Works

[CHB]

I think the point of contention is really not that Paul was preaching a "different" gospel, but he was preaching a more "advanced" version of it than had previously been given. So not a different gospel per se, but a deeper or better understanding of the same gospel, as I see it.

Doc,

This is the way I see it as well. I also agree with what jabcat said about not being 100% correct on it all.

I do see Paul preaching the same thing as the other apostles at first because they were to go to the Israelites first and the advanced teaching hadn't been given to Paul at that time. When Paul began to see that Gentiles didn't need to be grafted into Israel to be saved, that all was in Christ the Body and the Family of God and not Israel. The Israelites didn't want to hear this so he went to the Gentiles which were glad to hear this. After all who wants to belong to another country in order to be saved if there is a better way? Paul began to see that this wasn't necessary, that we should be a member of the Body of Christ, not Israel.

I know this is hard to grasp. I wrestled with it a long time myself but you can see the difference in Paul's writings than that of the other apostles and even Paul's writings are different in the first epistles. Paul spent a lot of time in prison when he was understanding this and he wasn't able to preach this like he said he should.

Another thing that should be considered in all of this is, Paul's epistles should be positioned last in the Bible. I believe they are in the earlier manuscripts. I believe paul received the final and mature revelation of salvation.

CHB

[Doc]

I think the point of contention is really not that Paul was preaching a "different" gospel, but he was preaching a more "advanced" version of it than had previously been given. So not a different gospel per se, but a deeper or better understanding of the same gospel, as I see it.

Doc,

This is the way I see it as well. I also agree with what jabcat said about not being 100% correct on it all.

I do see Paul preaching the same thing as the other apostles at first because they were to go to the Israelites first and the advanced teaching hadn't been given to Paul at that time. When Paul began to see that Gentiles didn't need to be grafted into Israel to be saved, that all was in Christ the Body and the Family of God and not Israel. The Israelites didn't want to hear this so he went to the Gentiles which were glad to hear this. After all who wants to belong to another country in order to be saved if there is a better way? Paul began to see that this wasn't necessary, that we should be a member of the Body of Christ, not Israel.

I know this is hard to grasp. I wrestled with it a long time myself but you can see the difference in Paul's writings than that of the other apostles and even Paul's writings are different in the first epistles. Paul spent a lot of time in prison when he was understanding this and he wasn't able to preach this like he said he should.

Another thing that should be considered in all of this is, Paul's epistles should be positioned last in the Bible. I believe they are in the earlier manuscripts. I believe paul received the final and mature revelation of salvation.

CHB

 

[pneuma]

I think the point of contention is really not that Paul was preaching a "different" gospel, but he was preaching a more "advanced" version of it than had previously been given. So not a different gospel per se, but a deeper or better understanding of the same gospel, as I see it.

Doc,

This is the way I see it as well. I also agree with what jabcat said about not being 100% correct on it all.

I do see Paul preaching the same thing as the other apostles at first because they were to go to the Israelites first and the advanced teaching hadn't been given to Paul at that time. When Paul began to see that Gentiles didn't need to be grafted into Israel to be saved, that all was in Christ the Body and the Family of God and not Israel. The Israelites didn't want to hear this so he went to the Gentiles which were glad to hear this. After all who wants to belong to another country in order to be saved if there is a better way? Paul began to see that this wasn't necessary, that we should be a member of the Body of Christ, not Israel.

I know this is hard to grasp. I wrestled with it a long time myself but you can see the difference in Paul's writings than that of the other apostles and even Paul's writings are different in the first epistles. Paul spent a lot of time in prison when he was understanding this and he wasn't able to preach this like he said he should.

Another thing that should be considered in all of this is, Paul's epistles should be positioned last in the Bible. I believe they are in the earlier manuscripts. I believe paul received the final and mature revelation of salvation.

CHB

Actually sis Pauls writting were written BEFORE Peter and the Boys wrote. And many people have tried to use that fact to say Peter and the boys were batteling Pauls false gospel.

[pneuma]

I think the point of contention is really not that Paul was preaching a "different" gospel, but he was preaching a more "advanced" version of it than had previously been given. So not a different gospel per se, but a deeper or better understanding of the same gospel, as I see it.

