My Gospel by Paul

[BNR32FAN]

Twice Paul said my Gospel in Rom2v16 and 16v25.
This is our Gospel, of Grace by Faith, that we have had for the last 2000yrs. No one has been saved by the 1st Gospel of the Kingdom, found in Matt, Mark, Luke and John, since all those years ago.
This was because it was for the Jews only, as a Gospel of works, where by they have to endure to the end to be saved.
We don’t have works, just Grace by Faith, which is the free gift of God.
Unfortunately all denominations and non denominations are man made, dating back to Emperor Constantine, who to appease the Goths, Huns and Vandals, who were attacking Rome, allowed their paganism into the Church, and all subsequent churches and religions. They all mix the 2 Gospels together, making them void.
Church is ekklesia in the Greek, meaning called out ones, so for most going along with your particular brand of Christianity, along with adherence to all the rules, and rituals, think again!
His Grace is sufficient, nothing added. Eph2v8, God’s free gift to us.
The whole bible was written for us, but only Paul’s 13 Epistles were written to us!

Did you actually read what Paul said about his gospel in Romans 2? You can’t just cherry pick verse 16 out and ignore the fact that in that passage he says that each person will be judged according to their deeds and it’s not the hearers of the law who are justified but the doers of the law who are justified. That’s the exact same gospel that Jesus taught. You said that we don’t have to endure to the end in order to be saved? That’s not what Paul taught. 2 Timothy 2:12 and Colossians 1:22-23 are clear instructions from Paul that we must endure to the end in order to be saved.

“If we endure, we will also reign with Him; If we deny Him, He also will deny us;”
‭‭2 Timothy‬ ‭2‬:‭12‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

“yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach— if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.”
‭‭Colossians‬ ‭1‬:‭22‬-‭23‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

 

[Strong in Him]

The rule is here first…

Galatians 6: 15, 16 “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. 16. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.”

1 John 2: 20. 21,27 “But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. 21. I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth…27. But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.”

I was talking to Clare73 about her "rule" that Christ came to establish organised religion.
The verses you quoted have nothing to do with that.

 

[Clare73]

Ah, but not the words or laws themselves.
So there ARE some teachings in the word of God which are not for us. We can read and learn from them, but we don't follow them.

They are not for us in the sense of observance (Heb 8:13), but they are for all God's people in the sense of God's word and the truths they present.

Yes, so do I. But we do not obey, or literally apply, those laws and teachings today.
So there are things in God's word which are not for us. WE were not the people rescued from slavery in Egypt

Contraire. . .we are the people rescued from the slavery of sin (Jn 8:34, Ro 6:6, 7:25c).

and led to Sinai to receive God's holy law and covenant. WE do not become unclean once a month,

I would venture we become unclean more often than that (1 Jn 1:8-10).
The Levitical uncleanness was ceremonial, not actual--to show the true nature of sin as spiritually defiling, uncleanness.

become doubly unclean if we give birth to a girl or have to isolate ourselves at such times. WE are not told that we cannot marry people outside of Israel etc.
We can learn from Leviticus, certainly.
But these words, laws and commands were not written to us in the Western world in the year 2024.

That is my whole point. Yes, they are useful and interesting - though it took me years to even read Leviticus. But they were not written to us and we don't observe them today. (I'm not sure that Jews even observe them today as they have no animal sacrifices and no temple.) They are still in God's word - those compiling the Bible could easily have said "these are not relevant to Christians" and left them out. But they didn't.

They are absolutely as relevant as a foundation is to a building; i.e., to our understanding of the nature of sin as spiritual defilement, of the nature of Jesus' atoning sacrifice as payment of our sin debt, and of the nature of forgiveness..

Useful, yes

Absolutely useful. . .for a full-bodied Biblical understanding of Jesus' Atonement, rather than a modern-day dismissal of living sacrifice.

 

[LoveofTruth]

I was talking to Clare73 about her "rule" that Christ came to establish organised religion.
The verses you quoted have nothing to do with that.

