SPLIT: Difference between the Gospel of Paul vs Gospel of the 12

[Lnam22]

I will only mention one of the several fatal flaws in all your apologetics here:
The letters of St.Paul are written to converts to his gospel which he repeats in I Cor. 15:1-4.
He progressively reveals to those believers what Christ revealed to him about the deeper significance and meaning of that salvation. On the other hand, the 12 apostles of Israel
never converted Israel to the gospel they preached only to Israel. The gospel of the 12 had to do with the coming earthly kingdom of heaven on earth. The gospel Paul preached is for the Body of Christ, which will inherit the heavens. This basic bible construction doesn’t fitthe Roman Catholic narrative. It’s your choice, bible or RCC.

 

[mattp0625]

I will only mention one of the several fatal flaws in all your apologetics here:
The letters of St.Paul are written to converts to his gospel which he repeats in I Cor. 15:1-4.
He progressively reveals to those believers what Christ revealed to him about the deeper significance and meaning of that salvation. On the other hand, the 12 apostles of Israel
never converted Israel to the gospel they preached only to Israel. The gospel of the 12 had to do with the coming earthly kingdom of heaven on earth. The gospel Paul preached is for the Body of Christ, which will inherit the heavens. This basic bible construction doesn’t fitthe Roman Catholic narrative. It’s your choice, bible or RCC.

Paul’s preaching, while advancing the church, has little to do with the canonization of scripture. That’s the Protestant narrative which attempts to deny the fact that the RCC complied the bible and determined its canon at the synods of Carthage and Hippo.

There were specific decisions made at the synods such as criteria for inspiration. Some books didn’t make the cut. This is historical fact, not an opinion.

Additionally, the Latin translation (Latin Vulgate) compiled by Saint Jerome was the primary text utilized for 1,200 years.

 

[eddie_too]

from the OP,*** “On the other hand, the 12 apostles of Israel never converted Israel to the gospel they preached only to Israel. The gospel of the 12 had to do with the coming earthly kingdom of heaven on earth.”***

this contains two errors.

the first error is the idea that the 12 preached the Gospel only to the jews (Israel). to the contrary, the 12 preached the Gospel to the entire world as the Lord commanded them. history clearly demonstrates this as does sacred scripture.

the second error is the idea that the Gospel preached by the twelve did not contain a doctrine of life after death and was only about life in this world. the whole heart of the twelve’s preaching was about the Lord’s promise of eternal life. that would be life after the deaths of our mortal bodies.

i am puzzled where the OP obtained these two errors. they have no basis in fact or reality.

 

[TonyBS]

from the OP,*** “On the other hand, the 12 apostles of Israel never converted Israel to the gospel they preached only to Israel. The gospel of the 12 had to do with the coming earthly kingdom of heaven on earth.”***

this contains two errors.

the first error is the idea that the 12 preached the Gospel only to the jews (Israel). to the contrary, the 12 preached the Gospel to the entire world as the Lord commanded them. history clearly demonstrates this as does sacred scripture.

the second error is the idea that the Gospel preached by the twelve did not contain a doctrine of life after death and was only about life in this world. the whole heart of the twelve’s preaching was about the Lord’s promise of eternal life. that would be life after the deaths of our mortal bodies.

i am puzzled where the OP obtained these two errors. they have no basis in fact or reality.

Would it not be better to say they preached the Gospel FOR the entire world.

It is fact they could not and did not preach it to the entire world.

It is Historical fact that it is considered by many that it was the Mid 1800s before the Gospel could have been said to have reached the entire world.

Regards Tony

 

[rcwitness]

Hmmm… I’m confused at the meaning of your post and then how it jumps to a conclusion that “the choice is either bible or RCC”.

You seem to be saying Paul had a distinct gospel from the twelve apostles. And that only Paul converted Gentiles.

Acts 15

“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.”

Trust me, I realize Paul has things that seem “different” from the rest of Scripture. I’ve even thought about starting a light hearted thread about how many ways he seems to contradict the Gospels!

But he must be understood in harmony with Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. And Peter and James contribute to balancing what might be misunderstood also.

Remember, it was the Catholic Church which gave us a universally confirmed canon of Scripture. Without standing on a Church confirmed canon, we don’t have a solid body to provide a firm foundation

 

[rcwitness]

Would it not be better to say they preached the Gospel FOR the entire world.

It is fact they could not and did not preach it to the entire world.

It is Historical fact that it is considered by many that it was the Mid 1800s before the Gospel could have been said to have reached the entire world.

Regards Tony

The point is that the whole world is the intended recipient. There was no one excluded.

 

[TonyBS]

The point is that the whole world is the intended recipient. There was no one excluded.

Yes I understand that, the important thing in the bible is that a lot of importance is placed upon when the Gospel was eventually preached to all the world.

It was a sign to when Christ promised he was to return.

Another subject, so will leave it there.

Regards Tony

 

[ffg]

I will only mention one of the several fatal flaws in all your apologetics here:
The letters of St.Paul are written to converts to his gospel which he repeats in I Cor. 15:1-4.
He progressively reveals to those believers what Christ revealed to him about the deeper significance and meaning of that salvation. On the other hand, the 12 apostles of Israel
never converted Israel to the gospel they preached only to Israel. The gospel of the 12 had to do with the coming earthly kingdom of heaven on earth. The gospel Paul preached is for the Body of Christ, which will inherit the heavens. This basic bible construction doesn’t fitthe Roman Catholic narrative. It’s your choice, bible or RCC.

Welcome to CAF Lnam!

Before 15 minutes passes at Mass, you could see that the Bible is a part of Catholicism.

You don’t have to take my word for it, you could observe for yourself. ( you don’t have to be Catholic to go and observe)

Do you have any other questions?

Take care,

Mike

 

[rcwitness]

Welcome to CAF Lnam!

Before 15 minutes passes at Mass, you could see that the Bible is a part of Catholicism.

You don’t have to take my word for it, you could observe for yourself. ( you don’t have to be Catholic to go and observe)

Do you have any other questions?

Take care,

Mike

This is maybe the best post I’ve ever seen on CA!

 

[pablope]

I will only mention one of the several fatal flaws in all your apologetics here:
The letters of St.Paul are written to converts to his gospel which he repeats in I Cor. 15:1-4.
He progressively reveals to those believers what Christ revealed to him about the deeper significance and meaning of that salvation. On the other hand, the 12 apostles of Israel
never converted Israel to the gospel they preached only to Israel. The gospel of the 12 had to do with the coming earthly kingdom of heaven on earth. The gospel Paul preached is for the Body of Christ, which will inherit the heavens. This basic bible construction doesn’t fitthe Roman Catholic narrative. It’s your choice, bible or RCC.

Nah…I think the difference is in your personal interpretation.

And maybe you did not pay attention to this passage from Scripture…from Gal 2:

. 2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain. …6 As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to my message. 7 On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised,[a] just as Peter had been to the circumcised.** 8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9 James, Cephas[c] and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised.**

 

[JK8619]

A couple good authors/speakers on this subject would be N.T. Wright and James D.G. Dunn. They are two of the best Pauline scholars, both Protestant, but well respected by many outside their own denominations.

Paul may phrase the gospel a little differently than other a NT authors in certain places, but he gives the same message (preaches the one God of Israel, Jesus as the Messiah, the Gospel of the Kingdom of God).

The Gospel of the Kingdom of God was mentioned in the OP as something that the 12 preached, but not Paul or the Catholic Church. This is definitely not the case. The phrase “Kingdom of God” or “Kingdom of Heaven” is found most frequently in the Synoptics, John more frequently uses the phrase “life of the age to come” (commonly translated into English as “eternal life”), and although Paul may not use these phrases so much in his epistles, the concept of the KOG is certainly there and he was known to preach it. Just a couple quick highlights:

1. In the Acts of the Apostles, Luke clearly states that Paul was preaching the Kingdom of God (Acts 28:31).
2. In Paul’s epistle 1 Cor. Chs. 14-15 he details the resurrection of the dead (life of the age to come/the kingdom of God).

 

[JK8619]

Also, I’m not aware of the Catholic Church getting rid of the belief in the KOG or the future resurrection of the dead. The Lord’s Prayer, which is a prayer for the arrival of the kingdom, is said at Mass. Also, the Nicene Creed asserts belief in the future resurrection of the dead.

You probably won’t hear a whole lot of preaching in a Catholic Homily on the Kingdom of God, life of the age to come, or the future resurrection of the dead (I don’t remember hearing these terms much if ever when I attended mass and I know others who say the same), but I’m pretty confident that the future kingdom is still a part of Catholicism. Maybe someone who knows the catechism on this issue can clarify. I just think it’s one of those beliefs that is a part of the faith, but isn’t preached on often.

 

[Telstar]

Also, I’m not aware of the Catholic Church getting rid of the belief in the KOG or the future resurrection of the dead. The Lord’s Prayer, which is a prayer for the arrival of the kingdom, is said at Mass. Also, the Nicene Creed asserts belief in the future resurrection of the dead.

You probably won’t hear a whole lot of preaching in a Catholic Homily on the Kingdom of God, life of the age to come, or the future resurrection of the dead (I don’t remember hearing these terms much if ever when I attended mass and I know others who say the same), but I’m pretty confident that the future kingdom is still a part of Catholicism. Maybe someone who knows the catechism on this issue can clarify. I just think it’s one of those beliefs that is a part of the faith, but isn’t preached on often.

It might not seem to be “preached on” often, but most certainly is during the Octave of Easter. The Resurrection of the Dead (“the life of the world to come”/Kingdom of God) is one of the most important beliefs in Roman Catholicism. Here is a direct quote from the Catechism that you can read for yourself.Article 11

“I BELIEVE IN THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY”

988 The Christian Creed - the profession of our faith in God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and in God’s creative, saving, and sanctifying action - culminates in the proclamation of the resurrection of the dead on the last day and in life everlasting.

989 We firmly believe, and hence we hope that, just as Christ is truly risen from the dead and lives for ever, so after death the righteous will live for ever with the risen Christ and he will raise them up on the last day.532 Our resurrection, like his own, will be the work of the Most Holy Trinity:

If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit who dwells in you.533

990 The term “flesh” refers to man in his state of weakness and mortality.534 The “resurrection of the flesh” (the literal formulation of the Apostles’ Creed) means not only that the immortal soul will live on after death, but that even our “mortal body” will come to life again.535

991 Belief in the resurrection of the dead has been an essential element of the Christian faith from its beginnings. "The confidence of Christians is the resurrection of the dead; believing this we live."536
How can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain… But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep.537​

And more, here:Article 6

“HE ASCENDED INTO HEAVEN AND IS SEATED AT THE RIGHT HAND OF THE FATHER”

659 "So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God."531 Christ’s body was glorified at the moment of his Resurrection, as proved by the new and supernatural properties it subsequently and permanently enjoys.532 But during the forty days when he eats and drinks familiarly with his disciples and teaches them about the kingdom, his glory remains veiled under the appearance of ordinary humanity.533 Jesus’ final apparition ends with the irreversible entry of his humanity into divine glory, symbolized by the cloud and by heaven, where he is seated from that time forward at God’s right hand.534 Only in a wholly exceptional and unique way would Jesus show himself to Paul “as to one untimely born”, in a last apparition that established him as an apostle.535

660 The veiled character of the glory of the Risen One during this time is intimated in his mysterious words to Mary Magdalene: "I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God."536 This indicates a difference in manifestation between the glory of the risen Christ and that of the Christ exalted to the Father’s right hand, a transition marked by the historical and transcendent event of the Ascension.

661 This final stage stays closely linked to the first, that is, to his descent from heaven in the Incarnation. Only the one who “came from the Father” can return to the Father: Christ Jesus.537 "No one has ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man."538 Left to its own natural powers humanity does not have access to the “Father’s house”, to God’s life and happiness.539 Only Christ can open to man such access that we, his members, might have confidence that we too shall go where he, our Head and our Source, has preceded us.540
(bold emphasis and italics, mine)

 

[JK8619]

Telstar,

So are you saying that topic is explicitly mentioned in homilies at your parish and not just in reciting the creeds? I’m just curious because the neither of the priests who were at my local parish over the approximately ten years I attended ever talked about the future resurrection of the dead/KOG. Heaven (as a place where Jesus and the saints are with God) and purgatory would come up occasionally. Also, more rarely we would hear something about hell. My friends who are Catholic usually aren’t aware of the resurrection of the dead or the KOG, so I’m curious if it actually comes up much in homilies in many parishes.

