PDA

View Full Version : Validity of Paul's Gospel to Gentiles



joztok
Mar 3rd 2008, 05:07 AM
Our family are in the middle of reading a book entitled 'Islam and Christianity', wanting to learn the differences between the two beliefs.
Unfortunately the book was written from a Muslim's perspective but he raises an interesting claim.

He claims that the Apostles and Jesus' brothers were deceived by the teachings of Paul. What did Paul teach them?
Paul taught them his Gospel of Grace and his Gospel of Glory- these gospels to the gentiles and believers.

Now this writer states that's why Gabriel appeared to Mohammad. What biblical proof is there that what he preaches in his epistles or in Acts is scriptural? Revelations and the entire new testament will be ruled out because these gospels and letters (except James), were written after the Jerusalem Church meeting.

Any old testament prophecy? Any commands from Moses? Anything teachings through the Law?

We as a whole are fairly stumped. The question also had us all stumped at our Bible Study. :hmm:

So to all you scholars and theologians, figure this one out. I'll be reading that comes up. The question I am simply asking is:

How can we prove that the Apostles and Jesus' brothers were not deceived by the teachings of Paul and what he preached? How can we know that Paul wasn't tricked or thought this was the ideal way to try to kill the movement of Christianity?

DeadToSelf
Mar 3rd 2008, 05:14 AM
Well I guess the only anwser is that, read what JESUS said in: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. If JESUS says stuff that supports Paul and his claims then we know that Paul taught the truth. And Paul bases everything he writes on JESUS CHRIST and realizes that he cannot do anything without GOD.

Plus if a musilum wrote it I do not know if you would want to believe it because it is probably bias. I do not know though because I do not know the claims that he is making.

But go and compair what JESUS said to what Paul claims, what GOD said through Paul.

joztok
Mar 3rd 2008, 05:48 AM
It makes sense to do that. But what Paul preaches is exactly quite opposite to what Jesus teaches.
Jesus taught under Law. Paul taught outside of the Law. Paul teaches the 'mysteries' and says we are not bound by Jewish Law! Thats quite a claim.
The Muslim writer highlights this. Before we even read this mans book, we knew that Paul and Jesus taught different things.

Jesus didn't teach what happened after Calvary nor did any of Jesus' disciples. They were preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom and then teaching Jews how to live under and according to the Law of Moses.

Paul didn't. Paul preached what the Jesus Christ accomplished on the cross- onwards. Then continued teaching us who we are in Christ.

This Muslim man raises a valid point. Sorry to throw what you said back in your face.

Naphal
Mar 3rd 2008, 06:57 AM
This is just typical anti-Pauline propaganda. It is the first step in discrediting Christianity. It's a typical tactic by non-Christians. I suggest not reading that book any further and accepting the words of scripture:

Act 9:26 And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple.
27 But Barnabas took him, and brought [him] to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that He had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus


Any Christian is already a disciple of Christ. Paul WAS/IS a disciple. Sure, he tried to join with the other disciples and they at first didn't want him but that doesn't affect his discipleship, or ours. Now, an Apostle is a different matter.
652
652 apostolos {ap-os'-tol-os}
from 649; TDNT - 1:407,67; n m
AV - apostle 78, messenger 2, he that is sent 1; 81
1) a delegate, messenger, one sent forth with orders
1a) specifically applied to the twelve apostles of Christ
1b) in a broader sense applied to other eminent Christian teachers
1b1) of Barnabas
1b2) of Timothy and Silvanus

This isnt something that anyone can simply make themselves. God has to choose you and make you an Apostle.

Romans 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,

Galatians 1:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead)
Paul was called by Christ to be an Apostle, and Paul was a disciple as well.


Acts 9:10 And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord.
Acts 9:11 And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and enquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth,
Acts 9:12 And hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight.
Acts 9:13 Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem:
Acts 9:14 And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name.
Acts 9:15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

Here Peter makes very clear that Paul is a "chosen vessel unto" God.


Acts 13:9 Then Saul, (who also is called Paul) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him,
Peter writes that Paul was filled with the Holy (ghost) Spirit and if God felt Paul deserved that then who are we to deny it?

Acts 14:8 And there sat a certain man at Lystra, impotent in his feet, being a cripple from his mother's womb, who never had walked:
Acts 14:9 The same heard Paul speak: who stedfastly beholding him, and perceiving that he had faith to be healed,
Acts 14:10 Said with a loud voice, Stand upright on thy feet. And he leaped and walked.
Here through the power of the HS, Paul heals a cripple who never walked in his life.

Acts 14:14 Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,
Here Peter calls Paul an Apostle.
Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle, not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, the One raising Him from the dead,

Called an Apostle again.

Acts 15:11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
Acts 15:12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.
Credit for the miracles was given to God, being accomplished through Paul and Barnabas.

Acts 16:9 And a vision appeared to Paul in the night; There stood a man of Macedonia, and prayed him, saying, Come over into Macedonia, and help us.
Acts 16:10 And after he had seen the vision, immediately we endeavoured to go into Macedonia, assuredly gathering that the Lord had called us for to preach the gospel unto them.

Peter writes of Paul having a vision from the Lord.

Acts 16:18 And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour.
Paul casts out a demon in Christs name, and the demon is cast out.

Acts 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
Acts 17:3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.
Peter writes that Paul preached Christ died and rose from the dead.

Acts 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Acts 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
Yet another miracle God worked through Paul.

Acts 19:11 And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul:
Acts 19:12 So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them.

Acts 26:16 But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;
Here Christ says that Paul will be made a minister.

2 Peter 3:14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.
2 Peter 3:15 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;
2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
2 Peter 3:17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
2 Peter 3:18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

Its pretty clear how peter feels about "our beloved brother Paul". Peter speaks of those who wrest and struggle to understand Pauls writings and wisdom, struggling unto their own destruction. Take care not to repeat their mistakes.

2Pe 3:16
(ALT) as also in all his letters, speaking in them concerning these [things], in which are some [things] difficult to be understood, which the untaught and unstable twist [fig., distort] to their own destruction, as [they do] also the rest of [the] Scriptures.
(ASV) as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; wherein are some things hard to be understood, which the ignorant and unstedfast wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
(BBE) And as he said in all his letters, which had to do with these things; in which are some hard sayings, so that, like the rest of the holy Writings, they are twisted by those who are uncertain and without knowledge, to the destruction of their souls.
(CEV) Paul talks about these same things in all his letters, but part of what he says is hard to understand. Some ignorant and unsteady people even destroy themselves by twisting what he said. They do the same thing with other Scriptures too.
(Darby) as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; among which some things are hard to be understood, which the untaught and ill-established wrest, as also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.
(DRB) As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.
(EMTV) as also in all his letters, speaking in them about these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the unlearned and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.
(GB) As one, that in all his Epistles speaketh of these thinges: among the which some thinges are hard to be vnderstand, which they that are vnlearned and vnstable, wrest, as they do also other Scriptures vnto their owne destruction.
(GNB) This is what he says in all his letters when he writes on the subject. There are some difficult things in his letters which ignorant and unstable people explain falsely, as they do with other passages of the Scriptures. So they bring on their own destruction.
(GW) He talks about this subject in all his letters. Some things in his letters are hard to understand. Ignorant people and people who aren't sure of what they believe distort what Paul says in his letters the same way they distort the rest of the Scriptures. These people will be destroyed.
(HNV) as also in all of his letters, speaking in them of these things. In those, there are some things that are hard understand, which the ignorant and unsettled twist, as they also do to the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
(ISV) He speaks about this subject in all his letters. Some things in them are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort to their own destruction, as they do the rest of the Scriptures.
(KJV) As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
(KJVA) As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
(LITV) as also in all his epistles, speaking in them concerning these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the unlearned and unsettled pervert, as also they do the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
(MKJV) as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable pervert, as also they do the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction).
(MSG) refers to this in all his letters, and has written you essentially the same thing. Some things Paul writes are difficult to understand. Irresponsible people who don't know what they are talking about twist them every which way. They do it to the rest of the Scriptures, too, destroying themselves as they do it.
(WEB) as also in all of his letters, speaking in them of these things. In those are some things hard to be understood, which the ignorant and unsettled twist, as they also do to the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
(Webster) As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.
(WNT) That is what he says in all his letters, when speaking in them of these things. In those letters there are some statements hard to understand, which ill-taught and unprincipled people pervert, just as they do the rest of the Scriptures, to their own ruin.
(YLT) as also in all the epistles, speaking in them concerning these things, among which things are certain hard to be understood, which the untaught and unstable do wrest, as also the other Writings, unto their own destruction.


Luke 10:16 He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.

Those rejecting whom He sent to reveal His Word and the message of the kingdom is one of the most outright evidences we have of the apostasy, or falling away from the true Word of God, we are told will come before that man of sin is revealed. This is part of the affliction that those who belong to Him have to endure during this time...seeing His truth rejected and spoken evil of because the Light of that truth has revealed the sin within the one who has rejected it.
This rejection of Paul as a chosen vessel of the Master has been going on for some time. If they have called His Word evil, how much more will they call evil the ones who witness for Him??

Galatians 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
Galatians 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Athanasius
Mar 3rd 2008, 07:08 AM
How can we prove that the Apostles and Jesus' brothers were not deceived by the teachings of Paul and what he preached? How can we know that Paul wasn't tricked or thought this was the ideal way to try to kill the movement of Christianity?

Well, simply because. . . James and Peter taught Paul his Gospel. How could Paul go around and begin deceiving them, especially since he returned to them on at least one occasion to make sure his Gospel was correct?

You see, in 1 Corinthians 15:1-5 we read. . .

Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved,if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,

Now the question is, where did Paul first receive this Gospel? Well, firstly in Galatians 1:18-19;

Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas (Peter), and stayed with him fifteen days. But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord's brother.

Now, 'stayed with' is quite a misnomer. Being with them for fifteen days, he asked them about Christ, the crucifixion, resurrection etc. (Paul had seen the resurrected Christ a few verses prior).

We then move again into Galatians 2:1-2;

Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain.

Paul had submitted the Gospel he was teaching (1 Corinthians 15); the one he had learned from Peter and James (Galatians 1:18) to make sure that he wasn't running in vain (in other words, mistaken!; Galatians 2:2).

There is simply no reason to believe that Paul was deceiving the other Apostles.


It makes sense to do that. But what Paul preaches is exactly quite opposite to what Jesus teaches.
Jesus taught under Law. Paul taught outside of the Law. Paul teaches the 'mysteries' and says we are not bound by Jewish Law! Thats quite a claim.
The Muslim writer highlights this. Before we even read this mans book, we knew that Paul and Jesus taught different things.

Jesus didn't teach what happened after Calvary nor did any of Jesus' disciples. They were preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom and then teaching Jews how to live under and according to the Law of Moses.

Paul didn't. Paul preached what the Jesus Christ accomplished on the cross- onwards. Then continued teaching us who we are in Christ.

This Muslim man raises a valid point. Sorry to throw what you said back in your face.

This is a 'kinda' misunderstanding; but before we get into this (if at all we do), let's resolve the initial reason for this thread first.

joztok
Mar 3rd 2008, 07:47 AM
Thanks Naphal! That really 'kinda' helps. ;)
And thanks for your concern too.
You need not worry about me erring, I'm intrigued though how we can disprove this claim.
The Holy Spirit being evident in Paul's ministry does help prove he is not false. However I'm looking for more doctrinal proof in the Old Testament to support what He says or endorse the 'Age of Grace' or his gospel messages.

If you go up to any Muslim in the street and they claim Paul as false, how can we prove to them using the Old Testament Scriptures including Jesus' statements that Paul is not false?

To clarify myself further:
1. I don't reject what the Apostle Paul teaches. I hold strong to what he says.
2. The main reason why I'm posting this is to see how we can rebuke this claim doctrinally, using scripture that Muslims are familiar with.
3. To understand what this Muslim man is talking about and what I understand I will try to add the following attachments...

4534
4535

Naphal
Mar 3rd 2008, 08:00 AM
I don't care what Muslims think of Paul or anyone else. I am only concerned by what Christians say about Paul. You said a lot of negative things about Paul:

"what Paul preaches is exactly quite opposite to what Jesus teaches."


