call it whatever you want. It won't change what I see it as, no matter how many times it's read.
55 minutes ago, Raf said:
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.
Might be how you see it. Which is okay. You're certainly entitled to be wrong if you want your opinion. Maybe you haven't done enough research on the matter.
Can't say this will be the most or best help to start digging more into it, but I only spent a couple of minutes checking to see what might be easily found on the Internet about it:
3 I thank my Godin 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 begana good work in youwill bring it to completion atthe day of Jesus Christ.7 It is right for me to feel this way about you all, because I hold youin my heart, for you are allpartakers with me of grace,[d]bothin my imprisonment and inthe defense and confirmation of the gospel.8 ForGod is my witness,how I yearn for you all with the affection of Christ Jesus.9 And it is my prayer thatyour 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 blamelessfor the day of Christ,11 filledwith the fruit of righteousness that comesthrough Jesus Christ,to the glory and praise of God.
None of this has anything to do with people who preach a different gospel.
Quote
Thegospel 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.
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?
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?
3I give thanks to my God upon all the remembrance of you, 4always, in every supplication of mine for you all, with joy making the supplication, 5for your contribution to the good news from the first day till now, 6having been confident of this very thing, that He who did begin in you a good work, will perform [it] till a day of Jesus Christ, 7according as it is righteous for me to think this in behalf of you all, because of my having you in the heart, both in my bonds, and [in] the defence and confirmation of the good news, all of you being fellow-partakers with me of grace. 8For God is my witness, how I long for you all in the bowels of Jesus Christ, 9and this I pray, that your love yet more and more may abound in full knowledge, and all judgment, 10for your proving the things that differ, that ye may be pure and offenceless — to a day of Christ, 11being filled with the fruit of righteousness, that [is] through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God.
New International Version if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law;
New Living Translation You know what he wants; you know what is right because you have been taught his law.
English Standard Version and know his will and approve what is excellent, because you are instructed from the law;
Berean Study Bible if you know His will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law;
Berean Literal Bible and you knowHiswill 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
Every single other translation of Philippians 1:10
New International Version so that you may be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless for the day of Christ,
New Living Translation For 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 Version so that you may approve what is excellent, and so be pure and blameless for the day of Christ,
Berean Study Bible so that you can discern what is best, that you may be pure and blameless for the day of Christ,
Berean Literal Bible for you to approve the things being excellent, so that you may be pure and blameless untotheday 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 Bible That ye may approve things that are excellent; that ye may be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ;
Christian Standard Bible so that you may approve the things that are superior and may be pure and blameless in the day of Christ,
Contemporary English Version how to make the right choices. Then you will still be pure and innocent when Christ returns. And until that day,
Good News Translation so 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 Bible so that you can approve the things that are superior and can be pure and blameless in the day of Christ,
International Standard Version so that you may be able to choose what is best and be pure and blameless until the day when the Messiah returns,
NET Bible so that you can decide what is best, and thus be sincere and blameless for the day of Christ,
New Heart English Bible so 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 English That 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® Translation That 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 2000 that ye may approve the best, that ye may be sincere and without offense until the day of Christ,
King James 2000 Bible That you may approve things that are excellent; that you may be sincere and without offense till the day of Christ;
American King James Version That you may approve things that are excellent; that you may be sincere and without offense till the day of Christ.
American Standard Version so 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 Bible That you may approve the better things, that you may be sincere and without offence unto the day of Christ,
Darby Bible Translation that 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 Version so 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 Translation That ye may approve things that are excellent; that ye may be sincere and without offense till the day of Christ;
Weymouth New Testament so that you may be men of transparent character, and may be blameless, in preparation for the day of Christ,
World English Bible so 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 Translation for 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.
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.
More spin, Raf? Perhaps it's such a part of your nature at this point that you just don't know how (or can't) stop it. Contrary to your implication, I never said, implied, or otherwise alluded to any kind of distinction that regards one as being real and one as being a fraud. That's a fraudulent fabrication straight out of your own imagination. Maybe it's some sort of rationalization that you invented to cover over or draw attention away from your initial failure to see the relevance of Phil. 1:10 in my previous post.
