Jesuism

[Ronin Truth]

Okay. Here's my argument in a nutshell. One of your videos argues against "Paulism" based in part on a series of silly attacks against Protestantism including the attack that Protestantism is based on an "occult Bible" that is "too small". But if Paul was a Satanist then shouldn't Paul's writings also not be in the Bible thus making the Bible even smaller? And okay, you don't care for Constantine. But you see the fact that there are many branches of Christianity to be a "problem". One thing that Constantine did was to persecute and destroy other branches of Christianity. So if the "goal" is to only have one branch of Christianity, why dislike Constantine? I don't like Constantine either, but I don't see uniformity for the sake of uniformity as a goal.

What about the other video?

I'd SWAG that Satan rejoices in a fragmented and splintered Jesus religion.

[otherone]

I have ZERO interest in either arguing against nor supporting Sola's views and opinions. I've got my hands more than full in dealing with my own.

I'm arguing with your claim that Satan is responsible for the division among Christians. Some Christians argue this is God's intent.

[Ronin Truth]

https://www.google.com/webhp?tab=ww&...vid=1484140006

[heavenlyboy34]

Perhaps it did.

I don't really much care for Constantine either. The Roman empire hijacked early "Christianity" and morphed it into Paulinism, or vice versa. It has yet to recover, if it ever does.

Assuming this is true (and I don't agree it is), the RCC is only one of the patriarchates and certainly does not represent all of Christianity. The others (the members of the Pentarchy at the time) were in Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople (modern Istanbul). If your claim is at all true, it could only be said of the RCC, which developed almost entirely differently from the earlier, Eastern Church. The differences between the RCC and traditional Christianity are relatively few, but important enough to make schismatics of the RCC from the EO POV. (Fillioquism, Papal supremacy, and a few others). The RCC likewise considers the EOC schismatic. This schism also didn't fully develop until 1054 AD (when the mutual excommunication of the EOC and RCC happened).

[Ronin Truth]

Assuming this is true (and I don't agree it is), the RCC is only one of the patriarchates and certainly does not represent all of Christianity. The others (the members of the Pentarchy at the time) were in Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople (modern Istanbul). If your claim is at all true, it could only be said of the RCC, which developed almost entirely differently from the earlier, Eastern Church. The differences between the RCC and traditional Christianity are relatively few, but important enough to make schismatics of the RCC from the EO POV. (Fillioquism, Papal supremacy, and a few others). The RCC likewise considers the EOC schismatic. This schism also didn't fully develop until 1054 AD (when the mutual excommunication of the EOC and RCC happened).

What's the membership counts of the MAJOR "Christian" subdivisions? Top dog wins.

[heavenlyboy34]

What's the membership counts of the MAJOR "Christian" subdivisions? Top dog wins.

Win? In what sense? And what do you mean by "subdivision"? Is this your made-up word for "denomination"?

[otherone]

What's the membership counts of the MAJOR "Christian" subdivisions? Top dog wins.

"Sunday-Morningism" by a wide margin.

[Ronin Truth]

Win? In what sense? And what do you mean by "subdivision"? Is this your made-up word for "denomination"?

EO must be miniscule in comparison in the ongoing battle for hearts, minds, souls .................and contributions.

[erowe1]

It's a bit more informative than your response of "no one and everyone".

I agree. We can get into specifics if you find any point you want to discuss. My responses were accurate and were appropriate for what I was responding to. Forum posts aren't the place for writing a whole wikipedia article on the history of the concept of canons.

[erowe1]

I 100% disagree!

John 17:3 Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

The gospel in one sentence.

How do you know that? It doesn't use the word "Gospel." Also, it makes no mention of the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Jesus' parables are also quite easy to understand.

I disagree. And none of them tells us what the Gospel is in any way as clearly as Paul does.

God forgives you and you aren't willing to forgive? You can forget your forgiveness. Who is wise? The one who hears the words of Jesus and does them. Who is foolish? Those who just hear His words but continue with their own life. Simple. Straightforward. Easy.

But none of those things are the Gospel.

You keep saying that somehow people don't have the whole gospel or can't understand the whole gospel without Paul. I disagree.

I have never said that, nor anything remotely like that.

