Paul And The Final Gospel

[Nathan]

If they were the same, then there would be no use for different words. They are most definitely connected, the same as the soul and body are connected. But they are different.

Do you believe God the Father is the same as Jesus or the Holy Spirit? As in, the same just different words used?

They are the same, but separate. If it were not so then Jesus could not sit beside the Father, He would have no reason to pray to Him either.

 

[Nathan]

The entire reason to draw a distinction is to understand the depravity of man, and the power of God to those who repent and believe.

It could be called out as an entire sub topic, I just wanted to tie it back into this threads discussion.

 

[th1b.taylor]

You may have said that I am reading into what you have said but how else am I supposed to understand this statement of yours: "But I find nowhere that God was inspiring their writings"?

Free,
Neither you nor any man is called to believe anything I say, nor anything I post and certainly nothing I write but when I compose a I think and I try to be very specific so as to it simple. Nothing complex, just straight forward statements. I answered your question twice, very concisely. I have no idea what your agenda is here but I have been direct and honest and this appearing on the web, you trying to turn my statement does nothing good for the image of Christianity.

 

[Free]

Free,
Neither you nor any man is called to believe anything I say, nor anything I post and certainly nothing I write but when I compose a I think and I try to be very specific so as to it simple. Nothing complex, just straight forward statements. I answered your question twice, very concisely. I have no idea what your agenda is here but I have been direct and honest and this appearing on the web, you trying to turn my statement does nothing good for the image of Christianity.

In no way whatsoever am I "trying to turn your statement." I am very clearly asking a simple question for clarification. What do you mean by "But I find nowhere that God was inspiring their writings"?

 

[th1b.taylor]

In no way whatsoever am I "trying to turn your statement." I am very clearly asking a simple question for clarification. What do you mean by "But I find nowhere that God was inspiring their writings"?

Why do I feel you're looking for a fight? You admitted that you read into what I said, interpreted by as meaning you tried to read something between the lines and I have answered your question 3 times and still, you are not letting it lay there. I do not understand why because I did not seek to run you around the mulberry bush though I distinctly do dislike people adding to what I said, creditinng it to me and then trying to shove it down my throat. And every one of these posts need to be removed, this whole thing paints a nasty image of the sites picture of Christian behavior. If someone wants to delete, I don't need a notice.

 

[Free]

Why do I feel you're looking for a fight?

Because you seem to whenever anyone questions you? I don't know why you feel that way. I am not at all looking for a fight.

You admitted that you read into what I said,

No, I didn't.

interpreted by as meaning you tried to read something between the lines

I haven't read anything between the lines. I am simply asking a question for clarification.

and I have answered your question 3 times and still, you are not letting it lay there.

You haven't at all answered what you meant by "But I find nowhere that God was inspiring their writings." What do you mean by that?

I do not understand why because I did not seek to run you around the mulberry bush though I distinctly do dislike people adding to what I said, creditinng it to me and then trying to shove it down my throat.

Good thing then that that is not at all what I have been doing.

 

[th1b.taylor]

You may have said that I am reading into what you have said but how else am I supposed to understand this statement of yours: "But I find nowhere that God was inspiring their writings"?

You don't remember admitting you were putting words into my mouth? This your post.

edit: Reading back I see I did not record all I was thinking. But I find nowhere that God was inspiring their writings or that they were writing before His death and Paul and Luke certainly were not.

And I was speaking to you in this post and that does complete the answer and yet your trying to upset me or something else. I hope that you just missed this post by me but don't lie on me, I answered your question. You may not like the answered and I answered honestly but you kept charging your straw man.

 

[Soul man]

First things first. When do you think Paul received his revelation? And what specifically is this revelation?

Paul doesn't say when, he just tell us he had a revelation, Gal. 1:15-16

15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,

16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:

The revelation is of the Indwelling Christ revealed as the only life of the believer, Gal. 2:20
20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
We have no life of our own, the only life we have as believers is the Christ life.
It's like the new creation, that is not you without Christ, and it's not Christ without you, the two have become one, that makes the new creation.
Al of this comes about by a birthing, we have been born again, birthed by God the Father.
He takes the incorruptible seed, Christ, and places Him in you the moment you believe.
We learn Christ now, thats what makes a Christian, the believer learns to express the life that is in him, Christ.
He needs your mind, the uniqueness of your creation to flow out of you with all His character and personality, known as the fruit of the Spirit.
That takes time to learn, study Paul said to show yourself approved, it takes revelation, the same revelation Paul had. Its there for the believer, it's not hidden, it is nolonger a mystery.
We have the greatest teacher there is, the HolySpirit, He makes this truth known to any believer that so hungers for the things of God.