No Doc that is not the point of contention, Noch and Tony beleive that it is a different gospel preached to defferent parties, that what Paul say has nothing to do with the Jews and those things that Peter and the boys said has nothing to do with the Gentiles.

That and that alone is the contention here.

Then I misunderstood what Tony was saying here?: (Emphasis mine)

"pneuma, Israel was already set aside when Paul wrote Romans and Corinthians. Paul was preaching the same message to Jews as he was to the Gentiles. If the Jews believed Paul's message then they would be in the body of Christ and have a celestial allotment along with the nations."

Tony only came up with this weak rebuttle after I showed him Paul preached the same gospel to both parties. But even in those scriptures it cannot be speaking about those in Christ because Christ would not have then been a stumbbling block to the Jews and foolsihness to the Greeks.

This all happended before they were made one in Christ not afterwards.

[CHB]

I think the point of contention is really not that Paul was preaching a "different" gospel, but he was preaching a more "advanced" version of it than had previously been given. So not a different gospel per se, but a deeper or better understanding of the same gospel, as I see it.

Doc,

This is the way I see it as well. I also agree with what jabcat said about not being 100% correct on it all.

I do see Paul preaching the same thing as the other apostles at first because they were to go to the Israelites first and the advanced teaching hadn't been given to Paul at that time. When Paul began to see that Gentiles didn't need to be grafted into Israel to be saved, that all was in Christ the Body and the Family of God and not Israel. The Israelites didn't want to hear this so he went to the Gentiles which were glad to hear this. After all who wants to belong to another country in order to be saved if there is a better way? Paul began to see that this wasn't necessary, that we should be a member of the Body of Christ, not Israel.

I know this is hard to grasp. I wrestled with it a long time myself but you can see the difference in Paul's writings than that of the other apostles and even Paul's writings are different in the first epistles. Paul spent a lot of time in prison when he was understanding this and he wasn't able to preach this like he said he should.

Another thing that should be considered in all of this is, Paul's epistles should be positioned last in the Bible. I believe they are in the earlier manuscripts. I believe paul received the final and mature revelation of salvation.

CHB

Actually sis Pauls writting were written BEFORE Peter and the Boys wrote. And many people have tried to use that fact to say Peter and the boys were batteling Pauls false gospel.

I don't see this as being the case. I don't believe they were battling Paul because they thought his message was false. On the contrary, Peter gave Paul a good report in his epistle. I believe it was other things that caused friction between them. They each knew what their calling was.

CHB

[trettep]

I think the point of contention is really not that Paul was preaching a "different" gospel, but he was preaching a more "advanced" version of it than had previously been given. So not a different gospel per se, but a deeper or better understanding of the same gospel, as I see it.

Doc,

This is the way I see it as well. I also agree with what jabcat said about not being 100% correct on it all.

I do see Paul preaching the same thing as the other apostles at first because they were to go to the Israelites first and the advanced teaching hadn't been given to Paul at that time. When Paul began to see that Gentiles didn't need to be grafted into Israel to be saved, that all was in Christ the Body and the Family of God and not Israel. The Israelites didn't want to hear this so he went to the Gentiles which were glad to hear this. After all who wants to belong to another country in order to be saved if there is a better way? Paul began to see that this wasn't necessary, that we should be a member of the Body of Christ, not Israel.

I know this is hard to grasp. I wrestled with it a long time myself but you can see the difference in Paul's writings than that of the other apostles and even Paul's writings are different in the first epistles. Paul spent a lot of time in prison when he was understanding this and he wasn't able to preach this like he said he should.

Another thing that should be considered in all of this is, Paul's epistles should be positioned last in the Bible. I believe they are in the earlier manuscripts. I believe paul received the final and mature revelation of salvation.

CHB

This is all resolved when you consider that Jesus Christ is what is preached.  Now if the Jews and the Gentiles both are receiving Christ then it means that those recipients are now becoming as Christ.  So if both Jews and Gentiles are becoming as Christ then how can they ever become two different Christs (as if there is such a thing)?  But that is what this two gospel theory amounts to.  It preaches two different Christs since it would mean that Christ in the Jews is inclined to perform works while the Christ in Gentiles is not inclined to do works.  As you can conclude, if that were the case, it would mean that Christ acts countrarywise to Himself when He operates through Jews compared to how He operates through Gentiles.

Paul

[pneuma]

I think the point of contention is really not that Paul was preaching a "different" gospel, but he was preaching a more "advanced" version of it than had previously been given. So not a different gospel per se, but a deeper or better understanding of the same gospel, as I see it.

Doc,

This is the way I see it as well. I also agree with what jabcat said about not being 100% correct on it all.

I do see Paul preaching the same thing as the other apostles at first because they were to go to the Israelites first and the advanced teaching hadn't been given to Paul at that time. When Paul began to see that Gentiles didn't need to be grafted into Israel to be saved, that all was in Christ the Body and the Family of God and not Israel. The Israelites didn't want to hear this so he went to the Gentiles which were glad to hear this. After all who wants to belong to another country in order to be saved if there is a better way? Paul began to see that this wasn't necessary, that we should be a member of the Body of Christ, not Israel.

I know this is hard to grasp. I wrestled with it a long time myself but you can see the difference in Paul's writings than that of the other apostles and even Paul's writings are different in the first epistles. Paul spent a lot of time in prison when he was understanding this and he wasn't able to preach this like he said he should.

Another thing that should be considered in all of this is, Paul's epistles should be positioned last in the Bible. I believe they are in the earlier manuscripts. I believe paul received the final and mature revelation of salvation.

CHB

Actually sis Pauls writting were written BEFORE Peter and the Boys wrote. And many people have tried to use that fact to say Peter and the boys were batteling Pauls false gospel.

I don't see this as being the case. I don't believe they were battling Paul because they thought his message was false. On the contrary, Peter gave Paul a good report in his epistle. I believe it was other things that caused friction between them. They each knew what their calling was.

CHB

I never said that was the case sis, I said people have used the fact that Paul wrote before Peter and the boys as some type of proof that Paul was false, we don't beleive that to be the case but other people do, This is all proven through the history of the church sis, that histroy show how some twisted the words of Paul and Peter indevoring to make it look like Peter wrote his epistles to counteract Pauls teaching.

[CHB]

But that is what this two gospel theory amounts to.  It preaches two different Christs since it would mean that Christ in the Jews is inclined to perform works while the Christ in Gentiles is not inclined to do works.

Hi,

Isn't that the way it has been all down through the ages, works and no works?  Jews works, Gentiles, no works.

We are just talking about this being up to the end when God becomes all in all. This isn't about two Christs.  Wasn't the Israelites a chosen nation? The Gentiles wasn't even promised salvation until after Christ was crucified, at least it wasn't known by anyone until Paul was given this truth. Paul said this had been kept secret until God showed it to him. Of course it was always in the plan of God from the beginning but no one knew about it until Paul.

CHB

[fire walker]

But that is what this two gospel theory amounts to.  It preaches two different Christs since it would mean that Christ in the Jews is inclined to perform works while the Christ in Gentiles is not inclined to do works.

Hi,

Isn't that the way it has been all down through the ages, works and no works?  Jews works, Gentiles, no works.

We are just talking about this being up to the end when God becomes all in all. This isn't about two Christs.  Wasn't the Israelites a chosen nation? The Gentiles wasn't even promised salvation until after Christ was crucified, at least it wasn't known by anyone until Paul was given this truth. Paul said this had been kept secret until God showed it to him. Of course it was always in the plan of God from the beginning but no one knew about it until Paul.

CHB

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 Jesus himself had said on more than one occasion regarding the Gentile that he saw more faith outside Israel than he had in all of Israel, now the Gentiles were not the chosen people of the old covenant and they had not the law of Moses yet Jesus saw greater faith shown forth in the Gentile than he had found in ALL of Israel because they trusted him with what few crumbs they had received and had heard.

Reminds me of the verse that says for him who doesn't work but trusts God that faith is accounted as righteousness.

Peace,
Fire Walker
 

[trettep]

But that is what this two gospel theory amounts to.  It preaches two different Christs since it would mean that Christ in the Jews is inclined to perform works while the Christ in Gentiles is not inclined to do works.

