My Gospel by Paul

[Sorn]

Those were cities outside of Israel In Pisidian Antioch???

Wow, what part of that don't you understand!? I guessing that English is your 3rd or 4th language and you have a poor grasp of it. Good thing Google Translate is a thing, you should use it.
In any case to help you understand the Paul went to cities OUTSIDE of Israel where he would have most likely (as in most cases, if not all) gone to any Jewish communities there 1st if they had them, here is a list of CITIES OUTSIDE OF ISRAEL that he went too, geez!!!

Mapping the journeys of Paul the apostle

Paul the Evangelist traveled at least 10,000 miles during the first century to encourage the spread of Christianity. This article maps his journeys and explains why he was motivated to do them.

www.azbible.com

Damascus
Tarsus (Turkey)
Antioch (Turkey)
Seleucia (Turkey)
Salamis and Paphos (Cyprus)
Perga and Pamphylia (Turkey)
Pisidian Antioch (Turkey)
Iconium (now Konya)(Turkey)
Lycaonia, Lystra and Derbe (Turkey)
Pamphylia again
Attalia (now Antalya) (Turkey)
Phoenicia (now Lebanon)
Syria
Cilicia (Turkey)
Derbe and Lystra again
Phyrgia (Turkey)
Galatia (Turkey)
Mysia (Turkey)
Troas (Turkey)
Samothrace (Greece)
Neapolis (Greece)
Philippi (Greece)
Amphipolis, Apollonia (Greece)
Thessalonica (Greece)
Berea (now Veria)(Greece)
Athens
Corinth (Greece)
Cenchrea (Greece)
Ephesus (Turkey)
Galatia, Phrygia
Ephesus again
Macedonia
Greece
Macedonia
Philippi again
Troas (Turkey)
Assos (Turkey)
Mitylene (Greece)
Cos (Greece)
Rhodes (Greece)
Patara (Turkey)
Phoenecia again
Tyre (Lebanon)
Ptolemais (Lebanon)
Antipatris (Israel)
Sidon (Lebanon)
Myra (Turkey)
Malta
Syracuse (Sicily)
Rhegium (Italy)
Puteoli (Italy)
Rome

 

[Sorn]

A lot of teachings come from The Bible, but that does not always make them correct

Gospel means good news, so.
When the word “gospel” in the Bible is used, we should always look at the context to see what kind of good news is being discussed.

Yes gospel is 'good news'.
If you prefer, BrotherJJ put it well when in his post above he said "One Gospel Several Dispensational Administrations". This is another way to see it. However, each of the several 'administrations' has a different instruction to follow.
Rather than titling the video 'The 7 administrations' or 'The 7 different sets of Good News' the author titles it 'The 7 Gospels'. Does not detract from the message to those eager to learn and grow. God has given different instructions on how to be saved to people down through the ages.
We are are currently in the 5th one in the videos list - The 'Dispensation of Grace' administration or gospel or instruction on how to be saved

watch the video.

 

[All Becomes New]

The whole bible was written for us, but only Paul’s 13 Epistles were written to us!

That's crazy talk.

Why do you think there are four different Gospels? I think the fact there are four (especially John which was written for a Gentile audience) makes the life of Jesus pretty dang important. Is it MORE important than Paul's writings? IDK. But I do know that if we cannot gather wisdom from the words of our Christ Himself, something has gone terribly askew.

 

[Sorn]

That's crazy talk.

Why do you think there are four different Gospels? I think the fact there are four (especially John which was written for a Gentile audience) makes the life of Jesus pretty dang important. Is it MORE important than Paul's writings? IDK. But I do know that if we cannot gather wisdom from the words of our Christ Himself, something has gone terribly askew.

Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, He was there in that capacity, He even said so himself in Matthew 15:24. He was there to preach to the Jews only.
Had the Jews accepted Him then the millennial Jewish Kingdom would have been set up and the rest of the world saved through Israel. Instead they rejected Him so God extended grace, based on the atoning death of Christ, to the gentles directly via Paul.

 

[All Becomes New]

Had the Jews accepted Him

That's not how it works. God had a plan from eternity past. Everything that happens gets Christ's metaphorical stamp of approval.

And it is tiresome to have Christians build entire branches of theology on one word in the Bible that appears exactly once.

 

[Sorn]

That's not how it works. God had a plan from eternity past. Everything that happens gets Christ's metaphorical stamp of approval.

And it is tiresome to have Christians build entire branches of theology on one word in the Bible that appears exactly once.

So the Jews had no choice then but to reject Jesus & crucify Him??

 

[All Becomes New]

So the Jews had no choice then but to reject Jesus & crucify Him??

If you want to talk about choice as it pertains to "doing otherwise" then that is a conversation we can have. But scripture is clear.

"For, in fact, in this city both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, assembled together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your will had predestined to take place." (Acts 4:27–28)

Not to mention Judas who Jesus had prophecied would betray Him. So did Judas have a choice to "do otherwise,"?

 

[Sorn]

If you want to talk about choice as it pertains to "doing otherwise" then that is a conversation we can have. But scripture is clear.

"For, in fact, in this city both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, assembled together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your will had predestined to take place." (Acts 4:27–28)

Not to mention Judas who Jesus had prophecied would betray Him. So did Judas have a choice to "do otherwise,"?

We always have a choice, that does not mean that God does not know in advance what we will choose, but we, individually & collectively have a choice. I know that the whole topic of predestination is a contentious one that whole threads could be written about.
Nevertheless, Jesus was there as the Jewish Messiah, He even entered Jerusalem in that capacity, but the city leaders, for whatever reason, did not recognize Him or accept Him as such.

What you are saying is that they had no choice in the matter but that God still punishes them and Jerusalem gets destroyed even though they could not have done any different.

 

[All Becomes New]

What you are saying is that they had no choice in the matter but that God still punishes them and Jerusalem gets destroyed even though they could not have done any different.

No, that is not what I am saying. I am simply denying Libertarian Free Will. I accept free will and that we make choices. But I am a Compatibilist and believe that free will is Compatible with determinism. My definition of free will is that nothing prevents you from doing what you want.

 

[Sorn]

No, that is not what I am saying. I am simply denying Libertarian Free Will. I accept free will and that we make choices. But I am a Compatibilist and believe that free will is Compatible with determinism. My definition of free will is that nothing prevents you from doing what you want.

So the Jews could have accepted Jesus if they had wanted to but they did not want to so they did not accept Him?? Hmm, sounds a bit like semantics.
But ok, so my statement in Post #44 becomes:
Had the Jews wanted to accept Him, and as a result accepted Him, then the millennial Jewish Kingdom would have been set up and the rest of the world saved through Israel. Instead they did not want to accept Him so they rejected Him & God, knowing this would happen, was all prepared to extend grace which He then did, based on the atoning death of Christ, to the gentles directly (or predominantly) via Paul.

 

[All Becomes New]

So the Jews could have accepted Jesus if they had wanted to but they did not want to so they did not accept Him?? Hmm, sounds a bit like semantics.

It's not semantics. It's just philosophy.

But ok, so my statement in Post #44 becomes:
Had the Jews wanted to accept Him, and as a result accepted Him, then the millennial Jewish Kingdom would have been set up and the rest of the world saved through Israel. Instead they did not want to accept Him so they rejected Him & God, knowing this would happen, was all prepared to extend grace which He then did, based on the atoning death of Christ, to the gentles directly (or predominantly) via Paul.

I don't see a problem with that. But it was more than Paul. Timothy, who was a Gentile is considered an apostle in 1 Thessalonians.

"Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy... and we didn’t seek glory from people, either from you or from others. Although we could have been a burden as Christ’s apostles, instead we were gentle among you, as a nurse nurtures her own children." (1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2:6–7) (Emphasis mine)

 

[Sorn]

It's not semantics. It's just philosophy.
I don't see a problem with that. But it was more than Paul. Timothy, who was a Gentile is considered an apostle in 1 Thessalonians.

"Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy... and we didn’t seek glory from people, either from you or from others. Although we could have been a burden as Christ’s apostles, instead we were gentle among you, as a nurse nurtures her own children." (1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2:6–7) (Emphasis mine)

No problem with others being considered apostles to the gentiles, but Paul was the primary vector or the initial vector or patient 0 with respect to spreading the Gospel of Grace to the gentiles but he would have of course recruited others as the message was spread & he carried out his commission.

