aa5874

Galatians 2.7-9, "But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter.
(For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me towards the Gentiles)....they gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision."

Jesus, according to the NT, never ever preached a "gospel of the circumcision. He told his disciples, according to gMark 16.15-20, "....Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be damned."
........And they went forth and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen."

So, based on gMark, preaching to every creature, Jew and Gentile, predated "Paul". And further, even in Acts, before the conversion of "Paul", this "circumcision" gospel was unheard of.

There apears to be a "revelation gap" between "Paul" and the original twelve disciples of Jesus or even Jesus himself as recorded in the NT.
"Paul" never consulted with the apostles, or any man, according to "his epistles, he probably never realized or it was never revealed to him that Jesus directly and unambiguously charged the original disciples to preach the gospel to every nation, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, according to gMatthew.

'Paul" in effect created a "strawman" with his "gospel of the cicumcision" that he trumped with the "gospel of the uncircumcision" by his own revelation.

How did this self-proclaimed apostle, who never knew the Jesus of the Gospels, and never consulted with any man, according to "his" epistles, manage to develop an unheard of " gospel of the circumcision" and make Peter, the Rock, the commisioner?

Solitary Man

Er, Paul came before the Gospel of Mark. And on the contrary, he did consult with the Jerusalem group, even if it was many years after his conversion.

GakuseiDon

Wasn't the "gospel of the circumcision" Mark's Gospel -- because it had its end chopped off?

GakuseiDon

Could Paul have got it from a creature? That would resolve the contradiction.

aa5874

Do you use "Paul's" words to authenticate "his" own epistles or would you rather use a reliable independent source?

So, how did "Paul" manage to get revelations from what appears to be "Mark's Jesus"?

The "gospel of the circumcision" appears to mean that Peter should only preach "the gospel" to the male gender without foreskin on his genitalia.
And, Luke, the physician, could have charged a small fee or given a donation to physically examine the males to determine whether or not the gospel of "the circumcision" or "uncircumsion" should be preached to them.

dog-on

AA, that is one of the interpolations in Galatians.

There was only one gospel...Paul's.

aa5874

The Church Fathers seemed to have thought the Synoptics preceeded "Paul".

And the Gospels of "Paul" appear to be heretical if "his"epistles are read carefully. He proclaimed the gospel of the circumcision and the uncircumcision. That's two gospels by my count.


And strange enough, even the word "Paul" is an interpolation in some of "Paul's epistles", according to some Biblical scholars.

dog-on

Ah, that wacky Orthodoxy!

I suppose Pastoral Paul, could fall into such an interpolated name of Paul category, except I think these were actually originally purposefully written using the name Paul for other purposes.

Always amazed me that some can so easily admit that, "Yes, Paul didn't write the Pastorals, even though they proport to be so", at the same time having a significant issue believing that the "actual" Pauline letters may be less than pristine... :huh: