Did Peter, Paul, James and John all preach the same Gospel?

[imperfectchristian]

I'm a person who believes the gospel is a very short and simple message and although the authors of the Gospel had their own way of relating it, the message is the same from all 4 of them. Jesus brought the kingdom God to all mankind, and with faith in him, and only in and through him, we may have it. It really is that short and simple.

Well yes and no. Understanding what Jesus did on the cross requires more than just believing in Him. We have to read the Old Testament about the fall, the law, the sacrifices, the promises, the prohecies, etc...

We have to understand what the death and ressurection means in the context of the panorama of Judasim in which it was purposely and divinely placed in to truly get a grasp of what is accomplished for the believer by Jesus through His Blood, His Cross and His ressurection.

I am sure you agree, I am just pointing this out to say, yes I do agree with you in one sense, but it in another sense what you describe is just the doorway into a relationship with God that as we know more of we can better understand who we are in Christ and who we will be in Him.

 

[imperfectchristian]

No, not at all.

I am not sure how you got there from what I said.

You suggest that the subject might give me the wrong impression if I don't take it into account. In fairness I think I have pointed out that I take a number of factors into consideration.

You also basically said that the letters are not an exhustive collection of all the thoughts, beliefs and the relationship the writer has with God.

Of course I agree, but I am not sure what good it does in answering the OP unless you are conlcuding that we simply cannot come to a determination on a number of theological positions.

 

[Frogster]

Well I was not trying to imply that James, John or Peter were ceremonial legalists like those who had envaded the church in Galatia.

Paul's statement "let them be accursed" is reserved for those who were trying to turn gentile believers into jewish proselytes for unGodly reasons.

Now granted, I do believe the points Paul makes concerning the law apply to the whole law, but I don't think that what some of the leaders in church did in Galatia by dead religious works would equivilate directly to a church preaching what we consider to be a legalistic gospel in our modern time per say.

In other words I don't think that Paul would use such language to a modern church that believed in Jesus and was sincerely trying to please God by keeping the ten commandments. I think he would still say they were misguided, but not that they were accursed. God looks on the intent of the heart, not the perfection of our doctrine.

I disagree.Galatians,could,and should be read almost verbatim today.

What has changed?

Paul was even willing to subject himself,to the curse.Keep in mind,it is most likely that the judaizers,were the same ones invading the Corinth church,and Paul called them "angels of light" in 2 Corinthians 11.

Think about the ramifications here.
Paul said the truth of the gospel was at stake in 2:5

And can you imagine what it would be like to see Peter,get forceful about the law.That was Peter,he had status.

Why wouldn't we today,as Paul was.be indignant,to see the righteousness of christ,trampled upon?

 

[KingZzub]

It means that sometimes a difference of emphasis might mean an apparent difference of belief.

Maybe James preached on faith week after week and it never made it into the Bible. But his sermon on the poor and the tongue did. Maybe James said that better than anyone else, but Paul's stuff on faith was better. We all have things we can preach better than others. You should hear me on healing, for example.

I don't believe we cannot know God's will or heart at all. Apologies if I gave that impression.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Well yes and no. Understanding what Jesus did on the cross requires more than just believing in Him. We have to read the Old Testament about the fall, the law, the sacrifices, the promises, the prohecies, etc...

We have to understand what the death and ressurection means in the context of the panorama of Judasim in which it was purposely and divinely placed in to truly get a grasp of what is accomplished for the believer by Jesus through His Blood, His Cross and His ressurection.

I am sure you agree, I am just pointing this out to say, yes I do agree with you in one sense, but it in another sense what you describe is just the doorway into a relationship with God that as we know more of we can better understand who we are in Christ and who we will be in Him.

Ok, but I'm just answering your basic question, did they preach the same gospel? Yes they did.

 

[imperfectchristian]

I disagree.Galatians,could,and should be read almost verbatim today.

What has changed?

Paul was even willing to subject himself,to the curse.Keep in mind,it is most likely that the judaizers,were the same ones invading the Corinth church,and Paul called them "angels of light" in 2 Corinthians 11.

Think about the ramifications here.
Paul said the truth of the gospel was at stake in 2:5

And can you imagine what it would be like to see Peter,get forceful about the law.That was Peter,he had status.

Why wouldn't we today,as Paul was.be indignant,to see the righteousness of christ,trampled upon?

That is a good point and is definitely something to consider carefully. However I have difficulty thinking of the holiness church down the road being cursed (NIV translates it as "eternally condemned") because they practice law keeping. Seems to me grace would cover those mistakes if they are made in ignorance of the truth.

I think we have to be careful in thinking of it too literally. One of the good things about having multiple translations is that it gives us insight into varying perspectives. Unfortunately though that can also be an impairment as well.

 

[imperfectchristian]

It means that sometimes a difference of emphasis might mean an apparent difference of belief.

Maybe James preached on faith week after week and it never made it into the Bible. But his sermon on the poor and the tongue did. Maybe James said that better than anyone else, but Paul's stuff on faith was better. We all have things we can preach better than others. You should hear me on healing, for example.

I don't believe we cannot know God's will or heart at all. Apologies if I gave that impression.

The question though is: do you see variations in the different writers. If so, what are they and how significant are they? Do they ever contradict each other on minor doctrinal issues?

 

[imperfectchristian]

Ok, but I'm just answering your basic question, did they preach the same gospel? Yes they did.

True, you did answer my OP title, but the post itself is more detailed concerning variations in any of the writers positions.

 

[nephilimiyr]

True, you did answer my OP title, but the post itself is more detailed concerning variations in any of the writers positions.

I'm sorry but I have no time to pontificate.

Perhaps you would like to become a mod and help me out so that I would have more time?

 

[Frogster]

That is a good point and is definitely something to consider carefully. However I have difficulty thinking of the holiness church down the road being cursed (NIV translates it as "eternally condemned") because they practice law keeping. Seems to me grace would cover those mistakes if they are made in ignorance of the truth.

I think we have to be careful in thinking of it too literally. One of the good things about having multiple translations is that it gives us insight into varying perspectives. Unfortunately though that can also be an impairment as well.

Hi.

Keep in mind,Paul did not curse the church,he cursed false apostles.

In 5;10,he even expressed confidence,that they (church)would see his view.

Actually,the sad thing is,and what proves just how eternally relevant scripture still is,is the fact,that the holiness church,is in fact under bondage,and living under the curse of the law,but the people are not living under the anathema,that Paul pronounced,on the false apostles.

 

[imperfectchristian]

I'm sorry but I have no time to pontificate.

Perhaps you would like to become a mod and help me out so that I would have more time?

And take all the fun out of coming to CF? No thank you.

 

[Frogster]

The question though is: do you see variations in the different writers. If so, what are they and how significant are they? Do they ever contradict each other on minor doctrinal issues?

Just out of curiousity,unless I missed it,I don't see your scriptures to show the differences mentioned in the op,that show a different gospel.
Thanks.

 

[nephilimiyr]

LOL, boy, that was a fast reply...

 

[imperfectchristian]

Hi.

Keep in mind,Paul did not curse the church,he cursed false apostles.

In 5;10,he even expressed confidence,that they would see his view.

Actually,the sad thing is,and what proves just how eternally relevant scripture still is,is the fact,that the holiness church,is in fact under bondage,and living under the curse of the law,but the people are not living under the anathema,that Paul pronounced,on the false apostles.

It goes to show though the varying interpretation of the meaning of what Paul was saying. I agree that they are living under a curse, but I don't believe they are eternally condemned for doing so. That would make the sincere believer who slipped into legalism and then died in that state lost and I refuse to believe that, rather I believe it is stating that as you said, they live under bondage as long as they are trying to keep the law.

This is a great example though of speculating on a Scripture and there being a myriad of different interpretations as to the connotation and the most correct meaning of the passage.

 

[imperfectchristian]

Just out of curiousity,unless I missed it,I don't see your scriptures to show the differences mentioned in the op,that show a different gospel.
Thanks.

I haven't posted any because I don't want it to be sidetracked into talking about any one particular passage.

 

[imperfectchristian]

LOL, boy, that was a fast reply...

(blows off the smoke that is trailing from the end of his six shooter)

 

[Frogster]

It goes to show though the varying interpretation of the meaning of what Paul was saying. I so agree that they are living under a curse, but I don't believe they are eternally condemned for doing so. That would make the sincere believer who slipped into legalism and then died in that state lost and I refuse to believe that, rather I believe it is stating that as you said, they live under bondage as long as they are trying to keep the law.

This is a great example though of speculating on a Scripture and there being a myriad of different interpretations as to the connotation and the most correct meaning of the passage.

I agree.they did not loose their salvation,the church people.

But just to stay on topic.How is Galatians,not applicable today,as far as the op goes.Or any other book?

 

[Frogster]

I haven't posted any because I don't want it to be sidetracked into talking about any one particular passage.

Ok,but it could have been interesting.Thanks!

 

[imperfectchristian]

I agree.they did not loose their salvation,the church people.

But just to stay on topic.How is Galatians,not applicable today,as far as the op goes.Or any other book?

I never said it wasn't applicable. The direct literal law keeping they were doing is not particularly relevant, but when it is understood that the law is not just ceremonial law (the laws they were focusing on particularly) but the whole law then it has great significance for every believer.

 

[nephilimiyr]

(blows off the smoke that is trailing from the end of his six shooter)

No, no, no Twiggy, I'm serious. We could become bois, I'll take you under my wing for awhile, show you the ropes, it'll be gooooood, come on man.

Ok, maybe I'll ask Frogster?