Raf

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...

I'm not sure how you can look at yourself in the mirror after trying to act as though the verse you cited was relevant to our discussion despite being shown from multiple expert translations and from the usage in other verses that you're just wrong. The dishonesty of your argument is staggering, and the projection is mind numbing. If anyone has shown an unwillingness to look at the data and change his mind, it's not the person who did exactly that. It's the person who refuses to budge no matter how much evidence is presented... even the words of Christ himself in scripture.

You literally lied about the verse being relevant to our discussion.

Every single other translation of Philippians 1:10 New International Versionso that you may be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless for the day of Christ, New Living TranslationFor I want you to understand what really matters, so that you may live pure and blameless lives until the day of Christ’s return. English Standard Versionso that you may approve what is excellent, and so be pure and blameless for the day of Christ, Berean Study Bibleso that you can discern what is best, that you may be pure and blameless for the day of Christ, Berean Literal Biblefor you to approve the things being excellent, so that you may be pure and blameless unto the day of Christ, New American Standard Bible so that you may approve the things that are excellent, in order to be sincere and blameless until the day of Christ; King James BibleThat ye may approve things that are excellent; that ye may be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ; Christian Standard Bibleso that you may approve the things that are superior and may be pure and blameless in the day of Christ, Contemporary English Versionhow to make the right choices. Then you will still be pure and innocent when Christ returns. And until that day, Good News Translationso that you will be able to choose what is best. Then you will be free from all impurity and blame on the Day of Christ. Holman Christian Standard Bibleso that you can approve the things that are superior and can be pure and blameless in the day of Christ, International Standard Versionso that you may be able to choose what is best and be pure and blameless until the day when the Messiah returns, NET Bibleso that you can decide what is best, and thus be sincere and blameless for the day of Christ, New Heart English Bibleso that you may approve the things that are excellent; that you may be sincere and without offense to the day of Christ; Aramaic Bible in Plain EnglishThat you would distinguish those things that are suitable, and that you may be pure, without an offense in the day of The Messiah, GOD'S WORD® TranslationThat way you will be able to determine what is best and be pure and blameless until the day of Christ. New American Standard 1977 so that you may approve the things that are excellent, in order to be sincere and blameless until the day of Christ; Jubilee Bible 2000that ye may approve the best, that ye may be sincere and without offense until the day of Christ, King James 2000 BibleThat you may approve things that are excellent; that you may be sincere and without offense till the day of Christ; American King James VersionThat you may approve things that are excellent; that you may be sincere and without offense till the day of Christ. American Standard Versionso that ye may approve the things that are excellent; that ye may be sincere and void of offence unto the day of Christ; Douay-Rheims BibleThat you may approve the better things, that you may be sincere and without offence unto the day of Christ, Darby Bible Translationthat ye may judge of and approve the things that are more excellent, in order that ye may be pure and without offence for Christ's day, English Revised Versionso that ye may approve the things that are excellent; that ye may be sincere and void of offence unto the day of Christ; Webster's Bible TranslationThat ye may approve things that are excellent; that ye may be sincere and without offense till the day of Christ; Weymouth New Testamentso that you may be men of transparent character, and may be blameless, in preparation for the day of Christ, World English Bibleso that you may approve the things that are excellent; that you may be sincere and without offense to the day of Christ; Young's Literal Translationfor your proving the things that differ, that ye may be pure and offenceless -- to a day of Christ, Seems to me, and I may be just a poor old country doctor, that the "things that differ" in Young's translation are consistently things that are Good and Positive according to every other translation. But I'm sure you're smarter than all the Bible translators. Seriously. Dude. Why can't you just admit you blew this one like a 1970s Times Square hooker on a Saturday night with nothing in her purse but a Kleenex? The verse is clearly not talking about distinguishing the gospel taught by the apostles from the gospel taught by Paul. At this point are you even capable of just admitting you got something wrong? Because this conversation has been hijacked by the idiocy you insist upon for long enough. P.S. My criticism is aimed at the quality of your argument, not at you personally, except insofar as you decline to recognize the failure of your argument.

The word for excellent is diapheronta. It shows up twice in the Bible. Romans 2:18 New International Versionif you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law; New Living TranslationYou know what he wants; you know what is right because you have been taught his law. English Standard Versionand know his will and approve what is excellent, because you are instructed from the law; Berean Study Bibleif you know His will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law; Berean Literal Bibleand you know His will and approve the things being superior, being instructed out of the Law, I'll wait for your apology. You're misleading people about the translation of "differ." The "differ" is always an improvement, never, ever a distinction in terms of onw being real and one being a fraud. Go ahead, check every single usage of every related word. Galatians 4:1 4 What I am saying is that as long as an heir is underage, he is no different from a slave, although he owns the whole estate. Not better than. Galatians 2:6 6 As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to my message. Paul is saying here that their status did not make them better in his eyes. So, your apology can be addressed to Raf@yourebustedagain.com

Philippians 1 3 I thank my God in all my remembrance of you, 4 always in every prayer of mine for you all making my prayer with joy, 5 because of your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now. 6 And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ. 7 It is right for me to feel this way about you all, because I hold you in my heart, for you are all partakers with me of grace,[d] both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel. 8 For God is my witness, how I yearn for you all with the affection of Christ Jesus. 9 And it is my prayer that your love may abound more and more, with knowledge and all discernment, 10 so that you may approve what is excellent, and so be pure and blameless for the day of Christ, 11 filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God. None of this has anything to do with people who preach a different gospel. There is no "different" or "gospel" in the verse cited. It's ok to cite the wrong verse. But to lie about it when you're busted is dishonest. Can't you just admit you were thinking of a different verse? Are you SO lacking in integrity that you can't even say oops?

How does one even begin to address an argument this lacking in honesty?

Uncle Buck MacCauley Culkin My Girl

It isn't twisting. Read it again. There was ONE gospel, the gospel of the kingdom. The delivery of the gospel changed, but the message of the gospel has always been the same: The kingdom. What changed? The audience. Between the gospel period, when it was aimed at the Jews, and the post resurrection period, when it was aimed at all of humanity, the audience changed. What else changed? The circumstances. Now there was one body, Jew and Gentile. Paul was the first to receive this revelation simply because he was the first to act on Jesus' clear and unambiguous instruction to disciple all nations in Jesus' name. He did it. Those who heard him give that instruction in person did not. Philippians 1:10 does not even remotely discuss this topic. Try again. Maybe you meant Galatians 1: 6-7? Yeah, you know what? Any Christian who believes the apostles were only to go to Israel AFTER Jesus specifically told the apostles to make disciples of all nations in His name is absolutely preaching a different gospel (which is to say, no gospel at all). If the apostles were doing exactly what Jesus told them to do, then Paul would not be criticizing those who kept their little sect within Israel. I don't understand why you can't just admit that Jesus told the apostles to disciple all nations in his name when that's exactly what the Bible says he did. It's one thing for ME to say they never received any such instruction. Of course they didn't. Jesus was dead. But you don't believe that. So according to YOU, Jesus told them on multiple occasions to preach the gospel not only to Jews but to all creation, to all nations, to the ends of the earth. And they didn't do it. Paul got more detail in how to spread the message to the Gentiles because Paul actually went and spread the message to the Gentiles [Reality check: Paul was a rival of the earliest Christians, who were a Jewish sect. Paul went to the Gentiles because they were a more fertile (ie, superstitious and easily fooled) audience who didn't know Jewish prophecies the way Jews did. When Jewish Christians saw Paul's success, they struggled to maintain their original identity. The historical Jesus then became Paul's otherworldly Jesus, and Christian history became a fusion of the competing Messiahs. The fusion was imperfect, though. In order to maintain continuity between Paul's Gentile-friendly Messiah and history's Judeo-centric Jesus, the mythological resurrected Christ had to give an explicit instruction that was promptly ignored by the people who knew him best and loved him most. You can't say they were obedient to Christ and that they preached a "different" gospel. Something's got to give. The simplest answer is that they never received any such instruction from Jesus because he was dead, and later followers made up the instruction after Paul effectively won the battle for the identity of Christianity. That's why each gospel quotes Paul (via the Last Supper) but Paul does not quote any gospels. Jesus had lived and died already, but the legends of his earthly life, the raising of Lazarus, the empty tomb tale, the women at the tomb, all those things had simply not been invented at the time Paul was writing].

I detect sarcasm. Fair enough. If so, allow me to address it. I have a problem with the notion these folks could successfully reconstruct the Sermon on the Mount and the incredibly long discourses recorded in John, but they could not quite recall what Jesus, in his resurrected body, specifically instructed them to do, because they didn't have a recording.

Exactly. Like how at the end of Back to the Future, Doc tells Marty he and Jennifer turn out fine. Then in Part II, the VERY SAME SCENE, Doc says the same words but adds a brief pause to indicate he's lying. The writers did not know when they wrote Part I what they would do with the characters in Part Ii. The things we can learn from fiction! It's like Paul saying the risen Jesus was seen by Cephas, then the 12. Some later storytellers inserted the incredible disappearing Mary Magdalene to the story and made one of the 12 a traitor who dies before the resurrection.