However, might I suggest that you dig a little deeper in scripture, and/or talk to some of your Jewish buddies or scholars (whatever the case might be) that believe in (and are expecting the arrival of) a Messiah. Try learning a bit more about where or what role Israel expects to play out in the global picture.
I'm sure there must be a name for this kind of flawed logic. I just don't know what it is.
I'm sure there must be a name for this kind of flawed logic. I just don't know what it is.
I was looking at Boxing terms a bit ago, and this reminds me of when a fight is stopped by the Ref for any number of reasons. " Other times a referee simply deems that a fighter is too battered, defenseless, or hopelessly behind and outclassed-all without a knockdown having occurred.
I wonder if this is a TKO?
BTW, I see where the 12 really could have missed this "GO into ALL..." I know a little about how the Jews separated themselves from the unclean "others." Gentiles. Very conscience decisions all the time on this in daily life. For centuries. Cultural norms. Traditions.
So, I can see how Peter and the others may not have truly understood until Acts 10 and Cornelius. After all, Jesus wasn't exactly "with" them on a daily physical basis after that. The little birdies got kicked out of the nest so they could learn to fly. It took Peter 10 chapters. LOL.
DOH! I know I have some Homer Simpson in me, too, just like those guys seemed to have had back then.
These threads with TLC seem to have a LOT in common with when Mike engaged in his incessant worship of Wierwille. I'm not suggesting TLC is Mike. The voice is definitely different. But there are parallels in that there was (is) no end to the circular nature of the bickering.
I've made the comparison many times, only without names. Dodge, distract never admit.
The sad thing is, there's nothing wrong with the Biblical answer. It's so simple and consistent with the gospels and Acts. Look at how hard Jesus had to work to convince Peter it was ok to preach to a Gentile. He had already told Peter IN PERSON to preach the gospel to every creature and disciple all nations in his name, and STILL he had to send visions.
The problem isn't that the instructions were unclear. The problem is they had decades of culture telling them to hold back.
Paul was the first one to take "disciple all nations in my name" seriously.
Biblically.
From the perspective of a skeptic... the disciples didn't follow the instruction because they never received it. Jesus was dead.
But Biblically, he did give them that direct, unambiguous order. And the simplest explanation for their failure to act on his explicit instruction is that it ran counter to their entire lives as Jews. It is NOT that Jesus sent the 12 to Israel and Paul to the .Gentiles. Jesus explicitly sent the 12 to the Gentiles and they couldn't process it.
I've made the comparison many times, only without names. Dodge, distract never admit.
The sad thing is, there's nothing wrong with the Biblical answer. It's so simple and consistent with the gospels and Acts. Look at how hard Jesus had to work to convince Peter it was ok to preach to a Gentile. He had already told Peter IN PERSON to preach the gospel to every creature and disciple all nations in his name, and STILL he had to send visions.
The problem isn't that the instructions were unclear. The problem is they had decades of culture telling them to hold back.
Paul was the first one to take "disciple all nations in my name" seriously.
Biblically.
From the perspective of a skeptic... the disciples didn't follow the instruction because they never received it. Jesus was dead.
But Biblically, he did give them that direct, unambiguous order. And the simplest explanation for their failure to act on his explicit instruction is that it ran counter to their entire lives as Jews. It is NOT that Jesus sent the 12 to Israel and Paul to the .Gentiles. Jesus explicitly sent the 12 to the Gentiles and they couldn't process it.
They never received it = they didn't grasp it. Idiomatically speaking, it went in one ear and out the other.
Changing culture is a very difficult task.
Getting someone to accept a directive or suggestion that runs counter to what they've been conditioned to accept is, for the vast majority of people, extremely difficult.
The person is conditioned to resist OR possibly can't even understand what s/he hears OR has a very high level of risk aversion... OR...
I was looking at Boxing terms a bit ago, and this reminds me of when a fight is stopped by the Ref for any number of reasons. " Other times a referee simply deems that a fighter is too battered, defenseless, or hopelessly behind and outclassed-all without a knockdown having occurred.
I wonder if this is a TKO?
BTW, I see where the 12 really could have missed this "GO into ALL..." I know a little about how the Jews separated themselves from the unclean "others." Gentiles. Very conscience decisions all the time on this in daily life. For centuries. Cultural norms. Traditions.
So, I can see how Peter and the others may not have truly understood until Acts 10 and Cornelius. After all, Jesus wasn't exactly "with" them on a daily physical basis after that. The little birdies got kicked out of the nest so they could learn to fly. It took Peter 10 chapters. LOL.
DOH! I know I have some Homer Simpson in me, too, just like those guys seemed to have had back then.
I think engine is onto something there..it took quite a while for the 'lightbulbs' to go off for some of them ! The whole essence of the previous water baptism ended up 'going down the drain', no pun, intended after the Acts 10 episode, hence no mention of water baptism after Acts 10 except by uninstructed disciples ! the fact also that the discipling of nations has been occuring would be proof of what was intended, would it not ?!
All of that is common sense and none of it requires Jesus to say anything other than what the Bible claims he said. "Disciple all nations in my name" meant exactly that. Not a trace of "you guys go to Israel. Ignore the nations I JUST TOLD YOU A SECOND AGO to make my disciples. I'm saving them for Paul."
The more natural explanation is that the original Christianity was a Jewish cult and Paul was the first to see fit to spread it to the Gentiles. When Paul's Christianity proved more successful (because Jews who knew their religion knew the scriptures didn't point to Yshuah as Christ), the Jewish Christian cult had an identity crisis. The problem was solved when the gospels were written with full knowledge of Paul's doctrine. Suddenly the Jewish cult always had "Disciple all nations in my name" as part of its mission. The original 12 just couldn't handle it doncha know. So Paul was necessary! Don't you see?
All of that is common sense and none of it requires Jesus to say anything other than what the Bible claims he said. "Disciple all nations in my name" meant exactly that. Not a trace of "you guys go to Israel. Ignore the nations I JUST TOLD YOU A SECOND AGO to make my disciples. I'm saving them for Paul."
The more natural explanation is that the original Christianity was a Jewish cultSECT and Paul was the first to see fit to spread it to the Gentiles. When Paul's Christianity proved more successful (because Jews who knew their religion knew the scriptures didn't point to Yshuah as Christ), the Jewish Christian cultSECT had an identity crisis. The problem was solved when the gospels were written with full knowledge of Paul's doctrine. Suddenly the Jewish cultSECT always had "Disciple all nations in my name" as part of its mission. The original 12 just couldn't handle it doncha know. So Paul was necessary! Don't you see?
However, might I suggest that you dig a little deeper in scripture, and/or talk to some of your Jewish buddies or scholars (whatever the case might be) that believe in (and are expecting the arrival of) a Messiah. Try learning a bit more about where or what role Israel expects to play out in the global picture.
I'm sure there must be a name for this kind of flawed logic. I just don't know what it is.
flawed? ...because you don't care to (or can't) connect the dots?
Or is it that you have some different view or better understanding of Ezek.37:21-28?
So, I can see how Peter and the others may not have truly understood until Acts 10 and Cornelius. After all, Jesus wasn't exactly "with" them on a daily physical basis after that. The little birdies got kicked out of the nest so they could learn to fly. It took Peter 10 chapters. LOL.
You suppose that he "truly understood" exactly what, after Acts 10 and the incident with Cornelius? That he no longer needed to follow all the laws of Moses, and should (or could) eat with the Gentiles? (see Gal.2:12, if you're wondering about an answer to that.)
There's little doubt that he was called on the carpet over his visit there, and the mere fact that he stood up and came to Paul's defense (in Acts 15, probably some 9 or 10 years later) only after "there had been much disputing" might be an indication that the incident with Cornelius was so strange and abnormal (and from a practical perspective, changed virtually nothing) that Peter might have nearly forgotten about it (until it was needed for Paul's defense, in Acts 15.) Furthermore, considering that in lieu of Peter's remembrance of it (as no one else there at the council in Jerusalem evidently remembered it prior to Peter's bringing it up) it's doubtful that those that were at that meeting would have ever kept quiet long enough to even hear what all Barnabas and Paul had to say on the matter. And, in light of that, it seems fairly reasonable to wonder whether or not the primary reason (and effect) for the entire event with Cornelius was not so much to alter or change the course of what the 12 and the church at Jerusalem were thinking or doing, as much as it was to enable Peter to rise to Paul's defense and give his (Paul's) gospel the stamp of approval from the church at Jerusalem some many, many years later.
You suppose that he "truly understood" exactly what, after Acts 10 and the incident with Cornelius? That he no longer needed to follow all the laws of Moses, and should (or could) eat with the Gentiles? (see Gal.2:12, if you're wondering about an answer to that.)
There's little doubt that he was called on the carpet over his visit there, and the mere fact that he stood up and came to Paul's defense (in Acts 15, probably some 9 or 10 years later) only after "there had been much disputing" might be an indication that the incident with Cornelius was so strange and abnormal (and from a practical perspective, changed virtually nothing) that Peter might have nearly forgotten about it (until it was needed for Paul's defense, in Acts 15.) Furthermore, considering that in lieu of Peter's remembrance of it (as no one else there at the council in Jerusalem evidently remembered it prior to Peter's bringing it up) it's doubtful that those that were at that meeting would have ever kept quiet long enough to even hear what all Barnabas and Paul had to say on the matter. And, in light of that, it seems fairly reasonable to wonder whether or not the primary reason (and effect) for the entire event with Cornelius was not so much to alter or change the course of what the 12 and the church at Jerusalem were thinking or doing, as much as it was to enable Peter to rise to Paul's defense and give his (Paul's) gospel the stamp of approval from the church at Jerusalem some many, many years later.
First, the post-resurrection gospel never changed. In the gospels, pre-resurrection, it was the kingdom. But at the end of the gospels, Jesus gives theexplicit instruction to disciple all nations in his name. The only change, scripturally, is that he's resurrected now. There are 40 days of appearances, only a small handful of which are shared in the gospels and Acts. We don't know how many people witnessed each appearance. Butif you think he's teaching them the same thing after the resurrection that he was teaching before... I don't even know what to say to that. He of all people knows things have changed, and how. It is beyond reason to think he would not have shared information that they needed to know in order to make disciples of all the nations in his name after having instructed them to do so!
So why DON'T the 12 do what he said explicitly to do?
The Bible's answer is implied: the 12 struggled to get past the primacy of Israel and the Jews as God's chosen people. It's the only thing that explains Jesus needing additional visions after being told in person by the risen Christ to disciple all nations in his name.
[The skeptical answer is that this is a major plot hole in a made up story, but I don't need to resort to that].
Peter should never have needed to explain to the disciples that Paul was justified in preaching to the Gentiles because all of them would have remembered Jesus explicitly saying disciple all nations in his name.
So why did Paul learn more than the 12? It's not because he had a different mission. He had the same mission. It's because he got serious about carrying it out. And once he demonstrated his commitment to the instruction, he got more. So the revelation of the One Body comes to Paul. Why? Because the 12 failed to follow the instruction while Paul dedicated himself to it.
Easy. Biblical. Corresponds to all scripture on the subject without inventing a reason for Jesus to not mean precisely what he said when he said disciple all nations in his name.
[The skeptical answer, of course, is that Paul made his doctrine up and Christianity retconned the words of Jesus to make Paul consistent with his post-resurrection instructions. There being no resurrection, Jesus never said any such thing. The plot hole is only created when you have him say something clear and unambiguous and his most faithful followers completely ignore it].
Peter should never have needed to explain to the disciples that Paul was justified in preaching to the Gentiles because all of them would have remembered Jesus explicitly saying disciple all nations in his name.
So why did Paul learn more than the 12? It's not because he had a different mission. He had the same mission. It's because he got serious about carrying it out. And once he demonstrated his commitment to the instruction, he got more. So the revelation of the One Body comes to Paul. Why? Because the 12 failed to follow the instruction while Paul dedicated himself to it.
Easy. Biblical. Corresponds to all scripture on the subject without inventing a reason for Jesus to not mean precisely what he said when he said disciple all nations in his name.
[The skeptical answer, of course, is that Paul made his doctrine up and Christianity retconned the words of Jesus to make Paul consistent with his post-resurrection instructions. There being no resurrection, Jesus never said any such thing. The plot hole is only created when you have him say something clear and unambiguous and his most faithful followers completely ignore it].
After all, the could just as easily have rewound the tape and played it over and over. And for those of you who never heard the word "retconned" (like me),
Retroactive continuity, orretconfor short,[1][2]is a literary device in which established facts in a fictional work are adjusted, ignored, or contradicted by a subsequently published work which breakscontinuitywith the former.
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.
Afterall, the could just as easily have rewound the tape and played it over and over.
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.
First, the post-resurrection gospel never changed. In the gospels, pre-resurrection, it was the kingdom. But at the end of the gospels, Jesus gives theexplicit instruction to disciple all nations in his name. The only change, scripturally, is that he's resurrected now.
You obviously sidestepped the question and spun it in a completely different direction. Call it whatever you want, but I see that as twisting... as I am more inclined to agree that there was little change in the gospel that the 12 had and preached post-resurrection. What could or would save them before appears to be the same that could or would save them after. But what was given and said to save them was not the same gospel that was later given to Paul. Which is undoubtedly why he (Paul) very plainly and unmistakably referred to it (three times, that I can think of) as "my gospel."
The gospel which Paul preached was not simply "more" than what the 12 had been given. While certain things may be similar, other things are different. And it's a difference that is important enough that it even appears to be called different (if the Greek were translated more consistently) by Paul in Philippians 1:10.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
73
31
47
76
Popular Days
Feb 3
25
May 15
21
Feb 21
21
Jul 16
21
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 73 posts
geisha779 31 posts
waysider 47 posts
TLC 76 posts
Popular Days
Feb 3 2010
25 posts
May 15 2019
21 posts
Feb 21 2010
21 posts
Jul 16 2018
21 posts
Popular Posts
Sunesis
Well, we do have over 30,000 Christian denominations, so I don't think you're going to see all Christians agreeing. I imagine that's why it is more important to God that we keep the unity of the Spir
Broken Arrow
I think I get what you're trying to do here as far as getting people to think through something that may have simply been accepted blindly. I'm not going to offer a lengthy defense as to the authenti
Raf
First, to DWBH, please, let's keep it about content and not about people. And in that vein...I for one don't care one whit about what TLC might see or think on the matter. I only care about the actual
Posted Images
Raf
5tEvidently you choose to ignore the actual words of Jesus (according to the Bible) because they conflict with your preconceived interpretation.
TLC: What's the Biblical proof of x?
Jesus: I said x.
TLC: But where's the proof?
Raf: But Jesus specifically said x.
TLC: No he didn't
Jesus: Yeah, actually I did.
Raf: See?
TLC: What do you know, atheist?
Raf: But according to YOU he said it.
Jesus: I did. Three times.
TLC: What do you know, Raf?
Jesus: I'm not Raf.
TLC: I'M RIGHT DAGNABIT!
Raf: Fine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I'm sure there must be a name for this kind of flawed logic. I just don't know what it is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
engine
I was looking at Boxing terms a bit ago, and this reminds me of when a fight is stopped by the Ref for any number of reasons. " Other times a referee simply deems that a fighter is too battered, defenseless, or hopelessly behind and outclassed-all without a knockdown having occurred.
I wonder if this is a TKO?
BTW, I see where the 12 really could have missed this "GO into ALL..." I know a little about how the Jews separated themselves from the unclean "others." Gentiles. Very conscience decisions all the time on this in daily life. For centuries. Cultural norms. Traditions.
So, I can see how Peter and the others may not have truly understood until Acts 10 and Cornelius. After all, Jesus wasn't exactly "with" them on a daily physical basis after that. The little birdies got kicked out of the nest so they could learn to fly. It took Peter 10 chapters. LOL.
DOH! I know I have some Homer Simpson in me, too, just like those guys seemed to have had back then.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Engine:
Brutal.
Call the fight!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
These threads with TLC seem to have a LOT in common with when Mike engaged in his incessant worship of Wierwille. I'm not suggesting TLC is Mike. The voice is definitely different. But there are parallels in that there was (is) no end to the circular nature of the bickering.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I've made the comparison many times, only without names. Dodge, distract never admit.
The sad thing is, there's nothing wrong with the Biblical answer. It's so simple and consistent with the gospels and Acts. Look at how hard Jesus had to work to convince Peter it was ok to preach to a Gentile. He had already told Peter IN PERSON to preach the gospel to every creature and disciple all nations in his name, and STILL he had to send visions.
The problem isn't that the instructions were unclear. The problem is they had decades of culture telling them to hold back.
Paul was the first one to take "disciple all nations in my name" seriously.
Biblically.
From the perspective of a skeptic... the disciples didn't follow the instruction because they never received it. Jesus was dead.
But Biblically, he did give them that direct, unambiguous order. And the simplest explanation for their failure to act on his explicit instruction is that it ran counter to their entire lives as Jews. It is NOT that Jesus sent the 12 to Israel and Paul to the .Gentiles. Jesus explicitly sent the 12 to the Gentiles and they couldn't process it.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
They never received it = they didn't grasp it. Idiomatically speaking, it went in one ear and out the other.
Changing culture is a very difficult task.
Getting someone to accept a directive or suggestion that runs counter to what they've been conditioned to accept is, for the vast majority of people, extremely difficult.
The person is conditioned to resist OR possibly can't even understand what s/he hears OR has a very high level of risk aversion... OR...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
OR..the whole thing is metaphoric and was never meant to be taken literally.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
I'd say that's the least likely explanation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Well, I try to entertain all possibilities. I mean, what's a party without a little entertainment, eh?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
I think engine is onto something there..it took quite a while for the 'lightbulbs' to go off for some of them ! The whole essence of the previous water baptism ended up 'going down the drain', no pun, intended after the Acts 10 episode, hence no mention of water baptism after Acts 10 except by uninstructed disciples ! the fact also that the discipling of nations has been occuring would be proof of what was intended, would it not ?!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
All of that is common sense and none of it requires Jesus to say anything other than what the Bible claims he said. "Disciple all nations in my name" meant exactly that. Not a trace of "you guys go to Israel. Ignore the nations I JUST TOLD YOU A SECOND AGO to make my disciples. I'm saving them for Paul."
The more natural explanation is that the original Christianity was a Jewish cult and Paul was the first to see fit to spread it to the Gentiles. When Paul's Christianity proved more successful (because Jews who knew their religion knew the scriptures didn't point to Yshuah as Christ), the Jewish Christian cult had an identity crisis. The problem was solved when the gospels were written with full knowledge of Paul's doctrine. Suddenly the Jewish cult always had "Disciple all nations in my name" as part of its mission. The original 12 just couldn't handle it doncha know. So Paul was necessary! Don't you see?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Edited by RockyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
For the sake of avoiding loaded language, I'll accept that edit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
flawed? ...because you don't care to (or can't) connect the dots?
Or is it that you have some different view or better understanding of Ezek.37:21-28?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
You suppose that he "truly understood" exactly what, after Acts 10 and the incident with Cornelius? That he no longer needed to follow all the laws of Moses, and should (or could) eat with the Gentiles? (see Gal.2:12, if you're wondering about an answer to that.)
There's little doubt that he was called on the carpet over his visit there, and the mere fact that he stood up and came to Paul's defense (in Acts 15, probably some 9 or 10 years later) only after "there had been much disputing" might be an indication that the incident with Cornelius was so strange and abnormal (and from a practical perspective, changed virtually nothing) that Peter might have nearly forgotten about it (until it was needed for Paul's defense, in Acts 15.) Furthermore, considering that in lieu of Peter's remembrance of it (as no one else there at the council in Jerusalem evidently remembered it prior to Peter's bringing it up) it's doubtful that those that were at that meeting would have ever kept quiet long enough to even hear what all Barnabas and Paul had to say on the matter. And, in light of that, it seems fairly reasonable to wonder whether or not the primary reason (and effect) for the entire event with Cornelius was not so much to alter or change the course of what the 12 and the church at Jerusalem were thinking or doing, as much as it was to enable Peter to rise to Paul's defense and give his (Paul's) gospel the stamp of approval from the church at Jerusalem some many, many years later.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Why change the message (i.e., gospel) that was given to Paul?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Why could it not be both?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
modcat5
Raf posting:
First, the post-resurrection gospel never changed. In the gospels, pre-resurrection, it was the kingdom. But at the end of the gospels, Jesus gives the explicit instruction to disciple all nations in his name. The only change, scripturally, is that he's resurrected now. There are 40 days of appearances, only a small handful of which are shared in the gospels and Acts. We don't know how many people witnessed each appearance. But if you think he's teaching them the same thing after the resurrection that he was teaching before... I don't even know what to say to that. He of all people knows things have changed, and how. It is beyond reason to think he would not have shared information that they needed to know in order to make disciples of all the nations in his name after having instructed them to do so!
So why DON'T the 12 do what he said explicitly to do?
The Bible's answer is implied: the 12 struggled to get past the primacy of Israel and the Jews as God's chosen people. It's the only thing that explains Jesus needing additional visions after being told in person by the risen Christ to disciple all nations in his name.
[The skeptical answer is that this is a major plot hole in a made up story, but I don't need to resort to that].
Peter should never have needed to explain to the disciples that Paul was justified in preaching to the Gentiles because all of them would have remembered Jesus explicitly saying disciple all nations in his name.
So why did Paul learn more than the 12? It's not because he had a different mission. He had the same mission. It's because he got serious about carrying it out. And once he demonstrated his commitment to the instruction, he got more. So the revelation of the One Body comes to Paul. Why? Because the 12 failed to follow the instruction while Paul dedicated himself to it.
Easy. Biblical. Corresponds to all scripture on the subject without inventing a reason for Jesus to not mean precisely what he said when he said disciple all nations in his name.
[The skeptical answer, of course, is that Paul made his doctrine up and Christianity retconned the words of Jesus to make Paul consistent with his post-resurrection instructions. There being no resurrection, Jesus never said any such thing. The plot hole is only created when you have him say something clear and unambiguous and his most faithful followers completely ignore it].
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
After all, the could just as easily have rewound the tape and played it over and over. And for those of you who never heard the word "retconned" (like me),
Retroactive continuity, or retcon for short,[1][2] is a literary device in which established facts in a fictional work are adjusted, ignored, or contradicted by a subsequently published work which breaks continuity with the former.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
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.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
You obviously sidestepped the question and spun it in a completely different direction. Call it whatever you want, but I see that as twisting... as I am more inclined to agree that there was little change in the gospel that the 12 had and preached post-resurrection. What could or would save them before appears to be the same that could or would save them after. But what was given and said to save them was not the same gospel that was later given to Paul. Which is undoubtedly why he (Paul) very plainly and unmistakably referred to it (three times, that I can think of) as "my gospel."
The gospel which Paul preached was not simply "more" than what the 12 had been given. While certain things may be similar, other things are different. And it's a difference that is important enough that it even appears to be called different (if the Greek were translated more consistently) by Paul in Philippians 1:10.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.