"we knew that Paul and Jesus taught different things."

That isn't true.

Paul
Galatians 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Jesus
Matthew 22:36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
Matthew 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Matthew 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
Matthew 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Matthew 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.


Both are making the same exact point.

Jesus
Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Paul

Romans 3:30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
Romans 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

Again, similar concepts. Both are being accused of destroying the law but both were teaching something deeper which fulfilled or established the law.


Now, if you take one thing at a time from these Muslims then lets discuss these things in order.

joztok
Mar 3rd 2008, 11:18 AM
Uh... You took what I said out of context Naphal:
"what Paul preaches is exactly quite opposite to what Jesus teaches.
Jesus taught under Law. Paul taught outside of the Law. Paul teaches the 'mysteries' and says we are not bound by Jewish Law! Thats quite a claim." -->I'm simply saying that the 'opposites' were Jesus teaching the Law- Paul teaching the freedom FROM Law. That's fairly opposite to me.

You used Galatians 5:14 to make the claim that Jesus and Paul taught the same thing. But keep reading...

Galatians 5:14-18 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another. This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

Paul is pretty much saying, "if you can't live by this law-abiding, fulfilled commandment, and continue to attack one another, walk in the Spirit and you shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. If you're led by the Spirit, you are not under Law."
It's like he just made a greater commandment then 'love thy neighbour'.

Now if Jesus said to anyone, ANYONE, that they were not under Jewish law to anyone in Jerusalem because they were 'led by the Spirit', not only would that not make scriptural sense for that time period, but he would be contradicting himself as you quoted him saying in Matt 5. He would have become an imperfect sacrifice because He was born under law and had to be submitted to it. Paul knew the freedom he had in Christ and fully understood what Christ did to the Law.

"...we knew that Paul and Jesus taught different things.
Jesus didn't teach what happened after Calvary nor did any of Jesus' disciples. They were preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom and then teaching Jews how to live under and according to the Law of Moses."

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Jesus couldn't destroy/abolish/remove the Law while He was alive. That would prove His perfect being to be corrupted. When He died, the Law died with Him! What He did was fulfill it by being the perfect sacrifice! That perfect godly sacrifice took AWAY the SINS of the WHOLE WORLD. The whole world is forgiven! So how can the Law operate to a forgiven world by the blood of God-the author of the Law and the finisher of the Law?

When Jesus met the requirements of the Law by being the perfect sacrifice he FULFILLED it's purpose. According to the prophets writing, Jesus FULFILLED what was written about Him and what needed to be done. All was fulfilled on the cross.

This brings me to the next verse you misquoted about the Law.

Romans 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

It's through the fulfillment of the Law we see God's faithfulness to us! Therefore He has allowed us to operate in His faithfulness, in the fulness of all he is. We see why the Law was established to begin with to fully grasp and understand who God really is and actually comprehend what He had accomplished! =)

So we see that Jesus preached the Law to those under Law. We see Paul preach to Gentile and Jew, grace, for those that know not the Law or how to uphold it's perfection. Jesus never talked about 'the mysteries', 'the rapture', 'the first resurrection', 'the great high priest who is forever interceding for us', 'the redemptive power of the cross',etc. These were Paul's gospels!

= = = = =

I love Paul and can't get enough of what has to say! But after all this, if you are not convinced with what I have said about the preaching different gospels, that being Paul and Jesus teaching different things, I have a question for you:

None of the 12 apostles knew what Jesus Christ did on the cross; what He established when He rose again; and what He did and continues to do in Heaven. So how were the 12 apostles saved if they didn't have the four gospels to preach from or have Paul?

= = = = =

This is why I wanted to see doctrinally why Paul can be validated as a true to teacher and to have his teachings applied to the canon of scripture.
Some claim him to be false because he preached this 'Gospel of Grace' and 'Gospel of Glory' that which not Jesus nor John the Baptist nor any of their disciples preached.

The Jerusalem meeting saw them accept Paul's Gospels, his teachings and his message to Jew and Gentile while they continued preaching their gospel message to Jews alone. Peter himself said they were scripture- which I believe.

But this Muslim man claims 'they were deceived'. How can we prove doctrinally that what Paul says or has done is in line with scripture?
I totally accept your answer Naphal. In all honesty I forgot about the Holy Spirit using Paul for signs and wonders.

But doctrinally, it is recorded that many can/will be deceived through signs and wonders. So what can be proved that Paul and the things he says are doctrinally correct using scripture? Prophecy? Law? Foreshadowing examples? Types and anti-types? Cristophanies? Spiritual encounters in the Old Testament/New Testament times? How can we prove these critics wrong?

I wanna know! And these guys are willing to know. My family is looking into it. It's a real challenge, but I'd like to report our findings back to this author. I'm amazed of his understanding of the bible.
Please pray for him!


BTW. Thanks for all who have replied. Highly appreciated.

joztok
Mar 3rd 2008, 11:25 AM
Here's a link to my friends body of work which he has assembled as a bible study. If anyone at all is having trouble understanding where I am coming from, I recommend you check out his easy to read studies (and enjoy my friends poems if the gospel series aint your thing):


http://web.mac.com/weggl/Site/Gospel_of_Grace.html

Studyin'2Show
Mar 3rd 2008, 12:37 PM
I believe most of the misunderstanding comes from the belief that Paul was against the law of God. Paul was a lawyer/pharisee. He writes like a lawyer in many ways which makes him, as Peter says, difficult to understand.

2 Peter 3:14-16
14 Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; 15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

When properly interpreted, Paul's writings line up with Yeshua and everything else in scripture. ;)

God Bless!

Athanasius
Mar 3rd 2008, 02:29 PM
Listen, when it comes down to it; accusing Paul of decieving the church is attributing to Satan what was done by Christ. There's a certain danger in that.

Matt14
Mar 3rd 2008, 03:27 PM
Our family are in the middle of reading a book entitled 'Islam and Christianity', wanting to learn the differences between the two beliefs.
Unfortunately the book was written from a Muslim's perspective but he raises an interesting claim.

He claims that the Apostles and Jesus' brothers were deceived by the teachings of Paul. What did Paul teach them?
Paul taught them his Gospel of Grace and his Gospel of Glory- these gospels to the gentiles and believers.

Now this writer states that's why Gabriel appeared to Mohammad. What biblical proof is there that what he preaches in his epistles or in Acts is scriptural? Revelations and the entire new testament will be ruled out because these gospels and letters (except James), were written after the Jerusalem Church meeting.

Any old testament prophecy? Any commands from Moses? Anything teachings through the Law?

We as a whole are fairly stumped. The question also had us all stumped at our Bible Study. :hmm:

So to all you scholars and theologians, figure this one out. I'll be reading that comes up. The question I am simply asking is:

How can we prove that the Apostles and Jesus' brothers were not deceived by the teachings of Paul and what he preached? How can we know that Paul wasn't tricked or thought this was the ideal way to try to kill the movement of Christianity?
The simplest proof that the apostles were not deceived by Paul comes in two places.

First, the apostles were given perfect recall of everything Jesus taught:

Joh 14:26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.

Joh 16:13 "But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.

If Peter and John, etc., were inspired teachers, would it not follow that they could discern a deception from Paul?

Second, around AD 62 Peter wrote:

2Pe 3:15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,
2Pe 3:16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

There were some people distorting the message of Christ, but Peter and Paul were on the same page as to what they were teaching. This was the case in AD 62, and it was the case in AD 33 when the events recorded in Acts 2 were occuring.

You see, Peter taught the same things in AD 33 that he taught in AD 62. Paul's conversion happened after AD 33, probably around 40. Therefore, if Peter and the others were deceived, wouldn't his message have changed?

His message did not change, though, and neither did the message of any of the apostles.

What the Islam book says is not true.

Naphal
Mar 3rd 2008, 11:06 PM
Uh... You took what I said out of context Naphal:
"what Paul preaches is exactly quite opposite to what Jesus teaches.
Jesus taught under Law. Paul taught outside of the Law. Paul teaches the 'mysteries' and says we are not bound by Jewish Law! Thats quite a claim." -->I'm simply saying that the 'opposites' were Jesus teaching the Law- Paul teaching the freedom FROM Law. That's fairly opposite to me.

I disagree that they taught oppositely. Paul was taught by divine inspiration directly from Christ so their teachings are the same.


Galatians 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.





You used Galatians 5:14 to make the claim that Jesus and Paul taught the same thing. But keep reading...

Galatians 5:14-18 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another. This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

Paul is pretty much saying, "if you can't live by this law-abiding, fulfilled commandment, and continue to attack one another, walk in the Spirit and you shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. If you're led by the Spirit, you are not under Law."
It's like he just made a greater commandment then 'love thy neighbour'.



No, Paul didn't just add a new commandment. It's the same thing as what Jesus taught. Jesus taught a new interpretation of the law concerning obeying the Spirit of the law rather than strictly the letter of the law. Paul merely continues on from that teaching but they do not teach oppositely. That is the accusation of the enemy trying to divide Paul and Christ!




But this Muslim man claims 'they were deceived'. How can we prove doctrinally that what Paul says or has done is in line with scripture?
I totally accept your answer Naphal. In all honesty I forgot about the Holy Spirit using Paul for signs and wonders.



That should be enough let alone the testimonies of other writers of scripture on Paul's behalf.

Naphal
Mar 3rd 2008, 11:22 PM
I love Paul and can't get enough of what has to say! But after all this, if you are not convinced with what I have said about the preaching different gospels, that being Paul and Jesus teaching different things, I have a question for you:

None of the 12 apostles knew what Jesus Christ did on the cross;

I don't agree. They may not have fully grasped it but he taught them about it.


what He established when He rose again;

I highly doubt that. He was with them after he arose!


Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:


Luke 24:6 He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee,
Luke 24:7 Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.
Luke 24:8 And they remembered his words,

Luke 24:25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
Luke 24:26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
Luke 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
Luke 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
Luke 24:46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
Luke 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
Luke 24:48 And ye are witnesses of these things.

John 20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:



and what He did and continues to do in Heaven.



Oh come on! You don't think they know what Jesus is doing in heaven now when they are with him in heaven? You are being negatively affected by these anti-Pauline concepts. Doubt has crept into your faith and you are now in a struggle to believe one of Christ's greatest servants and his writings in the bible. This is very serious.




So how were the 12 apostles saved if they didn't have the four gospels to preach from or have Paul?

Is your point that if they were saved without Paul's writings then we can ignore Paul and still be saved too huh? This is very suspicious not to mention you are adding in the 4 gospels as possibly being unnecessary.

joztok
Mar 4th 2008, 02:09 AM
I don't agree. They may not have fully grasped it but he taught them about it.

Please prove this statement scripturally.
The disciples had no clue what Jesus Christ did on the cross! I can say that boldly and without being in error of scripture. The scriptures you highlighted below was how Jesus proved the Old Testament Prophets and through the details of the Law how he was Israel's Messiah.

When Jesus said: "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth", he could have said that anytime while He was on earth. It does not inform them what He did. But it did inform them who He was.

The apostles before Paul, did not teach anything to do with what God did on the cross, resurrection and ascension. Jesus spoke to them about the coming kingdom as covered at the start of the book of Acts. There was no mention of Jesus talking about what he had accomplished for the whole world in what he had done! They didn't know salvation by grace!
But they did know of salvation through the Promise given to Israel by God.

You posted this verse:

Romans 3:30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

God will justify the circumcised (Jew) by their faith. Yes! If they believe that Jesus Christ is their promised Messiah, they shall be saved. Never were they told to stop practicing the Law.

We see Peter preach at Pentecost that Jesus' death and resurrection were proof that He truly was their Messiah- so believe and be baptised everyone of you. NOT ONCE did he say that the cross took away the sins of the whole world and that 'we are saved by grace'. He didn't know! What Peter preached was the gospel that Jesus commissioned them to preach. This is the gospel of circumcision (the Gospel of the Kingdom), that Paul states that Peter and the other Apostles taught.
Gal 2:2 “And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.”

Gal 2:7 “But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;”

Paul plainly states he had 'his' gospel to preach:

Rom 2:16 “In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.”

Now:

Romans 3:30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
Through the cross, the uncircumcised (us), are saved through God's faithfulness to showing the whole world who He is. We were never promised a Messiah- so Christ didn't come for us- he came for the house of Israel and commissioned his disciples to reach out to their fellow Jew.

But because God's plan was to save the whole world- his act of obedience and faith through the cross bought the whole world into a new covenant relationship with himself. Once again, this is what Paul preached- not what Peter preached.

Peter and the other Apostles were never told to stop practicing their Jewish laws. But Paul said that we Gentiles are not under it- and don't place yourself under it! It was never for us. The basics of the law are engraved on our hearts but we are to walk in the spirit, not under law.


Oh come on! You don't think they know what Jesus is doing in heaven now when they are with him in heaven? You are being negatively affected by these anti-Pauline concepts. Doubt has crept into your faith and you are now in a struggle to believe one of Christ's greatest servants and his writings in the bible. This is very serious.

While they were on EARTH they didn't have any idea 'what He did and continues to do in Heaven'. Please read the epistles of Paul! Read his gospel. Don't accuse me of doubting Paul's gospel message. I don't doubt what Paul has taught. I hold onto his words tightly.

We wouldn't know that salvation was for us if it wasn't for Jesus giving him the Gospel of Grace. Don't accuse me of being deceived when you continue to remain ignorant of the significance of what was given to Paul; HIS Gospel of Grace given by Jesus to him to preach salvation to the WHOLE world. He was the founding father of Christianity. Peter witnessed the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on gentiles but didn't know why they received God. He hid this truth for he was afraid of what the Jewish believers might do to him because of what had happened.

Galatians 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

It's claims like this that people like the Muslim man claim to show that Paul is false. I don't believe the Muslims claim, but I would like to dispute his claim biblically.

Thanks everyone for all your input. It seems as though we can only use the prophets and law to validate Christ's ministry here on earth and the Holy Spirit is the only proof we have to confirm that Paul's message for all of Christendom is valid. I particularly enjoyed Matt14's response.
Thanks mate!

TrustGzus
Mar 4th 2008, 02:22 AM
Greetings joztok,
It makes sense to do that. But what Paul preaches is exactly quite opposite to what Jesus teaches. The law of non-contradiction informs us that "A" and "non-A" cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense. That's what a contradiction does. It claims "A" and "non-A" are both true at the same time and in the same sense.

Could you give examples of the contradictions Paul makes when comparing his teaching to Jesus?

Grace & peace to you,

Joe

Naphal
Mar 4th 2008, 07:10 AM
Please prove this statement scripturally.
The disciples had no clue what Jesus Christ did on the cross! I can say that boldly and without being in error of scripture.

They knew his purpose from the beginning:

John 1:28 These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.
John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

Everyone knew what the lamb symbolized from the Law.

John 1:30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.
John 1:31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.
John 1:32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
John 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. John 1:34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.
John 1:35 Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples;
John 1:36 And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!
John 1:37 And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus.
John 1:38 Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master) where dwellest thou?
John 1:39 He saith unto them, Come and see. They came and saw where he dwelt, and abode with him that day: for it was about the tenth hour.
John 1:40 One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother.
John 1:41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.
John 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.
John 1:43 The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me.
John 1:44 Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter.
John 1:45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.

Who Jesus was and his purpose was not unknown.




When Jesus said: "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth", he could have said that anytime while He was on earth. It does not inform them what He did. But it did inform them who He was.

No, it informs what he was given to accomplish his purpose on this earth.




There was no mention of Jesus talking about what he had accomplished for the whole world in what he had done! They didn't know salvation by grace!

They knew of it.


John 1:16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.
John 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.







Paul plainly states he had 'his' gospel to preach:

Rom 2:16 “In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.”



And? What is your point here? Do you think Paul preached a different gospel than the gospel of Christ? Did Paul invent a new gospel that went in a direction Christ did not intend?





We were never promised a Messiah- so Christ didn't come for us- he came for the house of Israel and commissioned his disciples to reach out to their fellow Jew.

Take care who you include when you say "we". Christ came for the whole world, he merely first attended to Israel but don't think for a second his death wasn't for the whole world.




It seems as though we can only use the prophets and law to validate Christ's ministry here on earth and the Holy Spirit is the only proof we have to confirm that Paul's message for all of Christendom is valid.



The HS isn't the only proof we have.

joztok
Mar 4th 2008, 03:27 PM
Greetings joztok,The law of non-contradiction informs us that "A" and "non-A" cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense. That's what a contradiction does. It claims "A" and "non-A" are both true at the same time and in the same sense.
Could you give examples of the contradictions Paul makes when comparing his teaching to Jesus?
Grace & peace to you,

Joe

Will do. I will post them up tomorrow night if I get the chance.


John 1:28 These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.
John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

Everyone knew what the lamb symbolized from the Law.

John 1:30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.
John 1:31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.
John 1:32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
John 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. John 1:34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.
John 1:35 Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples;
John 1:36 And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!
John 1:37 And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus.

Valid point Naphal. I will look into this. Maybe I am wrong.
But maybe they didn't fully understand John the Baptist preached. They believed and understood. They seemed to interpret 'Lamb of God' to 'Promised Messiah'. We often see Jesus scolding his disciples for not getting allot of what he says. Yet still we never see his disciples preaching salvation by grace to gentiles or Jews. However I will look into this. This does seem like a major loophole on my part. Thankyou! :D
This will only make me want to seek the truth further. Kudos!


They knew of it.
John 1:16 And of his fullness have all we received, and grace for grace.
John 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

This gospel was written after Paul talked to them about the gospel he was given by Jesus Christ. John wrote his gospel after he heard of Paul's teachings. This is him claiming truths revealed to us by the apostle Paul as he reveals further who Christ is- something he wouldn't have seen with Christ until after Paul talked to him.


And? What is your point here? Do you think Paul preached a different gospel than the gospel of Christ? Did Paul invent a new gospel that went in a direction Christ did not intend?

I'll post the scripture again. I didn't alter it in any way.
Rom 2:16 “In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.”

I believe what Paul claims. According to his gospel message 'God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ' while Jesus Christ's message was 'Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand'.

When Paul says 'according to my gospel', he doesn't mean Peter's or John's or Lukes gospel- but HIS gospel. This gospel that was given to him by Jesus Christ to preach to Jew and Gentile- salvation through the death and resurrection of Christ.
Jesus preached the 'Gospel of the Kingdom'.
Paul preached HIS 'Gospel of Grace' and the 'Gospel of Glory' aka 'Gospel of Mystery'. Jesus and John the baptist did not preach these gospels- but they did allude to them... And I think I just FOUND MY ANSWER! THANKYOU SO MUCH NAPHAL!!!

Quote:
We were never promised a Messiah- so Christ didn't come for us- he came for the house of Israel and commissioned his disciples to reach out to their fellow Jew.
Take care who you include when you say "we". Christ came for the whole world, he merely first attended to Israel but don't think for a second his death wasn't for the whole world.

If the Jews accepted him as their Messiah it would have been a different story. We would have been left out of the picture. The millenium reign would have started then and there. However because Jesus knew His father's plan, He gave himself freely so that us gentiles could also be given a chance to accept Him. His death was for the whole world.

The Jewish clock is on hold as this dispensation of grace is running. When it finishes (rapture)- the purging (tribulation) shall begin and Israel will be restored, Christ ruling over them as Messiah and King.

What John the Baptist said was profound! Muslims accept the teachings of John the Baptist and Jesus Christ- but not Paul's!
It's JB's and JC's GLIMPSES of the future which aren't taught but are alluded too that Paul preaches and expands on!

Thanks Naphal! I know how to argue the case using the Law, the prophets and some of the Muslim's teachers now to make a case!

Thanks! Iron sharpens iron. I've been listening to everyone's responses and I am so greatful I have gotten the answers I was looking for.

BTW. I'll report on my findings of the disciples understanding when JB proclaimed 'behold the lamb'.

Thanks again everyone, but expecially you Naphal!:D

Naphal
Mar 5th 2008, 12:27 AM
They seemed to interpret 'Lamb of God' to 'Promised Messiah'. We often see Jesus scolding his disciples for not getting allot of what he says.

This is true but I don't think many of them would not understand what the lamb part of that meant. They all knew it was part of a sacrifice.


This gospel was written after Paul talked to them about the gospel he was given by Jesus Christ. John wrote his gospel after he heard of Paul's teachings.

No one knows when it was written and it doesn't matter. Each writer had the Holy Spirit guiding them.



This is him claiming truths revealed to us by the apostle Paul as he reveals further who Christ is- something he wouldn't have seen with Christ until after Paul talked to him.

I don't agree. If this was from Paul then John would have said that. It was the gospel of Christ through John and John alone.





I'll post the scripture again. I didn't alter it in any way.
Rom 2:16 “In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.”

I believe what Paul claims. According to his gospel message 'God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ' while Jesus Christ's message was 'Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand'.


You're misunderstanding that. Each person writing the Gospel of Christ would be writing it from their viewpoint according to how the HS inspired them. It is still the gospel or good news of Jesus, not of each person themselves.

(GNB) And so, according to the Good News I preach, this is how it will be on that Day when God through Jesus Christ will judge the secret thoughts of all.


This makes it a little clearer.




When Paul says 'according to my gospel', he doesn't mean Peter's or John's or Lukes gospel- but HIS gospel. This gospel that was given to him by Jesus Christ to preach to Jew and Gentile- salvation through the death and resurrection of Christ.
Jesus preached the 'Gospel of the Kingdom'.
Paul preached HIS 'Gospel of Grace' and the 'Gospel of Glory' aka 'Gospel of Mystery'. Jesus and John the baptist did not preach these gospels- but they did allude to them... And I think I just FOUND MY ANSWER! THANKYOU SO MUCH NAPHAL!!!



Well, I believe all gospels are essentially the same rather than being so distinct from each other. You said they were "opposite" but I don't agree.




Quote:
We were never promised a Messiah- so Christ didn't come for us- he came for the house of Israel and commissioned his disciples to reach out to their fellow Jew.
Take care who you include when you say "we". Christ came for the whole world, he merely first attended to Israel but don't think for a second his death wasn't for the whole world.

If the Jews accepted him as their Messiah it would have been a different story. We would have been left out of the picture. The millenium reign would have started then and there. However because Jesus knew His father's plan, He gave himself freely so that us gentiles could also be given a chance to accept Him. His death was for the whole world.


First off, I am not a gentile so the "we" doesn't apply to everyone reading this. Second, I don't agree that the gentiles would have been left out of it all had the Israelites accepted the Messiah the first time.




The Jewish clock is on hold as this dispensation of grace is running. When it finishes (rapture)- the purging (tribulation) shall begin and Israel will be restored, Christ ruling over them as Messiah and King.

What John the Baptist said was profound! Muslims accept the teachings of John the Baptist and Jesus Christ- but not Paul's!



This isn't true. They do not accept either teachings. They deny Christ is the son of God and that makes them antichrists.



It's JB's and JC's GLIMPSES of the future which aren't taught but are alluded too that Paul preaches and expands on!

I believe it is taught and alluded to and Paul may teach more in depth.





Thanks Naphal! I know how to argue the case using the Law, the prophets and some of the Muslim's teachers now to make a case!

Thanks! Iron sharpens iron. I've been listening to everyone's responses and I am so greatful I have gotten the answers I was looking for.



Well, I hope you have a better understanding now. I was fearful of what you were thinking about before so am happy to see some progress being made.



BTW. I'll report on my findings of the disciples understanding when JB proclaimed 'behold the lamb'.

Thanks again everyone, but expecially you Naphal!:D


Thank you and will look forward to your future reports.

joztok
Mar 5th 2008, 12:28 PM
I'm pretty sure I know where you are coming from.
However, I don't think you read what was on this website that I posted earlier (and added as attachments).

This will make it more clear to you where I am coming from.
If you can at least read the first two (part_1 & Part_2), I'm sure we can continue this argument with a bit more clarity from my side.

http://web.mac.com/weggl/Site/Gospel_of_Grace.html

http://web.mac.com/weggl/Site/Part_1.html
http://web.mac.com/weggl/Site/Part_2.html

joztok
Mar 5th 2008, 02:45 PM
I said: “This is true but I don't think many of them would not understand what the lamb part of that meant. They all knew it was part of a sacrifice.”


You said:

No one knows when it was written and it doesn't matter. Each writer had the Holy Spirit guiding them.

It matters hugely! If it was written before the Jerusalem Church Meeting where Paul went up to confront them with his gospel he was preaching to both Jew and Gentile, the accounts of the four gospels- Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, would have only been written to Jewish audiences. THEY WOULD HAVE EXCLUDED THEIR GENTILE AUDIENCE.

How can I make this claim? Because JESUS COMMISSIONED THEM TO PREACH THE GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM TO THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL ONLY and NOT TO GO INTO THE WAYS OF GENTILES.

If the four gospels were written after Paul's visit to the Jerusalem church, it makes sense why the statements such as 'Behold here is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the whole world' are in them, because they FINALLY understood what Paul was doing with his teachings of the "Gospel of Grace". Observe the following:

Gal 2:9 And when they knew (perceived, recognized, understood, and acknowledged) the grace (God's unmerited favor and spiritual blessing) that had been bestowed upon me, James and Cephas (Peter) and John, who were reputed to be pillars of the Jerusalem church, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, with the understanding that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised (Jews).(AMP)

They gave Paul and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship? That’s right!
The Jews that were pursuing Paul the entire time and going into the churches after the Apostle Paul founded were bringing their Jewish Laws in and causing confusion. That is why the book of Galatians was written!

Why would the Jews pursue Paul and stone Him to death?
Because they didn't understand the Gospel of Grace which explains the accomplishments of Christ the cross/resurrection/ascension!
He was enemies with the Jewish Church! He was pursued! He was stoned by them. The Jews tried to put out the ministries he was starting up. He was preaching grace- the Jews were bringing people under Law.
They were IGNORANT of what Christ accomplished at the cross/resurrection/ascension! This is why Paul boldly claimed they were ‘enemies of the Gospel’!

If Paul was to have his way, he would have made sure he would have NEVER set his foot in the Jerusalem church because he saw them as his enemies.

Gal 2:1-2 THEN AFTER [an interval] of fourteen years I again went up to Jerusalem. [This time I went] with Barnabas, taking Titus along with [me] also.
2I went because it was specially and divinely revealed to me that I should go, and I put before them the Gospel [declaring to them that] which I preach among the Gentiles. However, [I presented the matter] privately before those of repute, [for I wanted to make certain, by thus at first confining my communication to this private conference] that I was not running or had not run in vain [guarding against being discredited either in what I was planning to do or had already done]. (AMP)

Paul had to go up to Jerusalem not because he wanted to, but because he was told to by some divine encounter. He was afraid to face his enemies; those that tried to stamp out his ministry, his early churches and those that tried to kill him. This is why he went PRIVATELY to the head honcho's to prove what He preached was of God. He presented his case to them to prove that he was doing his work NOT in vain. He was to prove to them that he shouldn't be discredited by what he claims Jesus Christ gave him; 'The Gospel of Grace'.

And they ‘recognized, understood, and acknowledged’ His gospel and allowed him to fellowship with them. This probably would have been an act in front of all the Jews that were trying to kill Paul so that he would no longer be pursued. Although he was welcomed, the pharasetical sect rose up probably to stamp him out. They were under Law and did not understand his gospel.

So there was DIVIDE in the Jewish church.

Acts 15:5 But some who believed [who acknowledged Jesus as their Savior and devoted themselves to Him] belonged to the sect of the Pharisees, and they rose up and said, It is necessary to circumcise [the Gentile converts] and to charge them to obey the Law of Moses.

This GREAT DIVIDE was about to be solved by the GREAT DEBATE as he was taken in to talk on His gospel and his teachings- that which the disciples have not yet heard of or preached.

Acts 15:6-7 The apostles and the elders were assembled together to look into and consider this matter.
And after there had been a long debate, Peter got up and said to them, Brethren, you know that quite a while ago God made a choice or selection from among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the message of the Gospel [concerning the attainment through Christ of salvation in the kingdom of God] and believe (credit and place their confidence in it).

This is what Peter preached back then as now Peter stands to defend Paul:

Acts 10:37-42 You know what has happened throughout Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached— how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him.
"We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a tree, but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen—by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead. All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name."

Before Peter even came to Cornelius’ household he only knew that God only forgave the sins of Israel, not the whole world!

Acts 5:29-31 Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than men! The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead—whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree. God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel.

So Peter did preach the Gospel of the Kingdom! He proved to them Jesus was the promised Messiah! But he says ‘We are witnesses of everything he did in the country’. Great!..
Where did Peter say they were saved by grace?
Where did Peter say they were saved through the cross?
Where did Peter say that he took our sins to the cross, nailed our flesh with him?
Where did Peter say that when Christ rose from the dead that we to rose with him so that we can share in the newness of his life?
Where did Peter say..?

He didn’t say these things because he DIDN’T KNOW! He talked about the death and resurrection being proof that he is the one we need to believe to be saved. He said ‘believe in the name’- because that’s all he knew.

While Paul’s statement of salvation is similar but adds clarity to that of which Peter did not understand:

Eph 2:4-10 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.
And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus.
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast...

He remained ignorant of what Paul’s gospel had to offer. However his encounter at Cornelius’ house was to be used for Paul’s defense because Peter did not understand why the Holy Spirit fell upon a gentile household! And now this is why he is defending Paul’s ministry, because things are starting to fall in place for him. You see that Peter starts to grasp what Paul is teaching:

Acts 15:10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting a yoke on the necks of the disciples, such as neither our forefathers nor we [ourselves] were able to endure?

Now Peter is defending Paul! He points out the error he sees of the Jewish Church! The Jewish church did not know they were free of the law so were binding the saved with a yoke of slavery- ‘the Mosaic Law’!

Acts 15:11 But we believe that we are saved through the grace (the undeserved favor and mercy) of the Lord Jesus, just as they [are].

This is the first time that Peter utters Pauls 'gospel of grace' by speaking of salvation by grace and grace alone. This is Paul’s influence! Peter was preaching for people to be baptised in the name of Jesus (that’s another topic altogether) so that people could be saved. Now he understands Paul gospel and utters the profound gospel truth- that of which the Apostle Paul preaches:

“We believe that we are saved through the grace (the undeserved favor and mercy) of the Lord Jesus, just as they [are].”

SO THIS WAS A HUGELY SIGNIFICANT MEETING!

So significant as to why the father of the church reformation, Luther, wanted to have the book of James removed from the canon of scripture- because it was written before the Jerusalem church meeting where they hadn't been informed of Paul's gospels and teachings of grace and Christs accomplishments.

I said:
“This is him (John) claiming truths revealed to us by the apostle Paul as he reveals further who Christ is- something he wouldn't have seen with Christ until after Paul talked to him.”

You said:

I don't agree. If this was from Paul then John would have said that. It was the gospel of Christ through John and John alone.

Whenever you have a conversation with someone about business, finances, education, mathematics, scholars, arts, etc, do you tell everyone who your lecturers were when you talk to people about how to fix a car? How to drive a car? How to advise someone? How to catch a cab? No! You might sometimes. Paul’s gospel helped the Apostles understand the significance of Christ’s finished work on the cross- that which they had no idea of.

Now it all makes sense to John so he goes about writing his ‘HolyGhost’ inspired book where he now can see, hear and understand the significance of what the Baptist preached, and the prophecies, mysteries and riddles Jesus spoke of. John wrote from his perspective now of how we are saved by God’s grace through the cross(his influences now being rubbed off by Paul’s teachings). But we also see in his account the ‘Gospel of the Kingdom’ preached throughout Israel- NOT Paul’s ‘Gospel of Grace’!

You said:

You're misunderstanding that. Each person writing the Gospel of Christ would be writing it from their viewpoint according to how the HS inspired them. It is still the gospel or good news of Jesus, not of each person themselves.

True! But their viewpoint has been altered now due to the gospels and teachings of Paul!

You said:

Well, I believe all gospels are essentially the same rather than being so distinct from each other. You said they were "opposite" but I don't agree.

The ‘Gospel of the Kingdom’ and the ‘Gospel of Grace’ are opposite. Both are for different audiences. Both expand upon different things. The four gospels- Matt, Mark, Luke and John observe the preaching of the ‘Gospel of the Kingdom’. The writers themselves highlight salvation by grace alone because of their acceptance of Paul’s ‘Gospel of Grace’. We now see and understand the glimpses and teachings of Jesus and his teachings in newer ways now because of Paul’s teachings.


First off, I am not a gentile so the "we" doesn't apply to everyone reading this. Second, I don't agree that the gentiles would have been left out of it all had the Israelites accepted the Messiah the first time.

Then how could we have been saved if we aren’t covered by the spilt blood of Christ and the preaching of Paul’s gospel. To quote Peter “why do you try to test God by putting a yoke on the necks of the disciples, such as neither our forefathers nor we [ourselves] were able to endure?”


The law could not save the Gentile as Peter himself highlighted. Peter did not know that we were saved by grace until Paul taught him.

I didn’t know you were Jewish. My apologies. You have the option of following the law or not. You will be saved BY YOUR faith in YOUR MESSIAH.

As for me, a gentile- I was never promised a Messiah. But THROUGH GOD’S FAITHFULNESS to mankind, I can rejoice in HIS FAITH that Jesus has saved me through His precious blood. That He has taken my sin as a perfect lamb sacrifice, therefore crucified me with him, thus my sinful nature die with him. I can rejoice that in His resurrection I have been raised and justified, given new life in Him and Him alone through His holy spirit-through redeeming and abundant grace.
I can rejoice that He is forever interceding for me as high priest before the Father so that I may remain sinless in him; therefore remain forevermore in His presence and him with me forever!
I can rejoice that He has taken back from the Devil that which He gave us originally on earth- power and authority over all things in His creation- spiritual and earthly. He carries this title which Satan himself can no longer claim- ownership and authority over mankind.
What God gave Adam in the beginning, we now have again through Christ, the last Adam!


This isn't true. They (Muslims) do not accept either teachings. They deny Christ is the son of God and that makes them antichrists.

I’ve met a few Muslims now that believe that Jesus was born of a virgin and was a GREAT prophet, but not as great as Mohammad. They totally reject Paul’s teachings and therefore reject the gospels of Matt, Mark, Luke and John because they see Paul’s influence over their accounts Jesus’ life and teachings ‘thus proving them corrupt’.

I said:
"What John the Baptist said was profound! Muslims accept the teachings of John the Baptist and Jesus Christ- but not Paul's!"

You said:

Well, I hope you have a better understanding now. I was fearful of what you were thinking about before so am happy to see some progress being made.
Thank you and will look forward to your future reports.

Thanks! God bless.
I really hope and pray you see what I’m saying. It’s really quite profound and you really grow in freedom, in grace and deeper understanding of God.

Sounds elite I know, but when I have heard people finally say ‘I understand grace now’, it’s worth writing tonnes on the subject. May God truly bless you Naphal!

Naphal
Mar 6th 2008, 10:30 AM
I'm pretty sure I know where you are coming from.
However, I don't think you read what was on this website that I posted earlier (and added as attachments).

This will make it more clear to you where I am coming from.
If you can at least read the first two (part_1 & Part_2), I'm sure we can continue this argument with a bit more clarity from my side.

http://web.mac.com/weggl/Site/Gospel_of_Grace.html

http://web.mac.com/weggl/Site/Part_1.html
http://web.mac.com/weggl/Site/Part_2.html

I read them but I don't agree with everything. Firstly, while it is true that the gentiles were excluded at first, they were always going to be targeted by Christ eventually:


Matthew 12:18 Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles.
Matthew 12:19 He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets.
Matthew 12:20 A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory.
Matthew 12:21 And in his name shall the Gentiles trust.


Luke 2:30 For mine eyes have seen thy salvation,
Luke 2:31 Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people;
Luke 2:32 A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.


As well, Christ did preach the gospel of grace. It wasn't given only to Paul.


John 8:10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
John 8:11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

She should have been killed by law but through grace alone was she set free by Christ.

Naphal
Mar 6th 2008, 10:45 AM
I said: “This is true but I don't think many of them would not understand what the lamb part of that meant. They all knew it was part of a sacrifice.”

Actually I said that.