But shame on you for trying to (falsely) credit me with being either the first, or the only one, to ever see or think of it's usage here in Philippians 1:10 as being "different," in an improved sense. The nuance of it's usage just as strongly (probably more so) indicates that something is different (or changed) from whatever was previous as it indicates that said difference is an improvement.
Furthermore, this is merely one little old verse among many others along the path leading to the FACT that the gospel that Paul received and took to the Gentiles was not the same gospel that the 12 had and (by and large) continued to adhere to. Of course, that concept is something that you have already determined to be invalid, and have completely closed yourself off from. Which in and of itself is fine. That's your choice. I just don't care for the idiocy that you try to brand everyone else with that doesn't happen to agree with you.
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.
Saying (or thinking) I lied about the relevance of a verse confirming that there were indeed differences that are better, is a manifestation of insanity.
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...
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...
And just exactly what do you think it's talking about, Raf? And what makes you so dang confident (i.e., arrogant) that there's no possibly way you might have misread or misunderstood the context of what Paul is writing to them about?
I happen to believe that Paul called it "my gospel" for a very simple and compelling reason, which is rather explicitly laid out in Galatians 1:6-12 (because the Galatians had plainly failed to see or recognize it.) The letter to the Philippians commends them, not just for seeing and recognizing it, but for:
1) their fellowship in it (verse 5)
2) their defense and confirmation of it (verse 7) - specifically noting that they were all partakers of "my [Paul's] grace.
3) and further to that, it was Paul's prayer that their love might abound more and more in knowledge and in all judgment... to what end? or for what purpose? what was he just talking about? C'mon man... stop and think about it. Where was Paul? In prison. Why was he in prison? Where had he just been? What had he done there?
Paul was different. His gospel was different. (Better, mind you.) And the Jews in Jerusalem sure didn't like it, nor him. Yet, here were these Philippians... that Paul saw as partakers with him, in defense and confirmation of the gospel... and with the means to approve those things which were... better. Better than what? Ah, well... it all gets back to that.
Let's see... what is it again that's on Paul's mind while writing this?
4) the furtherance of the gospel. (verse 12)
5) to speak the word without fear. (verse 14)
6) to preach Christ. (verse 15)
7) defense of the gospel (verse 17)
Yeah, you go right ahead and try to convince everyone that the context here doesn't relate at all to the gospel that Paul taught or our previous discussion...
And I'm calling your comment a manifestation of insanity.
You say that's the same as calling you insane.
Yet, you also say that you're not calling me a liar.
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.
And just exactly what do you think it's talking about, Raf? And what makes you so dang confident (i.e., arrogant) that there's no possibly way you might have misread or misunderstood the context of what Paul is writing to them about?
I happen to believe that Paul called it "my gospel" for a very simple and compelling reason, which is rather explicitly laid out in Galatians 1:6-12 (because the Galatians had plainly failed to see or recognize it.) The letter to the Philippians commends them, not just for seeing and recognizing it, but for:
1) their fellowship in it (verse 5)
2) their defense and confirmation of it (verse 7) - specifically noting that they were all partakers of "my [Paul's] grace.
3) and further to that, it was Paul's prayer that their love might abound more and more in knowledge and in all judgment... to what end? or for what purpose? what was he just talking about? C'mon man... stop and think about it. Where was Paul? In prison. Why was he in prison? Where had he just been? What had he done there?
Paul was different. His gospel was different. (Better, mind you.) And the Jews in Jerusalem sure didn't like it, nor him. Yet, here were these Philippians... that Paul saw as partakers with him, in defense and confirmation of the gospel... and with the means to approve those things which were... better. Better than what? Ah, well... it all gets back to that.
Let's see... what is it again that's on Paul's mind while writing this?