Ok, well they apply to you and her . And Christ dies not establish organized religion as some see. The church is the body of Christ not an organization of man. The order in that body is as Christ effectually works in every member. He builds his church from within, (Ephesuans4:15,16).

Yes, there is sone outward aspects like where do we meet do we eat a meal?, and things like that. But even the order in these things is to allow the body to function and edify one another in Christ.

 

[Clare73]

So you're not insisting that the words of the Bible all literally apply to us but are looking beyond them for the meaning.
Good.

I'm insisting that Scripture be taken in its context.

Of course.
But previously you said that as Paul was an apostle of the Lord, ALL his words are for us; God's people.
It seems that you, yourself, do not believe that literally because when I quoted a verse about women not wearing gold you said that those verses are all about not being ostentatious.

Goes to "context."

So some words of Paul are to be received, obeyed and applied literally because he was an apostle of the Lord. But in others, it's the meaning, or underlying teaching, that's important?

It is always the context that is important, is it a lasting principle that is in focus, or simply a practice that is in focus?

So you would say that women are second-class citizens;

You are adding to the Scriptures and demonstrating loose handling of them, which betrays an inability to rightly divide the word (2 Pe 3:16) based on unfamiliarity with the context of the whole NT.

You would say that only Jews - formally Hebrew slaves who had been rescued by God and given his law - are God's people? That Gentiles - non-Jews - are outside of God's promises and not his people?

I would say what both the OT and the NT say.

Nowhere does Paul say that women cannot be pastors.

Your unfamiliarity with the NT is showing, which unfamiliarity leaves us with no basis for discussion.

 

[Strong in Him]

They are not for us in the sense of observance (Heb 8:13),

Exactly.
So there ARE some verses/passages in the Bible which are not for us and which do not apply to us.

Contraire. . .we are the people rescued from the slavery of sin (Jn 8:34, Ro 6:6, 7:25c).

But not from Pharaoh, Egypt and literal, back-breaking slavery.
THAT'S who those words were written to and to whom the laws were given - since you're keen on context.

I would venture we become unclean more often than that (1 Jn 1:8-10).

Again, you're spiritualising it.
In those days women were unclean after their period, unclean after childbirth, and doubly unclean after the birth of a girl. They had to self-isolate, then, after the prescribed number of days, they had to go to the priest and offer a sacrifice.

They are absolutely as relevant as a foundation is to a building; i.e., to our understanding the nature of sin as spiritual defilement, the nature of Jesus' atoning sacrifice as payment of our sin debt, and the nature of forgiveness..

Nope. We knew what sin was before these hygiene laws were given - Adam, Cain, the people of Noah's day, Abraham etc all sinned.
Jesus' atoning sacrifice was prophesied in the Garden of Eden, Genesis 3:15. It was foreshadowed by Isaac being saved from death by a ram., and the people of Israel being literally saved from death by dabbing the blood of a lamb onto their doorposts.
Being ceremonially unclean and needing to offer a sacrifice adds little to that understanding.

If someone became a Christian and were given only the NT, their faith would not be incomplete because they didn't have the food/hygiene laws.

Absolutely useful. . .for a full-bodied Biblical understanding of Jesus' Atonement, rather than a modern-day dismissal of living sacrifice.

We get that from the exodus from Egypt and Passover.
It was years before I read Leviticus. It was interesting because it showed me how Jesus fulfilled the various sacrifices, but it didn't add to my understanding of the atonement or the cross.

