The Gospel of Mark Belongs To Peter

Ligurian · Jun 14, 2021

dqhall said:
Paul was going into the synagogues of the Diaspora to teach. In that area he met Jews and God fearing Gentiles. Paul’s traveling companion Barnabas was Jewish. Paul’s coworker Timothy had a Jewish mother. Paul circumcised him as Paul was yet reaching out to the Jews.

Which according to his own words in Galatians 2:9 Paul wasn't authorized to do... what's your point?

Ligurian · Jun 14, 2021

dqhall said:
Paul was going into the synagogues of the Diaspora to teach. In that area he met Jews and God fearing Gentiles. Paul’s traveling companion Barnabas was Jewish. Paul’s coworker Timothy had a Jewish mother. Paul circumcised him as Paul was yet reaching out to the Jews.

Paul should have followed his own doctrine.

Galatians 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; 8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles) 9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we [should go] unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

Straying from his mission to the gentiles caused this to happen:

Acts 21:21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise [their] children, neither to walk after the customs.

The Liturgist · Jun 14, 2021

Ligurian said:
You know what Jesus said about your traditions, right? Well, I'm thinking He'd've had even less flattering sayings about "Pope Francis at the end of a canonization ceremony for Mother Teresa." We know that Jesus taught against that pater label. Nor does Jesus approve of idols.

Peter(tr.Mark) 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Matthew23:9 And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

Revelation2:20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce My servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.

What does any of that have to do with this thread, or my reply? I am not Roman Catholic; I also did not coin the term Early Church Fathers, but rather, that comes from the same tradition which says that St. Mark based his Gospel on the preaching of St. Peter. Nor did I say anything about things sacrificed unto idols; Christians, including Roman Catholics, have historically avoided pagan banquets. The Eucharist, which is a Protestant tradition as much as it is Catholic and Orthodox, the word means “Thanksgiving,” and the early church did interpret it a sacrifice, albeit not a sacrifice made anew, but as communion with and recapitulation of the sacrifice Jesus Christ made on the cross, whereas Martin Luther denied it was a sacrifice but rather said it was a free gift from God. But our Lord commanded that we do it in anamnesis of him (the word remembrance is a suboptimal translation of anamnesis, which implies recapitulation, it has a literal meaning of “put yourself in this moment.”

The second oldest Protestant church, and the only one whose founders are venerated as saints by the Eastern Orthodox, because they were martyred by the Roman Catholic Church, is the Moravian church, which was founded by St. Jan Hus and St. Jerome of Prague, because the Czech and Slovak peoples before being conquered by Austria were Eastern Orthodox and received the Eucharist as leavened bread and wine, and the liturgy was in Church Slavonic, which is a pan-Slavic language that the Czech and Slovak people could understand; in violation of canonical norms of the Roman Catholic Church, the Czechs and Slovaks were forcibly converted to Latin Rite Catholicism rather than Slavonic-Byzantine Rite Catholicism, which meant they lost the use of Church Slavonic, and were worshipping in Latin, which most Czechs and Slovaks did not understand, and were receiving the Eucharist in only one species. Jan Hus and Jerome of Prague established the Moravian church so the Czech and Slovak people could have a vernacular liturgy in Slavic language, and receive communion in both kinds, as it had been done in the Orthodox church.

Martin Luther, while denying the Eucharist was a sacrifice, did believe that bread became the body of our Lord, and the wine became the blood of our Lord, and that this real presence was a physical presence, and that Christians should frequently partake in both kinds.

John Calvin, for his part, accepted the real presence, unlike Zwingli, who believed the bread and wine were symbols, but believed our Lord was only spiritually present in the Eucharist. Nonetheless, he also believed Christians should receive the Eucharist every Sunday, a battle I believe he ultimately lost with the political leaders of Geneva, but it was his great desire. Additionally, in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, Calvin extensively referred to the Church Fathers, and the term consensus patrum is of Calvinist origin.

John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, was frustrated with infrequent communion in the Church of England, and encouraged Methodists (who in England were required to be Anglican) to partake weekly if possible. He also instructed the Methodist Episcopal Church, when it became independent of the Church of England following the end of the Revolutionary War, to serve communion weekly, and gave them a modified version of the Book of Common Prayer which among other things was tweaked to encourage that; he also wanted Methodists to go to church on Wednesday and Friday to pray the Office of the Litany in the BCP, and also to fast on those days, because that was the practice of the early church, to fast on Wednesday and on Friday.

