Amaleq13

But he also preached the same faith he once persecuted so this simplistic approach just won't do.

Not explicitly but that should only be a problem for folks like double-a.

No, just the one sort he persecuted. He didn't just pick the boys in Jerusalem out of a hat. He had a reason to think they would accept what he taught the gentiles and it certainly was not that they were just some sort of messianists. Even after school specials didn't have plots that lame.

Only if the creator of the poster claims he has drawn a picture of Hitler.

Keep telling an incoherent story and I'll keep pointing out what is missing.

Steven Carr

And what was that Gospel about?

'While I was there I met privately with those considered to be leaders of the church and shared with them the message I had been preaching to the Gentiles. I wanted to make sure that we were in agreement, for fear that all my efforts had been wasted and I was running the race for nothing. And they supported me and did not even demand that my companion Titus be circumcised, though he was a Gentile.'

Did Paul not know he was in agreement all those years?

And clearly the major point of the Gospel being preached was about Jewish law, and whether it was needed for salvation.

Paul agreed with the Jerusalem church so much that they didn't even insist on circumcision for Gentiles.

Clearly Paul had expected that circumcision for Gentiles could have been part of the faith being preached, but it turned out that it wasn't.

Even that question came up only because of some so-called Christians there—false ones, really —who were secretly brought in. They sneaked in to spy on us and take away the freedom we have in Christ Jesus. They wanted to enslave us and force us to follow their Jewish regulations. But we refused to give in to them for a single moment. We wanted to preserve the truth of the gospel message for you.

The 'truth' of the Gospel message had to do with the Jewish law and whether people were free from it.

The truth of the Gospel message had nothing to do with truths about Jesus being born in Bethlehem, or working miracles, or having disciples.

spin

Yup, messianism. But he got his gospel from by revelation.

It's a problem for you because you are disagreeing with what he said for no tangible reason. You disagree then try to blur the data so you can pretend not to need to deal with what Paul actually said.

I know if I asked you to justify this claim, you'd pretend that you've already dealt with it in some meaningful way.

Obviously those who he had troubled were in some way connected with the people in Jerusalem, which gave Paul a connection, as he'd come over to messianism and these were the ones he knew about.

But then you have no more evidence for how Paul picked the people from Jerusalem.

I guess after you watching enough it became meaningful to you.

I was merely pointing out your meaningless act of vandalism.

You can claim incoherence while refusing to accept what Paul says. Paul says he didn't get his gospel from men, but you say he did -- except for the bit that says the gospel is available to the gentiles (without the need for torah observance).

All you can do is show that for some reason you have a different view from the one I've put forward regarding where Paul got his gospel from and your view is in disagreement with Paul, so you have less going for you than a position which deals with Paul's claims.


spin

Amaleq13

Christ crucified

Paul "realized" that meant gentile believers didn't have jump through any other hoops. Unfortunately, some of those who preached Christ crucified felt it was vitally important for their gentile converts to appear as devout as any other Jew. Apparently, keeping up this appearance among their converts helped them avoid getting hassled for their crucified Christ belief.

The added message he preached to the gentiles was new and obtaining opposition so, no, he would not have been sure how the boys in Jerusalem felt about it. He's hoping that the bosses will countermand the actions of middle management in Galatia.

That is the major point of Paul's addition to or extrapolation from the original gospel, yes.

Steven Carr

So Paul added to the original gospel, and extrapolated from it, and was still preaching the same faith he persecuted?

spin

You're still blowing this stuff out of your butt. Paul consistently contrasts his gospel of faith in christ crucified against their faith centered around torah observance. Doh!

You should realise that when you drop your rot, it just smells. :constern02:


spin

mg01

There is motive behind this passage not being considered. As a promoter of one particular type of Jesus theology, Paul is assuring his readers what he is saying is worthy because it agrees with the Jesus theology held by the Jerusalem leaders. How can one automatically assume such a meeting took place? It may have, but this sole comment made in the context of promoting a theological point of view is not absolute proof of it.

Paul is writing in a time when many different ideas concerning "Yeshua (the) MaÅ¡Ã*aḥ" existed and may just as well be making the comment to bolster his own position. This easily satisfies the "why would he lie" defense.

You cannot place this comment beside Paul's supernatural claims and dismiss one and accept the other based on acceptance/rejection of the supernatural and assume what's left must be real. Worse still, it to make the assumption then use is as a premise for other arguments.

martini

so there are two gospels? two stories? two methods of salvation? if the "good news" was that Yeshua had rose from the dead and all sin was paid for ... what DIFFERENCE between the Jewish and Gentile flavour of "gospel" was there? merely the audience. given this, the point stands that Paul received his ENTIRE understanding of the theology from a spiritual saviour, correct? :huh: Paul does not say he was given special tools to teach the Gentiles. he says HIS gospel that HE preaches (to the Gentiles) came solely from a spiritual encounter.

ETA
after reading over the other thread, i am wondering . . . when the early church fathers called the initial works "the Gospel according to Mark", etc, does this not indicate that "the gospel" is as per these texts? that when Paul "received" his gospel, it was the same as what we would find in the "orthodox" gospels? otherwise, why call them both "the gospel" if it was NOT what Paul or the Apostles were BOTH preaching?

Amaleq13

Yes.

Christ crucified and Paul's interpretation of the implications of that belief.

Amaleq13

Repeating a false representation of what Paul says doesn't make it true but that doesn't appear to have stopped you.

Paul consistently contrasts his interpretation of the implications of Christ crucified with his opponents' focus on the the law.

He never defends the bare belief in Christ crucified.

It is an unopposed belief and, therefore, accepted by his opponents.

His opponents fear being persecuted because of their belief in Christ crucified and hope that making gentile converts appear orthodox will help avoid being hassled.