Unforgiveness is unforgivable...

[Minister Monardo]

If you say so, we are always correct in our own minds.

Unfortunately, your errors are not in your own mind.
They have been published world wide.
Matthew 12:
36 But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give an account of it in the day of judgment.
37 For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.

Or do you think this only applies to Jews?
1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

 

[Minister Monardo]

It is not a book that contains Paul's gospel, as stated in Romans 2:16.

In Acts 13, Paul preaches the Gospel to a mixed audience of Jews and Gentiles.
Calling Acts "transitional" is meaningless. You are making up terminology to suit your own intentions.
Acts ends with Paul in Rome. Much more than just transitional. He was finished, other than to share with visitors.
Acts 28:
23 So when they had appointed him a day, many came to him at his lodging, to whom he explained and solemnly testified of the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus from both the Law of Moses and the Prophets, from morning till evening. 24 And some were persuaded by the things which were spoken, and some disbelieved. 25 So when they did not agree among themselves, they departed after Paul had said one word: “The Holy Spirit spoke rightly through Isaiah the prophet to our fathers, 26 saying, ‘Go to this people and say:
“Hearing you will hear, and shall not understand;
And seeing you will see, and not perceive;
27 For the hearts of this people have grown dull.
Their ears are hard of hearing,
And their eyes they have closed,
Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears,
Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
So that I should heal them.” ’
28 “Therefore let it be known to you that the salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will hear it!” 29 And when he had said these words, the Jews departed and had a great dispute among themselves. 30 Then Paul dwelt two whole years in his own rented house, and received all who came to him, 31 preaching the kingdom of God and teaching the things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ with all confidence, no one forbidding him.

 

[Guojing]

In Acts 13, Paul preaches the Gospel to a mixed audience of Jews and Gentiles.
Calling Acts "transitional" is meaningless. You are making up terminology to suit your own intentions.
Acts ends with Paul in Rome. Much more than just transitional. He was finished, other than to share with visitors.
Acts 28:
23 So when they had appointed him a day, many came to him at his lodging, to whom he explained and solemnly testified of the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus from both the Law of Moses and the Prophets, from morning till evening. 24 And some were persuaded by the things which were spoken, and some disbelieved. 25 So when they did not agree among themselves, they departed after Paul had said one word: “The Holy Spirit spoke rightly through Isaiah the prophet to our fathers, 26 saying, ‘Go to this people and say:
“Hearing you will hear, and shall not understand;
And seeing you will see, and not perceive;
27 For the hearts of this people have grown dull.
Their ears are hard of hearing,
And their eyes they have closed,
Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears,
Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
So that I should heal them.” ’
28 “Therefore let it be known to you that the salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will hear it!” 29 And when he had said these words, the Jews departed and had a great dispute among themselves. 30 Then Paul dwelt two whole years in his own rented house, and received all who came to him, 31 preaching the kingdom of God and teaching the things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ with all confidence, no one forbidding him.

My point is that, if you think the book of Acts contains the essence of what Paul described as "my gospel" (Romans 2:16), you are seriously mistaken.

But if you disagree, I am fine, let's move on.

 

[The Liturgist]

Jesus was not speaking to you in Matthew-John (Matthew 15:24)

Yes he was. There is only one Gospel. You should really carefully read Galatians, because your concept of a Gospel for the Jews and for the Gentiles is fundamentally incompatible with that epistle.

When Paul said "my gospel", you actually thought he was referring to the Gospel of Luke? =)

The view expressed by my colleague Rev. Monardo is a traditional one which I largely share, that St. Luke the Evangelist, who according to ancient church tradition was also a physician who looked after Our Glorious Lady the Theotokos and Ever Virgin Mary in Ephesus and painted an icon of her, and certainly the description of the physicality of injuries and activities in the Gospel According to Luke indicates that he was likely a physician, so I accept this tradition outright, did transcribe a narration from St. Paul, just as Mark the Evangelist did put to papyrus the Gospel as narrated by St. Peter. In the case of St. Paul, since he was not an eye witness, he presumably received some of the Gospel account directly through divine revelation, indirectly from the other Apostles, and I believe both St. Mark and St. Luke talked to and used other sources. For example, St. Luke being the physician of the Blessed Virgin Mary explains how he knew so much about the Incarnation.

