What Gospel did Paul preach?

[ayin jade]

 

Experts in logic say that it could be argued that epistles of Paul do not form the part of the Scripture as misunderstood of the verse you have quoted! At that time Scripture meant only OT. It is also argued that 2 Peter was not written by Peter but some one of Paul's disciples.

 

 

 

So now you are discounting other parts of the bible. What parts do you accept as the word of God?

[Knowingtruth]

 

a

Paul spoke of his gospel! (Romans 2:16, 16:25, and 2 Timothy 2:8)

 

Paul was not a part of Jesus' earthly ministry. He appears to have missed out some important fundemental concepts of Christianity preached by Jesus! As a pharisee, it looks like he brought in some OT concepts that do not conform to the Gospel we all know now.

Paul was to the gentiles  as Moses was to the Israelites.  Moses delivered the Israelites out  of physical labor.  Paul delivered the Gentiles out of the spiritual labor of law.    Paul's gospel brought in the salvation of grace.  The Bible says, the law was nailed to Christ's cross.  The cross abolish the law, though many still want to hang on to it.  Also says by the deeds of the law no flesh can be saved.   The law never had power to completely save an individual.   Paradise was as close as they could get to heaven.   Christ died and went to paradise and took them to heaven.  Even today no man can be saved unless it by simple faith, just as Abraham had, when God accredited righteousness to him when he believed God.  Grace by faith is a free gift of Christ.  There was and is some different  between what Jesus and the disciples taught.  It was from law to grace.  Remember, Peter at Cornelius's  house.  He told him, it was unlawful for me to be in his house (a gentile).  When he got to the Jerusalem council they contended with him over the matter, but he explain it to them how God had sent him there.  Ro  m. 15:8 states that Christ was the minister to the Jews, 15:16 says paul was the minister to the gentiles.   Paul was definitely the main character(after Christ) in the new testament.  Peter verified that in 2cd Peter 3:15-16.  he is given credit for over half of the new testament.

You, can't  take nothing from Paul's gospel.  He was bringing in the mystery of grace vs. law.  This was a mystery given  to Paul only.  Eph. chapter 3.  The Bible says we will be judges by  Paul's gospel.   Why didn't Paul just go to the Jerusalem Council and learn from them.  Gal. chp. 1 states Christ spent three years with Paul in Arabia.   Paul said, follow me as I follow Christ.

 

Mystery was not given to Paul only! When it comes to the Gospel, nothing is held in secret!(Matthew 5:14-15) In Ephesians 3:5, Paul admitted it was made known to apostles and prophets. He was nothing with his ministry immediately after his conversion till he learnt from Peter! We have mediator Jesus before God. Paul cannot interfere there! We should follow Christ not Paul, Peter, Apollos et al!(1 Corinthians 3:4)

[Knowingtruth]

 

I do not think it is right to assume that Paul taught identically the same Gospel written by Matthew, Mark, John and Luke. We see different versions and statements within the four gospels. What statements did Paul's gospel contain? We do not know because Paul has never quoted anything from the four books!

 

 

 

Show us the differences, scripturally.  If you are claiming that Paul's Gospel was different from the other Apostle's Gospel, then this should be very simple for you to do, because you would have the scriptural evidence prepared before making the statement.  Your personal opinion carries no weight and sways no one.

 

OK, let me show a few things:

 

Jesus said there is only one Father, that is God, One Teacher, One Leader, and these positions should be not used  for men.(Matthew 23:8 to 10) But Paul defines them ignorant of the preaching of Jesus(Ephesians 4:11; 1 Corinthians 4:15)

[Knowingtruth]

Paul taught; Jesus Christ crucified and He is the savior of the world. As did the other Apostles. This is the only gospel.  Believe in Him. This is NT gospel, not OT gospel.  All Scripture includes NT and OT.

 

In Christ

Montana Marv

Right, that part of teaching of Paul conforms to the Gospel. That is not the entire Gospel, nor it represents all the three and half years of Jesus' ministry on the earth. Some letters were chosen as a part of the canon from fourth century onwards at the instigation of pagan emperor Constantine.

[Knowingtruth]

 

 

2Ti 2:8  Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:

 

 

"according to my Gospel" - meaning not the Gospel of Luke, in which there is a clear account given of the resurrection of Christ, said to be written by him, at the instigation, and under the direction of the apostle, and published with his approbation, as some think; but the doctrine of the Gospel, and which he calls his, not because he was the author, or the subject of it; for in these respects it is the Gospel of God, and of Christ; but because it was committed to him, and he was intrusted with it, and fully and faithfully preached it; and in distinction from another Gospel, that of the false teachers; and agreeably to this doctrine, which the apostle everywhere taught, Christ was raised from the dead; so the Ethiopic version renders it, "as I have taught".

 

"His" gospel is the gospel of an apostle that did not walk with Christ and see his resurrection. It is the "same" Gospel in that what he told was no different than the others.

Unfortunately, his preaching in many cases deviate from the Gospel we know of now.

 

 

 

You have made your statement that it deviates several times over now - it's time to put the scriptures that you claim are in error up. 

 

Please read my reply no. 45.

