Paul's Gospel

Wick Stick · Friday at 2:28 PM

David Lamb said:
I agree that the crucifixion did not happen in Galatia, and that Christ had been presented to the Galatians as having been crucified. But that is a long way from what you have been saying, that Paul distributed Luke's Gospel to the various churches.

I don't know of a place where Paul explicitly says he handed out Luke's gospel... but it does say he delivered to them A gospel.

Academically, Luke's gospel has long been considered to be Pauline - in agreement with Paul in doctrine and style. We know from Acts that Luke spent time with Paul. It's pretty likely that whatever written gospel Paul was delivering was some primitive form of Luke. It might not have been precisely the version we have now, but it was probably pretty close.

David Lamb · Saturday at 2:04 AM

Wick Stick said:
I don't know of a place where Paul explicitly says he handed out Luke's gospel... but it does say he delivered to them A gospel.

Academically, Luke's gospel has long been considered to be Pauline - in agreement with Paul in doctrine and style. We know from Acts that Luke spent time with Paul. It's pretty likely that whatever written gospel Paul was delivering was some primitive form of Luke. It might not have been precisely the version we have now, but it was probably pretty close.

There are a great many verses where Paul says that he preached the gospel. For example:

(Gal 1:11) But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.

I cannot think of any reference to him actually distributing written copies of one of the four gospels. As I understand it, none of the four gospels was even written when Paul undertook his missionary journeys or when he wrote his epistles.

Wick Stick · Saturday at 1:56 PM

David Lamb said:
There are a great many verses where Paul says that he preached the gospel. For example:

(Gal 1:11) But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.

I cannot think of any reference to him actually distributing written copies of one of the four gospels. As I understand it, none of the four gospels was even written when Paul undertook his missionary journeys or when he wrote his epistles.

Gospel = good news. News was generally proclaimed or preached. The New Testament mostly uses this word in the generic sense, rather than meaning the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John.

That doesn't mean that early versions of those books didn't exist or weren't written. (Ok, John wasn't written yet) The original post in the topic lists quite a few places where books or letters were given or received, and at least one example where one is quoted. That one happens to match Luke.

Like I said before, whatever books and letters they were delivering might not have been precisely the Book of Luke we know today. But they seem to have been proto-Luke. Or maybe you want to say it was the hypothetical "Q" document proposed by Bible scholars. You could make an argument for a proto-Mark or a proto-Matthew, or even one of the gospels that didn't get canonized later.

But it's a certainty that they were sending letters, and also that the gospel message was contained in some of those letters.

dak · Saturday at 5:10 PM

Wick Stick said:
Gospel = good news. News was generally proclaimed or preached. The New Testament mostly uses this word in the generic sense, rather than meaning the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John.

That doesn't mean that early versions of those books didn't exist or weren't written. (Ok, John wasn't written yet) The original post in the topic lists quite a few places where books or letters were given or received, and at least one example where one is quoted. That one happens to match Luke.

Like I said before, whatever books and letters they were delivering might not have been precisely the Book of Luke we know today. But they seem to have been proto-Luke. Or maybe you want to say it was the hypothetical "Q" document proposed by Bible scholars. You could make an argument for a proto-Mark or a proto-Matthew, or even one of the gospels that didn't get canonized later.

But it's a certainty that they were sending letters, and also that the gospel message was contained in some of those letters.

Yep, it's right there in the first half of the OP, that's why I left off the discussion with DL.
Heavy indoctrination causes people to see only what agrees with their indoctrination.

David Lamb · 2026-06-14T01:21:49-0500

Wick Stick said:
Gospel = good news. News was generally proclaimed or preached. The New Testament mostly uses this word in the generic sense, rather than meaning the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John.

Yes, I know that "gospel" means "good news", and that it is not only used of the four gospels of the New Testaent. However, we were discussing whether Paul actually distributed copies of one of those four NT gospels.

Wick Stick said:
That doesn't mean that early versions of those books didn't exist or weren't written. (Ok, John wasn't written yet) The original post in the topic lists quite a few places where books or letters were given or received, and at least one example where one is quoted. That one happens to match Luke.

Like I said before, whatever books and letters they were delivering might not have been precisely the Book of Luke we know today. But they seem to have been proto-Luke. Or maybe you want to say it was the hypothetical "Q" document proposed by Bible scholars. You could make an argument for a proto-Mark or a proto-Matthew, or even one of the gospels that didn't get canonized later.

But it's a certainty that they were sending letters, and also that the gospel message was contained in some of those letters.

I agree that their letters, as well as their preaching, contained the gospel message.

PeterAndroz · 2026-06-14T02:16:37-0500

David Lamb said:
Yes, I know that "gospel" means "good news", and that it is not only used of the four gospels of the New Testaent. However, we were discussing whether Paul actually distributed copies of one of those four NT gospels.

I agree that their letters, as well as their preaching, contained the gospel message.

