Raf

"the scriptures tell us that Paul was preaching the EXACT same gospel which he had previously destroyed! You can show scripture passages like this to those who believe them, and yet they will still hold fast to their false and demonic teachings like stubborn donkeys" --some dude on the Internet who made me giggle.

yes

Very much like All Night Long, but you are correct: it's just kinda similar. ANL is a little more mellow.

I gotta be honest: I'm including this BARRRIMMMSTONE article because it made me giggle.

ooh look, another one!

ooh look, another one  ,

This guy rides me for not reading the link he provided, then rides me for reading it and checking his source. So you found one guy who seems to agree with one aspect of some thesis you pulled out of your poopchute, and I'm not allowed to check the credibility and validity of your crackpot uneducated homophobic source? How convenient for you! https://www.9marks.org/answer/what-gospel-kingdom/ https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjHuo3y6KPiAhWJc98KHaCCDNcQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gotquestions.org%2Fgospel-of-the-kingdom.html&psig=AOvVaw0yftM3KwWHgQ1bhWtyt2mq&ust=1558225612369864 I could list more, but to be perfectly honest, I got the whole "gospel is the kingdom" message straight from scripture and not from a homophobic former Marine whose credentials i didn't bother to check before I cited him as some authority on scripture. Why am I the only one letting scripture speak for itself instead of pretending unrelated verses are talking about the same thing?

. didn't get mmBop. Nobody was going to get that song. come join the fun, this ain't no time to be staying home. There's too much going on. Tonight is going to be a night like you've never known. We're going to have a good time the whole night long.

just to pre-empt: Oldiesman is talking about his journey. If you'd like to debate him doctrinally, take it to doctrinal. If he says this is what convinced him, this is what convinced him. Period. Thanks for sharing.

"I'm not crazy! My mother had me tested." xxx "You sign anything she puts in front of you, because you are the luckiest man alive. If you let her go, there is no way you can find anyone else. Speaking on behalf of all women, it is not going to happen, we had a meeting."

I can actually SEE the first quote being spoken. Game of Thrones

Yes.

I know, right? As foreseeable as me becoming a.. Well, I guess it's not THAT impossible. But still, wow! And how about that 10-month "let's leave everyone in suspense" period?

Seal Kiss From A Rose From the soundtrack to Batman Sensory Overload Part I

I honestly had no memory of him being a moderator. I had to do some digging to piece it together. Pretty sure there was a specific reason, but it's erased from my memory. Welcome back, oldiesman. Rather astonished that you went to any Trinitarian church, much less the RC's. What changed your mind?

Modwildcat is Oldiesman

"Well, I have a date too." "Who is he? What's his name?" "His name is... not important. What's important is, he's better than you, in every single conceivable way." "DAMN, ... THAT COULD BE ANYBODY!" xxx "I did not lose a leg in Vietnam so I could serve hot dogs to teenagers." "You got both your legs, ...." "Like I said, I did not lose a leg in Vietnam!"

I think calling the book of Acts "historical" is a stretch. It's apologetic, not historical. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Nonetheless, we can agree that the Bible says pretty much what you say it does about Paul. We're not arguing that point, though. We were discussing whether the 12, post resurrection, were instructed to teach the gospel to the Gentiles and whether their gospel, post-resurrection, was different from Paul's. Biblically, the answer to the first question is yes (whether I believe that is not relevant to the question). And it is the same gospel... now expanded to include other elements, but still "the kingdom of God/heaven is at hand." Anyway, thank you for seeking peace, Mark.

Is that right? Very well then, we're going way back. Not way, way back. But not just back either. Way back. This actor played: Tim O'Hara Tom Corbin Dick Bender Anthony Blake Russell Donavan Matt Cassidy