Thus, it is the Gospel According to Luke, his synthesis of the Gospel narrative of St. Paul, and I would argue most likely not only St. Mary the Mother of God, but also St. John the Beloved Disciple, who was the youngest of the Apostles and became the adopted son of the Theotokos, and was thus also present in Ephesus, where St. Luke was believed to have resided, and the content of Acts also clearly suggests St. Luke most likely had interactions with St. Peter and possibly St. James the Just.

 

[Guojing]

Yes he was. There is only one Gospel. You should really carefully read Galatians, because your concept of a Gospel for the Jews and for the Gentiles is fundamentally incompatible with that epistle.

Interestingly, would it be fundamentally incompatible with the KJV translation of Galatians 2:7-9?

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.

That is what the KJV is literally saying correct?

 

[Minister Monardo]

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;

This merely refers to a division of the work.
Not two different Gospels. There is one Gospel.
Luke wrote for Greeks, that is beyond dispute.
His Gospel is so consistent with Mark and Matt
that they are referred to as synoptic. What is wonderful about Luke's writing is that he teaches the Holy Spirit more than either of them. And of course in his book we call Acts of the Apostles, he mentions the Holy Spirit some 40 times. Is that what you mean by transitional? I prefer to call Luke's second book the Acts of the Holy Spirit, but that's just me. Do you know Him?

 

[Minister Monardo]

It is not a book that contains Paul's gospel, as stated in Romans 2:16.

Are you saying that the letter to the Romans is Paul's Gospel? What about 1 Corinthians?
1 Corinthians 2:
9 But as it is written:
Eyes have not seen, nor ear heard,
Nor have entered into the heart of man
The things which God has prepared for
those who love Him.
10 But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit.
For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit
of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God
except the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world,
but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things
that have been freely given to us by God.
13 These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom
teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one.
16 For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ.

2 Corinthians 3:
7 But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away,
8 how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious?
9 For if the ministry of condemnation had glory, the ministry of righteousness exceeds much more in glory.
10 For even what was made glorious had no glory in this respect, because of the glory that excels.
11 For if what is passing away was glorious, what remains is much more glorious.
12 Therefore, since we have such hope, we use great boldness of speech—
13 unlike Moses, who put a veil over his face so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the end of what was passing away.
14 But their minds were blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away in Christ.
15 But even to this day, when Moses is read, a veil lies on their heart.
16 Nevertheless when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.
17 Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
18 But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord.

 

[The Liturgist]

In Acts 13, Paul preaches the Gospel to a mixed audience of Jews and Gentiles.
Calling Acts "transitional" is meaningless. You are making up terminology to suit your own intentions.
Acts ends with Paul in Rome. Much more than just transitional. He was finished, other than to share with visitors.
Acts 28:
23 So when they had appointed him a day, many came to him at his lodging, to whom he explained and solemnly testified of the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus from both the Law of Moses and the Prophets, from morning till evening. 24 And some were persuaded by the things which were spoken, and some disbelieved. 25 So when they did not agree among themselves, they departed after Paul had said one word: “The Holy Spirit spoke rightly through Isaiah the prophet to our fathers, 26 saying, ‘Go to this people and say:
“Hearing you will hear, and shall not understand;
And seeing you will see, and not perceive;
27 For the hearts of this people have grown dull.
Their ears are hard of hearing,
And their eyes they have closed,
Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears,
Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
So that I should heal them.” ’
28 “Therefore let it be known to you that the salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will hear it!” 29 And when he had said these words, the Jews departed and had a great dispute among themselves. 30 Then Paul dwelt two whole years in his own rented house, and received all who came to him, 31 preaching the kingdom of God and teaching the things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ with all confidence, no one forbidding him.