His point is that Paul added something that wasn't there. That's what you are confirming. I disagree with his point and yours.

I am not confirming that. I explicitly rejected that exact claim. What Paul calls the Gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-11 is the same Gospel all the other apostles and brothers of the Lord preached back when he was still a persecutor of Christians, and Jesus himself preached it before they did.

[acptulsa]

The root of the word 'gospel' means 'truth'.

Now tell us why there are 'red letter' tracts that don't qualify...

[erowe1]

The root of the word 'gospel' means 'truth'.

Source?

[heavenlyboy34]

Source?

This^^ I always understood "gospel" to mean "good news".

[jmdrake]

How do you know that? It doesn't use the word "Gospel." Also, it makes no mention of the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Irrelevant. Gospel = good news. Eternal life = good news. If I have eternal life I don't care whether or not I have what Paul cause "the gospel".

I disagree. And none of them tells us what the Gospel is in any way as clearly as Paul does.

They tell us about the kingdom of heaven. That's the goal of the Christian. Not Paul's approbation.

But none of those things are the Gospel.

According to you and maybe according to Paul. Again you are affirming Ronin Truth's point.

I have never said that, nor anything remotely like that.

You're saying it again. And none of them tells us what the Gospel is in any way as clearly as Paul does.

Either Jesus clearly defined salvation (the gospel) or He didn't.

I am not confirming that. I explicitly rejected that exact claim. What Paul calls the Gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-11 is the same Gospel all the other apostles and brothers of the Lord preached back when he was still a persecutor of Christians, and Jesus himself preached it before they did.

You're claiming to reject it but actually confirming it.

[jmdrake]

This^^ I always understood "gospel" to mean "good news".

Right. And the "good news" of what?

John 17:3 Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

[erowe1]

Irrelevant. Gospel = good news. Eternal life = good news. If I have eternal life I don't care whether or not I have what Paul cause "the gospel".

But that Gospel is the Good News about how God gives us eternal life. To know God through his son, and to have eternal life, like John 17:3 mentions comes through the Gospel. John 17:3 doesn't explain that. But the book of John taken as a whole does. And this Gospel is the very same one Paul recites in 1 Corinthians 15:1-11.

They tell us about the kingdom of heaven. That's the goal of the Christian. Not Paul's approbation.

They tell us things about the kingdom of Heaven, as does Paul. Sometimes these things are closely connected to the Gospel, sometimes less so.

According to you and maybe according to Paul. Again you are affirming Ronin Truth's point.

Yes. According to Paul, and also according to Jesus. Or is Paul lying in 1 Corinthians 15:1-11?

You're saying it again. And none of them tells us what the Gospel is in any way as clearly as Paul does.

And that's true. There is no other passage of the Bible that states "This is the Gospel," quite like 1 Corinthians 15:1-11. But that's totally different from what you accused me of saying. That passage is not novel in what it says, just in the way that it states it and clearly in one place answers the question, "What is the Gospel?" Those who study the rest of the New Testament will see that the other books, especially the Gospels, confirm that this is the Gospel.

Either Jesus clearly defined salvation (the gospel) or He didn't.

He did. And Paul is as faithful of a witness to this way of salvation that comes through Jesus as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are. In addition, due to the differing purposes and occasions of their writings, he gives more clear and succinct statements spelling out exactly what this Gospel that Jesus taught was than they do. None of them have a passage quite like 1 Corinthians 15:1-11. However, all of them do proclaim that same Gospel. And within them, Jesus, in his own words, also proclaims it. A person who had never seen Paul's letters would still learn the Gospel from the Gospels.

You're claiming to reject it but actually confirming it.

No. I am adamantly rejecting it. Jesus did teach the very same Gospel that his apostles taught, as reported by Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, the book of Hebrews, and the epistles of Peter.

[acptulsa]

Source?

There are thousands, though I think my choice of the word 'root' was inaccurate and unfortunate, as it led to dissembling and attempts at distraction.

But that Gospel is the Good News about how God gives us eternal life. To know God through his son, and to have eternal life, like John 17:3 mentions comes through the Gospel. John 17:3 doesn't explain that. But the book of John taken as a whole does. And this Gospel is the very same one Paul recites in 1 Corinthians 15:1-11.

15 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.

11 Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.

What does that say? What value is there in this self-justification and obsession with miracles, other than it uses the actual word 'gospel'?

Say, as compared to...

31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

And that's true. There is no other passage of the Bible that states "This is the Gospel," quite like 1 Corinthians 15:1-11. But that's totally different from what you accused me of saying. That passage is not novel in what it says, just in the way that it states it and clearly in one place answers the question, "What is the Gospel?" Those who study the rest of the New Testament will see that the other books, especially the Gospels, confirm that this is the Gospel.

I thought your definition of 'The Gospel', which you have said is not 'the first four books of the New Testament', involved how to attain The Kingdom. So, where are those important instructions from Matthew?

I certainly hope The Gospel isn't suffering 'mission creep'.

[erowe1]

What does that say? What value is there in this self-justification and obsession with miracles, other than it uses the actual word 'gospel'?

Given that the question at hand is what the Gospel taught by the apostles, and Jesus before them was, the fact that that passage uses the word "gospel" and the way it uses it is pretty important. It directly and explicitly answers our question. And this comes from a source where we know exactly who the author was and when he wrote it. We know that he was well-acquainted with those very same apostles, brothers of the Lord, and eye witnesses he mentions. And we know that he writes at a time when they were still living and active in ministry, and that the audience to whom he wrote was familiar with that ministry. I do believe that the Gospels of Matthew and John were written by genuine apostles and eye witnesses. But if I am pressed to argue for that historically, I can't make a very powerful case for it, at least not one that will convince the skeptic. Most people believe all four gospels come from a generation later than Paul's writing of 1 Corinthians. If you want to approach this as a historian, and ask what the earliest and best source we have for the original apostolic Gospel that was passed on to the apostles from Jesus himself, then you can't do better than that passage in 1 Corinthians.

I thought your definition of 'The Gospel', which you have said is not 'the first four books of the New Testament', involved how to attain The Kingdom. So, where are those important instructions from Matthew?

Where did you get all that? I never said the first four books were not the Gospel. Nor did I define the word Gospel that way, jmdrake did. Maybe I went along with him, but that was only for the sake of using the terms he already used. I said that those books do teach the same Gospel as Paul. And especially, when you take each of those books as a whole, it is the Gospel (the story of the death and resurrection of Jesus).

Now, if you take those verses from Matthew 25, all by themselves, they don't teach the Gospel. They make no mention of Jesus's death and resurrection. However, the Gospel of Matthew taken as a whole does proclaim that Gospel. And there are many passages within it that taken by themselves do as well, including in Jesus's own words.

Notice, by the way, that even in that one passage in Matthew 25, taken out of its context, it's still the case that those teachings of Jesus are essentially teachings about himself. You can't just separate out some ethical maxim and leave out the stuff about who Jesus is and imagine that you've gotten to the heart of that passage. Jesus is the king. He is the judge of all people. He will come again in glory and sit on a throne of glory. Even the criteria of judgment there concern how people treat, not just anyone, but specifically how they treat the brethren of Jesus.

Of course if you expand your search of Matthew and the other Gospels out from there, and don't limit yourself to a narrow set of words of Jesus that you like the most, you will find that his own teachings are full of claims about himself, that the answer to the question, "Who is Jesus?" is the central one he keeps returning to, and that his mission to be crucified for sins and to rise again are an indispensable part of that.

[heavenlyboy34]

Where did you get all that? I never said the first four books were not the Gospel. Nor did I define the word Gospel that way, jmdrake did. Maybe I went along with him, but that was only for the sake of using the terms he already used. I said that those books do teach the same Gospel as Paul. And especially, when you take each of those books as a whole, it is the Gospel (the story of the death and resurrection of Jesus).

Now, if you take those verses from Matthew 25, all by themselves, they don't teach the Gospel. They make no mention of Jesus's death and resurrection. However, the Gospel of Matthew taken as a whole does proclaim that Gospel. And there are many passages within it that taken by themselves do as well, including in Jesus's own words.

Notice, by the way, that even in that one passage in Matthew 25, taken out of its context, it's still the case that those teachings of Jesus are essentially teachings about himself. You can't just separate out some ethical maxim and leave out the stuff about who Jesus is and imagine that you've gotten to the heart of that passage. Jesus is the king. He is the judge of all people. He will come again in glory and sit on a throne of glory. Even the criteria of judgment there concern how people treat, not just anyone, but specifically how they treat the brethren of Jesus.

Of course if you expand your search of Matthew and the other Gospels out from there, and don't limit yourself to a narrow set of words of Jesus that you like the most, you will find that his own teachings are full of claims about himself, that the answer to the question, "Who is Jesus?" is the central one he keeps returning to, and that his mission to be crucified for sins and to rise again are an indispensable part of that.

+rep

[acptulsa]

Where did you get all that? I never said the first four books were not the Gospel. Nor did I define the word Gospel that way, jmdrake did.

I weary of these semantics.

You have said that you do not define 'The Gospel' as 'the first four books of the New Testament' as some people (myself included) do. Is this true or false?

Well then.

Now, if you take those verses from Matthew 25, all by themselves, they don't teach the Gospel.

I neither claimed that they did, nor claimed that you said they did. I merely pointed out that the passage in First Corinthians, which you avow states more clearly that it is The Gospel than any other Bible passage, is so short of information as to fail to qualify as the Reader's Digest Condensed Gospel.

Even the criteria of judgment there concern how people treat, not just anyone, but specifically how they treat the brethren of Jesus.

Specifically?

Lord forgive me for my horrid sinfulness, I actually thought all humans were 'the bretheren of Jesus'.

Please excuse me from this conversation. I have to go figure out which humans are not the bretheren of Jesus, and figure out how to hate their guts.

[erowe1]

You have said that you do not define 'The Gospel' as 'the first four books of the New Testament' as some people (myself included) do. Is this true or false?

Utterly false. I have no idea what you're talking about.

I neither claimed that they did, nor claimed that you said they did. I merely pointed out that the passage in First Corinthians, which you avow states more clearly that it is The Gospel than any other Bible passage, is so short of information as to fail to qualify as the Reader's Digest Condensed Gospel.

The condensed version is exactly what it is. And it's not short on anything. It declares precisely what the essentials of the Gospel are, leaving nothing out. Notice that Paul insists that it is the same Gospel that the other apostles preached before him. Is he lying about that? Are you saying that you have to include a reference to Jesus saying those words in Matthew 25 in order to preach the Gospel? If so, Mark, Luke, and John, aren't Gospels either.

But they are Gospels. The Gospel is exactly what Paul says it is in 1 Corinthians 15:1-11. And all four of the books that you and I both recognize as Gospels proclaim that very same message, and expand on it with other true, important, and beneficial points beyond those essentials.

Specifically?

Lord forgive me for my horrid sinfulness, I actually thought all humans were 'the bretheren of Jesus'.

Where did you get that idea? Certainly not from anything in Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John.

[jmdrake]

But that Gospel is the Good News about how God gives us eternal life. To know God through his son, and to have eternal life, like John 17:3 mentions comes through the Gospel. John 17:3 doesn't explain that. But the book of John taken as a whole does. And this Gospel is the very same one Paul recites in 1 Corinthians 15:1-11.

The part that God plays isn't necessary to know in order for the truth of John 17:3 to apply. It's nice to know but not necessary.

They tell us things about the kingdom of Heaven, as does Paul. Sometimes these things are closely connected to the Gospel, sometimes less so.

The kingdom of heaven is the final destination of the Gospel. And you are again confirming them problem of what Ronin Truth is describing. Jesus says "The kingdom of heaven is like unto..." some person doesn't like the result of what Jesus says, so they counter with "But that's not connected to the Gospel."

Yes. According to Paul, and also according to Jesus. Or is Paul lying in 1 Corinthians 15:1-11?

I never said one thing or another about Paul. I'm talking about how you are using Paul. Realize that I'm not the one who said And none of them tells us what the Gospel is in any way as clearly as Paul does.. Those are your words, not mine.

And that's true. There is no other passage of the Bible that states "This is the Gospel," quite like 1 Corinthians 15:1-11. But that's totally different from what you accused me of saying. That passage is not novel in what it says, just in the way that it states it and clearly in one place answers the question, "What is the Gospel?" Those who study the rest of the New Testament will see that the other books, especially the Gospels, confirm that this is the Gospel.

I guess you've never read Acts 2:14-34? There the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus is spoken of the same way that Paul speaks about it in 1 Cor 15:1-11. So your claim that "And none of them tells us what the Gospel is in any way as clearly as Paul does." is demonstrably false. Why make it?

He did. And Paul is as faithful of a witness to this way of salvation that comes through Jesus as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are. In addition, due to the differing purposes and occasions of their writings, he gives more clear and succinct statements spelling out exactly what this Gospel that Jesus taught was than they do. None of them have a passage quite like 1 Corinthians 15:1-11. However, all of them do proclaim that same Gospel. And within them, Jesus, in his own words, also proclaims it. A person who had never seen Paul's letters would still learn the Gospel from the Gospels.

So? 1) Other apostles talked about the death and resurrection of Jesus in "summary form" (again Acts) 2) Since you can read the entire gospels and all of that information is there you don't need it in "summary form". The problem, and it is a real problem, is holding up Paul's writings as the definition of the gospel. And really Paul's summary is an expounding of the gospel. The gospel (good news) itself is found in John 17:3 as simple and as succinct as possible.

No. I am adamantly rejecting it. Jesus did teach the very same Gospel that his apostles taught, as reported by Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, the book of Hebrews, and the epistles of Peter.

Then there is no reason to say "And none of them tells us what the Gospel is in any way as clearly as Paul does." It may seem like I'm splitting hairs, but I'm not. Whenever someone tries to mollify the teachings of Jesus on the kingdom of heaven based on the ridiculous assertion that "That's not part of the gospel" that's a problem!

[jmdrake]

Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
I thought your definition of 'The Gospel', which you have said is not 'the first four books of the New Testament', involved how to attain The Kingdom. So, where are those important instructions from Matthew?

Where did you get all that? I never said the first four books were not the Gospel. Nor did I define the word Gospel that way, jmdrake did. Maybe I went along with him, but that was only for the sake of using the terms he already used. I said that those books do teach the same Gospel as Paul. And especially, when you take each of those books as a whole, it is the Gospel (the story of the death and resurrection of Jesus).

Paul didn't define the word "gospel" in 1 Corinthians 15. He defined it in Romans 1:16.


Romans 1:16King James Version (KJV)

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Note how similar Romans 1:16 is to John 17:3.

[erowe1]

The part that God plays isn't necessary to know in order for the truth of John 17:3 to apply. It's nice to know but not necessary.

Says who? Not Jesus.

The kingdom of heaven is the final destination of the Gospel. And you are again confirming them problem of what Ronin Truth is describing. Jesus says "The kingdom of heaven is like unto..." some person doesn't like the result of what Jesus says, so they counter with "But that's not connected to the Gospel."

Someone doing that would be wrong. But connected to the Gospel isn't the same thing as being the Gospel. All of those parables are best understood when they are understood in light of their connection to the Gospel. But you can still know the Gospel without knowing those parables.

I never said one thing or another about Paul. I'm talking about how you are using Paul. Realize that I'm not the one who said And none of them tells us what the Gospel is in any way as clearly as Paul does.. Those are your words, not mine.

The way I'm using Paul is as a reliable witness to the Gospel as proclaimed not only by him, but also by the other apostles and Jesus.

To say that I'm saying that Paul's Gospel was not first taught by Jesus himself is to say the exact opposite of what I have said here.

I guess you've never read Acts 2:14-34? There the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus is spoken of the same way that Paul speaks about it in 1 Cor 15:1-11. So your claim that "And none of them tells us what the Gospel is in any way as clearly as Paul does." is demonstrably false. Why make it?

I agree that that is another very good passage presenting the Gospel. There are several others in Acts that do the same thing. I don't see how they prove my claim false though? They only serve to confirm that, indeed, what Paul said the Gospel was is the same thing the other apostles taught. The point I was making about 1 Corinthians 15:1-11 is that it explicitly says, "This is the Gospel," which that passage in Acts does not say. However, I agree with you that that passage does also proclaim the Gospel.

The problem, and it is a real problem, is holding up Paul's writings as the definition of the gospel.

If you bolded the word "the" in order to imply that I think Paul's writings are exclusively the definition of the Gospel, then I've never done that or anything remotely like it. Paul does, however, clearly define the Gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-11. I know of no other passage of the Bible that does so clearly. That passage is the definition of the Gospel. And, that it is the definition of the Gospel is corroborated by the other books of the New Testament, which, though they never say, "This is the Gospel," do teach that same Gospel.

Whenever someone tries to mollify the teachings of Jesus on the kingdom of heaven based on the ridiculous assertion that "That's not part of the gospel" that's a problem!

Why is that a problem? Are you trying to say that every single thing that Jesus said about the kingdom of Heaven is part of the Gospel?

[erowe1]

Paul didn't define the word "gospel" in 1 Corinthians 15. He defined it in Romans 1:16.


Romans 1:16King James Version (KJV)

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Note how similar Romans 1:16 is to John 17:3.

I didn't say that 1 Corinthians 15:1-11 defined the word "gospel." Romans 1:16 doesn't define it either. The definition of the word "gospel" is "good news." But in 1 Corinthians 15:1-11 Paul states exactly what the content of this particular good news is, namely the Gospel or good news which Jesus had commissioned him and the other apostles to proclaim. He does not do that in Romans 1:16. In Romans 1:16 he makes a statement about the Gospel. This is his thesis statement for the argument he proceeds to make beginning at that point in the letter. But the reader must then ask themselves, "Well what exactly is this good news that is God's power unto salvation?" And in the course of that argument he goes on to say what the content of that Gospel is, about which he made that claim in Romans 1:16.

This happens in Romans 3:21-26:

21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

But even this passage doesn't as clearly say, "This is the Gospel," as 1 Corinthians 15:1-11 does.

[jmdrake]

Says who? Not Jesus.

Only if you reject what Jesus clearly said. "Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."

Jesus did not say add what you are trying to add to His definition of "eternal life". But if you want to stick with your claim that to have eternal life one must fully understand what God does then Paul's version of the "gospel" fails because it doesn't mention Jesus' priestly roll outlined in the book of Hebrews.

Someone doing that would be wrong. But connected to the Gospel isn't the same thing as being the Gospel. All of those parables are best understood when they are understood in light of their connection to the Gospel. But you can still know the Gospel without knowing those parables.

If you don't understand the principle behind the parable of the two debtors, that if you aren't forgiving you won't be forgiven, then you are on perilous grounds whether or not you know what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15. The gospel being "the power of God unto salvation" doesn't leave one on perilous grounds.

The way I'm using Paul is as a reliable witness to the Gospel as proclaimed not only by him, but also by the other apostles and Jesus.

Says you.

To say that I'm saying that Paul's Gospel was not first taught by Jesus himself is to say the exact opposite of what I have said here.

I'm merely quoting you. Not "saying the opposite" of anything you said.

And none of them tells us what the Gospel is in any way as clearly as Paul does

^That is bunk.

I agree that that is another very good passage presenting the Gospel. There are several others in Acts that do the same thing. I don't see how they prove my claim false though?

And none of them tells us what the Gospel is in any way as clearly as Paul does

:sigh: Do you not understand what the word "none" means? If there is any passage in the bible that "tells us what the Gospel is in any way as clearly as Paul does" THEN YOUR EARLIER STATEMENT IS FALSE!

Just admit you were wrong and be done with it.

Why is that a problem? Are you trying to say that every single thing that Jesus said about the kingdom of Heaven is part of the Gospel?

The gospel is the power of God unto salvation. Anything Jesus said that has anything to do with salvation is thus part of the Gospel. Paul coming back later and saying "This is the gospel" doesn't change that.

[Ronin Truth]

What about the other half of what Paul falsely claimed that goes against what Jesus and the REAL apostles taught?

Satanic apostles are sneaky.

[jmdrake]

What about the other half of what Paul falsely claimed that goes against what Jesus and the REAL apostles taught?

Satanic apostles are sneaky.

Can you give a specific example?

[Ronin Truth]

Can you give a specific example?

Salvation by faith alone.

[jmdrake]

Salvation by faith alone.

"John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."

"John 6:29 Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."

Sorry but I don't see the contradiction. Try again.