 

[All Becomes New]

No problem with others being considered apostles to the gentiles, but Paul was the primary vector or the initial vector or patient 0 with respect to spreading the Gospel of Grace to the gentiles but he would have of course recruited others as the message was spread & he carried out his commission.

Right. The problem is that these are not hard and fast lines we can take. Paul preached "to the Jew first." and Apostle Peter was one of the first to spread the Gospel to the Gentiles. Roles moved around. Apostles were very versatile. They had to be able to minister the Gospel to many different kinds of people. That's part of why Christ chose who He did.

 

[Sorn]

Right. The problem is that these are not hard and fast lines we can take. Paul preached "to the Jew first." and Apostle Peter was one of the first to spread the Gospel to the Gentiles. Roles moved around. Apostles were very versatile. They had to be able to minister the Gospel to many different kinds of people. That's part of why Christ chose who He did.

One reason to watch the video I posted in post #24. You then realize that what Peter took to the few gentiles he preached to was NOT what Paul took to the gentiles he preached to.
Agree that there are no hard a fast lines as to who preached to whom but Paul's message to gentiles WAS different to the message the other (the 11) apostles took to the few gentiles they reached, watch the video.
As to who spread the gospel, its not a question of who reached the gentiles 1st but rather who reached the most & Paul was the man who reached the most gentiles, by a long shot, as he had been commissioned by Christ to do so.

As i said in an earlier post, If the Gospels were a disease, to use a analogy only, then it was the odd gentile here and there that caught it off one of the 11 apostles. However it was Paul that really did the spreading to the gentiles. As far as the gentiles are concerned, for the effects it had, Paul was patient 0.

 

[All Becomes New]

One reason to watch the video I posted in post #24. You then realize that what Peter took to the few gentiles he preached to was NOT what Paul took to the gentiles he preached to.
Agree that there are no hard a fast lines as to who preached to whom but Paul's message to gentiles WAS different to the message the other (the 11) apostles took to the few gentiles they reached, watch the video.
As to who spread the gospel, its not a question of who reached the gentiles 1st but rather who reached the most & Paul was the man who reached the most gentiles, by a long shot, as he had been commissioned by Christ to do so.

As i said in an earlier post, If the Gospels were a disease, to use a analogy only, then it was the odd gentile here and there that caught it off one of the 11 apostles. However it was Paul that really did the spreading to the gentiles. As far as the gentiles are concerned, for the effects it had, Paul was patient 0.

You realize that in Paul's letters, we are only getting part of the conversation, right? Like, in many cases, we are only seeing what Paul is doing after the fact of him evangelizing a people group. We don't know all the ins and outs of what the original message Paul brought to them was. He was making corrections.

Not to mention that Paul had the same exact Gospel as Peter, James, and John.

"Now from those recognized as important (what they once were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism)—they added nothing to me." (Galatians 2:6) (Emphasis mine)

 

[Sorn]

Not to mention that Paul had the same exact Gospel as Peter, James, and John.

No, they are most definitely NOT the same:

There is 1 Corinthians 1:17.
The Gospel of Grace as revealed by Jesus Christ to Paul does not require baptism. Paul expressly said this in the passage i quoted.
Apart from a few he then even says he can't remember doing any others in 1 Corinthians 1:16.

Paul preaches the gospel of the UnCircumcision. The 11 apostles teach the gospel of the Circumcision

 

[All Becomes New]

No, they are most definitely NOT the same:

There is 1 Corinthians 1:17.
The Gospel of Grace as revealed by Jesus Christ to Paul does not require baptism. Paul expressly said this in the passage i quoted.
Apart from a few he then even says he can't remember doing any others in 1 Corinthians 1:16.

Paul preaches the gospel of the UnCircumcision. The 11 apostles teach the gospel of the Circumcision

View attachment 334774

Different words. Same message.

You are literally pitting Paul against Christ as if Christ has no relevance to us. News flash: about 3/4 of our Bible is the OT. You are free to throw out 7/8 of the Bible, but I will not.

 

[Sorn]

Different words. Same message.

You are literally pitting Paul against Christ as if Christ has no relevance to us. News flash: about 3/4 of our Bible is the OT. You are free to throw out 7/8 of the Bible, but I will not.

You have eyes to see but do not see!
I am not pitting Paul against Christ. Christ, the risen Lord gave to Paul a different gospel to preach to the gentiles to that which was preached to the Jews who were under the Law & will be again after the rapture.
As Moses is to the Jews SO is Paul to the Gentiles! But both Moses & Paul got their messages directly from God.

The OT pertains only to the Jews, it is Jewish scripture, it informs us and fills out our understanding of things but it is Jewish scripture, at least from when God selected Abraham on. The prophecy in the OT is Jewish prophecy about the Jewish Kingdom & the Jewish Messiah.

The Gospel of Grace given to Paul was hidden & the mystery revealed by Christ to Paul. This is what he means in Romans 16:25

If they were the same why was there a need to hide it & call it a mystery??

 

[All Becomes New]

If they were the same why was there a need to hide it & call it a mystery??

"What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have observed and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— that life was revealed, and we have seen it and we testify and declare to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us— what we have seen and heard we also declare to you, so that you may also have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. We are writing these things so that our joy may be complete. My little children, I am writing you these things so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ the righteous one. He himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours, but also for those of the whole world." (1 John 1:1–4; 2:1–2)

John was writing to the church in Ephesus which was primarily a Gentile church with a few Jews.

"But now in Christ Jesus, you who were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who made both groups [Jews and Gentiles] one and tore down the dividing wall of hostility. In his flesh, he made of no effect the law consisting of commands and expressed in regulations, so that he might create in himself one new man from the two, resulting in peace. He did this so that he might reconcile both [Jews and Gentiles] to God in one body through the cross by which he put the hostility to death." (Ephesians 2:13–16)

Written to the same exact people. And what is Paul's hope? That the Jews and Gentiles are one in Christ (Galatians 3:28).

after the rapture

I'm gonna stop you right there. Christ does not come back to the earth twice and that is required for a Pre-Trib Rapture which is nowhere in the Bible.

"It is clear evidence of God’s righteous judgment that you will be counted worthy of God’s kingdom, for which you also are suffering, since it is just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you and to give relief to you who are afflicted, along with us. This will take place at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels, when he takes vengeance with flaming fire on those who don’t know God and on those who don’t obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will pay the penalty of eternal destruction from the Lord’s presence and from his glorious strength on that day when he comes to be glorified by his saints and to be marveled at by all those who have believed, because our testimony among you was believed." (2 Thessalonians 1:5–10)

Christ returns to those who are "suffering" and "afflicted." Thessalonica was a Gentile church. Paul is saying "You gentiles who are suffering and afflicted: God will repay those who persecute you when He comes with vengeance to give you relief."

There is no way to read that other than that the Gentile church will be on Earth when Christ comes back. So do you want to say that 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10 is not talking about the second coming? Please do your exegesis of that. Otherwise, the rapture, Christ coming for His bride, is completely compatible with other passages in the Bible where Christ returns once. When Christ returns, the dead are raised FIRST. THEN, those in Christ will rise. THEN we will escort Christ back to the Earth. What is my basis for this? The word ἀπάντησις, which is only used in two other places besides 1 Thessalonians 4:17. In BOTH other cases, it means, "To escort back [to a place]." That's literally what the context means in all three places (Matthew 25:6; Acts 28:16 for your reference).

Finally, there's this other word and it signifies very clearly the "Day of the Lord." It is παρουσία which means "coming." Found in 2 Thessalonians 2:8 and 1 Thessalonians 4:15.

"For we say this to you by a word from the Lord: We who are still alive at the Lord’s coming will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep..." (1 Thessalonians 4:15)
[A]nd then the lawless one will be revealed. The Lord Jesus will destroy him with the breath of his mouth and will bring him to nothing at the appearance of his coming." (2 Thessalonians 2:8)

 

[Sorn]

Different words. Same message.

Also, you had issue with my statement in post #44, so i then reworded it to what i put in Post #50, which then you were ok with. Most people would say that both statements essentially say the same thing but you were saying no, words matter. But now all of a sudden when it comes to the scripture you say words don't matter, ie different words, same message!! What a turn around.

I happen to think that words do matter to an extent but more importantly the apostles, especially a scholar like Paul was, said what they meant and meant what they said, ie their words matter & they said different things so different message.