Hi,

Isn't that the way it has been all down through the ages, works and no works?  Jews works, Gentiles, no works.

We are just talking about this being up to the end when God becomes all in all. This isn't about two Christs.  Wasn't the Israelites a chosen nation? The Gentiles wasn't even promised salvation until after Christ was crucified, at least it wasn't known by anyone until Paul was given this truth. Paul said this had been kept secret until God showed it to him. Of course it was always in the plan of God from the beginning but no one knew about it until Paul.

CHB

Again, if we have Christ why would Christ perform differently in the Jew then what He performs via the Gentile?

Also, let me ask you this.  Are you a Gentile or a Jew and how do you know?

Paul

[Zeek]

I think it was this thread, where some were talking of the bride of Christ being different than the body of Christ, with the body being those who believed "Paul's" gospel; and the bride being "Israel". 

I found this interesting from another forum I am on:

"The bride and groom are "one flesh." The husband is "head of the wife" so it naturally is understood that the bride is the body of Christ. This is confirmed in that when speaking about how a man should treat his wife, it is said that no man abuses his own body - meaning his wife, with whom he is one flesh.

I remember some dispensationalists trying to make this argument, saying that the Church is the body of Christ, while natural Israel (who they see as being redeemed after the millennium) is the bride of Christ. It has no biblical, nor even logical support."

[jabcat]

Well, we all certainly have varying understandings, degrees of revelation, viewpoints, and opinions.  Keeps it interesting, to say the least.  The scriptures are absolute...us, not so much  .  It's amazing how saved people can have so many differing thoughts about any one topic...can boggle the mind.

[Zeek]

Well, we all certainly have varying understandings, degrees of revelation, viewpoints, and opinions.  Keeps it interesting, to say the least.  The scriptures are absolute...us, not so much  .

I agree. 

I do think though the writer of my post made some good points.  do you have any thots re: his ideas (ie: man/woman one flesh, and man (Christ) the head; so woman the body?

the husband and wife (Christ and his church) become ONE/married, with HIM being the head, and the church his body.

[jabcat]

Hi Zeek.  Oh, I've got lots of thoughts  ...I've read that belief...I find it interesting, but am probably not far enough along in this study to be able to say anything definitively on that...I don't call myself a dispensationalist, AFAIK, that's just another label...negative, positive, neutral connotations, probably depends on the context and the one saying it.  So, simply, my thoughts are I believe anyone given faith to believe on Jesus is saved;  I believe we often mix up contexts of scripture;  I believe God has and will in the future deal specifically with Israel (and He knows who that is); and that after the time of the Gentiles has come in, all Israel will be saved, and God will end up All in All. 

Anyway, I must learn of Him".  And I bet you're the same Zeke, that you seek to learn of God...

Suffice it to say, I think it's a BIG topic...

[jabcat]

Re-reading your post, yes, I think it makes some sense...however, a thought I have is, even though a unit is 'one', it is still made up of different/many parts...not necessarily the same...different functions, different 'places' even, though working as a whole and moving in the same direction...a lot of layers in an onion, huh brother?

[trettep]

Well, we all certainly have varying understandings, degrees of revelation, viewpoints, and opinions.  Keeps it interesting, to say the least.  The scriptures are absolute...us, not so much  .  It's amazing how saved people can have so many differing thoughts about any one topic...can boggle the mind.

Be we should all be striving for the Truth which is the knowledge of One.

Paul

[Tony N]

I think the point of contention is really not that Paul was preaching a "different" gospel, but he was preaching a more "advanced" version of it than had previously been given. So not a different gospel per se, but a deeper or better understanding of the same gospel, as I see it.

No Doc that is not the point of contention, Noch and Tony beleive that it is a different gospel preached to defferent parties, that what Paul say has nothing to do with the Jews and those things that Peter and the boys said has nothing to do with the Gentiles.

That and that alone is the contention here.

It is "Knoch."
When Israel was set aside Paul preached to Jews and Gentiles the same message to both groups. Paul did not preach repentance and baptism for the remission of sins as Peter did. Paul preached FAITH in what Christ accomplished in His death, burial and resurrection to both Jews and Gentiles.

Why would Peter preach Paul's message? Peter and those of Peter's message were remaining on the earth. Paul and those of Paul's message are to be taken among the celestials.

Peter couldn't preach to the Galatians his gospel because Paul warned the Galatians that if anyone brought a different gospel/evangel other than what he (Paul) brought, let him be anathema.

[Tony N]

I think it was this thread, where some were talking of the bride of Christ being different than the body of Christ, with the body being those who believed "Paul's" gospel; and the bride being "Israel". 

I found this interesting from another forum I am on:

"The bride and groom are "one flesh." The husband is "head of the wife" so it naturally is understood that the bride is the body of Christ. This is confirmed in that when speaking about how a man should treat his wife, it is said that no man abuses his own body - meaning his wife, with whom he is one flesh.

I remember some dispensationalists trying to make this argument, saying that the Church is the body of Christ, while natural Israel (who they see as being redeemed after the millennium) is the bride of Christ. It has no biblical, nor even logical support."

If it has no Biblical nor logical support then why do they use the Bible and logic to support their side?
Besides, the terms Body of Christ and Bride of Christ are figures of speech. They are not literal terms though they do have real spiritual ramifications.

[Zeek]

Besides, the terms Body of Christ and Bride of Christ are figures of speech. They are not literal terms though they do have real spiritual ramifications.

and you got from the post i posted that they were not figures of speech?? 

It still is interesting to me and imo; a valid point, that the Christ is the head, and he has a body (church).  And the Head and body are ONE flesh (married), thus the body being the bride of Christ. 

[CHB]

"The bride and groom are "one flesh." The husband is "head of the wife" so it naturally is understood that the bride is the body of Christ. This is confirmed in that when speaking about how a man should treat his wife, it is said that no man abuses his own body - meaning his wife, with whom he is one flesh.

Hi Zeek,

The bride is one that is not a wife yet. A bride is different from a wife.

CHB

[Tony N]

Besides, the terms Body of Christ and Bride of Christ are figures of speech. They are not literal terms though they do have real spiritual ramifications.

and you got from the post i posted that they were not figures of speech?? 

It still is interesting to me and imo; a valid point, that the Christ is the head, and he has a body (church).  And the Head and body are ONE flesh (married), thus the body being the bride of Christ. 

Yes it is interesting, yet even though they become "one" they are still separate entities such as husband and wife.
The head which is Christ is the head of the body, that body being the believers of the nations with Jews who came over to Paul's evangel.

The Jewish believers under Peter are never said to be in the body of Christ. The term "in Christ" is strictly Pauline. The term "the body of Christ" is also strictly Pauline.

[sheila]

 take it higher ,guys

   when Jesus Christ came in flesh..He became joined/one

   with all mankind..in essence all were betrothed to Him....

   what if some of His wife were unbeleivers?

   1Cor 7;14 for the unbeleiving wife has been sanctified

  through her beleiving husband

 and this  'what God has joined to gather let no man put

   asunder"

   this also testifies to the salvation of all mankind to me

[Cardinal]

  AMEN Sheila! 

[trettep]

take it higher ,guys

   when Jesus Christ came in flesh..He became joined/one

   with all mankind..in essence all were betrothed to Him....

   what if some of His wife were unbeleivers?

   1Cor 7;14 for the unbeleiving wife has been sanctified

  through her beleiving husband

 and this  'what God has joined to gather let no man put

   asunder"

   this also testifies to the salvation of all mankind to me

It isn't the flesh that establishes the union.  That would be a fleshy covenant perspective.  But what establishes the union is the Spirit.  Therefore the fact that Jesus came in the flesh doesn't imply inclusion into the Spirit.  The Spirit still comes by Faith.

Paul

[sheila]

 until Shiloh comes[spirit] [He that has the legal right,Holy

spirit/LOVE ] faith,trust,beleif

 the flesh union is still a UNION  just as a bethrothal was considered a marriage before the actual union took place

  these were arranged marriages by parents mainly...the betrothed often didn't even lay eyes on the groom before the wedding..what spirit of love/unity there?

  otherwise the WORD OF GOD COME IN FLESH would mean nothing


  Immanuel /God with us