 

[Free]

Paul doesn't say when, he just tell us he had a revelation, Gal. 1:15-16

Then please tell me how you can make the claim: "Scriptures you quote are before his revelation. After Pauls revelation you will not find where he tells the sinner to repent."

If we don't know when Paul had his revelation, how can you know that the verses I previously gave were "before his revelation"? And likewise, if we don't know when Paul had his revelation, how can you say that "after Pauls [sic] revelation you will not find where he tells the sinner to repent"?

The revelation is of the Indwelling Christ revealed as the only life of the believer, Gal. 2:20
20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

You claim that this is Paul's revelation in Gal. 2:20. And that is your whole basis for claiming that Peter and Paul taught different Gospels. Yet, if you were to just read Gal. 2:2-7, you would see that Paul's gospel is the same as the one Peter was teaching and was approved by those who were "influential" in the Church. There is and always has been only one Gospel.

 

[Free]

You may have said that I am reading into what you have said but how else am I supposed to understand this statement of yours: "But I find nowhere that God was inspiring their writings"?

You don't remember admitting you were putting words into my mouth? This your post.

I never put words into your mouth nor admitted to doing so. Why would I admit to something I didn't do? You'll see in that post of mine you quoted that I was asking you a question, the very question that you have not yet answered.

edit: Reading back I see I did not record all I was thinking. But I find nowhere that God was inspiring their writings or that they were writing before His death and Paul and Luke certainly were not.

And I was speaking to you in this post and that does complete the answer and yet your trying to upset me or something else. I hope that you just missed this post by me but don't lie on me, I answered your question. You may not like the answered and I answered honestly but you kept charging your straw man.

I am not at all trying to upset you. As I clearly stated, I am just seeking clarification on what you meant. Please tell me how your quoted post answers my question when that is the very post I am asking questions about?

 

[Nathan]

Free/Taylor,

I think I may see both sides of your thoughts? May I try to help the confusion?

Maybe the thought process is this. Old Testament writings were written in a different way than New Testament. It can be well said that God moved on the Old Testament writers, especially the prophets, to write in a different way that the collection we find in the New Testament.

Not to say the New Testament writings were not inspired, but rather in a different way. When the New Testament talks about "scriptures", it most definitely does not mean the New Testament writings. They did not exist as a whole.

Both are Gods Word recorded in written format, but "inspired" differently.

 

[th1b.taylor]

I never put words into your mouth nor admitted to doing so. Why would I admit to something I didn't do? You'll see in that post of mine you quoted that I was asking you a question, the very question that you have not yet answered.


I am not at all trying to upset you. As I clearly stated, I am just seeking clarification on what you meant. Please tell me how your quoted post answers my question when that is the very post I am asking questions about?

And none of this is good for the site's image. I answered you and you're refusing to accept the answer and instead are acting like a pit bull trained to fight. I pray God's blessing on you, I'm done here.

 

[th1b.taylor]

Free/Taylor,

I think I may see both sides of your thoughts? May I try to help the confusion?

Maybe the thought process is this. Old Testament writings were written in a different way than New Testament. It can be well said that God moved on the Old Testament writers, especially the prophets, to write in a different way that the collection we find in the New Testament.

Not to say the New Testament writings were not inspired, but rather in a different way. When the New Testament talks about "scriptures", it most definitely does not mean the New Testament writings. They did not exist as a whole.

Both are Gods Word recorded in written format, but "inspired" differently.

No, that is incorrect. All of the Bible that is published, saving the RC versions with the Apocrypha, were inspired but the scriptures do not set a time line nor does anything indicate God had set about inspiring the bulk of them, the four Gospel writers, to write their commentaries on the life and teachings of Jesus and this is not the first time I have had to just break it off with Free. I appreciate the attempt to help but there is a history, also and none of this is godly.

 

[Nathan]

I stand corrected. I obviously do not understand what your saying.

 

[Soul man]

Then please tell me how you can make the claim: "Scriptures you quote are before his revelation. After Pauls revelation you will not find where he tells the sinner to repent."