It matters hugely! If it was written before the Jerusalem Church Meeting where Paul went up to confront them with his gospel he was preaching to both Jew and Gentile, the accounts of the four gospels- Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, would have only been written to Jewish audiences. THEY WOULD HAVE EXCLUDED THEIR GENTILE AUDIENCE.

Since Christ came to be a light to the gentiles then even the gospels are written to them.



How can I make this claim? Because JESUS COMMISSIONED THEM TO PREACH THE GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM TO THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL ONLY and NOT TO GO INTO THE WAYS OF GENTILES.



Only very early in his ministry but later they were sent to all people.


Mark 16:14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.
Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.




I didn’t know you were Jewish. My apologies. You have the option of following the law or not. You will be saved BY YOUR faith in YOUR MESSIAH.

I don't believe any Christian has the option to follow the law according to the old covenant. All are one in Christ anyways.


As for me, a gentile- I was never promised a Messiah.


Of course you were.



Luke 2:30 For mine eyes have seen thy salvation,
Luke 2:31 Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people;
Luke 2:32 A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.

joztok
Mar 6th 2008, 01:30 PM
I read them but I don't agree with everything. Firstly, while it is true that the gentiles were excluded at first, they were always going to be targeted by Christ eventually:

I agree with you. They were Christ's focus in the long run- but He didn't come for them as 'Messiah'. The Jews awaited their Messiah, the gentiles didn't because they didn't have a Messiah. That is the only point I'm stressing here.

Those scripture are great prophetic statements confirming Christ's coming for the gentiles. But God had shut the ears and eyes of the Israelites to understand these things while Christ was on earth. Otherwise if they declared Him King and as their promised Messiah, the gentiles would have missed out salvation by grace. We still would have had to have been baptised as proselytes into the Jewish kingdom.



As well, Christ did preach the gospel of grace. It wasn't given only to Paul.

John 8:10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
John 8:11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

She should have been killed by law but through grace alone was she set free by Christ.
This was an act of grace, not a bold Gospel proclaiming grace message. These were all glimpses as to our God in heaven is. Where did Jesus say her to the woman- "Believe in me and that I died and rose again and you shall be saved"? This was an act of grace foreshadowing his ultimate acts of grace.

He didn't preach the 'Gospel of Grace'.
May I insist you keep reading? Please!
If you get to the end of it and are still not moved, so be it.

All the best mate with your walk in Christ in perseverance in spirit and truth!

Naphal
Mar 6th 2008, 09:21 PM
I agree with you. They were Christ's focus in the long run- but He didn't come for them as 'Messiah'. The Jews awaited their Messiah, the gentiles didn't because they didn't have a Messiah. That is the only point I'm stressing here.

Sorry to disagree again but he came to be Messiah to all. He merely began his ministry for Israel but it was to spread to the gentiles and did even while he was here.


Those scripture are great prophetic statements confirming Christ's coming for the gentiles. But God had shut the ears and eyes of the Israelites to understand these things while Christ was on earth. .

Some could understand else he would have had no disciples or followers. However, being that much of Israel was blinded only proves that he came for the gentiles that could hear the gospel.


Otherwise if they declared Him King and as their promised Messiah, the gentiles would have missed out salvation by grace. We still would have had to have been baptised as proselytes into the Jewish kingdom.

I don't understand how you justify this belief. Are you saying if Israel had accepted Jesus as Messiah that he wouldn't have fulfilled prophecy about being crucified? That would affect Israel and Gentiles alike! Salvation through grace applies to all, not only Gentiles.



This was an act of grace, not a bold Gospel proclaiming grace message.

It was a bold gospel act and everything Jesus did was important and was to teach something.


These were all glimpses as to our God in heaven is. Where did Jesus say her to the woman- "Believe in me and that I died and rose again and you shall be saved"? This was an act of grace foreshadowing his ultimate acts of grace.

I'm just saying he was showing us how he would save through grace by doing just that! It pointed to saving a soul through saving a body.




He didn't preach the 'Gospel of Grace'.
May I insist you keep reading? Please!
If you get to the end of it and are still not moved, so be it.



I've read it to the end. I am not moved in such a way. It is full of errors.

IWantMoshiach
Mar 7th 2008, 03:38 PM
I am new here so I would like to say hi to all...I also would like to say that I understand where the original poster is coming from. I understand all the wisdom that Paul contained but there are some things taught by him that can not be found anywhere in torah, writings, or prophets. I understand that the first thing alot of you all will do is assume that I am against paul but this is not the case. I think that either we(christians) have misunderstood alot of what paul has taught through the centuries or that paul taught some things that are specifically related to those congregations that he wrote to...while what Jesus taught is universal to all disciples. Feel free to post responses i have been looking for a serious discussion of this issue.

joztok
Mar 7th 2008, 03:59 PM
Sorry to disagree again but he came to be Messiah to all. He merely began his ministry for Israel but it was to spread to the gentiles and did even while he was here.
He was NEVER the PROMISED MESSIAH to the Gentiles. He was THE promised Messiah to Jews. He came to be the Jews Messiah, not the Gentiles. The Gentiles were never promised a Messiah to begin with.

As Gentiles HE came to us not as the MESSIAH but as our SAVIOUR. Huge difference.

Jesus' ministry was the same as John the Baptists ministry. They were both very similar. Their ministry was the preaching of the Gospel of the Kingdom;

Matt 3:1-2In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the Desert of Judea and saying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near."

Matt 4:17 From that time on Jesus began to preach, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near."

Matt 4:23Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness among the people.

Mat1 10:5-8These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. As you go, preach this message: 'The kingdom of heaven is near.' Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy,drive out demons. Freely you have received, freely give.

Mark 1:15 "The time has come," he said. "The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!"


Luke 4:43 But he said, "I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns also, because that is why I was sent.”

Luke 8:1 After this, Jesus travelled about from one town and village to another, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God. The Twelve were with him,

Luke 9:2 and he sent them out to preach the kingdom of God and to heal the sick.

Luke 9:11 but the crowds learned about it and followed him. He welcomed them and spoke to them about the kingdom of God, and healed those who needed healing.

Luke 9:60Jesus said to him, "Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God."

Luke 10:9 Heal the sick who are there and tell them, 'The kingdom of God is near you.'

Do you need any more scripture to convince you that preached specifically on the Gospel of the Kingdom?

Please LOOK and EXAMINE what Jesus says in Luke 4:43:
Luke 4:43 But he said, "I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns also, because that is why I was sent.”

He was SENT by God the Father to preach the Good News (=Gospel) of the Kingdom!
He was to be revealed to them as their promised Messiah by the Father. He came for the solely for the Jews.

With all this do you agree? Yes/ No

If the Father had opened the eyes and embraced Jesus as their Promised Messiah- we would enter in the Millenium Reign. Jesus would not have gone to the cross to die for the world’s sin if the Jew’s believed him and John to begin with.

With this do you agree? Yes/ No

However Jesus was rejected. He was crucified. He died and He rose again.
Jesus CONTINUED preaching about the Gospel of the Kingdom:

Acts 1:3 After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.

Jesus’ disciples had no idea what Jesus did on the cross yet as they continued to enquire about the ‘Kingdom of Heavens/God’.
Acts1:6-8 So when they met together, they asked him, "Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?" He said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."
So they were once again instructed to preach about being His witnesses to all the Jews in the world.
With this do you agree? Yes/ No

Never once do the apostles preach Paul’s gospel, the ‘Gospel of Grace’, where we are forgiven by the grace of God through the death and resurrection of His son Jesus Christ and all we need to do is believe in WHO HE IS and WHAT HE HAS DONE.
God’s grace is not even preached and salvation the through the death and resurrection of Christ are not preached by ANY of the apostles.

With this do you agree? Yes/ No

Look what Paul preaches here:

Acts 13:24Before the coming of Jesus, John preached repentance and baptism to all the people of Israel.

That is the message of the Gospel of the Kingdom! “Repent everyone of you and be baptised! For the Kingdom of heaven is near!” This is what Peter preached at Pentecost and why he told his audience to repent and be baptised because what John preached was what Jesus preached. What Jesus preached was what he commissioned his disciples to preach!

With this do you agree? Yes/ No
Acts 13:26 "Brothers, children of Abraham, and you God-fearing Gentiles, it is to us that this message of salvation has been sent.
Paul and Barnabas are talking to Jews and Proselyte Gentiles (God-Fearing):
Acts 13:30-32 But God raised him from the dead, and for many days he was seen by those who had travelled with him from Galilee to Jerusalem. They are now his witnesses to our people.
When Paul said OUR PEOPLE he was telling the Jews that they were specifically WITNESSING to the JEWS because PAUL was a JEW.
So first he witnesses to the Jew among the Gentile:
Acts 13:32-33 "We tell you the good news: What God promised our fathers he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus…


Here Paul is preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom to the Jews among the Gentile crowd!

Now what’s this he is preaching?
Acts 13:38"Therefore, my brothers, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses.
WHAT? Believing in Jesus justifies you from everything the Law couldn’t? Wouldn’t the Jews consider that blasphemy? He says believing in Jesus will make you exempt from the consequences from the Law of Moses! Well obviously they accepted what he said first.

Acts 13:43 When the congregation was dismissed, many of the Jews and devout converts to Judaism followed Paul and Barnabas, who talked with them and urged them to continue in the grace of God.

So they heart’s were pricked by the teachings of grace and knowing in their hearts that their belief in Christ was enough to be justified by God, not by the Law of Moses. No other Apostle taught this! Paul had something special hear! And some of the other Jews didn’t like this message at all- this message of Grace: exemption from being justified under the law.

Acts 13:45 When the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy and talked abusively against what Paul was saying.

It makes sense. Jesus never told them to stop practising the Law. Peter, John nor any other of Jesus’ disciples did.
But Paul was different. Why was their such a division between Gentile and Jew whenever he preached?
Acts 14:1 At Iconium Paul and Barnabas went as usual into the Jewish synagogue. There they spoke so effectively that a great number of Jews and Gentiles believed. But the Jews who refused to believe stirred up the Gentiles and poisoned their minds against the brothers.
So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders. 4The people of the city were divided; some sided with the Jews, others with the apostles. 48When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honoured the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.
And hear we finally see the first time where we see ANYONE preach in the book of Acts a MESSAGE of the GRACE of GOD: the ‘Gospel of Grace’, given to Paul. This is why their was a divide between the people- some siding with the Jew or some siding with Paul. One set believing they were saved by grace alone that not by the Law. The other set holding onto Jewish values/ Law and customs- things that could not save them. Thus this is why, Paul had a following of Jews pursuing him, poisoning his ministry and his Christ’s early converts.

With this do you agree? Yes/ No

Acts 14:26-28 From Attalia they sailed back to Antioch, where they had been committed to the grace of God for the work they had now completed. On arriving there, they gathered the church together and reported all that God had done through them and how He had opened the door of faith to the Gentiles. And they stayed there a long time with the disciples.

So through Paul and Barnabas, God had ‘opened the door of faith’ to the Gentiles. God didn’t used PAUL for this! He is OUR APOSTLE OF GRACE!

With this do you agree? Yes/ No

We see that Paul was commissioned the ‘Gospel of Grace’ while the remaining disciples preached the ‘Gospel of the Kingdom’ because they were never told to stop preaching it. Nor did they know that they were justified by faith in Jesus alone and not by Law.

With this do you agree? Yes/ No

We see this same dispute much further down the track- Jews trying to convince Gentile believers into being bought under the Law.

Acts 15:1 Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved."

This was the Jewish mindset. This was Jesus’ disciples mindset (thus Peter’s reaction to preach to Gentiles-Cornelius’ Household- the uncircumcised). Once again, they would have not pieced this mystery together. Jews saw salvation as only Jesus being for them and for Gentiles to be saved accordingly they would need to be baptised into the Jewish faith and circumcised to become ‘god-fearing’ Gentiles. Proselytes. This is old covenant scripture being applied to a new covenant beginning.
Paul preached salvation through grace to both gentile and Jew making them (he hoped) fully Christian. Jews and disciples preached salvation through faith in Christ and being under Jewish Law- Jewish Christians.
Jesus’ disciples were Jewish Christians.

With this do you agree? Yes/ No

I close on this. This is Paul clearly stating the Gospel message he was sent to preach:

Acts 20:24 However, I consider my life worth nothing to me, if only I may finish the race and complete the task the Lord Jesus has given me—the task of testifying to the gospel of God's grace.

Naphal- you’re probably a Jewish Christian.
I believe you’re saved Naphal, because God never told the Jew to stop practicing the Law but did tell them to believe in Christ. I hope I never challenged you in the aspect that you were never saved. YIKES!
I hope this adds to clarify my claim of their being ‘different’ teachings.


Well, I believe all gospels are essentially the same rather than being so distinct from each other. You said they were "opposite" but I don't agree.

And I said before that Paul and Jesus had ‘opposite’ teachings. That is a communication error. My use of the word ‘opposite’ meant ‘different’. Their teachings were ‘different’ not ‘opposite’. Sorry for the confusion.

All the gospel messages have the essential message- BELIEVE IN GOD and you shall be SAVED. However they differed in teachings because of the different target audiences and time periods.


I've read it to the end. I am not moved in such a way. It is full of errors.


Well, I pray you see what I see. Those teachings liberated our family- have set people free in church and now it’s spreading through our greater family, friends and other church bible studies. People are finding freedom in those teachings because the church these days preach what they believe to be the gospel message. It’s not. It’s a conglomerate of Law, works, grace, excellence, beliefs, faith and New Age teachings. Those teachings have helped liberate many people from troubled minds, bound consciences and unsettled spirits. You really notice the change in peoples spiritual walk. Their strivings stop and they are much more accepting of others.


First off, I am not a gentile so the "we" doesn't apply to everyone reading this. Second, I don't agree that the gentiles would have been left out of it all had the Israelites accepted the Messiah the first time.

To save a Jew, preach either the ‘Gospel of the Kingdom’ and they shall be a saved Jewish Christian. Preach to them the ‘Gospel of Grace’ and they can still be a Jewish Christian or Christian.
To save a Gentile, you can only preach to them the ‘Gospel of Grace’ for them to receive salvation.
To preach the ‘Gospel of the Kingdom’ is to bring the ‘Free in Christ’ under law.

Hope what I have said blesses you and pierces your heart!
Cheers!

Joztok

Matt14
Mar 7th 2008, 04:50 PM
He was NEVER the PROMISED MESSIAH to the Gentiles. He was THE promised Messiah to Jews. He came to be the Jews Messiah, not the Gentiles. The Gentiles were never promised a Messiah to begin with.

As Gentiles HE came to us not as the MESSIAH but as our SAVIOUR. Huge difference.


Jesus was always promised to the Gentiles as a Savior:

Isa 49:6 Indeed He says, 'It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant To raise up the tribes of Jacob, And to restore the preserved ones of Israel; I will also give You as a light to the Gentiles, That You should be My salvation to the ends of the earth.' "

It was so before the foundation of the world.


To save a Jew, preach either the ‘Gospel of the Kingdom’ and they shall be a saved Jewish Christian. Preach to them the ‘Gospel of Grace’ and they can still be a Jewish Christian or Christian.
To save a Gentile, you can only preach to them the ‘Gospel of Grace’ for them to receive salvation.
To preach the ‘Gospel of the Kingdom’ is to bring the ‘Free in Christ’ under law.

Hope what I have said blesses you and pierces your heart!
Cheers!

Joztok

This message is far from being a blessing or a comfort, any those reading should have alarm bells going off in their heads. Paul said:

Gal 1:6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel,
Gal 1:7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.
Gal 1:8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.

There are not "two gospels" for different races of people. This idea is squarely against New Testament teaching.

As further evidence, Paul said:

Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.

Paul is talking about one gospel that saves both Jew and Greek (everyone else). There is only one gospel, and it is the (singluar) power of God unto salvation.

I urge everyone to speak out against this teaching, for it is very false.

Moderators, perhaps you should examine this thread.

watchinginawe
Mar 7th 2008, 05:08 PM
Since joztok is the OP, I am just going to move this over into Contro until things get sorted out.

God Bless!

joztok
Mar 8th 2008, 04:19 AM
Jesus was always promised to the Gentiles as a Saviour:

Isa 49:6 Indeed He says, 'It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant To raise up the tribes of Jacob, And to restore the preserved ones of Israel; I will also give You as a light to the Gentiles, That You should be My salvation to the ends of the earth.' "

It was so before the foundation of the world.
Both Jew and Gentile were saved by believing Jesus Christ is Lord. If you look at the Old Testament, a gentile was saved by being baptised under the Law of Moses, into Israel. Salvation was given to the Gentile if they repented and turned to Israel’s God. (Look at the Book of Jonah.) So yes. Jesus was a SAVIOUR to the Gentiles, not a ‘Promised Messiah’ to the Gentiles. The ways of salvation changed for a gentile when Jesus Christ did the work His Father told him to do.



This message is far from being a blessing or a comfort, any those reading should have alarm bells going off in their heads. Paul said:

Gal 1:6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel,
Gal 1:7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.
Gal 1:8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.

There are not "two gospels" for different races of people. This idea is squarely against New Testament teaching.

I think it is amazing you accuse me of preaching 'another gospel' when you do not understand the scripture you just quoted from Paul. The Jews were in conflict with what Paul preached. They tried to kill him. They were following him and then went through his churches preaching their false gospel:

Acts 15:5 "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses."

Acts 18:3 "This man," they charged, "is persuading the people to worship God in ways contrary to the law."

'The Gentile can only be saved by the Law'. This was their belief. This was their false gospel.

Acts 21:19-21 Paul greeted them and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.
When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: "You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs.

This false gospel spread lies of Paul and his teachings. He did not tell the Jew to turn away from Moses. He did not tell them they should not circumcise their children or live according to their Jewish customs. These Jews were spreading lies of Paul.

As further evidence, Paul said:
Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.

Paul is talking about one gospel that saves both Jew and Greek (everyone else). There is only one gospel, and it is the (singular) power of God unto salvation.[/quote]

I've underlined the exact gospel to who Paul preached to. The Gospel of the Kingdom only bought salvation unto Jews. Paul’s Gospel bought salvation to both Jew and Gentile.


I urge everyone to speak out against this teaching, for it is very false.
Moderators, perhaps you should examine this thread. This teaching or the gospel message I preach is that of the Apostle Paul. What gospel Matt 14, do you preach if it’s not the Gospel of the Apostle Paul?

You accuse me of preaching a VERY false gospel without knowing what you actually preach!
Remove the plank from your own eye first please.

I came to discuss the claim to prove that Paul was in fact doctrinally correct.
Since then I’m being accused of twisting scripture. How can I be twisting scripture if I’m putting the books of Matt-John and Acts in a time frame in who their teachings were for.

That’s context! Try to prove to me what I’m teaching is out of context!
So Matt14, take back your persecuting and divisive accusation and I will take back mine.
Mods. Please consider what is being said here!

For everyone: Please ask WHY!

Why did the Jews seek to kill Paul?
Why were the Jews jealous of the message Paul spoke to the Gentiles?
Why did Jews follow behind Paul and cause disruption and dis-unity from his churches?
Why did Paul fear and resist in going up to the Jerusalem church?
Why were some of the Gentile converts pleading for him not to go to the Jerusalem Church?
Why did the Jewish church not address the false teachings come from it’s members sooner?
Why were their false teachings and what were they?

Jewish Church Letter to the Church of Antioch from the Council at Jerusalem:
Acts 15:24We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said...

What was said?Acts 15:1 Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.
Acts 15:24 ...So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Why didn’t these Jews know any better and why didn’t Peter, James and John correct them if they knew the teahcings of Paul?

These are all really important questions. If at least you don’t believe my arguments, at least ask these questions and consider what Paul preached (that cost him his life once before).

I would like this to be moved back into Bible Chat because we're talking largely on scriptural material that covers largely the New Testament.

What was Paul saying that made get him in trouble with the Jews ?

Athanasius
Mar 8th 2008, 04:45 AM
Are we still arguing over Paul's supposed deception over the other disciples and the Jews?

joztok
Mar 8th 2008, 11:02 AM
Are we still arguing over Paul's supposed deception over the other disciples and the Jews?

Unfortunately no.
I'm being slandered and accused because of my views.

Matt14 said:

"This message is far from being a blessing or a comfort, any those reading should have alarm bells going off in their heads..."
"I urge everyone to speak out against this teaching, for it is very false.
Moderators, perhaps you should examine this thread."
This topic has been moved to controversial only because others have derailed this thread in trying to prove me wrong over what dead Christian Scholars, Christian teachers and non-Christians have taught biblically through the centuries. That's what has suddenly made this thread controversial.

I initially started this thread to find information and scripture to prove the teachings of Paul to be valid in the New Testament because of a truth-seeking Muslim man made claims that Paul did preach different teachings to that of Jesus' other disciples. This Muslim man says we can't accept the teachings of Paul because Paul couldn't destroy the church by means of violence, so he took the scriptures to divide and destroy the church inside out.

I disagree with the Muslim man that this was Paul's intentions.
I just need proof to fight this claim and prove to him that Paul's teachings are valid.

However, I do agree that Paul did teach different things to Jesus.
This is what has been the upset here. :cry:

Hope you can help add to this discussion to bring clarity.
I've been trying and it seems like it's not working.

Sigh... We Christians are so Judo-Christians today...

watchinginawe
Mar 8th 2008, 03:50 PM
Here is a passage to think on. I believe this was true because of Paul's acceptance and the miraculous spread of the Gospel:

I Corinthians 2:1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.

2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.

4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:

5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

In other words, Paul's ministry had a witness as to the source of his message.

I Thessalonians 1: Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

2 We give thanks to God always for you all, making mention of you in our prayers;

3 Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father;

4 Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God.

5 For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake.

6 And ye became followers of us, and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost.

7 So that ye were ensamples to all that believe in Macedonia and Achaia.

8 For from you sounded out the word of the Lord not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place your faith to God-ward is spread abroad; so that we need not to speak any thing.

9 For they themselves shew of us what manner of entering in we had unto you, and how ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God;

10 And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.

I believe Paul and the Bible regarding Paul's calling: Galatians 1:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead; )

God Bless!

Matt14
Mar 8th 2008, 04:07 PM
Both Jew and Gentile were saved by believing Jesus Christ is Lord. If you look at the Old Testament, a gentile was saved by being baptised under the Law of Moses, into Israel.

Where in scripture do you find this "baptizing under the Law of Moses?"

Baptism was not instituted as a command of God until John the baptizer and Jesus Christ.


Salvation was given to the Gentile if they repented and turned to Israel’s God. (Look at the Book of Jonah.) So yes. Jesus was a SAVIOUR to the Gentiles, not a ‘Promised Messiah’ to the Gentiles. The ways of salvation changed for a gentile when Jesus Christ did the work His Father told him to do.

The ways of salvation changed for both Jew and Gentile when Christ sacrificed Himself for the whole world. They were then under the same covenant with the same requirements for both.


I think it is amazing you accuse me of preaching 'another gospel' when you do not understand the scripture you just quoted from Paul. The Jews were in conflict with what Paul preached. They tried to kill him. They were following him and then went through his churches preaching their false gospel:

Acts 15:5 "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses."

Acts 18:3 "This man," they charged, "is persuading the people to worship God in ways contrary to the law."

'The Gentile can only be saved by the Law'. This was their belief. This was their false gospel.

Acts 21:19-21 Paul greeted them and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.
When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: "You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs.

This false gospel spread lies of Paul and his teachings. He did not tell the Jew to turn away from Moses. He did not tell them they should not circumcise their children or live according to their Jewish customs. These Jews were spreading lies of Paul.


That's exactly what they were doing. They were adding to the gospel of Christ by commanding circumcision for gentiles. That is a perverted gospel.

In a like manner, taking away something from the gospel of Christ is a perversion of the gospel as well.

And teaching that there are two gospels, one for Jews and one for Gentiles, is a perversion as well.


Let me give you an example of Paul preaching
the exact same thing to Jews that he preached to Gentiles.

In Acts, we see this:

Act 18:4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded both Jews and Greeks.

First notice in Acts 18 how Paul has gone to the synagogue every Sabbath, and spoke both to Jews and to Greeks. He persuaded some of both groups. Do you think Paul switched on and off, teaching a different thing to the different groups? Highly unlikely...

Act 18:5 When Silas and Timothy had come from Macedonia, Paul was compelled by the Spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus is the Christ.
Act 18:6 But when they opposed him and blasphemed, he shook his garments and said to them, "Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean. From now on I will go to the Gentiles."

Next we see some Jews rejecting the gospel Paul preached. Why did they reject his teaching? Did he accidentally teach them the Gentile version of the Gospel? Or did they reject the same version that Jews in Acts 18:4 had accepted?

Rest assured, it was the same message that Paul preached to both Jew and Gentile.


I've underlined the exact gospel to who Paul preached to. The Gospel of the Kingdom only bought salvation unto Jews. Paul’s Gospel bought salvation to both Jew and Gentile.

Do you consider Samaritans Jews or Gentiles? Philip preached to them about the kingdom of God, and in response they were baptized:

Act 8:12 But when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized.

Were the disciples at Lystra and Iconium Gentiles? Paul preached to them about the kingdom of God as well:

Act 14:21 And when they had preached the gospel to that city and made many disciples, they returned to Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch,
Act 14:22 strengthening the souls of the disciples, exhorting them to continue in the faith, and saying, "We must through many tribulations enter the kingdom of God."

Paul preached the kingdom of God among the Ephesians, who most decidedly were Gentiles:

Act 20:25 "And indeed, now I know that you all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, will see my face no more.

Imprisoned in Rome, Paul continuing teaching about the kingdom of God. Did only Jews come to him here?

Act 28:30 Then Paul dwelt two whole years in his own rented house, and received all who came to him,
Act 28:31 preaching the kingdom of God and teaching the things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ with all confidence, no one forbidding him.

Paul also told the Thessalonians that God was calling them into His kingdom!

1Th 2:12 that you would walk worthy of God who calls you into His own kingdom and glory.

There is much more proof that Paul taught about the kingdom of God in much the same way that Jesus did. These are just a few examples.


This teaching or the gospel message I preach is that of the Apostle Paul. What gospel Matt 14, do you preach if it’s not the Gospel of the Apostle Paul?

I preach and teach the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is the same one preached by Paul, by Peter, by John, and by every other apostle. It is the one gospel that is the power of God unto salvation for both Jew and Greek. It is the same one preached in Acts 2, and the same one preached thereafter.


I came to discuss the claim to prove that Paul was in fact doctrinally correct.
Since then I’m being accused of twisting scripture. How can I be twisting scripture if I’m putting the books of Matt-John and Acts in a time frame in who their teachings were for.

That’s context! Try to prove to me what I’m teaching is out of context!
So Matt14, take back your persecuting and divisive accusation and I will take back mine.

You are getting angry, and that was not my intent. Having been a moderator here for a long time in times past, and an admin as well, we dealt often with the "two gospel" teaching that was becoming popular. We decided it was a false teaching and that it should be kept off the main board. I do not know what the current policy is, but since the subject has so much potential to mislead, it does not need to be on the open board.

If you will look over what I said to you, I did not accuse you of anything. I discussed the teaching and warned those reading to examine what was being said in light of scripture.

I apologize to you if I offended you in any way.


For everyone: Please ask WHY!

Why did the Jews seek to kill Paul?

As I posted scripture above, many Jews accepted the gospel under Paul's teaching. The ones who sought to kill him often thought he was a heretic and had abandoned the Jewish faith.


Why were the Jews jealous of the message Paul spoke to the Gentiles?

Because they thought the Gentiles were unclean. Read Acts 10 and 11 on this point. You will see that it took a miracle to show the Jews that the Gentiles were acceptable.


Why did Jews follow behind Paul and cause disruption and dis-unity from his churches?

Again, because they were trying to mix observance of the Law of Moses with the New Covenant. Mixing Old and New was not acceptable.


Why did Paul fear and resist in going up to the Jerusalem church?

Because he had previously been killing Christians in the name of Judaism, and now he was a preacher of Christianity.


Why were some of the Gentile converts pleading for him not to go to the Jerusalem Church?

Ditto.


Why did the Jewish church not address the false teachings come from it’s members sooner?
Why were their false teachings and what were they?

Jewish Church Letter to the Church of Antioch from the Council at Jerusalem:
Acts 15:24We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said...

What was said?Acts 15:1 Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.
Acts 15:24 ...So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Why didn’t these Jews know any better and why didn’t Peter, James and John correct them if they knew the teahcings of Paul?

These are all really important questions. If at least you don’t believe my arguments, at least ask these questions and consider what Paul preached (that cost him his life once before).

I would like this to be moved back into Bible Chat because we're talking largely on scriptural material that covers largely the New Testament.

What was Paul saying that made get him in trouble with the Jews ?

Some of the Jews believed the Gentiles had to become Jewish converts before they could be acceptable to God. After all, all Jewish men were circumcised. A Jewish convert had to be, so why didn't the Gentiles have to be before becoming Christians?

Acts 15 was all about the fact that circumcision was not necessary for the Gentiles. In fact, it was not even necessary for the Jews any longer, but they continued to observe it as a custom of being a nation. A Jewish Christian no longer has need of these things, as the shadows have all passed away.

It would be wonderful if you would state in one simple, logical statement what you are trying to teach about this "two gospel" idea, and what that means to Christians today.

If you would like to set up a formal discussion on this, just you and me, in the Arena on this board, I would be glad to participate.

Athanasius
Mar 8th 2008, 04:08 PM
I disagree with the Muslim man that this was Paul's intentions.
I just need proof to fight this claim and prove to him that Paul's teachings are valid.

However, I do agree that Paul did teach different things to Jesus.
This is what has been the upset here. :cry:

Hope you can help add to this discussion to bring clarity.
I've been trying and it seems like it's not working.

Sigh... We Christians are so Judo-Christians today...

Trying to fight a negative claim? You can't disprove a negative that no one has any reason to believe in, other than that they have to believe in it or else their whole case for not believing the New Testament is thrown out and they might have to admit it is actually inspired. . .

I don't know of any way to disprove that a spaghetti monster actually might exist; there's just no reason to believe in one.

I mean, we can argue all day about Paul teaching 'different' things than Jesus, and perhaps that discussion is some what warranted (he didn't, by the way). But we aren't going to get past the fact that he certainly didn't deceive the other disciples, to say nothing of their intellectual ability, communion with the Spirit, and small reality that they were the ones that gave Paul his gospel. Peter did view Paul's teaching as hard to understand, but he did affirm it as inspired as Moses' teaching.

I mean, I think it's a little silly to accuse Paul because of what the Jews thought. . . Especially after what they did to Jesus? Or maybe I'm just misunderstanding what's being said.

Matt14
Mar 8th 2008, 04:25 PM
Unfortunately no.
I'm being slandered and accused because of my views.

Matt14 said:

This topic has been moved to controversial only because others have derailed this thread in trying to prove me wrong over what dead Christian Scholars, Christian teachers and non-Christians have taught biblically through the centuries. That's what has suddenly made this thread controversial.

I initially started this thread to find information and scripture to prove the teachings of Paul to be valid in the New Testament because of a truth-seeking Muslim man made claims that Paul did preach different teachings to that of Jesus' other disciples. This Muslim man says we can't accept the teachings of Paul because Paul couldn't destroy the church by means of violence, so he took the scriptures to divide and destroy the church inside out.

I disagree with the Muslim man that this was Paul's intentions.
I just need proof to fight this claim and prove to him that Paul's teachings are valid.

However, I do agree that Paul did teach different things to Jesus.
This is what has been the upset here. :cry:

Hope you can help add to this discussion to bring clarity.
I've been trying and it seems like it's not working.

Sigh... We Christians are so Judo-Christians today...
I did not "slander" you. In fact, I spoke about the teaching, and not you personally. I am sorry that I have hurt your feelings.

This is an important subject, though. The gospel must be kept pure. You will not be able to refute the Muslim's arguments if you insist on believing this teaching that Paul and Jesus taught opposing things.

watchinginawe
Mar 8th 2008, 04:52 PM
:hmm: I'm thinking of another way to view this as well. What about Jesus' messages to the Churches in Revelation?

Revelation 1:10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,

11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

Paul's calling and his missionary journeys are responsible for the publishing of the Gospel through Asia Minor.

Acts 19:8 And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God.

9 But when divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus.

10 And this continued by the space of two years; so that all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks.

(And we see as Matt offered that the "things concerning the kingdom of God" and the "word of the Lord Jesus" was heard by both Jews and Greeks (gentiles).)

So, if we accept the Apostle John and the word given to him in Revelation, then Jesus Himself addresses the Churches whose beginning were from Paul's missionary journeys. Jesus even claims the word preached as "His word" so that would be an endorsement of Paul's calling and preaching.

God Bless!

MMC
Mar 8th 2008, 05:35 PM
I believe most of the misunderstanding comes from the belief that Paul was against the law of God. Paul was a lawyer/pharisee. He writes like a lawyer in many ways which makes him, as Peter says, difficult to understand.

I rather think this makes him easier to understand! :lol:



2 Peter 3:14-16
14 Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; 15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

When properly interpreted, Paul's writings line up with Yeshua and everything else in scripture. ;)

I think this is an excellent point.

diffangle
Mar 8th 2008, 05:36 PM
Baptism was not instituted as a command of God until John the baptizer and Jesus Christ.


Exd 29:4 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Exd&chapter=29&verse=4&version=kjv#4)And Aaron and his sons thou shalt bring unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and shalt wash them with water.

Lev 14:9 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Lev&chapter=14&verse=9&version=kjv#9)But it shall be on the seventh day, that he shall shave all his hair off his head and his beard and his eyebrows, even all his hair he shall shave off: and he shall wash his clothes, also he shall wash his flesh in water, and he shall be clean.

Mikvah's/baptism was instituted before John the Baptist. The ruins in Israel are loaded with mikvah pool's. The writer of Hebrews confirms that the washing's in the OT, as being spoken of in the verse below, were baptism's...

Hbr 9:10 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Hbr&chapter=9&verse=10&version=kjv#10)[Which stood] only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed [on them] until the time of reformation.

The word washings in this verse is the word baptismos (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G909&Version=kjv) in the Greek.

Athanasius
Mar 8th 2008, 05:42 PM
Baptism and Mikvah's are similar, but different.

diffangle
Mar 8th 2008, 05:49 PM
Baptism and Mikvah's are similar, but different.
Why is the word baptismos used to describe the OT washings if it is different than baptism?

Matt14
Mar 8th 2008, 06:17 PM
Exd 29:4 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Exd&chapter=29&verse=4&version=kjv#4)And Aaron and his sons thou shalt bring unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and shalt wash them with water.

Lev 14:9 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Lev&chapter=14&verse=9&version=kjv#9)But it shall be on the seventh day, that he shall shave all his hair off his head and his beard and his eyebrows, even all his hair he shall shave off: and he shall wash his clothes, also he shall wash his flesh in water, and he shall be clean.

Mikvah's/baptism was instituted before John the Baptist. The ruins in Israel are loaded with mikvah pool's. The writer of Hebrews confirms that the washing's in the OT, as being spoken of in the verse below, were baptism's...

Hbr 9:10 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Hbr&chapter=9&verse=10&version=kjv#10)[Which stood] only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed [on them] until the time of reformation.

The word washings in this verse is the word baptismos (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G909&Version=kjv) in the Greek.
These washings were about the priestly code, and not neccesarily immersion.

Also, these "washings" were not connected with salvation, but purification rites.

watchinginawe
Mar 8th 2008, 06:17 PM
Baptism is now done in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost. Or, if you prefer, our Lord Jesus Christ, though I will stick with the former. That is a clear distinction.

Baptism isn't just another washing among washings. We all agree on this, right?

God Bless!

Matt14
Mar 8th 2008, 06:19 PM
Why is the word baptismos used to describe the OT washings if it is different than baptism?
Because the word itself, like most words, can have different shades of meaning depending on the context.

Baptismo means, generally, immerse, but the purpose can be different depending on the context. In the passages you mention, the purpose was different than the one in the New Testament.

Souled Out
Mar 8th 2008, 07:25 PM
Joztok, I wanted to offer some of my thoughts.

