I wonder if they think this contradicts the teachings of Jesus?
Romans chapter 13
8 Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,” “You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
And one more thing Twinky. May I please pet your kitty Cats?
Mark, you can pet the kitty cats if you can catch them. One loves me (and only me) to fondle her - otherwise, she hides under the stairs if anyone else enters the house. Other one comes out and likes to be petted by walking under a stationary hand. Likes to be around people though. Picked her up once (by accident). Only had the silly creatures 8 years. They were born in the Cats Protection sanctuary, so I doubt they've ever been ill-treated.
Yep, I think we'd have to agree that the verses you quote are both the gospel Jesus preached, and the gospel Paul preached.
Okay, guys... y'all keep saying there are a lot of differences between the gospel as preached by Jesus, and that as expounded by Paul.
So have at it. What do you perceive as the differences, and why do you think that? Are the differences appropriate? Do some want to live like Jewish people? Or do they want to consider themselves as "dogs" (Mt 15:26) which is what Jesus calls a beseeching Canaanite woman?
Right. Tossing the ball in...to.... plaaaayyyyyy.... now!
Haven't the time for much right now, Twinky, but it's probably a thread who's time has come. Might as well point out a scripture or two to start it off. Looks like there's a difference mentioned here:
Gal.2
[7] But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
It should go without saying that there's a multitude of similarities, but nevertheless, let that be clear. It's the differences and/or incongruities that are the focus here. That nature of either message being somewhat larger than our senses oriented minds can quickly (or easily) grasp and/or communicate, any discussion of them will probably be akin to "blindly feeling our way around the elephant" and comparing small bits and pieces of it, in an effort to put together a larger spiritual picture. (In a certain sense or manner of speaking, this is probably how I'm inclined to envision how our mind puts together and/or paints a picture of most spiritual realities. I'm not sure if there's a better way to say it, but I trust it communicates the point sufficiently.) Perhaps an analogy that will illustrate the problem of blending two similar, but different, spiritual "puzzles" would be to compare it to trying to put a jigsaw puzzle together that has a bunch of similarly shaped pieces from another puzzle thrown into the pile. You can't help but be frustrated or confused when certain aspects (pieces) either look like they clash with other pieces, and/or they just don't look right or fit where you'd normally think they ought to go. And, if and when you "force it together," you end up with some mishmash that has holes (i.e., errors) in it.
Here's a couple of more verses worth pointing out:
Rom.2
[16] In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
Rom.16
[25] Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,
2Tim.2
[8] Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:
Though it is referred to in various ways (a part of "feeling our way around it"), three times Paul specifically refers to what was preached as "my gospel."
And certainly not the one or only thing unique to that which Paul preached is how he set forth that we are "the body of Christ, and members in particular."
You'll not find that in what Jesus Christ preached during his ministry, or in what his 12 apostles preached on and after the day of Pentecost in Acts 2. (But please speak up if you think you have or can.) Or, if you want to back it up to salvation itself, he even brings forward a "different criteria" for salvation than what Jesus and the 12 had preached previously.
... Or, if you want to back it up to salvation itself, he even brings forward a "different criteria" for salvation than what Jesus and the 12 had preached previously.
Okay, let's hear it then, TLC.
Noting that you do reference Pentecost, are you also saying that makes no difference in the gospel that was / should be preached?
Noting that you do reference Pentecost, are you also saying that makes no difference in the gospel that was / should be preached?
It will take more time than I have at the moment to do it any sort of justice. (But I'll return to it at some point in the near future.)
While I did indeed reference Pentecost (Acts 2), keep in mind that I don't currently believe that the current "oikonomia" was introduced there. (I'd probably be branded a "mid-Acts" dispensationalist, though after twi's proclivity towards labeling, I guess I don't care for being associated with much of any kind of branding or titles or labels and such...) I see "the break" (or, the change, or however else we might care to refer to it) happening after Stephen's testimony before the council (Acts 7) and Israel's (as a nation) final rejection of Jesus as the Christ (even after he was raised from the dead.) It was after this, that I believe a "new direction" was taken, starting with Saul, on the road to Damascus (Acts 9.)
As far as "which gospel" was preached in Acts, I think it depends on who was doing the preaching. (As I don't see much, if any, change in what the 12 apostles and the church at Jerusalem from beginning to end.) Certain conflicts between them, though "smoothed over" in Acts 15, were never actually eliminated (arising again in Acts 21 and following.)