So, from a Protestant perspective, I would argue that “Feed my sheep” referred to evangelizing, baptizing converts, catechizing and preaching the Gospel, and celebrating Holy Communion. St. Peter, being a wise servant-leader, recognized the value in recording the Gospel, as did St. Paul, and thus St. Mark and St. Luke were given the task of recording their homiletics, with St. Luke also chronicling the Acts of the Apostles.

Mark isn't said, by the many people who were first-hand witnesses, to've had any Gospel to write, apart from plagiarizing what Peter said... which Mark may not have actually done, but canon sure makes it look like he did.

Again, how is compiling the Gospel as recounted by St. Peter plagiarism? Especially when Peter told him to do it? It’s not like Mark was hiding this from Peter.

Oh, why do I call them saints? Because they were martyrs, or confessors, or Apostles, and this is the practice among high church Protestants, because we can assert that people who are martyred for our Lord, like St. Peter and St. Mark, or who suffer as a result of confessing him before man, like St. John the Beloved Disciple or St. Athanasius or St. John Chrysostom, our Lord will confess before the Father, and thus, their salvation is assured and they constitute the Church Triumphant, whereas we Saints are the Church Militant, but we can always fall away, and we don’t know if we are Saints, truly, until the end, but we do know they made it, because they paid the price in blood.

The Liturgist · Jun 14, 2021

Ligurian said:
That's not the Kingdom Gospel, which Jesus taught from the time JohnB went to prison.

Where did you hear this strange doctrine that there are two Gospels ? Galatians 1:8 indicates there is only one.

(properly speaking; there are of course four or more written accounts of the Gospel, but at a minimum the four canonical Gospels reconcile into one Gospel together with the rest of Scripture, properly interpreted)

The Liturgist · Jun 14, 2021

Ligurian said:
Straying from his mission to the gentiles caused this to happen:

Acts 21:21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise [their] children, neither to walk after the customs.

How is that a bad thing? Christianity had to break away from Judaism and from the Mosaic Law.

The Liturgist · Jun 14, 2021

Ligurian said:
Not one of your quotes comes from The Galilean Apostles.

What difference does that make?

dqhall · Jun 14, 2021

Ligurian said:
Paul should have followed his own doctrine.

Galatians 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; 8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles) 9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we [should go] unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

Straying from his mission to the gentiles caused this to happen:

Acts 21:21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise [their] children, neither to walk after the customs.

Many Jews were also upset by what they heard about Jesus. He was healing people on the Sabbath. Jesus gave sight to a blind man on the Sabbath when he asked him to go wash in the Pool of Siloam. The blind man washed there and walked back seeing. The teachers of the law argued Jesus was doing illegal work on the Sabbath. In the Torah law, Sabbath violation was punishable by death. Most of the chief priests of the Sanhedrin wanted to kill him.

If you read Paul’s letter to the Romans, chapter 16, you might find it was addressed to people with Roman names instead of Jewish names. In 49 AD Jews were expelled from Rome. Paul was teaching the Gentiles they ought to receive the teachings of Christ as more important than the teaching of the law.

Ligurian · Jun 14, 2021

The Liturgist said:
Again, how is compiling the Gospel as recounted by St. Peter plagiarism? Especially when Peter told him to do it? It’s not like Mark was hiding this from Peter.

Oh, why do I call them saints? Because they were martyrs, or confessors, or Apostles, and this is the practice among high church Protestants, because we can assert that people who are martyred for our Lord, like St. Peter and St. Mark, or who suffer as a result of confessing him before man, like St. John the Beloved Disciple or St. Athanasius or St. John Chrysostom, our Lord will confess before the Father, and thus, their salvation is assured and they constitute the Church Triumphant, whereas we Saints are the Church Militant, but we can always fall away, and we don’t know if we are Saints, truly, until the end, but we do know they made it, because they paid the price in blood.

Martyr means witness. Are their names written in the Lamb's Book of Life? I had no idea until now that saint this and saint that had become truly catholic/universal.

Peter would never have told the canon people to add the name Mark to his gospel account. THESE people are guilty of extreme carelessness, if not plagiarism. It's not like they didn't have access to quotations that we still have today. How is it even remotely possible that this "mistake" was made? Was it this same couldn't-care-less attitude when the birthday of Jesus was lost?

Ligurian · Jun 14, 2021

Ligurian said:
Paul's gospel is in places like 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 and 1 Corinthians 1:23.

That's not the Kingdom Gospel, which Jesus taught from the time JohnB went to prison.
No mission or gospel change when Jesus returned from Heaven, either. Matthew 28:19-20.

In fact Galatians 2:7-9 matches what Jesus says in Matthew 10:5-6,
with Jesus sending His Disciples to what Paul calls the circumcision...
really hard to deny when Matthew 15:24 says that was Jesus' mission, too.

Matthew 10:5-7 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into [any] city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as ye go, preach, saying, The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.

Galatians 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;

In fact, Paul seems to've been aware of these two separate gospels, so Acts 21:21 could have been avoided. Clearly, the Kingdom Gospel for the circumcision never abrogated the law; but Paul's gospel to the gentles certainly does.

The Liturgist said:
Where did you hear this strange doctrine that there are two Gospels ? Galatians 1:8 indicates there is only one.

(properly speaking; there are of course four or more written accounts of the Gospel, but at a minimum the four canonical Gospels reconcile into one Gospel together with the rest of Scripture, properly interpreted)

If you didn't read
Galatians 2:7-9 alongside Matthew 10:5-7
Then you might not see
Jesus says the Law will not end until Heaven and Earth pass
Paul calls the ordinances written in stone already nailed to the cross
Jesus says hear My sayings and do them
Paul says faith apart from works
etc, ad infinitum
And begin to wonder what's going on.

Ligurian · Jun 14, 2021

The Liturgist said:
How is that a bad thing? Christianity had to break away from Judaism and from the Mosaic Law.

Then you are drawn by Paul's doctrine to the gentiles.

Not to the doctrine Jesus spoke to His lost sheep of the house of Israel. There is no break in the thread from Moses to Jesus. The Prophets say God has always wanted Micah 6:8. Jesus repeats this theme when He tells them to find out what means I will have mercy and not sacrifice, for He has not come to call the (sacrificially) righteous, but sinners to repentance. What you might be hung-up on are the tests of God which Judah/Jerusalem failed in Exodus 20:19-20 and again in 1 Samuel 8:7 which eventually got to the point that Judah is a broken pot in Jeremiah 19:10-11 and replaced in Isaiah 65:15 and Matthew 21:43.

HatGuy · Jun 15, 2021

Ligurian said:
Paul's gospel is in places like 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 and 1 Corinthians 1:23.

That's not the Kingdom Gospel, which Jesus taught from the time JohnB went to prison.
No mission or gospel change when Jesus returned from Heaven, either. Matthew 28:19-20.

In fact Galatians 2:7-9 matches what Jesus says in Matthew 10:5-6,
with Jesus sending His Disciples to what Paul calls the circumcision...
really hard to deny when Matthew 15:24 says that was Jesus' mission, too.

Matthew 10:5-7 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into [any] city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as ye go, preach, saying, The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.

Galatians 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;

In fact, Paul seems to've been aware of these two separate gospels, so Acts 21:21 could have been avoided. Clearly, the Kingdom Gospel for the circumcision never abrogated the law; but Paul's gospel to the gentles certainly does.

All this is really showing is simply different callings (mission) to different people groups. It does not show two different gospels at all. The gospel is the good news of Jesus, incarnated, lived and loved, death, resurrection, ascended as the Lord of the Kingdom, the giving of the Spirit. There is only one Jesus who lived only one life on earth and therefore there cannot be two gospels.

Jesus' ministry to the lost sheep makes eschatological sense. But note his parables were frequently telling the Jews that the other nations were soon going to be brought into the promise. This often enraged them. John the Baptist set the stage clearly where he said:

"do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father,’ for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham. Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire." (Matthew 3).

The fact that Paul and Peter and the other apostles had different missions - different people to bring the gospel of Jesus to - is undisputed. But that fact does not at all prove there are two gospels, and the giving of the Spirit to the Gentiles is proof positive that the same gospel of Jesus as the King of the Kingdom is the same for all.

Strong in Him · Jun 15, 2021

Ligurian said:
That's what I would've thought, too... before the last few years.

You haven't provided any proof that anyone, never mind most Christians, hate the 12 disciples.

Ligurian said:
Why are they trying to say that Peter shouldn't get full credit for that gospel attributed to some other Mark who went to the gentiles with Paul?