Indeed. I myself like to think of Luke and Acts as a two part story, because it describes the resurrection narrative and the descent of the Holy Spirit across the gap. I love all four Gospels. I ascribe to a semi-traditional view, that St. Matthew wrote the first one, in Aramaic (referred to as Hebrew by the Greek fathers, since Jews in religious contexts code switched between the two languages), which may have been the lost Gospel of the Hebrews, then St. Mark, who owned the house in which the Upper Room was located wrote the first Greek Gospel (since we know none of the surviving canonical Gospels are translations), relying heavily on narration from St. Peter, perhaps in Antioch where St. Peter organized the church before moving to Rome to counter the false Gnostic heresy being spread by Simon Magus, or perhaps in Rome; Luke wrote his account, and there was likely a Q source, perhaps an Aramaic sayings Gospel that became the corrupted Gospel of Thomas (if such a sayings document existed in Aramaic, it probably did originate with Thomas, since his mission was to the Syro-Aramaic speaking Jews of Edessa Mesopotamia and India, where he was martyred by a javelin thrown by an enraged Hindu, but this is just conjecture. As it stands the Gospels of Thomas and Peter are the only two apocryphal Gospels that resemble the canonicals and have the potential to be a corruption of a legitimate document and a fragment of a legitimate or semi legitimate narrative, respectively.

But it must be understood these are not canon and cannot be used in church; we don’t know enough about the Gospel of Peter to trust it, particularly some of the more peculiar parts, and some church fathers removed it from churches in their dioceses over concerns of heterodoxy, whereas the Gospel of Thomas is positively corrupt, in that it blends actual sayings of our Lord with Gnostic statements and sentiments, some of which are pretty horrible.

Moving back to the canonical Gospels, since we know that they were all originally written in Greek and are not translations, I believe the Gospel of Matthew was rewritten by a scribe, based on oral narration from Matthew rather than a translation of the Aramaic text; perhaps Matthew had collected more information from other Apostles who had since reposed or travelled far away, such as St. James the Great, or St. Andrew the First Called, or St. Bartholomew, or St. Thaddeaus, or St. Jude, or anyone else, perhaps St. Peter. Somehow the three synoptic Gospels became very similiar. St. John the Beloved Disciple realized there was missing information that needed to be provided, so wrote his Gospel going into more detail on Christology, the deity of Christ, the start of our Lord’s ministry with the Wedding Feast at Cana, and several incidents presumably he alone was privy to or else he alone thought needed to be included, for example, when the bulk of the Seventy deserted our Lord for a time after misunderstanding His theological explanation of the Eucharist, but the eleven faithful disciples and Judas Iscariot remained, and the resurrection of Lazarus, and finally St. Thomas touching the wounds of our Lord and discovering he was a physically resurrected person and not an apparition, as the Docetic heretics led by Cerinthus were teaching.

This is my interpretation of the traditional history of the Gospels. I believe that Revelation and the Gospel of John were written by the same person, as does Fr. John Behr, and more likely than not the entire Johannine corpus (the three epistles of St. John). So we have a few writers in the New Testament each with a distinctive voice, all of whom are important: St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, St. John, St. Peter, St. Paul, St. James, St. Jude, and the unknown author of Hebrews (perhaps St. Paul loosely dictating to a Greek writer of some skill, so that St. Paul could write the same thing in his native Aramaic).

In general, I feel the Holy Tradition of the Early Church is without exception the most reliable source of information about where the Bible came from and how it should be interpreted. And indeed, it has been vindicated, for example, when lost NT apocrypha described in the Patristic literature was rediscovered, for instance, in the libraries on Mount Athos or in archaeological finds.

If @prodromos or @HTacianas or @via crucis or @Der Alte or @dzheremi or @Paidiske or @Pavel Mosko or @chevyontheriver or @pdudgeon or @hedrick or @Carl Emerson or @Andrewn or @Shane R or any other traditional theologians want to comment on this or opine, I would welcome it. Also if I made any mistakes.