It will take more time than I have at the moment to do it any sort of justice. (But I'll return to it at some point in the near future.)
While I did indeed reference Pentecost (Acts 2), keep in mind that I don't currently believe that the current "oikonomia" was introduced there. (I'd probably be branded a "mid-Acts" dispensationalist, though after twi's proclivity towards labeling, I guess I don't care for being associated with much of any kind of branding or titles or labels and such...) I see "the break" (or, the change, or however else we might care to refer to it) happening after Stephen's testimony before the council (Acts 7) and Israel's (as a nation) final rejection of Jesus as the Christ (even after he was raised from the dead.) It was after this, that I believe a "new direction" was taken, starting with Saul, on the road to Damascus (Acts 9.)
As far as "which gospel" was preached in Acts, I think it depends on who was doing the preaching. (As I don't see much, if any, change in what the 12 apostles and the church at Jerusalem from beginning to end.) Certain conflicts between them, though "smoothed over" in Acts 15, were never actually eliminated (arising again in Acts 21 and following.)
Rather than further delay any interest there might be for more on this issue, here's a little material off the Internet for your reading/entertainment pleasure:
I am really surprised at the lack of response on this thread. At the time I started it, there was a big row brewing over a couple of threads about "changes in doctrine" and I rather thought this might become a heated thread and one where people debated.
But no. Them as wanted to row over other threads - have nothing to say. Which says it all really. Just threadkillers.
For what it's worth, I don't recall saying Paul contradicts Jesus in any major way, or even in any minor way that can't be explained by a change in circumstances. So that explains my silence on this thread. For what it's worth.
The message attributed to Jesus is simple, straightforward and easy to understand while the message that is attributed to Paul is filled with detail and minutia and requires close scrutiny to grasp. Paul's message talks about being free from the law, while, in reality, it's filled with "micro" laws. The gospels were written AFTER the epistles yet there is no mention of speaking in tongues or running on "all 9, all the time", so to speak. To me, they appear to be very different.
For what it's worth, I don't recall saying Paul contradicts Jesus in any major way, or even in any minor way that can't be explained by a change in circumstances. So that explains my silence on this thread. For what it's worth.
Is it necessary to confess sins for forgiveness or to be cleansed from all unrighteousness... or not?
Is it possible to be saved by faith alone... or not?
Is there any difference whatsoever between obedience and trust? And if so, is obedience a prerequisite for salvation... or not?
If there was some change in circumstances that precipitated something new, should (or does) one replace the other, or are both still thought to be on the table?
The message attributed to Jesus is simple, straightforward and easy to understand while the message that is attributed to Paul is filled with detail and minutia and requires close scrutiny to grasp. Paul's message talks about being free from the law, while, in reality, it's filled with "micro" laws. The gospels were written AFTER the epistles yet there is no mention of speaking in tongues or running on "all 9, all the time", so to speak. To me, they appear to be very different.
Because it's far easier (or so it seems) to follow the law (and if/when you don't, then confess your sins and ask for forgiveness) than to learn to walk by the spirit.
Did I say anything about following the law? Because I don't think I did. And why should it be harder to "learn to walk by the spirit" than to follow The Golden Rule?
I am really surprised at the lack of response on this thread. At the time I started it, there was a big row brewing over a couple of threads about "changes in doctrine" and I rather thought this might become a heated thread and one where people debated.
But no. Them as wanted to row over other threads - have nothing to say. Which says it all really. Just threadkillers.
So it 'tis. Evidently not a great deal of interest in certain things...
(While other things that stir the pot too much get spiked.)
Did I say anything about following the law? Because I don't think I did. And why should it be harder to "learn to walk by the spirit" than to follow The Golden Rule?
No, I said it. And yes, I also said it seems harder, namely because walking by the spirit entails something that is contrary to what we are naturally accustomed to and comfortable with. If I can't "see it, hear it, taste it, touch it, or smell it," how sure am I of it, and/or just how "real" is it?
this probably won't be a popular response but I think the difference is religion, ego,power, etc. I would follow the gospels before I would follow the epistles.
The message attributed to Jesus is simple, straightforward and easy to understand while the message that is attributed to Paul is filled with detail and minutia and requires close scrutiny to grasp. Paul's message talks about being free from the law, while, in reality, it's filled with "micro" laws. The gospels were written AFTER the epistles yet there is no mention of speaking in tongues or running on "all 9, all the time", so to speak. To me, they appear to be very different.
For what it's worth, I don't recall saying Paul contradicts Jesus in any major way, or even in any minor way that can't be explained by a change in circumstances. So that explains my silence on this thread. For what it's worth.
The message attributed to Jesus is simple, straightforward and easy to understand while the message that is attributed to Paul is filled with detail and minutia and requires close scrutiny to grasp. Paul's message talks about being free from the law, while, in reality, it's filled with "micro" laws. The gospels were written AFTER the epistles yet there is no mention of speaking in tongues or running on "all 9, all the time", so to speak. To me, they appear to be very different.
this probably won't be a popular response but I think the difference is religion, ego,power, etc. I would follow the gospels before I would follow the epistles.
i am with you 100% on this.
i don't have much to contribute on this thread - just wanted to quote some posts that i find touch on ideas i think about.
while i don't find any major difference (in a polemic or contrasting sense) between what Jesus taught and what Paul taught - and even though the book of Romans is in my top 7 of favorite books of the Bible (note i'm saying my favorite does not mean i fully grasp it all) - for inspiration, moral guidance or simply to reaffirm what little of know of Jesus - i usually tend to read the gospels over any other books of the Bible.
in my humble opinion - i believe one gets a very clear and simple picture of what it means to live the christian life in the gospels; i'm not denigrating the other books of the Bible when it comes to strengthening one's faith - or developing a full orbed theology (whatever that is).....i could be way off on all this - i do have a tendency to think of Christianity as more about lordship than scholarship anyway.
== == == ==
edited to add hi to Abby - sorry about my bad manners - i meant to say hi in the shout box the other day - but got side tracked by Waysider's reference to a Kenny Rogers' tune - guess comedy took priority over courtesy...:wave:/>
Recommended Posts
Mark Sanguinetti
I wonder if they think this contradicts the teachings of Jesus?
Romans chapter 13
8 Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,” “You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
And one more thing Twinky. May I please pet your kitty Cats?
Thank you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Mark, you can pet the kitty cats if you can catch them. One loves me (and only me) to fondle her - otherwise, she hides under the stairs if anyone else enters the house. Other one comes out and likes to be petted by walking under a stationary hand. Likes to be around people though. Picked her up once (by accident). Only had the silly creatures 8 years. They were born in the Cats Protection sanctuary, so I doubt they've ever been ill-treated.
Yep, I think we'd have to agree that the verses you quote are both the gospel Jesus preached, and the gospel Paul preached.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Haven't the time for much right now, Twinky, but it's probably a thread who's time has come. Might as well point out a scripture or two to start it off. Looks like there's a difference mentioned here:
Gal.2
[7] But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
It should go without saying that there's a multitude of similarities, but nevertheless, let that be clear. It's the differences and/or incongruities that are the focus here. That nature of either message being somewhat larger than our senses oriented minds can quickly (or easily) grasp and/or communicate, any discussion of them will probably be akin to "blindly feeling our way around the elephant" and comparing small bits and pieces of it, in an effort to put together a larger spiritual picture. (In a certain sense or manner of speaking, this is probably how I'm inclined to envision how our mind puts together and/or paints a picture of most spiritual realities. I'm not sure if there's a better way to say it, but I trust it communicates the point sufficiently.) Perhaps an analogy that will illustrate the problem of blending two similar, but different, spiritual "puzzles" would be to compare it to trying to put a jigsaw puzzle together that has a bunch of similarly shaped pieces from another puzzle thrown into the pile. You can't help but be frustrated or confused when certain aspects (pieces) either look like they clash with other pieces, and/or they just don't look right or fit where you'd normally think they ought to go. And, if and when you "force it together," you end up with some mishmash that has holes (i.e., errors) in it.
Here's a couple of more verses worth pointing out:
Rom.2
[16] In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
Rom.16
[25] Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,
2Tim.2
[8] Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:
Though it is referred to in various ways (a part of "feeling our way around it"), three times Paul specifically refers to what was preached as "my gospel."
And certainly not the one or only thing unique to that which Paul preached is how he set forth that we are "the body of Christ, and members in particular."
You'll not find that in what Jesus Christ preached during his ministry, or in what his 12 apostles preached on and after the day of Pentecost in Acts 2. (But please speak up if you think you have or can.) Or, if you want to back it up to salvation itself, he even brings forward a "different criteria" for salvation than what Jesus and the 12 had preached previously.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Okay, let's hear it then, TLC.