It's not about anyone getting "credit" for the Gospel.
Peter gave an account of Jesus' life, ministry and death to Mark; Mark wrote it down and maybe arranged the events in some kind of order. The second Gospel is the Gospel according to Mark. I can't believe that he would have demanded that it be called that, that his name should be on the title page. I can't believe that anyone even talked in terms of "getting credit" for it.

Ligurian said:
And please don't make the mistake of thinking that Peter would've disobeyed the Kingdom Gospel of the lost sheep of the house of Israel. When Jesus breathed on those 11 Disciples in Galilee, they became witnesses in every respect, faithful unto death.

I didn't even hint that Peter disobeyed the Gospel.
What does that mean?

Ligurian said:
1 Peter 5:13 The [church that is] at Babylon, elected together with [you], saluteth you; and [so doth] Marcus my son.
Matthew 23:9 And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
Petertr.Mark 1:30 But Simon's wife's mother lay sick of a fever, and anon they tell him of her.

Don't understand what you mean by that.

Ligurian said:
Different Names

Simon called Peter, Saul called Paul, John called Marcus.

I've already said, his name was John-Mark, Acts of the Apostles 12:12, Acts of the Apostles 15:37.
Many people just called him Mark.

Ligurian said:
Different Missions

Galatians 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we [should go] unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

What's that got to do with Mark?
That verse says that the Apostles welcomed Barnabas and Saul after Saul's conversion, and recognised that Saul was called to preach the Gospel. He was no longer persecuting them or trying to arrest them.

Ligurian said:
Which Mark, Where?

i) That verse doesn't mention Mark.
ii) The only Mark mentioned in Acts and the letters, is John-Mark.
Read some commentaries by theologians if you want to know more of the background.

Ligurian said:
Peter states Mark (5:13) was with him at the time the epistle was written. However, just prior to this, Paul had written Timothy to bring Mark to Rome with him (1 Timothy 4:11)."

He doesn't actually say that Mark was with him; only that he sent greetings.
He might have seen Mark a short time previously. Quite often people say to me "give them my love when you see them." Or "give my love to all who may remember me". I may not see the people I'm passing on greetings to for another week/month; that doesn't mean that the greetings from the third party are invalid.

None of that is evidence that there was a different Mark involved.

Ligurian · Jun 15, 2021

HatGuy said:
All this is really showing is simply different callings (mission) to different people groups. It does not show two different gospels at all. The gospel is the good news of Jesus, incarnated, lived and loved, death, resurrection, ascended as the Lord of the Kingdom, the giving of the Spirit. There is only one Jesus who lived only one life on earth and therefore there cannot be two gospels.

Jesus' ministry to the lost sheep makes eschatological sense. But note his parables were frequently telling the Jews that the other nations were soon going to be brought into the promise. This often enraged them. John the Baptist set the stage clearly where he said:

"do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father,’ for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham. Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire." (Matthew 3).

The fact that Paul and Peter and the other apostles had different missions - different people to bring the gospel of Jesus to - is undisputed. But that fact does not at all prove there are two gospels, and the giving of the Spirit to the Gentiles is proof positive that the same gospel of Jesus as the King of the Kingdom is the same for all.

If you were telling a baby Christian where to find the the gospel of Paul to the gentiles, which verses would you list for them?

HatGuy · Jun 15, 2021

Ligurian said:
If you were telling a baby Christian where to find the the gospel of Paul to the gentiles, which verses would you list for them?

I wouldn't. I would tell them to start with the Gospel accounts, probably starting with Mark.

There would never be a conversation about "Paul's gospel to the gentiles", for some of the reasons I've already outlined. There would be discussions around the gospel of Jesus Christ, who is risen.

Ligurian · Jun 15, 2021

Strong in Him said:
You haven't provided any proof that anyone, never mind most Christians, hate the 12 disciples.

Alrighty then, let me remove the word hate and replace it with dislike.

Why do the gentiles attempt to waylay Peter from his God-given path by making the Mark who followed him into the Mark who followed the apostle to the gentiles? One would have to want to think that both Jesus and Paul were wrong about the separate mission fields, or that Peter never had fed the sheep of Jesus... apart from the men who heard and believed Peter, back in the day.

Jesus says we will believe on Him because of the words of the 11 Apostles... specifically their words, John 17:20. Which means that those people in the audience were the only people who knew those words came from Peter and not Mark whose name shows up on the Gospel, and the commentators who called Mark in fact Peter. Since then, these particular words of the 11 Apostles have been ripped out of the hands of the lost sheep of Israel to whom they were sent, and credited to a fellow-traveller of Paul... in effect, literally robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Since most people aren't very careful in their reading, they've never found John 17:20 and don't realize the importance of the difference. Nor do they even seem to notice that preaching Christ crucified to the gentiles does not equal preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. They want to lump them all together, confusing "faith apart from works" with "keep the Commandments of God". Even Paul was guilty of doing this hybridization.

People may sneer and accuse me of being a literalist (like it's a crime), but at least I know that "no works" doesn't equal "I know thy works." And I'm very careful not to dismiss what Jesus has prophesied.

Strong in Him said:
I can't believe that anyone even talked in terms of "getting credit" for it.

Then what on Earth do you make of Paul signing all of his letters? D'ya think maybe Paul thought people should care about who wrote what, under whose authority, in what venue? Or do you think he shouldn't have signed any of them and run the risk of the stigma of "getting credit."

Let me ask you, do you follow "Christ crucified" or do you follow the "Gospel of the Kingdom"? Do you most often remember the "without works" "by faith alone" verses or "If ye love Me keep My commandments" and "I know thy works" verses? Or are you one of those hybrid likers who don't care who wrote what to whom, even when you have to mangle one in favor of the other, or mangle and ruin both?

Strong in Him said:
He doesn't actually say that Mark was with him; only that he sent greetings.
He might have seen Mark a short time previously. Quite often people say to me "give them my love when you see them." Or "give my love to all who may remember me". I may not see the people I'm passing on greetings to for another week/month; that doesn't mean that the greetings from the third party are invalid.

You may not hate Peter, but you just don't like him much... because you sure don't mind robbing Peter to pay Paul. If you're looking for a gospel approved by the gentiles, Luke's your man... and went on the same missionary journey with your Mark and Paul.

But the Mark who followed Peter went "only unto to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
And since Peter was of the lost sheep mission, he would never have called Mark his son if it wasn't literally true, since Jesus forbids such things to the house of Israel.

Ligurian · Jun 15, 2021

HatGuy said:
I wouldn't.

Don't you know what Paul calls his gospel, or where to go to find it?

Here's a start:

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Kinda see why you're not in a big hurry to point out these Pauline gospel verses, actually. They pretty much condemn your hybridization of the two gospels.

HatGuy · Jun 15, 2021

Ligurian said:
Don't you know what Paul calls his gospel, or where to go to find it?

Let me help you

Acts 20:24, Rom 1:1, Rom 1:16, Rom 2:16, Rom 11:28, Rom 15:16, Rom 15:19, Rom 16:25, 1 Cor 9:14, 1 Cor 9:18, 1 Cor 9:23, 1 Cor 15:1, 2 Cor 2:12, 2 Cor 4:3, 2 Cor 9:13, 2 Cor 11:4, 2 Cor 11:7, Gal 1:6, Gal 1:7, Gal 1:11, Gal 2:2, Gal 2:7, Eph 1:13, Php 1:5, Php 2:22, 1 Th 1:5, 1 Th 2:2, 1 Th 2:4, 1 Th 2:8, 1 Th 2:9, 1 Ti 1:11, 2 Ti 2:8

Paul's summary of "his" gospel in 1 Cor 15 includes the Galilean apostles and so forth.

By all accounts, the gospel Paul preached looks like the one Peter preached. Peter even calls Paul's letters "scripture".

It seems to me you are trying to create a separation between Paul's teachings and the Galileans based on Paul's phrase "my gospel" - as if this phrase could only have one possible meaning. But in fact, Paul's use of the phrase is to separate his teachings from the Judaizers and secondly it's a phrase that simply shows what he taught was dear to his heart.

To prove your case, you would need to prove that the Galilean apostles were Judaizers themselves and taught those teachings. Good luck with that. Meanwhile, there was only one Jesus and therefore there can be only one gospel.

The proof of this is all over the scriptures. Jesus repeatedly told the Jews that the nations would also receive the promise, and if the jews rejected it, they would be shut out. Then in Acts, the Holy Spirit gift of tongues is a sign that what the Galilean apostles recieved from Christ, the apostles who received the Spirit first, was for all the nations. In Acts 1, Jesus explicitly links the coming of the Kingdom with the giving of the Spirit. So we know that whoever has the Spirit has the Kingdom. (In the Gospel accounts, there are many times Jesus makes this link.) Then that same Spirit is poured out over Gentiles freely - Gentiles who did not obey the Law. How did they receive the promise of Jesus, the Kingdom, the Spirit, without obeying the Law? This is the question the Galileans grapple with, and their conclusion is simple: the Kingdom is for all in Christ, Jew and Gentle. Peter reiterates this teaching in 1 Peter, calling both the Jews and the Gentiles a chosen nation, a royal priesthood.

The narrative throughout the NT is clear. Jesus is the saviour of all men, and the Kingdom is a Kingdom for the nations.

Paul receives a mission from Christ to go the Gentiles, but even right at the end of the book of Acts we see him trying to convince Jews. Why would he do that unless "his" gospel was also for them? Why did God send Peter to Cornelius and have those Gentiles saved by Peter's gospel, if Peter's gospel was not also for them?

Both Paul and Peter and John clearly see a vision of all the nations being one Church, with one faith, one Messiah, one baptism, one Spirit, one body, one eschatological outcome, one Kingdom. Any theology contrary to this is creating division where there should not be, and is dreaming up separation where there is none.

Ligurian · Jun 15, 2021

HatGuy said:
Paul's summary of "his" gospel in 1 Cor 15 includes the Galilean apostles and so forth.

By all accounts, the gospel Paul preached looks like the one Peter preached. Peter even calls Paul's letters "scripture".

That might be more true if Peter hadn't been acknowledged as the author of the Gospel called Mark. The first words of this Gospel says it's the Gospel of the Kingdom of God. Our Peter would've had to be a newbie to call the things done on the cross the whole Gospel.

Peter translated by Mark 1:14-15 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the Gospel.
Matthew 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.
John 14:15 If ye love Me, keep My commandments.

Versus

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.
1 Corinthians 2:2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
Colossians 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

HatGuy said:
It seems to me you are trying to create a separation between Paul's teachings and the Galileans based on Paul's phrase "my gospel" - as if this phrase could only have one possible meaning.

But Paul didn't quote the Kingdom Gospel... I can't find him doing it.
Where'd you find the Sermon on the Mount in Pauline Doctrine?
And if he uses the phrases therein, why not give direct quotes?
What about Galatians 2:7-9 ? Want to make that a metaphor/myth?

HatGuy said:
The proof of this is all over the scriptures. Jesus repeatedly told the Jews that the nations would also receive the promise, and if the jews rejected it, they would be shut out. Then in Acts, the Holy Spirit gift of tongues is a sign that what the Galilean apostles recieved from Christ, the apostles who received the Spirit first, was for all the nations. In Acts 1, Jesus explicitly links the coming of the Kingdom with the giving of the Spirit. So we know that whoever has the Spirit has the Kingdom. (In the Gospel accounts, there are many times Jesus makes this link.) Then that same Spirit is poured out over Gentiles freely - Gentiles who did not obey the Law.

To make that statement, you had to completely disreguard what the Kingdom Gospel says about the Holy Spirit. Like everything else within the Kingdom Gospel, there are requirements.

If you keep Jesus' commandments, then the Father will give you the Holy Spirit... just as it was in the Old Testament.

John 14:15 If ye love Me, keep My commandments. 16 And I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter, that He may abide with you for ever; 17 [Even] the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth Him not, neither knoweth Him: but ye know Him; for He dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. … 26 But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My name, He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

If you were with Jesus from the beginning, then you will be His witnesses.

John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, He shall testify of Me: 27 And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with Me from the beginning.

What the Holy Spirit does, according to the Kingdom Gospel.

John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send Him unto you. 8 And when He is come, He will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 9 Of sin, because they believe not on Me; 10 Of righteousness, because I go to My Father, and ye see Me no more; 11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. 12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. 13 Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth: for He shall not speak of Himself; but whatsoever He shall hear, [that] shall He speak: and He will shew you things to come. 14 He shall glorify Me: for He shall receive of Mine, and shall shew [it] unto you. 15 All things that the Father hath are Mine: therefore said I, that He shall take of Mine, and shall shew [it] unto you.

The giving of the Holy Spirit to the Galilean Apostles.

John 20:21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace [be] unto you: as [My] Father hath sent Me, even so send I you. 22 And when He had said this, He breathed on [them], and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: 23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; [and] whose soever [sins] ye retain, they are retained.