 

[The Liturgist]

@Carl Emerson - returning to the subject of unforgiveness, which has been derailed by a serious issue, I do feel that we can perhaps rerail the derailed coach and get the train moving again down the line with this assertion: that the one Gospel handed once to the Apostles, the Good News of Christianity, is a Gospel of forgiveness, of God the Father forgiving us and loving us so much that God the Son becomes one of us, even being executed by us so as to free us from death, and rising from the dead so we can rise as well in glory in the World to Come. The parable of the Prodigal Son strikes me as being one of those amazing moments where Jesus Christ proved his deity by delivering his entire Gospel by using different, amazingly distinct, interesting sermons, parables, metaphors and analogies and through dialogues and even periods of protracted silence. So we hear the one Gospel in the Sermon on the Mount, we feel it in the Parable of the Prodigal Son, we taste it when our Lord says “And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it; and he gave to the disciples, and said, 'Take, eat; this is my body.' And he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, 'Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins.” And we see it when Christ turns the water into wine at Cana, or raises Lazarus from the dead, or stops the stoning of the adulteress, or heals people who are suffering from various horrible diseases, and delivers others from demonic posession.

And the miracle of forgiveness is felt when our Lord is resurrected in the miraculous texts that conclude the four canonical Gospels and also in the opening of Acts prior to the descent of the Holy Ghost.

Thus, since forgiveness is so much of the Gospel, what our Lord says is obvious, when he tells us “Judge not, lest ye not be judged”, “Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors,” that to reject forgiveness and hold onto grudges and plots of revenge is to reject the Gospel and in a fit of wrath persuade the denizens of Hell to unlock the gates CS Lewis famously described as locked from the inside, admitting us to a self-made prison of our hatred, which we promptly lock so as to keep out any spark of grace that might melt our frozen hearts.

 

[Guojing]

Are you saying that the letter to the Romans is Paul's Gospel? What about 1 Corinthians?
1 Corinthians 2:
9 But as it is written:
Eyes have not seen, nor ear heard,
Nor have entered into the heart of man
The things which God has prepared for
those who love Him.
10 But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit.
For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit
of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God
except the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world,
but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things
that have been freely given to us by God.
13 These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom
teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one.
16 For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ.

2 Corinthians 3:
7 But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away,
8 how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious?
9 For if the ministry of condemnation had glory, the ministry of righteousness exceeds much more in glory.
10 For even what was made glorious had no glory in this respect, because of the glory that excels.
11 For if what is passing away was glorious, what remains is much more glorious.
12 Therefore, since we have such hope, we use great boldness of speech—
13 unlike Moses, who put a veil over his face so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the end of what was passing away.
14 But their minds were blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away in Christ.
15 But even to this day, when Moses is read, a veil lies on their heart.
16 Nevertheless when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.
17 Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
18 But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord.

I am just saying Acts is NOT when you will find the essence of Paul's gospel.

Paul's gospel is found in Roman to Philemon.

 

[The Liturgist]

This merely refers to a division of the work.
Not two different Gospels. There is one Gospel.
Luke wrote for Greeks, that is beyond dispute.
His Gospel is so consistent with Mark and Matt
that they are referred to as synoptic. What is wonderful about Luke's writing is that he teaches the Holy Spirit more than either of them. And of course in his book we call Acts of the Apostles, he mentions the Holy Spirit some 40 times. Is that what you mean by transitional? I prefer to call Luke's second book the Acts of the Holy Spirit, but that's just me. Do you know Him?

Exactly my colleague. And I believe @Guojing every other priest, pastor, minister, elder, deacon, reader and catechist would agree with @Minister Monardo. Because St. Paul could also have said “and St. Thomas to the Gospel of the East, and St. Andrew the Gospel to the Northwest, and St. Bartholomew the Gospel of the Armenians.”

But, just as the four Gospels in the Bible are one Gospel, there is one Gospel. And this is emphasized in the same epistle by the verses you are ignoring, which are “If anyone comes to you preaching another Gospel, let them be anathema,” that is to say, accursed - suppose St. Peter or his disciples accidentally came to Galatia? St. Paul would not risk his coworkers being anathematized.

But even more compelling that the pericope you refer to does not mean there are two Gospels but rather two people delivering the same Gospel to two different groups hearing it, is when St. Paul says “For there are neither Jew nor Greek, Slave nor Free, Male nor Female, for all are one in Christ Jesus.”

This also provides us with another opportunity to get this thread back on track and talk about forgiveness with @Carl Emerson: what about the extreme case of anathemas?