4) the furtherance of the gospel. (verse 12)
5) to speak the word without fear. (verse 14)
6) to preach Christ. (verse 15)
7) defense of the gospel (verse 17)
Yeah, you go right ahead and try to convince everyone that the context here doesn't relate at all to the gospel that Paul taught or our previous discussion...
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.
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?
Who made you the absolute authority on what Paul is or isn't discussing in Philippians? What unabashed and foolish arrogance! And because what I (and many others) have chosen to believe it is discussing, you (unwittingly) have the balls to call me dishonest and a liar (yeah, say you didn't... but you did)? And that you won't "put up with [my] $hit anymore"?
Truth is, yours are the posts that reek of dishonesty (or ignorance, or arrogance... take your choice.)
Not only did I link to another site that has the view that Phil.1:10 is referring to a difference between Paul's gospel and what the 12 taught (which I doubt you read), there are others, and much more (from others) that support such a belief. Furthermore, you don't even have the courtesy to admit you "might" have been mistaken when you claimed I quoted the wrong verse, or that there was anything about a difference, or a gospel there. Yet, I plainly pointed out the discussion was actually sandwiched in between an obvious discussion of Paul's gospel, and specifically asked you what you thought was being compared in verse 10... which you either ignored or refused to answer, other than to brashly assert that it didn't have any relation to what the 12 were teaching.
No, you don't have to agree with what I'm inclined to believe is being compared in that verse. I don't expect that. But you have no right, and it is evil (and totally dishonest) to say that what I think about it is "a deliberate untruth." Who in there right mind can (or would) have any respect for such maliciousness?
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.
Perhaps Raf and TLC can or should at least agree that Paul made a huge change from being hateful to being loving and peaceful. Paul named with his Jewish name Saul as a greedy power hungry Pharisee worked to persecute the followers of Jesus Christ. The bible says in Acts, when Jesus Christ appeared to him he got Paul to make a major change to being an actual loving and peaceful follower of Jesus Christ. Regarding knowledge, yes Paul showed more knowledge than the original twelve disciples pertaining to the message of Jesus Christ.. This should be clear when reading the epistles that has his name on them. This can also be seen when reading the apologetic or historical book of Acts which has Paul's name mentioned many times compared to the original twelve disciples. As an example, in the NIV version in the book of Acts, the name of Paul is written 172 times. The next highest is the name of Peter, 71 times. The third highest is John, 27 times. At least four of them were only mentioned one time in the book of Acts in the same verse Acts 1:13.
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."
probably isn't that hard to post most of it again, though you obviously didn't like it...
On 5/15/2019 at 6:29 PM, Raf said:
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.
wrong. it's not in the who, the where, or the how of whether it was or wasn't done. It's in the changes in the message itself... which appears to be something most here don't have either the stomach, the aptitude, or the interest to discover.
Who cares? I never heard of him before your mention of his name, as I never bothered to pay much attention to who's site it was after spending all of three or four minutes the other day plugging a few phrases into google and stumbling across that particular site.
On 5/16/2019 at 9:28 AM, Raf said:
The fact also remains that Paul, in Philippians, says nothing that leads a reasonable person...
As if you are the authority on what constitutes a fact concerning what a reasonable person would or should conclude about what is or isn't part of the section of scripture in the first chapter of Philippians? phhhtt.... yeah, right. Think this Phil guy invented the idea? Nah... maybe you just think whatever dimwit did is pretty stupid or nuts, as is anyone else that might happen to agree (to any degree or extent) with them. 'Cause you've already researched what any and every scholars had to say about it... right?
On 5/16/2019 at 9:28 AM, Raf said:
The gospel in scripture has always been about the kingdom.
Really? Did you even bother doing any kind (whatsoever) of word study on it, or are you just pulling that out of your ear because it "sounds" plausible?
On 5/16/2019 at 9:28 AM, Raf said:
What you are doing is comparing what Paul taught as a Christian to what Jesus and the 12 taught before the resurrection.
Actually seems like your rather clueless on what I might know or was doing.
On 5/16/2019 at 9:28 AM, Raf said:
Post resurrection, the 12 taught the gospel of salvation by grace -- to the Jews.
Ever lay out, step-by-step, what the instructions were for salvation - according to scripture? No, I don't believe you have.
Do "according to Peter" first. Then do "according to Paul." It just might surprise you.
On 5/16/2019 at 9:28 AM, Raf said:
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.
I have no idea who this Marine is, or why you so troubled yourself to dig up as much dirt (if that is what it is) to wallow in as you did, but I will say that it certainly seems rather hypocritical of someone that is so concerned about ad hominem attacks on their own self. Not taking sides on anything (as I didn't bother to click the link.) Just calling this for what it looks like, regardless of how "polite" it might sound.
On 5/16/2019 at 9:28 AM, Raf said:
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.
Maybe I could, or maybe I can't. But frankly, I'm just too tired of this and worn out here to give it much more thought. Why bother, when even if I did, I don't have the right credentials that would make a spit's worth of difference to you, or maybe not anyone else that would ever read this? Think whatever you want to think about it. Because if anyone ever has the heart to really care about and know what the real truth of it is, I don't doubt that they can and will (with the help of the Lord) find a way to it through what all might be written about it in scripture.
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
TLC
call it whatever you want. It won't change what I see it as, no matter how many times it's read.
Might be how you see it. Which is okay. You're certainly entitled to
be wrong if you wantyour opinion. Maybe you haven't done enough research on the matter.Can't say this will be the most or best help to start digging more into it, but I only spent a couple of minutes checking to see what might be easily found on the Internet about it:
http://www.seekfirstwisdom.com/are-there-two-gospels/
Sure it does. You simply have to consider the context of it and connect the dots.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
How does one even begin to address an argument this lacking in honesty?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
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?
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
https://translate.google.com/#view=home&op=translate&sl=auto&tl=en&text=Διαφέρω
Now that you've so arrogantly opened mouth and inserted foot, how about an apology?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Young's Literal Translation:
3I give thanks to my God upon all the remembrance of you, 4always, in every supplication of mine for you all, with joy making the supplication, 5for your contribution to the good news from the first day till now, 6having been confident of this very thing, that He who did begin in you a good work, will perform [it] till a day of Jesus Christ, 7according as it is righteous for me to think this in behalf of you all, because of my having you in the heart, both in my bonds, and [in] the defence and confirmation of the good news, all of you being fellow-partakers with me of grace. 8For God is my witness, how I long for you all in the bowels of Jesus Christ, 9and this I pray, that your love yet more and more may abound in full knowledge, and all judgment, 10for your proving the things that differ, that ye may be pure and offenceless — to a day of Christ, 11being filled with the fruit of righteousness, that [is] through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The word for excellent is diapheronta.
It shows up twice in the Bible.
Romans 2:18
New International Version
if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law;
New Living Translation
You know what he wants; you know what is right because you have been taught his law.
English Standard Version
and know his will and approve what is excellent, because you are instructed from the law;
Berean Study Bible
if you know His will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law;
Berean Literal Bible
and 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
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Every single other translation of Philippians 1:10
New International Version
so that you may be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless for the day of Christ,
New Living Translation
For 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 Version
so that you may approve what is excellent, and so be pure and blameless for the day of Christ,
Berean Study Bible
so that you can discern what is best, that you may be pure and blameless for the day of Christ,
Berean Literal Bible
for 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 Bible
That ye may approve things that are excellent; that ye may be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ;
Christian Standard Bible
so that you may approve the things that are superior and may be pure and blameless in the day of Christ,
Contemporary English Version
how to make the right choices. Then you will still be pure and innocent when Christ returns. And until that day,
Good News Translation
so 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 Bible
so that you can approve the things that are superior and can be pure and blameless in the day of Christ,
International Standard Version
so that you may be able to choose what is best and be pure and blameless until the day when the Messiah returns,
NET Bible
so that you can decide what is best, and thus be sincere and blameless for the day of Christ,
New Heart English Bible
so 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 English
That 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® Translation
That 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 2000
that ye may approve the best, that ye may be sincere and without offense until the day of Christ,
King James 2000 Bible
That you may approve things that are excellent; that you may be sincere and without offense till the day of Christ;
American King James Version
That you may approve things that are excellent; that you may be sincere and without offense till the day of Christ.
American Standard Version
so 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 Bible
That you may approve the better things, that you may be sincere and without offence unto the day of Christ,
Darby Bible Translation
that 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 Version
so 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 Translation
That ye may approve things that are excellent; that ye may be sincere and without offense till the day of Christ;
Weymouth New Testament
so that you may be men of transparent character, and may be blameless, in preparation for the day of Christ,
World English Bible
so 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 Translation
for 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.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
More spin, Raf? Perhaps it's such a part of your nature at this point that you just don't know how (or can't) stop it. Contrary to your implication, I never said, implied, or otherwise alluded to any kind of distinction that regards one as being real and one as being a fraud. That's a fraudulent fabrication straight out of your own imagination. Maybe it's some sort of rationalization that you invented to cover over or draw attention away from your initial failure to see the relevance of Phil. 1:10 in my previous post.
But shame on you for trying to (falsely) credit me with being either the first, or the only one, to ever see or think of it's usage here in Philippians 1:10 as being "different," in an improved sense. The nuance of it's usage just as strongly (probably more so) indicates that something is different (or changed) from whatever was previous as it indicates that said difference is an improvement.
Furthermore, this is merely one little old verse among many others along the path leading to the FACT that the gospel that Paul received and took to the Gentiles was not the same gospel that the 12 had and (by and large) continued to adhere to. Of course, that concept is something that you have already determined to be invalid, and have completely closed yourself off from. Which in and of itself is fine. That's your choice. I just don't care for the idiocy that you try to brand everyone else with that doesn't happen to agree with you.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
You literally lied about the verse being relevant to our discussion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
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.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Saying (or thinking) I lied about the relevance of a verse confirming that there were indeed differences that are better, is a manifestation of insanity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
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...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
And just exactly what do you think it's talking about, Raf? And what makes you so dang confident (i.e., arrogant) that there's no possibly way you might have misread or misunderstood the context of what Paul is writing to them about?
I happen to believe that Paul called it "my gospel" for a very simple and compelling reason, which is rather explicitly laid out in Galatians 1:6-12 (because the Galatians had plainly failed to see or recognize it.) The letter to the Philippians commends them, not just for seeing and recognizing it, but for:
1) their fellowship in it (verse 5)
2) their defense and confirmation of it (verse 7) - specifically noting that they were all partakers of "my [Paul's] grace.
3) and further to that, it was Paul's prayer that their love might abound more and more in knowledge and in all judgment... to what end? or for what purpose? what was he just talking about? C'mon man... stop and think about it. Where was Paul? In prison. Why was he in prison? Where had he just been? What had he done there?
Paul was different. His gospel was different. (Better, mind you.) And the Jews in Jerusalem sure didn't like it, nor him. Yet, here were these Philippians... that Paul saw as partakers with him, in defense and confirmation of the gospel... and with the means to approve those things which were... better. Better than what? Ah, well... it all gets back to that.
Let's see... what is it again that's on Paul's mind while writing this?
4) the furtherance of the gospel. (verse 12)
5) to speak the word without fear. (verse 14)
6) to preach Christ. (verse 15)
7) defense of the gospel (verse 17)
Yeah, you go right ahead and try to convince everyone that the context here doesn't relate at all to the gospel that Paul taught or our previous discussion...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
And I'm calling your comment a manifestation of insanity.
You say that's the same as calling you insane.
Yet, you also say that you're not calling me a liar.
You think and speak with forked tongue.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
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?
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
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.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Who made you the absolute authority on what Paul is or isn't discussing in Philippians? What unabashed and foolish arrogance! And because what I (and many others) have chosen to believe it is discussing, you (unwittingly) have the balls to call me dishonest and a liar (yeah, say you didn't... but you did)? And that you won't "put up with [my] $hit anymore"?
Truth is, yours are the posts that reek of dishonesty (or ignorance, or arrogance... take your choice.)
Not only did I link to another site that has the view that Phil.1:10 is referring to a difference between Paul's gospel and what the 12 taught (which I doubt you read), there are others, and much more (from others) that support such a belief. Furthermore, you don't even have the courtesy to admit you "might" have been mistaken when you claimed I quoted the wrong verse, or that there was anything about a difference, or a gospel there. Yet, I plainly pointed out the discussion was actually sandwiched in between an obvious discussion of Paul's gospel, and specifically asked you what you thought was being compared in verse 10... which you either ignored or refused to answer, other than to brashly assert that it didn't have any relation to what the 12 were teaching.
No, you don't have to agree with what I'm inclined to believe is being compared in that verse. I don't expect that. But you have no right, and it is evil (and totally dishonest) to say that what I think about it is "a deliberate untruth." Who in there right mind can (or would) have any respect for such maliciousness?
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Perhaps Raf and TLC can or should at least agree that Paul made a huge change from being hateful to being loving and peaceful. Paul named with his Jewish name Saul as a greedy power hungry Pharisee worked to persecute the followers of Jesus Christ. The bible says in Acts, when Jesus Christ appeared to him he got Paul to make a major change to being an actual loving and peaceful follower of Jesus Christ. Regarding knowledge, yes Paul showed more knowledge than the original twelve disciples pertaining to the message of Jesus Christ.. This should be clear when reading the epistles that has his name on them. This can also be seen when reading the apologetic or historical book of Acts which has Paul's name mentioned many times compared to the original twelve disciples. As an example, in the NIV version in the book of Acts, the name of Paul is written 172 times. The next highest is the name of Peter, 71 times. The third highest is John, 27 times. At least four of them were only mentioned one time in the book of Acts in the same verse Acts 1:13.
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
probably isn't that hard to post most of it again, though you obviously didn't like it...
wrong. it's not in the who, the where, or the how of whether it was or wasn't done. It's in the changes in the message itself... which appears to be something most here don't have either the stomach, the aptitude, or the interest to discover.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Who cares? I never heard of him before your mention of his name, as I never bothered to pay much attention to who's site it was after spending all of three or four minutes the other day plugging a few phrases into google and stumbling across that particular site.
As if you are the authority on what constitutes a fact concerning what a reasonable person would or should conclude about what is or isn't part of the section of scripture in the first chapter of Philippians? phhhtt.... yeah, right. Think this Phil guy invented the idea? Nah... maybe you just think whatever dimwit did is pretty stupid or nuts, as is anyone else that might happen to agree (to any degree or extent) with them. 'Cause you've already researched what any and every scholars had to say about it... right?
Really? Did you even bother doing any kind (whatsoever) of word study on it, or are you just pulling that out of your ear because it "sounds" plausible?
Actually seems like your rather clueless on what I might know or was doing.
Ever lay out, step-by-step, what the instructions were for salvation - according to scripture? No, I don't believe you have.
Do "according to Peter" first. Then do "according to Paul." It just might surprise you.
I have no idea who this Marine is, or why you so troubled yourself to dig up as much dirt (if that is what it is) to wallow in as you did, but I will say that it certainly seems rather hypocritical of someone that is so concerned about ad hominem attacks on their own self. Not taking sides on anything (as I didn't bother to click the link.) Just calling this for what it looks like, regardless of how "polite" it might sound.
Maybe I could, or maybe I can't. But frankly, I'm just too tired of this and worn out here to give it much more thought. Why bother, when even if I did, I don't have the right credentials that would make a spit's worth of difference to you, or maybe not anyone else that would ever read this? Think whatever you want to think about it. Because if anyone ever has the heart to really care about and know what the real truth of it is, I don't doubt that they can and will (with the help of the Lord) find a way to it through what all might be written about it in scripture.
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.