[Knowingtruth]

 

 

OK...I've recovered

 

One author states the following:

 

 Note: I have seen many Atheists, Apostates and Muslims attacking the bible by basing themselves on misinterpretation about the Apostle Paul. Paul was never a False Apostle.

 

"Another false idea is that Paul’s Gospel was different from that preached by the other Apostles. This view claims Paul preached a different Gospel because he refers to his message as “my gospel” (see Romans 2:16 and 2 Timothy 2:8) and in Galatians 1:11-12 he stresses he did not receive it from man but by divine revelation.

 

 

Such claims are misleading. Acts 15:1-34, Galatians 2:1-10 and 1 Corinthians 15:1-11 show Paul and the other Apostles agreed they all preached the same Gospel. 2 Peter 3:15-16 reveals the Apostle Peter totally approved of what Paul preached and wrote in Paul’s Biblical letters. The Apostle Paul also preached repentance as a part of the Gospel of grace in Christ Jesus (see Acts 17:30, 20:21, 26:15-20 and Romans 2:4).

 

 

 

 

 

Such ideas about Paul’s supposed different Gospel are similar to saying that because the Apostle John not once mentioned the word “Gospel” in the Book of John, 1 John, 2 John and 3 John, then this means John did not believe in the Gospel taught by the other Apostles and instead had his own form of teaching. John uses other Biblical expressions which mean similar things to the Gospel. For example, John spoke of grace in John 1:14, 16 and 17 and the kingdom of God in John 3:1-8.

 

 

 

 

So I'm going with No.  Paul did not preach his personal gospel or a different gospel.

There are so many points to discussed to bring home the point that Paul missed out some important concepts preached by Jesus. At the outset, let us confine to his claim of apostleship. I believe, it is a self-claim unsupported by Jesus and other apostles.

 

 

 

You know, I have read a number of your posts and threads you have started.  I really do not agree with your concept of scripture.  So I think I'll just avoid posting in your threads

and responding to you.

 

Otherwise, I just get irritated reading how you twist what the Bible states, so, not wanting to feel that way, I'll just detour around you, BUT, I pray God gives you a revelation of the truth

of His word by His Holy Spirit.

 

For example, this is your response to another poster regarding the Apostle Paul:

 

Unfortunately, his preaching in many cases deviate from the Gospel we know of now.

 

 

 

Really?  We have a different gospel from the one preached by Paul?  See, this is what I mean ... Paul states that if anyone should preach a different gospel then the one that was

revealed to him and that ALL the other Apostles agreed with, then, let them be accursed.

 

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.   As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." Galatians 1:8, 9

 

You cannot be in worse shape then incurring the wrath of God and coming under His curse.  So, I leave you in His hands and pray mercy on your understanding.

 

Can any one defend himself by quoting himself? I am saying Paul's certain concepts ought to verified with what Jesus preached. I apply to two witnesses for his accounts and other Scripture. One is the Holy Spirit and another is another source. In case of Paul's epistles fundamentally the other sources are missing in many cases! In such cases I do not give importance to them.

[ayin jade]

As I asked you earlier, so what parts of the bible do you accept as valid? You have dismissed 2 peter, all of pauls letters. What else do you view as faulty?

[Knowingtruth]

Hmmm...a different gospel?

 

I think not...even Peter testifies that Paul is preaching the same gospel:

 

 Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; 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, 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. (2 Peter 3:14-16 emphasis added)

 

We've got to remember that none of these churches lived in a vacuum...they shared with each other, they talked with each other...and word of what was being preached by the Apostle Paul would certainly reach the ears of the "pillars" of the church in Jerusalem. Had there been a problem with Paul's message, I don't think that there is any doubt that:

 

1. His preaching would not have been effective.

 

2. Corrections would have been issued by Peter, John, and the others (who's credibility as Apostles was beyond reproach in the early church).

 

3. The churches would have been warned that Paul was a false apostle.

 

4. The Holy Spirit would not have allowed Paul's epistles to be accepted as "holy writ" among the churches.

 

5. The challeges to his (Paul's) Apostleship would have been substantiated, and he would not have received support from the other Apostles.

 

So...IMO the whole "Paul preached a different gospel" line of reasoning is without basis in fact.

The major point, amongst many, I am considering is his claim of apostleship. No other apostle of the chosen addressed him that way. In fact, John in the book of Revelation warns the Ephesian church that Paul built that he was not an apostle! He was chosen to convert Gentiles with their complex philosophies. Paul countered that with his complex theology for the situation he was involved. Context is important here. He gave concessions to them at the beginning. They are not valid for spritually grown believers now!

[Knowingtruth]

 

 

Experts in logic say that it could be argued that epistles of Paul do not form the part of the Scripture as misunderstood of the verse you have quoted! At that time Scripture meant only OT. It is also argued that 2 Peter was not written by Peter but some one of Paul's disciples.

 

 

 

So now you are discounting other parts of the bible. What parts do you accept as the word of God?

 

Don't we have the Holy Spirit? Or was it given to only Paul? I test with His guidance and the Gospel!

[Knowingtruth]

As I asked you earlier, so what parts of the bible do you accept as valid? You have dismissed 2 peter, all of pauls letters. What else do you view as faulty?

I don't dismiss any. It is question of giving importance.

*** Your questioning another members salvation is uncalled for and removed. ***

Edited September 12, 2013 by OneLight