My friends who are Protestant don’t usually seem to get much on this topic either. A lot of people think Jesus is coming to remove the Christians at his second coming and annihilate the Earth. Although Paul is pretty clear in 1 Cor. that there is a bodily resurrection, there are a surprising number of people who seemed to have missed this and think they are going to live out eternity as a disembodied soul.

 

[Telstar]

Telstar,

So are you saying that topic is explicitly mentioned in homilies at your parish and not just in reciting the creeds?

As I said, the resurrection is a common theme in homilies, particularly during the Octave of Easter. I admit that I wish it was the subject of more in-depth discussions at other times during the Liturgical year, also, but it is usually mentioned in homilies around Easter.

I’m just curious because the neither of the priests who were at my local parish over the approximately ten years I attended ever talked about the future resurrection of the dead/KOG.

That seems rather odd that the resurrection of the dead (meaning for all mankind) would not be mentioned by a Priest, at least around Easter time. I’m not really sure how you expect the subject should be approached. Most Catholics tend to think of the Kingdom of God as referring to Heaven, or of the Catholic Church being the Kingdom of God on earth. Jesus reigns as King over both of them, forever. His Kingdom has already been established since His Resurrection and it continues to grow. But, it’s a spiritual Kingdom, not a “physical” Kingdom. That’s why He said His Kingdom was “not of this world”, meaning that it’s not a typical earthly kingdom. He was referring to His Church, both in Heaven and on the earth.

Heaven (as a place where Jesus and the saints are with God) and purgatory would come up occasionally. Also, more rarely we would hear something about hell. My friends who are Catholic usually aren’t aware of the resurrection of the dead or the KOG, so I’m curious if it actually comes up much in homilies in many parishes.

Are you expecting to hear a “fire and brimstone”, “end of the world” kind of sermon? If that’s what you’re looking for, then you probably won’t see anything like that in a Catholic Mass, these days. I remember hearing a few of those when I was growing up, but it’s been a long time since I’ve heard a Priest do that in a homily.

My friends who are Protestant don’t usually seem to get much on this topic either.

Catholics shouldn’t need to be told about the resurrection of the dead in a sermon because it is explicitly mentioned in the Nicene Creed that we all recite at every Mass. If a Catholic claims that they never knew about the resurrection, then they never paid any attention at Mass, or during Catechism class when they were growing up. My previous post is proof enough that it most certainly is a central belief of the Catholic Faith. If you read the Catechism that I linked to, it’s easy to see what else the Church teaches on the subject.

A lot of people think Jesus is coming to remove the Christians at his second coming and annihilate the Earth. Although Paul is pretty clear in 1 Cor. that there is a bodily resurrection, there are a surprising number of people who seemed to have missed this and think they are going to live out eternity as a disembodied soul.

When Jesus returns, all mankind will be resurrected; both good and bad. It won’t be done in secret, but all those that remain on earth will see it happen with their own eyes. And, it won’t happen until after the “man of perdition” is revealed and every prophecy has been fulfilled. Anyone that thinks they will be “taken up” in a “rapture” before it begins, and spared from the sufferings and chastisements of the last days, will most likely be sadly mistaken, unless they die before it’s finished. But, every soul that has ever lived will be resurrected at that time. The good souls that love God will rise first, then those that chose to reject the salvation that was offered to them will also rise. Then, the Final Judgement of all the resurrected (body and soul) will happen.

But, this subject is probably better left for another thread because I think it’s a bit off topic for this one.

One other thing that might help clarify the subjects of homilies during Mass. The sermon is usually centered around the Gospel reading for that day. The Gospel readings, as well as the other Bible readings, are the same ones used in every Catholic Church for each Sunday. They follow the Liturgical year in a set progression. Each week the Priest usually gives a sermon on the general theme of the readings of that particular Sunday.

I hope that helps explain the “themes” of Catholic sermons a little better.