I think even in the case of anathemas, there is hope for forgiveness, because consider anathema maranantha literally means “delivered up to the Lord.” Thus when someone, an incorrigible heretic, is made anathema, if they do not repent, they are delivered to the Lord. We know God is the fullness of all perfections and virtues to a degree that is infinite, as St. Basil the Great wrote, and forgiveness is a virtue. I think it would be consistent with the Patristic narrative of the Harrowing of Hell, wherein Christ emptied from Hades anyone who wanted to flee from it, that He would offer forgiveness to those anathematized, but scripture does warn us of people being damned, and we know from our own experience of humans that some people due to pride refuse forgiveness. Which is the whole point of the thread.

We have to do forgiveness and integrate infinite forgiveness into our lives.

 

[The Liturgist]

I am just saying Acts is NOT when you will find the essence of Paul's gospel.

Paul's gospel is found in Roman to Philemon.

There is one Gospel and it is found in every verse from Genesis to Revelation.

 

[Guojing]

But even more compelling that the pericope you refer to does not mean there are two Gospels but rather two people delivering the same Gospel to two different groups hearing it, is when St. Paul says “For there are neither Jew nor Greek, Slave nor Free, Male nor Female, for all are one in Christ Jesus.”

Your earlier point to me was

You should really carefully read Galatians, because your concept of a Gospel for the Jews and for the Gentiles is fundamentally incompatible with that epistle.

I have given you 3 verses from Galatians, that literally spelt out 2 gospels there. Do you still hold on to the "fundamental incompatibility" and why?

I mean, if you disagree with what the KJV is literally saying and prefer to interpret it differently to suit your own doctrine, I am fine.

But when you use terms like "fundamentally incompatible" please don't use that strong term so loosely.

 

[The Liturgist]

Your earlier point to me was



I have given you 3 verses from Galatians, that literally spelt out 2 gospels there. Do you still hold on to the "fundamental incompatibility" and why?

I literally just explained to you why, if you would scroll up. Now, can we please discuss forgiveness which is what @Carl Emerson posted this thread for? I mean, I can’t persuade you and you can’t persuade me, so rather than going back and forth, lets make Carl happy by focusing on forgiveness and its importance to our salvation. Can we do that?

 

[Guojing]

I literally just explained to you why, if you would scroll up. Now, can we please discuss forgiveness which is what @Carl Emerson posted this thread for? I mean, I can’t persuade you and you can’t persuade me, so rather than going back and forth, lets make Carl happy by focusing on forgiveness and its importance to our salvation. Can we do that?

I mean, if you disagree with what the KJV is literally saying and prefer to interpret it differently to suit your own doctrine, I am fine.

But when you use terms like "fundamentally incompatible" please don't use that strong term so loosely.

 

[Guojing]

But, just as the four Gospels in the Bible are one Gospel, there is one Gospel. And this is emphasized in the same epistle by the verses you are ignoring, which are “If anyone comes to you preaching another Gospel, let them be anathema,” that is to say, accursed - suppose St. Peter or his disciples accidentally came to Galatia? St. Paul would not risk his coworkers being anathematized.

This is again another common fallacious reasoning of this passage. Paul is writing to gentiles in the Body of Christ, chapters 1 and 2

Let's really read the words carefully to understand what Paul is really saying.

Galatians 1:8-9

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Paul is actually saying if the gentiles are preached another gospel other than the one what they are receiving from Paul, let the preacher be accused.

Can you see you are misinterpreting it to mean "Paul also said if anyone preach any other Gospel, let him be accursed"?

 

[The Liturgist]

I mean, if you disagree with what the KJV is literally saying and prefer to interpret it differently to suit your own doctrine, I am fine.

But when you use terms like "fundamentally incompatible" please don't use that strong term so loosely.

If Galatians did not then go on to say “There is neither Jew nor Greek, Slave nor Free, Male nor Female, for all are one in Christ Jesus,” then the verse you quoted could be interpreted as you suggest. But since it does go on to say that, and also opens with a warning about people preaching a different Gospel being anathema, that makes it pretty blatantly clear that this epistle was written to show there is one Gospel and no distinction between Christians of gentile or Jewish origin. Indeed the main contribution we see from St. Paul as an Apostle is his insistence on ensuring that since God is no respecter of persons, that is to say, He does not discriminate based on who you are, that Christians are Christians regardless of whether or not they are of Jewish descent.

