• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

My Gospel by Paul

Sorn

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2018
1,381
316
62
Perth
✟215,910.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
That refers to a difference in the target audience, not to a difference in the content of the message.
Well 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 goes on to say he can't remember doing any others in 1 Corinthians 1:16

They are not the same
 
Upvote 0

Soyeong

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2015
12,631
4,677
Hudson
✟345,013.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
Well 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 goes on to say he can't remember doing any others in 1 Corinthians 1:16

They are not the same
Paul said nothing about the Gospel of Grace not requiring baptism, but that it was not something that he was sent to do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Strong in Him
Upvote 0

Sorn

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2018
1,381
316
62
Perth
✟215,910.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Paul said nothing about the Gospel of Grace not requiring baptism, but that it was not something that he was sent to do.
Sure because dunking someone was such a skilled and dangerous thing to do it could only be done by someone with years of training and the appropriate recognized certifications.
 
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Site Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
30,893
9,882
NW England
✟1,288,568.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Sure because dunking someone was such a skilled and dangerous thing to do it could only be done by someone with years of training and the appropriate recognized certifications.
No, because his calling was to preach the Gospel to Gentiles.
Are you saying that he should have ignored his calling and what God asked him to do, and done things which God had not told him to do?
 
Upvote 0

Lost4words

Jesus I Trust In You
Site Supporter
May 19, 2018
11,774
12,490
Neath, Wales, UK
✟1,228,310.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Again I remind you, you are quoting an anonymous online source which supports what you have chosen to believe. I have shown you from BDAG a well known highly respected scholarly source supported by about 120-160 years of combined scholarship which included 30+ historical sources the scholars consulted determining the correct definition. BDAG is used in major theological seminaries. See entry "② a piece of rock," my post #32 this thread. But you go ahead on and believe what you want to believe.

It is a well known fact that Jesus saw Peter as the rock on which His church would be built upon.

The Gospel of Matthew, we have pretty solid evidence, was originally written in Aramaic. Sts. Papias and Irenaeus tell us as much in the second century. But even more importantly—and more certainly—Jesus would not have spoken his discourse of Matthew 16 in Greek. Greek was the dominant language of the Roman Empire in the first century, but most of the common Jewish folk to whom Jesus spoke would not have been fluent in it. Aramaic was their spoken language.

Moreover, we have biblical evidence—John 1:42—that also points to Jesus using Aramaic in the naming of Peter: “[Andrew] brought [Peter] to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, ‘So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas,’” (which means Peter).

The name Cephas is an anglicized form of the Aramaic Kepha, which means simply “rock.” There would have been no “small rock” to be found in Jesus’ original statement to Peter.

Even well respected Protestant scholars will agree on this point. Baptist scholar D.A. Carson, writes, in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary,

The underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (“you are kepha” and “on this kepha”), since the word was used both for a name and for a “rock.” The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with a dialect of Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses.

I rest my case, again.

God bless you my friend.
 
Upvote 0

Sorn

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2018
1,381
316
62
Perth
✟215,910.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
No, because his calling was to preach the Gospel to Gentiles.
Are you saying that he should have ignored his calling and what God asked him to do, and done things which God had not told him to do?
No, i am not saying that, precisely the opposite. The post I was responding to stated that the gospel Peter taught and the gospel Paul taught were exactly the same, its the same message, yet Peter's gospel included baptism but Paul's did not so they are NOT the same message.
The poster I responded to was insinuating that baptism was required but Paul wasn't required to do it. ie he wasn't required to baptize? So what, was this something one of his people did, so when someone converted did Paul say "great I'll have my people contact your people to arrange for you to be baptized by a qualified baptizer because you know i don't that sort of thing anymore these days, i don't like to get wet" or did he simply not baptize & also NOT say it was required??
 
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Site Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
30,893
9,882
NW England
✟1,288,568.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No, i am not saying that, precisely the opposite. The post I was responding to stated that the gospel Peter taught and the gospel Paul taught were exactly the same,
They were, because there is only ONE Gospel.
The poster I responded to was insinuating that baptism was required but Paul wasn't required to do it. ie he wasn't required to baptize? So what, was this something one of his people did, so when someone converted did Paul say "great I'll have my people contact your people to arrange for you to be baptized by a qualified baptizer because you know i don't that sort of thing anymore these days, i don't like to get wet" or did he simply not baptize & also NOT say it was required??

He did baptise some people, but he wasn't called, primarily, to baptise.
If he had preached the Gospel, people had responded and immediately said "now can you baptise us?" he probably would have agreed and done so. But baptism may have been something that happened later, after Paul had moved on. Scripture suggests that, in many places, Paul preached/debated/argued and then moved on to another place. He did not stay around to give spiritual and pastoral care.
 
Upvote 0

Sorn

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2018
1,381
316
62
Perth
✟215,910.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
They were, because there is only ONE Gospel.


He did baptise some people, but he wasn't called, primarily, to baptise.
If he had preached the Gospel, people had responded and immediately said "now can you baptise us?" he probably would have agreed and done so. But baptism may have been something that happened later, after Paul had moved on. Scripture suggests that, in many places, Paul preached/debated/argued and then moved on to another place. He did not stay around to give spiritual and pastoral care.
No that doesn't make sense. When Paul wrote this: 1 Corinthians 1:16 he was staying in Ephesus where he stayed for 3 years. There would have been plenty of time to organize baptisms & have him present and perform them. People would have waited till he was available as who better to be baptised by than an actual apostle.
He could easily have arranged days where he did many baptism of people who had converted, just as churches do now, when once a month or couple of months they baptise all the people who have elected to do so.

He was not too busy to baptise or to far away, he just didn't preach baptism was needed because his message WAS different to that of the apostles to the Jews
 
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Site Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
30,893
9,882
NW England
✟1,288,568.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No that doesn't make sense. When Paul wrote this: 1 Corinthians 1:16 he was staying in Ephesus where he stayed for 3 years.
I know; Corinth was one place that he did stay for a while.
There would have been plenty of time to organize baptisms & have him present and perform them.
He did baptise some.
The argument he was making that, because the Corinthians were divided and each following different leaders, he was thankful that very few could boast that they had been baptised in his name, 1 Corinthians 1:15.
He said, in verse 17, "FOR, Christ did not send me to baptise but to preach".
So it doesn't matter if we think he should have baptised/ had time to baptise etc - that was not his calling, so he remained faithful to it.

People would have waited till he was available as who better to be baptised by than an actual apostle.
That's a big supposition.

He could easily have arranged days where he did many baptism of people who had converted, just as churches do now, when once a month or couple of months they baptise all the people who have elected to do so.
Yes, he COULD have done. But he says in 1 Corinthians 1:17 that he was not called to baptise but to preach. He remained faithful to his calling.

Maybe we should all learn from him? There are too many people today who say "yes, I COULD do that", so they do. But then they find it takes time away from what they were really called to do.
He was not too busy to baptise or to far away, he just didn't preach baptism was needed
Apart from the people listed in 1 Corinthians, it seems that Paul baptised Lydia, Acts 16:15, and the Philippian jailer and his household, Acts 16:33.
If he hadn't believed baptism was needed, or important, he would not have baptised anyone. Even so, this was not his main calling.

because his message WAS different to that of the apostles to the Jews
How was Paul's Gospel different from that of the other Apostles?
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
29,117
6,145
EST
✟1,123,523.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
It is a well known fact that Jesus saw Peter as the rock on which His church would be built upon.
The Gospel of Matthew, we have pretty solid evidence, was originally written in Aramaic. Sts. Papias and Irenaeus tell us as much in the second century. But even more importantly—and more certainly—Jesus would not have spoken his discourse of Matthew 16 in Greek. Greek was the dominant language of the Roman Empire in the first century, but most of the common Jewish folk to whom Jesus spoke would not have been fluent in it. Aramaic was their spoken language.
Moreover, we have biblical evidence—John 1:42—that also points to Jesus using Aramaic in the naming of Peter: “[Andrew] brought [Peter] to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, ‘So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas,’” (which means Peter).
The name Cephas is an anglicized form of the Aramaic Kepha, which means simply “rock.” There would have been no “small rock” to be found in Jesus’ original statement to Peter.
Even well respected Protestant scholars will agree on this point. Baptist scholar D.A. Carson, writes, in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary,
I rest my case, again.
God bless you my friend.
As I said you have no case to rest. You merely ignored the highly respected source I quoted and made reference to some ECF. BDAG dates to 1877. D.A. Carson still living is 76. There is no "solid evidence" that Matthew was originally in Aramaic or Hebrew. There are some claims to that effect. Nothing you have said or could say explains the change from "Petros[M]" to "Petra[F]"
 
Upvote 0

Lost4words

Jesus I Trust In You
Site Supporter
May 19, 2018
11,774
12,490
Neath, Wales, UK
✟1,228,310.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
As I said you have no case to rest. You merely ignored the highly respected source I quoted and made reference to some ECF. BDAG dates to 1877. D.A. Carson still living is 76. There is no "solid evidence" that Matthew was originally in Aramaic or Hebrew. There are some claims to that effect. Nothing you have said or could say explains the change from "Petros[M]" to "Petra[F]"

Truth hurts you i see!

God bless you buddy.
 
Upvote 0

Guojing

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2019
13,065
1,399
sg
✟272,422.00
Country
Singapore
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
There are no different ways to receive God"s free gift of Eternal Life. It has always been belief in Jesus.

Perhaps you could be clearer and explain what "belief in Jesus" means to you.