 

[Clare73]

Exactly.
So there ARE some verses/passages in the Bible which are not for us and which do not apply to us.
But not from Pharaoh, Egypt and literal, back-breaking slavery.
THAT'S who those words were written to and to whom the laws were given - since you're keen on context.
Again, you're spiritualising it.
In those days women were unclean after their period, unclean after childbirth, and doubly unclean after the birth of a girl. They had to self-isolate, then, after the prescribed number of days, they had to go to the priest and offer a sacrifice.
Nope. We knew what sin was before these hygiene laws were given - Adam, Cain, the people of Noah's day, Abraham etc all sinned.
Jesus' atoning sacrifice was prophesied in the Garden of Eden, Genesis 3:15. It was foreshadowed by Isaac being saved from death by a ram., and the people of Israel being literally saved from death by dabbing the blood of a lamb onto their doorposts.
Being ceremonially unclean and needing to offer a sacrifice adds little to that understanding.
If someone became a Christian and were given only the NT, their faith would not be incomplete because they didn't have the food/hygiene laws.
We get that from the exodus from Egypt and Passover.

It was years before I read Leviticus. It was interesting because it showed me how Jesus fulfilled the various sacrifices, but
it didn't add to my understanding of the atonement or the cross.

It added much to my appreciation of
the holiness of God,
the nature of sin, and
how an unholy people can approach a holy God; i.e., sin must first be dealt with, which explains everything since Adam.

 

[Strong in Him]

I'm insisting that Scripture be taken in its context.

Good; you'll understand what I said about the Jewish food laws then.

They are useful/interesting FOR us but were not written TO us - yet they are still in the Bible, God's word.

You are adding to the Scriptures and demonstrating loose handling of them,

No, women were absolutely second-class citizens - in fact, that status was probably too high for them.
They had no rights. They could be divorced for any reason. They were not educated or allowed to learn. They were not reliable witnesses or allowed into a court of law. They were under the care of their fathers until a suitable man could be found for them, then handed over to him. Girls were a financial burden as they could not go out and earn a living.
Pharisees would pray, every day "I thank you Lord for not making me a Gentile, or a woman" - they may still do for all I know.

Read the Scriptures. Read how a woman was unclean after childbirth and doubly so after giving birth to a girl. Read how often men are mentioned; "5,000 men - not counting women and children." Jesus talked about a man divorcing his wife but not a woman divorcing her husband. Why? Because that was not possible. In Acts 16 a man was converted and baptised - and all his household with him. Why? Because the man was the head of the household and everyone else obeyed/followed what he did.

Your unfamiliarity with the NT is showing, which unfamiliarity leaves us with no basis for discussion.

How so?
I've been reading it for 50 years and preaching it for 20; which bits am I unfamiliar with?

 

[Strong in Him]

It added much to my appreciation of
the holiness of God,
the nature of sin, and
how an unholy people can approach a holy God; i.e., sin must first be dealt with, which explains everything since Adam.

No doubt.
That still does not change the fact that we are not obliged to observe those laws. They were not given to us, they are not for us - though we may find them instructive/interesting.

 

[Clare73]

No doubt.
That still does not change the fact that we are not obliged to observe those laws. They were not given to us, they are not for us - though we may find them instructive/interesting.

See post #565, last response.

 

[KingdomLeast]

That's all very interesting.
But the point is that this verse is in Scripture, and you asked me where, in Scripture, does it say to baptise in the name of the Trinity.

But the verse itself is in question whether or not it belongs in scripture. And if it truly is scriptural, then why isn't it used in any of the baptisms mentioned in scripture?

 

[Guojing]

Who do you think it is?

The heathen of course, which means unbelieving Jews and gentiles.

They are not to follow the gospel of the circumcision.

 

[timewerx]

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

The 13 epistles by the 13th apostle. Glad I'm not superstitious!

 

[Rose_bud]

The heathen of course, which means unbelieving Jews and gentiles.

They are not to follow the gospel of the circumcision.

Great,
The "you" Paul refers to is the "churches in Galatia" (Galatians 1:2). Which was a mixture of Jews and Gentiles, imo predominantly Gentiles. They were being tempted/deceived into thinking they should return to "works of the law" to attain salvation.

 

[Guojing]

Great,
The "you" Paul refers to is the "churches in Galatia" (Galatians 1:2). Which was a mixture of Jews and Gentiles, imo predominantly Gentiles. They were being tempted/deceived into thinking they should return to "works of the law" to attain salvation.