And thus we have churches like the Syriac Orthodox and the Antiochian Orthodox churches where a substantial number of the people are of partial or even among some Syriac Orthodox endogamous people among the Mar Thoma Christians in India, pure Jewish descent, and others are Arab or Greek or Indian or American or even Guatemalan descent, and all are the same.

 

[The Liturgist]

This is again another common fallacious reasoning of this passage. Paul is writing to gentiles in the Body of Christ, chapters 1 and 2

Let's really read the words carefully to understand what Paul is really saying.

Galatians 1:8-9

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Paul is actually saying if the gentiles are preached another gospel other than the one what they are receiving from Paul, let the preacher be accused.

Can you see you are misinterpreting it to mean "Paul also said if anyone preach any other Gospel, let him be accursed"?

Um no, I am not interpreting it to mean that. I am saying, suppose a disciple of St. Peter inadvertently came to Galatia and thinking the people there are Jews, perhaps as a result of being disoriented en route, preached the (non-existant) Gospel of the Circumcision, he would be anathematized the same as if someone preached a false Gospel such as that of the Gnostic heretics. Don’t you see how this is a problem?

Also, for an interpretation to be fallacious, it has to contain a logical fallacy. I do not see any non-trivial fallacies according to Aristotelian logic in my statement.

What I try to avoid in Scripture interpretation is eisegesis, which is generally thought to be fallacious as it amounts to an appeal to false authority, as opposed to exegesis, where we read the entire Bible in the context of every other part of the Bible. This in turn leads to non sequiturs, fallacies of composition, and other logical errors, which are in many cases driven by confirmation bias. And note I am not accusing you of this, because I don’t understand why we have a difference of opinion here, but I do believe it is pointless to argue it further, so we should instead talk about forgiveness or maybe post another thread in Controversial Christian Theology to discuss the issue further.

Because my friend @Carl Emerson did post this thread to talk about something that matters to him and we owe it to him to talk about that, and not how many Gospels we think exist. Humility requires a certain admission of epistemological uncertainty. Therefore, how about we forgive each other, post a new thread in Controversial Christian Theology or Christian Scriptures or even General Theology to debate the number of Gospels, and return this thread’s discussion to what @Carl Emerson intended?

 

[The Liturgist]

In the interests of getting this thread back on topic, I am not going to discuss how many Gospels there are in this thread @Guojing out of respect for @Carl Emerson , but out of respect for you and @Minister Monardo if you post a new thread on the subject of how many Gospels there are, or whatever you want the subject to be, and tag me by placing an @ character in front of my name, I will continue to debate this with you. That way Carl is happy, you are happy, and we have two interesting discussions rather than one muddled one.

 

[Guojing]

If Galatians did not then go on to say “There is neither Jew nor Greek, Slave nor Free, Male nor Female, for all are one in Christ Jesus,” then the verse you quoted could be interpreted as you suggest. But since it does go on to say that, and also opens with a warning about people preaching a different Gospel being anathema, that makes it pretty blatantly clear that this epistle was written to show there is one Gospel and no distinction between Christians of gentile or Jewish origin. Indeed the main contribution we see from St. Paul as an Apostle is his insistence on ensuring that since God is no respecter of persons, that is to say, He does not discriminate based on who you are, that Christians are Christians regardless of whether or not they are of Jewish descent.

And thus we have churches like the Syriac Orthodox and the Antiochian Orthodox churches where a substantial number of the people are of partial or even among some Syriac Orthodox endogamous people among the Mar Thoma Christians in India, pure Jewish descent, and others are Arab or Greek or Indian or American or even Guatemalan descent, and all are the same.

There is neither Jew nor Greek in the Body of Christ, yes that I agree.

But Israel the nation consist of only the circumcision. If a gentile joins the nation of Israel in the OT, he becomes a Jew (Esther 8:17)

Would you agree with that?