Noting that you do reference Pentecost, are you also saying that makes no difference in the gospel that was / should be preached?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
It will take more time than I have at the moment to do it any sort of justice. (But I'll return to it at some point in the near future.)
While I did indeed reference Pentecost (Acts 2), keep in mind that I don't currently believe that the current "oikonomia" was introduced there. (I'd probably be branded a "mid-Acts" dispensationalist, though after twi's proclivity towards labeling, I guess I don't care for being associated with much of any kind of branding or titles or labels and such...) I see "the break" (or, the change, or however else we might care to refer to it) happening after Stephen's testimony before the council (Acts 7) and Israel's (as a nation) final rejection of Jesus as the Christ (even after he was raised from the dead.) It was after this, that I believe a "new direction" was taken, starting with Saul, on the road to Damascus (Acts 9.)
As far as "which gospel" was preached in Acts, I think it depends on who was doing the preaching. (As I don't see much, if any, change in what the 12 apostles and the church at Jerusalem from beginning to end.) Certain conflicts between them, though "smoothed over" in Acts 15, were never actually eliminated (arising again in Acts 21 and following.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Rather than further delay any interest there might be for more on this issue, here's a little material off the Internet for your reading/entertainment pleasure:
http://graceambassadors.com/midacts/list-petervspaul
https://forwhatsaiththescriptures.wordpress.com/2014/10/13/compare-contrast-peter-paul/
http://lesfeldick.org/lesqa-b.html#2b
http://www.agbsf.com/the-ministries-of-peter-and-paul/
http://letsrollforums.com//peter-paul-did-not-t20337.html?amp;
Anyways, there's all kinds of stuff out there related to this if anyone cares to google it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
I am really surprised at the lack of response on this thread. At the time I started it, there was a big row brewing over a couple of threads about "changes in doctrine" and I rather thought this might become a heated thread and one where people debated.
But no. Them as wanted to row over other threads - have nothing to say. Which says it all really. Just threadkillers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
For what it's worth, I don't recall saying Paul contradicts Jesus in any major way, or even in any minor way that can't be explained by a change in circumstances. So that explains my silence on this thread. For what it's worth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
The message attributed to Jesus is simple, straightforward and easy to understand while the message that is attributed to Paul is filled with detail and minutia and requires close scrutiny to grasp. Paul's message talks about being free from the law, while, in reality, it's filled with "micro" laws. The gospels were written AFTER the epistles yet there is no mention of speaking in tongues or running on "all 9, all the time", so to speak. To me, they appear to be very different.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
If there was some change in circumstances that precipitated something new, should (or does) one replace the other, or are both still thought to be on the table?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Because it's far easier (or so it seems) to follow the law (and if/when you don't, then confess your sins and ask for forgiveness) than to learn to walk by the spirit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Did I say anything about following the law? Because I don't think I did. And why should it be harder to "learn to walk by the spirit" than to follow The Golden Rule?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
So it 'tis. Evidently not a great deal of interest in certain things...
(While other things that stir the pot too much get spiked.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
No, I said it. And yes, I also said it seems harder, namely because walking by the spirit entails something that is contrary to what we are naturally accustomed to and comfortable with. If I can't "see it, hear it, taste it, touch it, or smell it," how sure am I of it, and/or just how "real" is it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
this probably won't be a popular response but I think the difference is religion, ego,power, etc. I would follow the gospels before I would follow the epistles.
i am with you 100% on this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
i don't have much to contribute on this thread - just wanted to quote some posts that i find touch on ideas i think about.
while i don't find any major difference (in a polemic or contrasting sense) between what Jesus taught and what Paul taught - and even though the book of Romans is in my top 7 of favorite books of the Bible (note i'm saying my favorite does not mean i fully grasp it all) - for inspiration, moral guidance or simply to reaffirm what little of know of Jesus - i usually tend to read the gospels over any other books of the Bible.
in my humble opinion - i believe one gets a very clear and simple picture of what it means to live the christian life in the gospels; i'm not denigrating the other books of the Bible when it comes to strengthening one's faith - or developing a full orbed theology (whatever that is).....i could be way off on all this - i do have a tendency to think of Christianity as more about lordship than scholarship anyway.
== == == ==
edited to add hi to Abby - sorry about my bad manners - i meant to say hi in the shout box the other day - but got side tracked by Waysider's reference to a Kenny Rogers' tune - guess comedy took priority over courtesy...:wave:/>
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Bravo, T-Bone.
Link 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.