Rom 9:24 even us whom He called not only from Jews, but also from Gentiles?

Rom 9:25 As also in Hosea He says, "I will call the one not My people, 'My people;' and the one not beloved, 'Beloved.'" (ref. Hosea 2:23)

Rom 9:26 "And it will be in the place where it was said to them, 'You are not My people,' in that place they will be called sons of the living God." (ref. Hosea 1:10)

Paul is explaining why the Gentiles had access to salvation and why it was no longer exclusive to the Jews. Jesus said I have other sheep.

Rom 9:27 But Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, "If the number of the sons of Israel are as the sand of the sea, the remnant will be saved.

Rom 9:28 For He is finishing and abruptly ending the matter in righteousness, because the matter having been ended abruptly will the LORD do on the land. (ref. Isaiah 10:22,23)

Rom 9:29 And just as Isaiah had foretold, "Unless the LORD of Armies [fig., LORD Almighty] left us a seed, we would have become as Sodom, and we would have been made like Gomorrah.” (ref. Isaiah 1:9)

When Jesus came, He came for all not just the Jews, even though the majority of His ministry was geared to them.

Rom 9:30 What then will we say? That Gentiles, the ones not pursuing righteousness attained righteousness, but a righteousness by faith.

So now the Gentiles have access merely by faith.

Rom 9:31 But Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at a law of righteousness.

The Jews had the Law and it brought them not into righteousness, The Jews wanted the law but God wanted relationship.

Rom 9:32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it was by works of the Law; for they stumbled at the stone of stumbling.

This is what Paul was dealing with when he preached to the Jews.

Paul wrote to a mixed audience of both converted Jews and Greeks. The Gentiles were not given the Law so for Paul to approach them with the Law first wouldn’t have made sense but it made plenty of sense to come at the Jews with the Law since it was all they knew about God.

With the Jews Paul spoke law then grace but with the Gentiles it was pure grace.

No matter what audience Paul was preaching to He preached the same message even though he may have spoken it using different “languages” by using the sayings, expressions and customs that each audience could relate to.

Paul spoke essentially to four different audiences: Jews in Pisidia, gentiles in Athens, Jews in Jerusalem, and civil rulers and although Paul used different approaches for these audiences, the message remained the same.

In the synagogue in Pisidia, Paul began with Israel's history (Acts 13:16-22) and we can see from verses 23-27 what he concentrated on for most of the sermon and what he ended with in verse 30.

In Athens, Paul faced a different crowd and he couldn’t begin with scripture or Jewish history because they didn’t have those points of reference. Instead, Paul started out with a contemporary situation (Acts 17:22-23) and then he introduced them to God in verses 24-28, exhorts them in verse 30 before ending with Christ’s resurrection in verse 31.

I Corin. 9:19 For though I was free from all I brought myself under bondage to all, that I might gain the more.

I Corin. 9:20 And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, not being myself under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;

I Corin. 9:21 to them that are without law, as without law, not being without law to God, but under law to Christ, that I might gain them that are without law.

Joztok, I hope what I said wasn't redundant or confusing as I didn't read most of the thread but not all.

Continued blessings in your study.

PyrK
Mar 8th 2008, 07:56 PM
Unfortunately no.
I'm being slandered and accused because of my views.

Matt14 said:

This topic has been moved to controversial only because others have derailed this thread in trying to prove me wrong over what dead Christian Scholars, Christian teachers and non-Christians have taught biblically through the centuries. That's what has suddenly made this thread controversial.

I initially started this thread to find information and scripture to prove the teachings of Paul to be valid in the New Testament because of a truth-seeking Muslim man made claims that Paul did preach different teachings to that of Jesus' other disciples. This Muslim man says we can't accept the teachings of Paul because Paul couldn't destroy the church by means of violence, so he took the scriptures to divide and destroy the church inside out.

I disagree with the Muslim man that this was Paul's intentions.
I just need proof to fight this claim and prove to him that Paul's teachings are valid.

However, I do agree that Paul did teach different things to Jesus.
This is what has been the upset here. :cry:

Hope you can help add to this discussion to bring clarity.
I've been trying and it seems like it's not working.

Sigh... We Christians are so Judo-Christians today...

I find it hard to believe that Paul would be martyred for such a cause.
I mean, it is not proven beyond doubt that he was beheaded, but we're pretty sure that was the case.

joztok
Mar 9th 2008, 06:52 AM
PyrK said:

I find it hard to believe that Paul would be martyred for such a cause.
I mean, it is not proven beyond doubt that he was beheaded, but we're pretty sure that was the case.

Wow! I did not know that! If that is what is known to have happen to him, that would make at least what he said valid. Does anyone know if this is fact? If it is fact it would be a great witness to prove that what Paul taught was not false. Because noone in their right mind would die for something if its' false.
SouledOut said:

It would be wonderful if you would state in one simple, logical statement what you are trying to teach about this "two gospel" idea, and what that means to Christians today.
Well I'd like to thank you first for adding clarity to what I have been trying to say. Thank you so much PyrK! I've never seen this line of thought before- yours that is. I'll look into it too.

However I've sat here for two hours trying to type something to make it clear as bell as why this is so relevant back then as it is now; to distinguish Paul and the Jewish churches teachings. I'll really have to work on this. I don't wish to offend any body or add some other aspect by accident to derail this argument any further. My writing skills should be improving this year at college.

Just pray and ponder over this while I'll leave you with an old Scholar's teachings on the clarity of seeing scripture in context:

* * * * * * *

Excerpt From the Works of Clarence Larkin- 1918
The word ‘gospel’ means ‘good news,’ and is so familiar that its application is supposed to be uniform. When, therefore, we read of:
The Gospel of the Kingdom
The Gospel of the Grace of God…
It is taken for granted that they all refer to one and the same thing.

But this is not true.


THE GOSPEL OF “THE KINGDOM”- Matt 24:14
This is the ‘Good News’ that God purposes to set up a Kingdom on this earth over which David’s Son, JESUS, shall reign, as prophesied in Luke 1:32-33. Two preachings of this Gospel are mentioned, one past, beginning with the ministry of John the Baptist, and preached by Jesus and His Disciples, but it ended with the rejection of Jesus as King. This Gospel is to be preached again after the Church is taken out. It will be the fulfilment of Matt 24:14, where it says: “This Gospel of “THE KINGDOM” shall be preached in all the world for a WITNESS unto all nations; and then shall the end come.” This has no reference to the Gospel that is now being preached to the nations. It is the Gospel of SALVATION, but the “Gospel of the Kingdom” is not for “Salvation” but for a WITNESS, that is, it is the announcement that the time has come to SET UP THE KINGDOM. It will be preached first by Elijah the forerunner (Mal 4:5-6), and by others who shall be commissioned to bear the news to all nations as a proclamation of the coming of Christ as King to occupy the “Throne of David,” and for the purpose of regathering Israel to the Promised Land.


THE GOSPEL OF “THE GRACE OF GOD”- Acts 20:24 This is the “Good News” that Jesus Christ, the rejected King, died on the cross for our SALVATION. This form of the Gospel is described in many ways. It is called the “GOSPEL OF GOD” (Rom 1:1), because it has its source in the LOVE OF GOD. John 3:16. It’s Character is GRACE. Acts 20:24. Its Subject is CHRIST (Rom 1:16; 2 Cor 10:14), and it is the POWER OF GOD UNTO SALVATION. And it is the “GOSPEL OF PEACE,” because it makes peace between the sinner and God, and brings peace to the soul. Eph 6:15.

ProjectPeter
Mar 11th 2008, 02:55 PM
Problem 1: This idea of "dispensation of grace." While I have no problem with someone using "dispensation of the Church" or also known as the "church age"... to say dispensation of grace would be to imply that God, after 4000 years, decided to be a God of grace. He ALWAYS has been a God of great grace and mercy. When you see the word "lovingkindness" used in the Old Testament writings, particularly the Psalms of David, you see clearly that God has ALWAY been a God of GREAT GRACE. There is no such thing as an age where God only showed grace and that is truly a false doctrine. This is what the two, three, four or five, gospel stuff is built on and it is just flat out anti-Bible, anti-God, and I dare say even anti-Christ because this is not what Scripture teaches, what God is, and has nothing to do with the message of Christ as it discounts Christ message over Paul's. The Berean movement has made Paul their Christ in many ways and that's where the rubber meets the road.

"His Gospel"? The Gospel of Paul? Come on... Paul preached the Gospel of God and that gospel is one they even heard in the wilderness way back when.

Were the differences? Sure there were. Until John it was the law and prophets. But the message from that point on is the same. JESUS CHRIST. But don;t let that fool you because even the Law and the Prophets were about Jesus even though to them it was a mystery. They simply looked forward to the Messiah. We look back to Him and forward as well because He's still going to return.

joztok
Mar 14th 2008, 02:32 PM
Hey ProjectPeter.
Do you reckon you can either e-mail me:
lordoqu@hotmail.com

or upload an attachment or give a few links to show these 'dispensation of grace' heresies. I don't think this what I'm trying to get across here, but I wouldn't mind seeing from your perspectives.

BTW. I'm still trying to think of an answer. Nothing's punchy yet, we had a great argument about it last night. The Holy Spirit showed up and rocked one man in particular in fully (and finally) understanding the wonders of God's grace. We were all profoundly affected. It was through the reading of scripture in Ephesians that he just lost control. It was beautiful.

From thursday night they saw the dilemma that I'm facing here on the forums. Each one had our theory in presenting what I'm trying to say- all with not much luck. From the discussion, it looks like it's the Holy Spirit does the convicting of it. But it should be able to be argued valid through sound doctrine and decent proof and presentation and conclusion.

We're still scratching our heads.

ProjectPeter
Mar 14th 2008, 03:48 PM
Don't even know where I would go look short of searching through Google for the various dispansation teachings out there. Anyone could do that... I don't have that stuff saved in my computer.

Best thing to do is think it through and then take a look at what Scripture actually says. If you heard preached "repent and turn to God doing deeds worthy of repentance" you would think... That was Peter's message to the Jews. But it wasn't. It was Paul's message to both the Jews and the Gentiles. Everyone from this doctrine likes to say that Acts was a transitional book but there is a problem with this. When Paul said this to King Agrippa, it was likely within the last few years of his life. This is what Paul preached on his various missionary journeys and that's just a simple fact. His message was the same to both Jew and Gentile, as was the message Jesus preached, repent and turn to God doing deeds worthy of repentance.

joztok
Mar 17th 2008, 01:28 PM
Don't even know where I would go look short of searching through Google for the various dispansation teachings out there. Anyone could do that... I don't have that stuff saved in my computer.

Best thing to do is think it through and then take a look at what Scripture actually says. If you heard preached "repent and turn to God doing deeds worthy of repentance" you would think... That was Peter's message to the Jews. But it wasn't. It was Paul's message to both the Jews and the Gentiles. Everyone from this doctrine likes to say that Acts was a transitional book but there is a problem with this. When Paul said this to King Agrippa, it was likely within the last few years of his life. This is what Paul preached on his various missionary journeys and that's just a simple fact. His message was the same to both Jew and Gentile, as was the message Jesus preached, repent and turn to God doing deeds worthy of repentance.

You said the problem was this 'transitional belief' in the book of Acts. I looked at Paul's statement before Agrippa. I see what you mean.
Hmm... Very valid point. But at least you'd agree that what Jesus taught was different to what the Apostle Paul taught at least surely?

ProjectPeter
Mar 17th 2008, 02:02 PM
No... yet there were differences. One... the cross and Christ crucified and resurrected. Paul taught/preached backwards to that even. Jesus taught forward to that event. The message is still the same. Repent and turn to God. Stop sinning. Do good deeds. That was the same the Apostle's preached as well. The differences would be in areas such as Paul going to the Gentiles. The Jews were still under the law of Moses in Jerusalem. They had to be for one simple reason... it was their law. That's exactly why Paul, when he returned to Jerusalem, went through the rite that he did with a couple of others. Gentiles were not bound by that yoke. None of them taught that it had to do with salvation... Peter makes that clear there in Acts 15 as does James. It was just a yoke the Jews had to wear as it was their law. So in that there are differences but the message of salvation is exactly the same.