If we don't know when Paul had his revelation, how can you know that the verses I previously gave were "before his revelation"? And likewise, if we don't know when Paul had his revelation, how can you say that "after Pauls [sic] revelation you will not find where he tells the sinner to repent"?


You claim that this is Paul's revelation in Gal. 2:20. And that is your whole basis for claiming that Peter and Paul taught different Gospels. Yet, if you were to just read Gal. 2:2-7, you would see that Paul's gospel is the same as the one Peter was teaching and was approved by those who were "influential" in the Church. There is and always has been only one Gospel.

Because you will not find it in his epistles, but he does tell us in his letters he had a revelation.
His gospel was a person, and that person revealed to the believer as their only life,
Gal. 1:11-12
11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

How can you say they preached the same gospel when it plainly reads,
Gal. 2:6-7
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;

Can you say that is the same, circumcision and uncircumcision.
I see it differently, and Paul said very plain God accepts no mans person. Just because they walked with Jesus, it matters very little to the Lord. Truth matters, and they that were somewhat in conference added nothing to Paul, who do you suppose that was.
What's happening in this world matters , religion means nothing, people need the truth.
Some of the most miserable people I know have Christ in them and don't know it or don't know what it means. They are full of religious jargon, but neglect the only hope there is.
They dont miss a sunday but mean as the devil monday. That's Christianity in a nutshell, of the day, their lacking in present truth and it shows.

 

[Jim Parker]

The repentance scriptures you quote are for believers, not sinners, you're mixing scripture.

That is totally absurd.
Why would a believer have to repent? So he can become a sinner again?
Repentance is for SINNERS.
Believers have already repented.
And you don't make any sense at all.

 

[Free]

Because you will not find it in his epistles, but he does tell us in his letters he had a revelation.
His gospel was a person, and that person revealed to the believer as their only life,
Gal. 1:11-12
11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

It doesn't matter where Paul does and does not say something. If we don't know when he had his revelation, your case falls apart.

We know that he did teach repentance as part of the gospel and we have no reason to believe that he stopped.

How can you say they preached the same gospel when it plainly reads,
Gal. 2:6-7
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;

Can you say that is the same, circumcision and uncircumcision.

It is not a different Gospel that Paul is writing about, it is the different groups to which he and Peter were called to. This is what verse 8 is about, explaining what he meant in verse 7.

I see it differently, and Paul said very plain God accepts no mans person. Just because they walked with Jesus, it matters very little to the Lord. Truth matters, and they that were somewhat in conference added nothing to Paul, who do you suppose that was.

I don't understand what you're asking.

 

[Nathan]

That is totally absurd.
Why would a believer have to repent? So he can become a sinner again?
Repentance is for SINNERS.
Believers have already repented.
And you don't make any sense at all.

Interesting. I have not heard someone say this in a long time.

 

[Jim Parker]

Interesting. I have not heard someone say this in a long time.

Probably because, for most people, it is obvious.


iakov the fool
(beaucoup dien cai dau)


DISCLAIMER: By reading the words posted above, you have made a free will choice to expose yourself to the rantings of iakov the fool. The poster assumes no responsibility for any temporary, permanent or otherwise annoying manifestations of cognitive dysfunction that, in any manner, may allegedly be related to the reader’s deliberate act by which he/she has knowingly allowed the above rantings to enter into his/her consciousness. No warrantee is expressed or implied. Individual mileage may vary. And, no, I don't want to hear about it. No sniveling! Enjoy the rest of your life here and the eternal one to come.

 

[Nathan]

Probably because, for most people, it is obvious.


iakov the fool
(beaucoup dien cai dau)


DISCLAIMER: By reading the words posted above, you have made a free will choice to expose yourself to the rantings of iakov the fool. The poster assumes no responsibility for any temporary, permanent or otherwise annoying manifestations of cognitive dysfunction that, in any manner, may allegedly be related to the reader’s deliberate act by which he/she has knowingly allowed the above rantings to enter into his/her consciousness. No warrantee is expressed or implied. Individual mileage may vary. And, no, I don't want to hear about it. No sniveling! Enjoy the rest of your life here and the eternal one to come.

I would bet your wrong - about most people and obvious that is.

I might be wrong, but last time I brought it up not many thought that way.