If I am a Jew living before the cross, what exactly do I have to believe about Jesus to have life?

Can I then considered myself dead to the Law of Moses and still be considered to have life at the end of my lifespan?
 
Upvote 0

d taylor

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2018
13,762
5,822
60
Mississippi
✟321,769.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Perhaps you could be clearer and explain what "belief in Jesus" means to you.

If I am a Jew living before the cross, what exactly do I have to believe about Jesus to have life?

Can I then considered myself dead to the Law of Moses and still be considered to have life at the end of my lifespan?

...Belief in Jesus means for people living now, after Jesus 1st advent. Is that we have a clear written image of who God had promised to send, this person is is know in English versions of The Bible as Jesus.

...At the actual time of Jesus being physically alive on earth. The Jews at that time had an actual physical person who was preforming miracles that only the promised Messiah was able to do.
Then they brought him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute, and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see. All the people were astonished and said, “Could this be the Son of David?”

...So they had The physical person of Jesus to believe in, who was the only person, to be able to do the miracles prophesied in The Tanakh that The Messiah was going to do.

...Jews before the advent of The Messiah, Israel still had the promised to come Messiah, to believe in for Eternal Life. They did not, the farther history went back, have an actual name but still they had knowledge of a promised Messiah.

Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.”

...With all that said, it is for past, present and future people belief in The messiah for Eternal Life.

...That in The Messiah is the life of God. Now we know Jesus is the resurrection and the life (The Life of God), the promised only begotten Son of God, The promised Messiah from the prophecies of The Tanakh.

...So when verses from John say belief in Jesus gives a person Eternal Life. The belief is that this person Jesus is the resurrection and the life and to believe that He, Jesus is actually who He says he is, is to believe in Jesus.

...That is to believe this is the way to receive God's free gift of Eternal Life by Belief in Jesus and not to believe Eternal Life is received by other means repentance, following the law, obedience, saying a prayer, believing a gospel. etc...

John 5 24 states when a person believes in Jesus they at that moment of belief, cross over from death to life. The verse does not say the believer will eventually cross over from death to life if they believe and follow the law. etc..

“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.
 
Upvote 0

d taylor

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2018
13,762
5,822
60
Mississippi
✟321,769.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Perhaps you could be clearer and explain what "belief in Jesus" means to you.

If I am a Jew living before the cross, what exactly do I have to believe about Jesus to have life?

Can I then considered myself dead to the Law of Moses and still be considered to have life at the end of my lifespan?

What Does It Mean to Believe in Jesus? – Grace Evangelical Society

What Do We Need to Believe about Jesus to Be Saved? – Grace Evangelical Society

Believing That Jesus Is the Christ, the Son of God (John 20:31) – Grace Evangelical Society

How Should One Define the Phrase “Belief in Jesus”? What is Saving Faith? – Grace Evangelical Society
 
Upvote 0

Guojing

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2019
13,065
1,399
sg
✟272,422.00
Country
Singapore
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
John 5 24 states when a person believes in Jesus they at that moment of belief, cross over from death to life. The verse does not say the believer will eventually cross over from death to life if they believe and follow the law. etc..

“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.

I understand the appeal of using the Gospel of John, if you want to make Jesus say the same gospel as the one he gave Paul after he ascended into heaven.

But you do agree that, if Jesus spoke about the importance of keeping the Law of Moses in the book of Matthew to have life, which he did is several places such as Matthew 5, the lawyer who asked him about whose his neighbor etc, he cannot be saying something else in the book of John?
 
Upvote 0

Peter John

Active Member
Feb 12, 2019
175
93
72
peterborough
✟41,017.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
I have sown the seeds of what the true Gospel of Grace, body of Christ church is, that is pure and Spiritual. Only found in the 13 Epistles of Paul. It’s up to God now, if He deems to open the eyes of your heart, or not. I didn’t come back here to debate or argue, like most like to do. You can carry on in your fleshly churches, to your own demise, or like He did with me, He will show you that they are false.
 
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Site Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
30,893
9,882
NW England
✟1,288,568.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I have sown the seeds of what the true Gospel of Grace, body of Christ church is, that is pure and Spiritual. Only found in the 13 Epistles of Paul.
So you believe that the Gospel is not to be found in the Gospels?
The "seeds" that you have sown will produce only thorns.
I didn’t come back here to debate or argue, like most like to do.
So, someone else posting with the attitude, "what I say is correct; take it or leave it".
You should be able to explain, and defend, your own beliefs without causing strife or an argument.
You can carry on in your fleshly churches, to your own demise, or like He did with me, He will show you that they are false.
God is not going to contradict, or disprove, the Gospels which his Spirit inspired and which speak of, and bear witness to, his Son.
And if you're implying that all churches are "fleshy" and will lead to spiritual death, you couldn't be more wrong.
 
Upvote 0