HatGuy said:
How did they receive the promise of Jesus, the Kingdom, the Spirit, without obeying the Law? This is the question the Galileans grapple with, and their conclusion is simple: the Kingdom is for all in Christ, Jew and Gentle. Peter reiterates this teaching in 1 Peter, calling both the Jews and the Gentiles a chosen nation, a royal priesthood.

The narrative throughout the NT is clear. Jesus is the saviour of all men, and the Kingdom is a Kingdom for the nations.

Paul receives a mission from Christ to go the Gentiles, but even right at the end of the book of Acts we see him trying to convince Jews. Why would he do that unless "his" gospel was also for them? Why did God send Peter to Cornelius and have those Gentiles saved by Peter's gospel, if Peter's gospel was not also for them?

Both Paul and Peter and John clearly see a vision of all the nations being one Church, with one faith, one Messiah, one baptism, one Spirit, one body, one eschatological outcome, one Kingdom. Any theology contrary to this is creating division where there should not be, and is dreaming up separation where there is none.

Matthew 5:17-18 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 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.

Now, "If ye love Me keep My commandments" is pretty much the centerpiece (IMO) of the entire Kingdom Gospel.

But where do we even find the word "commandment" in the gospel to the gentiles, where it isn't being used as a curse word?

I kinda think Romans must Paul's gospel in a nutshell.

Romans 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law [are] just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

What Paul calls a bad thing /\, Jesus calls life itself \/:

Matthew 7:24-25 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of Mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

How you reconcile these two things, must be like lawyers creating loopholes.

Jesus didn't send His Apostles from Galilee to the Judeans, He sent them to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. The kingdom is still divided, and the 10 tribes called Israel lived (those within Palestine, not those scattered among the nations) north of Samaria, while the nation called Judean was south of Samaria. Paul was part of the southern house, because Benjamin was given to Judah when the kingdom was divided.

I can't for the life of me understand why the Apostles of Galilee would have wanted to walk in Jewry (when Jesus went out of His way to avoid it, and stay alive long enough to complete His mission)... with the weight of all of Matthew 23 and John 8 and the Revelation... they packed up and moved to the epicenter of the people who killed Jesus for His inheritance Matthew 21:38. Wait. What? That's the stuff of nightmares.

Strong in Him · Jun 16, 2021

Ligurian said:
Alrighty then, let me remove the word hate and replace it with dislike.

You don't have any evidence of that, either - that most people, except you, dislike the Apostles.

Ligurian said:
Why do the gentiles attempt to waylay Peter from his God-given path by making the Mark who followed him into the Mark who followed the apostle to the gentiles?

??
First, just because Mark was with Peter at a given point in his life, doesn't mean that he followed him.
Two people can have different ministries and still be very close. Where does it say in Scripture that Mark followed Peter?
Second, I have already said that Acts shows that Barnabas and Paul argued and Paul went off on his journeys without Mark; who, at least for a while, went with Barnabas.
Third, there is no evidence that anyone waylaid Peter from his God-given task.

Ligurian said:
Jesus says we will believe on Him because of the words of the 11 Apostles... specifically their words, John 17:20. Which means that those people in the audience were the only people who knew those words came from Peter and not Mark whose name shows up on the Gospel, and the commentators who called Mark in fact Peter. Since then, these particular words of the 11 Apostles have been ripped out of the hands of the lost sheep of Israel to whom they were sent, and credited to a fellow-traveller of Paul... in effect, literally robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Sorry but that's ridiculous.
Mark gives us an account of Jesus' life and teaching - with help and inspiration from the Holy Spirit, material from Peter and, maybe, his own eye witness observations.
It is the Gospel according to Mark - and the vast majority of Christians believe that it is the Gospel, and the words in it, that are important; not the name of the scribe who wrote them down. You appear to be more fixated on the scribe than the content.
Nobody is ripping the words of the apostles away from anyone. Mark records what they said and everything that happened.

Ligurian said:
Since most people aren't very careful in their reading, they've never found John 17:20 and don't realize the importance of the difference. Nor do they even seem to notice that preaching Christ crucified to the gentiles does not equal preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. They want to lump them all together, confusing "faith apart from works" with "keep the Commandments of God". Even Paul was guilty of doing this hybridization.

Sorry, but I have no idea what any of that means.

Ligurian said:
People may sneer and accuse me of being a literalist (like it's a crime), but at least I know that "no works" doesn't equal "I know thy works." And I'm very careful not to dismiss what Jesus has prophesied.

It IS wrong to take the words of the Bible literally if that was not what the author intended - it's making the Bible say something it was not meant to say.

Ligurian said:
Then what on Earth do you make of Paul signing all of his letters?

He signed most of his letters; doesn't mean that he was the one who wrote them down - see Romans 16:22.

Ligurian said:
D'ya think maybe Paul thought people should care about who wrote what, under whose authority, in what venue? Or do you think he shouldn't have signed any of them and run the risk of the stigma of "getting credit."

Churches that received Paul's letters knew that they were from Paul.
They would probably also have known that he had a scribe who had actually written those words down - people did then. But they didn't confuse the two or say "this letter was from Tertius [or whoever] because he actually wrote the words onto the scroll." They KNEW it was from Paul; his words, teaching and authority.

Ligurian said:
Let me ask you, do you follow "Christ crucified" or do you follow the "Gospel of the Kingdom"?

Christ preached the Gospel of the kingdom.

Ligurian said:
Do you most often remember the "without works" "by faith alone" verses or "If ye love Me keep My commandments" and "I know thy works" verses? Or are you one of those hybrid likers who don't care who wrote what to whom, even when you have to mangle one in favor of the other, or mangle and ruin both?

I have no idea what you are talking about; or why.
I read, and study, the Bible - please don't accuse me of mangling it.

Ligurian said:
You may not hate Peter, but you just don't like him much... because you sure don't mind robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Nonsense.
Literally - non sense.

Ligurian said:
But the Mark who followed Peter went "only unto to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
And since Peter was of the lost sheep mission, he would never have called Mark his son if it wasn't literally true, since Jesus forbids such things to the house of Israel.

Evidence that John-Mark mentioned in Acts 12:12 "followed" Peter?
As for the rest of this post; I don't know what you are saying.

The Liturgist · Jun 17, 2021

Ligurian said:
You know what Jesus said about your traditions, right? Well, I'm thinking He'd've had even less flattering sayings about "Pope Francis at the end of a canonization ceremony for Mother Teresa." We know that Jesus taught against that pater label. Nor does Jesus approve of idols.

I love pickled herring with cream, but not red herring. What does any of that have to do with my post? Nothing. I am not Roman Catholic, I don’t know if Mother Theresa deserved to be glorified as a saint or not, as I have read mixed reports on the quality of care in her hospices while she was alive, and I resent Pope Francis. I also do not practice idolatry.

My point is that your whole argument is based on a tradition from the early church; the same tradition that says St. Mark based his Gospel on the teaching of St. Peter says that St. Mark was one of the seventy apostles.

Peter(tr.Mark) 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

You doubtless mean Mark 7:13, which referred to the tradition of the Rabinnical Jews.

Matthew23:9 And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

Our Lord said this to make a point, because consider - He is infinitely Good and is One with the Father. It is not literally applicable, but is rather a figure of speech and look at how it is used by the writers who you use as sources for a Petrine basis for Mark use that word! But this is still a red herring. Scholarship calls the leaders of the Early Church the Early Church Fathers, and the field of study is Patristics, something I focused on in seminary. I did not chose the name. I think Early Church Leaders might be more appropriate because many Patristic figures were women.

Revelation2:20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce My servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.

Well, the Unitarian Universalists endorse fornication and probably eat food sacrificed to idols in the interests of diversity, and there are a few liberal parishes in liberal denominations have done weird things, like “herchurch” aka Ebenezer Lutheran Church, the “Cathedral of Hope”, and St. Gregory of Nyssa Episcopal church, but not on the same level, but I don’t know of any traditional Christian churches which tolerate fornication or eat food sacrificed to idols, nor which possess idols or engage idolatry, so more red herring...

Mark isn't said, by the many people who were first-hand witnesses, to've had any Gospel to write, apart from plagiarizing what Peter said... which Mark may not have actually done, but canon sure makes it look like he did.

On what basis do you accuse Mark of Plagiarism? What canon are you talking about? That is a serious charge which implies intellectual dishonesty. The authors who attribute a Petrine basis to Mark’s writings do not accuse St. Mark of Plagiarism.

The Gospel of Mark Belongs To Peter

Cro-Magnon

Cro-Magnon

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Well-Known Member

Cro-Magnon

Cro-Magnon

Cro-Magnon

Some guy in a hat

Great is thy faithfulness

Cro-Magnon

Some guy in a hat

Cro-Magnon

Cro-Magnon

Some guy in a hat

Cro-Magnon

Great is thy faithfulness

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Similar threads