I'm sure Phil LaSpino is a very nice guy, but he is not a Bible scholar and the fact that he believes there are two gospels is well and good, but it is again not relevant to the conversation. The fact remains that Jesus, according to the Bible, told the 12 to preach the gospel to every creature and disciple all nations in his name. And they didn't. The fact also remains that Paul, in Philippians, says nothing that leads a reasonable person to believe that he is comparing "THE gospel" (he doesn't say MY) to the gospel taught by the 12. I am no one to say that. I'm just pointing to what's written in the verse (and the context) you brought up! [And, by the way, in the article that you brought up, the writer never mentions Philippians at all, much less to demonstrate that Paul saw HIS gospel as superior to the 12's!] The gospel in scripture has always been about the kingdom. You (and Mr. Phil) have mistaken the gospel for the method/means of salvation. They are not synonymous. What you are doing is comparing what Paul taught as a Christian to what Jesus and the 12 taught before the resurrection. You're completely ignoring the fact that after the resurrection, Jesus told the 12 something new: Go to the Gentiles, too. You specifically asked where the 12 got any instruction to go beyond Israel, yet your posts demonstrate no willingness to accept the clear Biblical answer to your question. Post resurrection, the 12 taught the gospel of salvation by grace -- to the Jews. For whatever reason, they didn't go beyond that. It's not that Jesus didn't tell them to preach to the Gentiles. He did, at least three times. But they didn't do it. For THAT reason, when Paul is converted, Jesus gets him moving... and Paul, unlike the 12, does exactly what Jesus tells him to do. He doesn't go to them with a new gospel, according to scripture. He goes to them with the same gospel and demonstrates that Gentile believers are to be fellow heirs. The Bible never explains why the 12 didn't follow Jesus' instruction. But they didn't and Paul did. Moving back to Philippians 1, apparently I am not permitted to read the chapter and allow it to speak for itself without the approval of some very nice Marine who has no apparent training in scripture, hermeneutics, textual criticism, etc. but who is clearly deeply, deeply concerned with what men are doing to each other's genitals in America. I guess that's fine. Can you show from the scripture that Philippians 1 compares Paul's gospel to that which is contemporaneously taught by the 12? You can't. It's not there unless you force it. And doing that is not honest. One would think that the only one in this argument allowing the Bible to speak for itself without forcing some preconceived notion into the text would be the Christian. In this case, one would be mistaken.

The whole point of the discussion is your claim that Paul's gospel is distinct from the 12 because of your belief that Jesus told Paul to do something He did not tell the 12 to do. The problem is, a. He specifically told the 12 to do that which you say He did not, and b. Paul is not comparing his gospel to the 12 in the verse you cite. You're literally forcing a verse into a context that exists only in your head. Now, there's a good reason for that. It's just not Biblical. Biblically, Jesus tells the 12 to do something, they don't do it, so Jesus turns to Paul. That does not mean, as you stated, that they had different missions. They had the same mission. But they didn't fulfill it while Paul did. If Paul were distinguishing his gospel from the 12 in Philippians, you'd have a point. But he's not. Not even a hint of it.

It is not comparing the gospel of the 12 to the gospel of Paul. It is not calling the gospel of the 12 "different" from the gospel of Paul. It is casting no aspersions on the gospel of the 12 at all. That's why it does not apply to our discussion. You are inserting into Philippians something Paul is not discussing. Because YOU have determined that their gospel, which they got from Jesus himself, was inferior to Paul's gospel, YOU have decided to inject that dichotomy into Philippians. It's not there on its own. You're wedging it in there because the scripture won't make that point unless you force it to. Do you have the personal integrity to admit that?

The difference is, i have demonstrated how your comment is counter to the facts and counter to scripture and counter to your representation. You have not demonstrated that there is anything insane about my assertion. You're just stooping to the gutter because you can't raise yourself up by presenting a valid argument. The argument you presented is not factual. It is not truthful. And your insistence on sticking by it after it has been discredited is dishonest.

By the way, I went out of my way to make sure I was criticizing the content of your posts, not the person. You responded by falsely accusing me of insanity. You wrote something about the verse that is objectively untrue. You have enough information to know it is not true. That makes your comment a lie. I'm not calling YOU a liar. I'm calling your comment a lie. A deliberate untruth. By saying that my comment, which by the way is consistent with the facts, a "manifestation of insanity " you are calling me insane. That is a violation of GSC rules. I told you I wasn't going to put up with your $hit anymore. You obviously can't handle my presence on this board enough to engage in an honest discussion. Good day.

But you said it's talking about something it's not talking about. You're either wrong or you're lying. You have too much info to merely be wrong. Ergo...