But given the agreement earlier made in Galatians 2:7-9, they could not be the circumcised little flock. That is under the apostleship of Peter James and John.

Would you agree with that?

 

[Strong in Him]

See post #565, last response.

So you've said.
Yet you won't tell me which parts of the NT I am supposed to be unfamiliar with or where my knowledge is, apparently, lacking.

 

[Rose_bud]

But given the agreement earlier made in Galatians 2:7-9, they could not be the circumcised little flock. That is under the apostleship of Peter James and John.

Would you agree with that?

In Galatians 2, Paul is essentially recounting how he became the apostle to the Gentiles, and who supported him in this ministry. IMO he is establishing what the original agreement was and what it meant, thereafter how it got compromised and his corrective of it.

There are essentially two parties responsible for compromising the gospel message (the work of reconcilation Christ secured by his death and resurrection) thereby undermining the unity of Jew and Gentile.

The main party is the Judaizers who came in secret as spies to destroy the freedom of those in Christ and partly responsible is the influential Christian Jewish leaders like Peter even Barnabus who were seduced, compromising the integrity of the gospel of grace.

So I'm not too sure of what you meant by circumcised little flock? So if you regard Peter and Barnabus in that category then I would say they too fell prey to the seduction. But were publicly chastised by Paul which served as an encouragement for others. That even influential leaders should be on their guard.

Circumcision itself was not the issue, all Jews were circumcised, even Paul the Apostle to the Gentiles. But rather it's the elevation of circumcision to a requirement for salvation that distorts the gospel message.

This insistence to the works of the law undermined the sufficiency of Christ's work on the cross. Paul regarded it as a different gospel, which threatened to lead believers in Christ away from the true gospel of grace.

 

[Guojing]

So I'm not too sure of what you meant by circumcised little flock? So if you regard Peter and Barnabus in that category then I would say they too fell prey to the seduction. But were publicly chastised by Paul which served as an encouragement for others. That even influential leaders should be on their guard.

See the KJV version of Galatians 2:7-9, and you will understand what I mean about the difference between circumcised, and the unbelieving heathen, the latter which includes unbelieving Jews and gentiles.

 

[Rose_bud]

See the KJV version of Galatians 2:7-9, and you will understand what I mean about the difference between circumcised, and the unbelieving heathen, the latter which includes unbelieving Jews and gentiles.

Im really trying to understand what your argument is, even if I read it in a thousand different translations. I would need you to explain clearly what you understand by this passage that you think I appear to have a different view on. Please clarify what you understand the text to mean for us to reach consensus should their not be.

 

[Rose_bud]

See the KJV version of Galatians 2:7-9, and you will understand what I mean about the difference between circumcised, and the unbelieving heathen, the latter which includes unbelieving Jews and gentiles.

I think I understand what you are suggesting, but I respectfully disagree. If this is not what you were alluding to see the previous post.

The term "heathen" and "pagan" carry some derogatory connotations, so I prefer using "Gentile unbeliever" in a religious context. Nonetheless, th Greek word "ethnos"(Strongs 1484) means a race, a nation, pl. the nations (as distinct from Isr.) and is often translated as "Gentiles" or "nations" to distinguish non-Jews from Jews.

In Galatians 2:8-9, the same word "ethnos" is translated as "Gentiles" in verse 8 and "heathen" in verse 9, which can be misleading. I don't think Paul considered unbelieving Jews as Gentiles, as this would imply that he was once an "ethne" (Gentile) before his encounter on the Damascus road. Moreover, Paul's argument in Galatians emphasizes that there is no longer a distinction between Jew and Greek/Gentile, but rather between believers and unbelievers in Christ's finished work regardless of nationality.

I believe the consistent translation of "ethnos" as "Gentiles" in both verses would better convey Paul's message.

Ethnos Strongs 1484 in bold

Galatians 2:7-8 KJV 7 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 (ethnos)Gentiles 9And 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 (ethnos) heathen/Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision.