:1-4) Then he writes verse 5
"Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and the prophets by the Spirit …"

Here Paul says “Now revealed” (and this was around 62 A.D.) to the apostles and was revealed to Paul at an earlier time. Paul goes on: ** “And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ …” **(Ephesians 3:9)

It was about 66 A.D. when Peter was nearing death that he confirmed what Paul had been saying: “And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things hard to be understood …”(2 Peter 3:15-16) Notice that Peter says the wisdom given unto him, not unto us…

Romans 16:25 "Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began …"

The big question is why did God keep the secret for so long? 1 Corinthians 2:7-8 ** “But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory”**

So no one was allowed to know it. Not Peter, the apostles, Judas, Pilate, the demons, or even Satan himself.

Paul reveals this mystery throughout his writings as I said before. Our problem is to read and understand it.

Christ be with you…

 

[Old_Scholar]

Mercygate

I just realized I did not comment on your statement about Peter saying that he was to preach to the Gentiles.

Early on, Peter was to preach to the gentiles but you have to realize it was Jewish gentiles who did not agree with the law of Moses. They were Grecians, Hellenistic Jews. And of course non-jews were gentiles but Peter concerned himself with the circumcised. In any event, after the council in Jerusalem, Peter agreed that he would teach the Jews and Paul the Gentiles. Peter received his rebuke from Paul because he would not sit with the gentiles but moved to sit with the Jews.

Check this Scripture:

Gal 2:6 *** But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: 7) But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; 8) (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles) 9) And when James, Cephas, and John,*** who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

That’s why I say Peter was the apostle to the Jews and Paul to the gentiles.

 

[anthony022071]

In your post, you also quoted Peter from 1 Peter 2:24.

I am sure you are aware that Paul had been preaching his gospel for more than 31-32 years before Peter wrote that. Give me a similar quote from Peter that predates Paul’s teaching, please.

Peter was preaching in Acts 2,14,-- before Paul was converted. Paul recognized Peter as the head apostle,which is why he calls him Kephas,or “Head”. After spending 3 years in Arabia,Paul went to Jerusalem to see Peter and get information from him about Christ.

catholic-legate.com/dialogues/cloud.html

< “Likewise, in Gal 1:18, Paul says how he spent fifteen days “conferring” with Kephas (Peter); and the Greek word here (“historesai”) means “to ask of a higher authority” --the same word which the pagan Greeks used when they consulted the Oracle of Delphi and other “divine” authorities. If Paul was merely meeting with an equal, he would have used the word “heiden.” Likewise, in Acts 15:12, after Peter gives the definitive teaching at the Council, it says that everyone “fell silent” (meaning that they remained silent: the past-tense aorist “esigese” in Greek, not “sigesai,” as used later in v. 13), and there is no more room for debate after Peter had spoken. And we could cite other examples as well.” >

catholic-legate.com/dialogues/gary1.html

< "For, in Galatians 2:2 (referring to Acts 15:2) he writes …

“I went up in accord with a revelation, and I presented to them (i.e., the Apostles and Jerusalem presbyters) the Gospel that I preach to the Gentiles –but privately to those of repute –so that I might not be running or have run in vain.”

Notice what Paul is saying here. Not only is he saying that his understanding of the Gospel comes through an extra-Scriptural revelation directly from Christ, he also gladly submits his understanding to the authority of the Jerusalem hierarchy, so as to make sure that he is not preaching something that is incorrect – that his own understanding is not flawed. Gary, however, is under the impression that the Bible never advocates ecclesial authority. Far from it. >"

When Paul was converted, Christ taught him for an unknown time but it could have been as much as 3 years. We don’t know for sure. Perhaps it could have been done instantly. It really doesn’t matter because Paul preached for three years before going to Jerusalem to see Peter and James and was there for 15 days. The next time he saw them he had been preaching for 14 more years and then he found it necessary to rebuke Peter for not living the gospel he preached.

Paul’s rebuke had to do with Peter observing the Jewish tradition of eating separately from the Gentiles. It was not a matter of faith or morals.

 

[TC_CEG]

Paul says: *“Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel…”*2 Tim 2:8

I think that Paul was not afraid to claim ownership of the Gospel while not claiming to be its origin. We see something similar when he says “follow me as I follow Christ.” These types of statements seem wierd to us but St. Paul and his original readers seem unfazed.

 

[mercygate]

Mercygate

I just realized I did not comment on your statement about Peter saying that he was to preach to the Gentiles.

Early on, Peter was to preach to the gentiles but you have to realize it was Jewish gentiles who did not agree with the law of Moses. They were Grecians, Hellenistic Jews. And of course non-jews were gentiles but Peter concerned himself with the circumcised. In any event, after the council in Jerusalem, Peter agreed that he would teach the Jews and Paul the Gentiles. Peter received his rebuke from Paul because he would not sit with the gentiles but moved to sit with the Jews.

Check this Scripture:

Gal 2:6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: 7) But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; 8) (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles) 9) And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

That’s why I say Peter was the apostle to the Jews and Paul to the gentiles.

Of course. Christians do not deny this text. But many forget the point in Acts that Peter was called to preach to the gentiles as well.

Time lines? Please. I am the Queen of time lines. Tell me where Paul was on Pentecost Sunday, when Peter synthesized the significance of Christ’s life, death and resurrection (Acts 2).

Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs which God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know – this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. But God raised him up, having loosed the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it. Either Scripture testifies to the truth or it does not. There is no way to justify this passage as a post-Pauline interpolation.

Within days of his Damascus road experience, he is speaking in the synagogues and raises so much heat that he has to be smuggled out through a window. He is immediately taken by Barnabas to be introduced to the leaders in Jerusalem: within days. It is Barnabas who vouches for the authenticity of Paul’s conversion. This would not be possible if Paul had preached a story that differed from that of “the eyewitnesses.”

While in Arabia (where he went possibly to let things cool off?), there is no evidence whatsoever that Paul evangelized before returning to Damascus.

The great “mystery” is that Paul received the Gospel just as the Apostles knew it but by private revelation. But the Apostles affirm Paul (“they added nothing to me”), Paul does not teach the eyewitnesses.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Anthony022071

You are correct in that Peter was preaching before Paul was converted but what was he preaching? Read his sermon in Acts carefully and you will see he preached no salvation by grace.

Paul certainly felt Peter was the senior apostle as he was the first selected. However he had no special authority or any more authority than the other apostles. In face, James was head of the church in Jerusalem and when you say that in Acts 15, everyone was silent after Peter defined the issue, the fact is that it was James who made the declaration and pronounced the sentence. It is clear he was the chief in that case.

Acts 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

Peter did not make the decision, James did, according to Scripture.

You ar misinterpreting what Paul is saying in Galatians. He did not present the gospel Christ revealed to him for approval. He already had Christ’s approval for it. ** He was preaching it so that the other apostles could hear it and know it. He is not giving the apostles a chance to change the gospel as Christ gave it. You are not reading this correctly. ** Why would the apostles even want to change what Christ had revealed? Obviously they understood and to say that Paul presented it to see if it was correct would indicate that Christ could have been wrong. As you are probably aware, the apostles did not challenge anything Paul said but instead started preaching the gospel of grace as Paul presented it.

You are wrong about Paul’s rebuke of Peter. It was about faith and morals. Paul says Peter was clearly wrong. Peter had been eating with the gentiles but when the Jews arrived, he drew back and would not eat with the gentiles, because he was afraid of those in favor of circumcising the gentiles. Paul says the others with Peter started acting like cowards along with Peter and even Barnabas was swept along by their cowardly action. Paul says they were not walking a straight path in line with the gospel and he said to Peter, “You are a Jew, yet you have been living like a gentile, not like a Jew. How, then, can you try to force gentiles to live like Jews?”

This was a complete lack of faith by Peter and a cowardly act. Paul was right to rebuke him. It shows that the early church leaders needed correcting from time to time, especially Peter.

According to Mark, Jesus had to “rebuke” Peter when He said “Get thee behind me, Satan.” He was not thinking as God does, but as humans do.

Then Jesus had to rebuke Peter again for cutting off Malchus’ ear.

After Jesus was arrested, Peter denied Him three times and at that time, Peter wept bitterly.

Again, many years later Peter had to be chastised and rebuked by Paul for his unchristian ways.

You can’t simply dismiss it and say Peter’s action was not related to faith or morals.

 

[mercygate]

Anthony022071

You are correct in that Peter was preaching before Paul was converted but what was he preaching? Read his sermon in Acts carefully and you will see he preached no salvation by grace.

Paul certainly felt Peter was the senior apostle as he was the first selected. However he had no special authority or any more authority than the other apostles. In face, James was head of the church in Jerusalem and when you say that in Acts 15, everyone was silent after Peter defined the issue, the fact is that it was James who made the declaration and pronounced the sentence. It is clear he was the chief in that case.

Acts 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

Peter did not make the decision, James did, according to Scripture.

You ar misinterpreting what Paul is saying in Galatians. **He did not present the gospel Christ revealed to him for approval. He already had Christ’s approval for it. **He was preaching it so that the other apostles could hear it and know it. He is not giving the apostles a chance to change the gospel as Christ gave it. You are not reading this correctly. Why would the apostles even want to change what Christ had revealed? Obviously they understood and to say that Paul presented it to see if it was correct would indicate that Christ could have been wrong. As you are probably aware, the apostles did not challenge anything Paul said but instead started preaching the gospel of grace as Paul presented it.

You are wrong about Paul’s rebuke of Peter. It was about faith and morals. Paul says Peter was clearly wrong. Peter had been eating with the gentiles but when the Jews arrived, he drew back and would not eat with the gentiles, because he was afraid of those in favor of circumcising the gentiles. Paul says the others with Peter started acting like cowards along with Peter and even Barnabas was swept along by their cowardly action. Paul says they were not walking a straight path in line with the gospel and he said to Peter, “You are a Jew, yet you have been living like a gentile, not like a Jew. How, then, can you try to force gentiles to live like Jews?”

This was a complete lack of faith by Peter and a cowardly act. Paul was right to rebuke him. It shows that the early church leaders needed correcting from time to time, especially Peter.

According to Mark, Jesus had to “rebuke” Peter when He said “Get thee behind me, Satan.” He was not thinking as God does, but as humans do.

Then Jesus had to rebuke Peter again for cutting off Malchus’ ear.

After Jesus was arrested, Peter denied Him three times and at that time, Peter wept bitterly.

Again, many years later Peter had to be chastised and rebuked by Paul for his unchristian ways.

You can’t simply dismiss it and say Peter’s action was not related to faith or morals.

So is your point that Paul preached a true gospel and the others did not? No. This is the typical denial of Mt. 16:18-19, cobbling up a case that Paul taught the eyewitnesses.

Did Paul articulate and refine the message of salvation? Of course. What kind of idiots do you take us for. Did he contradict the testimony of the eyewitnesses? Not a chance.

And James takes the last word at the Jerusalem council because he is the Bishop of Jerusalem. You’re the time-line guy. Reliable extra-biblical sources report that Peter arrived in Rome around 42 A.D. That would mean that according to Paul’s time-line, Peter came back to Jerusalem for the council. Peter sums up the case. James restates it according to his own light. He’s the bishop; even today the Pope treads gently in the territory of another bishop.

 

[rwoehmke]

Christians should forgive others as God wants us to do, and we will receive rewards in heaven according to our works (1 Cor 3:10-15). “According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. 11) For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12) Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; 13) Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is. 14) If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 15) If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

The foundation is Jesus Christ, and when one builds by performing the Spiritual and Corporal works of Mercy, one is not acquiring wealth/treasure in terms of Gold, Silver stones, etc. but is laying up in-corruptable treasure in heaven. Death and purgatory separate us from these worldly treasures, but the heavenly treasures do not burn or rust but remain with us for eternity.

Don’t twist the meaning of God’s word Old One. It is a trap of satan for those who do so.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Mercygate

Peter was called to preach to the gentiles early on but after the church was well established and organized, Peter was assigned to preach to the Jews and Paul to the gentiles. I have previously given the Scriptures for that.

You will not find anything in Peter’s sermon at Pentecost on grace however, but instead will find he listed two ways to be saved. He says that whosoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved and Christ says otherwise, and then he says baptism is required for salvation. That too is not according to the gospel of grace.

You say you are a master of timelines, yet you then say that within days of Paul’s conversion, he was taken by Barnabas to Jerusalem to be introduced to the leaders in Jerusalem. You may want to re-think that. It was over three years after Paul’s conversion before he went to Jerusalem and then saw only Peter and James, not all the apostles. Paul preached to the Jews in the synagogues at Damascus for three years. In Acts we learn that Paul steadily increased in strength and confounded the Jews at Damascus, proving that he was of Christ.

You are incorrect that the apostles received the gospel of grace before they learned it from Paul. The Scriptures tells us that it was a mystery and had not been revealed to the apostles and was indeed revealed only to Paul. Peter says that himself. I have already listed those Scriptures. You should read them. Check my earlier posts, 3, 12 and 13. The Scriptures are there.