The 1 Cor 15:1-14, Eph 1:13, Eph 4:30 Gospel message that ONLY Christ revealed to Paul Gal 1:11-12 who then had to explain it to Peter/12 Gal 2:2 ?

David Lamb · 2026-06-14T02:27:04-0500

PeterAndroz said:
The 1 Cor 15:1-14, Eph 1:13, Eph 4:30 Gospel message that ONLY Christ revealed to Paul Gal 1:11-12 who then had to explain it to Peter/12 Gal 2:2 ?

Yes, it is amazing that God revealed the gospel to the one who hads been engaged in persecuting the church, Paul.

PeterAndroz · 2026-06-14T04:30:04-0500

David Lamb said:
Yes, it is amazing that God revealed the gospel to the one who hads been engaged in persecuting the church, Paul.

---- Paul knew what an a/hole he was :-
1 Tim 1:-
11According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.
12And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry;
13Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.
14And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.
15This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
16Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.
---- King David had Uriah killed so he could continue with Bathsheba.
-----Lot 'knew' - wink both his daughters.
.----Moses murdered an Egyptian
etc etc etc.
So yes, it's amazing how GOD will use damaged people to do His work :)

Justified · 2026-06-14T12:01:18-0500

dak said:
In 1Cor 11:23 Paul says, "For I received of the Master that which I also delivered unto you", meaning that he delivered to them what he himself had received, and then he quotes directly word for word verbatim from the Gospel account which we know as Luke.

1 Corinthians 11:23-25 ASV
23 For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread; [Luke 22:19a]
24 and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me. [Luke 22:19]
25 In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: [Luke 22:a-b] this do, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

Luke 22:19-20 ASV
19 And he took bread, [1Cor 11:23b] and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. [1Cor 11:24]
20 And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, [1Cor 11:25a-b] even that which is poured out for you.

This passage from Luke 22:19-20 was given to Paul, according to his own testimony, and he says he also delivered it to the Corinthians: that is surely speaking of a writing, and the writing is the Gospel account we now know as Luke, obviously, from the quote of Luke 22:19-20 found in this epistle to the Corinthians. Paul then says the same again, later in the same epistle.

1 Corinthians 14:36 ASV
36 What? was it from you that the word of God went forth? or came it unto you alone?

The Word of Elohim had come to them: the Gospel account we now know as Luke.

1 Corinthians 14:37-38
37 If any man thinketh himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him take knowledge of the things which I write unto you, that they are the commandment(s) of the Lord.
38 But if any man is ignorant, let him be ignorant.

The things Paul writes to them concern the commandments of the Master, and he is reminding them that he speaks of that which he had received, which he had also delivered unto them: the Gospel account we know as Luke.

Unless I’ve misunderstood, you’ve got things backwards. The main problem for your position is that 1 Cor. was written 5-10 years before Luke’s gospel. Another problem is that Luke’s gospel contains eyewitness testimony, the vast majority of which is from sources other than Paul (if Paul was even a source). If Luke wrote down what Paul taught the Corinthians in 1 Cor. 11:23-25, it would only have been those few verses and then it would most likely have been corroborated with eyewitness testimony from the apostles.

You seem to be conflating the use of "gospel" in reference to the four specific books with the use of gospel to refer generally to the good news. Paul certainly taught the good news but certainly didn't read from or deliver Luke’s gospel as it had not even been written yet.

dak said:
And the next chapter is still the same passage, and thus the same context, and he reminds them again therein that he had delivered unto them what he himself had also received: the Gospel account now known as Luke.

1 Corinthians 15:1-8 ASV
1 Now I make known unto you brethren, the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye received, wherein also ye stand,
2 by which also ye are saved, if ye hold fast the word which I preached unto you, except ye believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which also I received: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; [(writings) Gospel of Luke]
4 and that he was buried; and that he hath been raised on the third day according to the scriptures; [(writings) Gospel of Luke]
5 and that he appeared to Cephas; [Luke 24:34] then to the ~~twelve~~; ["the Eleven", Luke 24:33, proven at this link]
6 then he appeared to above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain until now, but some are fallen asleep;
7 then he appeared to James; then to all the apostles;
8 and last of all, as to the child untimely born, he appeared to me also.

In verses 3 and 4, “the scriptures” is a reference to the OT, as that is how it is used exclusively in the NT. Not to mention, once again, that the gospel of Luke had not been written yet. Interestingly, Luke alone records this:

Luk 24:25 And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!
Luk 24:26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?”
Luk 24:27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

Jesus himself teaches two disciples from the OT "the things concerning himself," which includes "that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory."

dak said:
and it was given to him by Hananyah, (Ananias), when Hananyah was commanded by the Master to seek out Shaul, and go lay the Power upon him so that he might receive sight.

All one needs to be able to understand this is to understand that the word hand in Hebrew-Biblical thought represents power. Hananyah did not necessarily lay his own physical hands on Paul, and the Greek text does not say that, it rather says he laid the hands, not his hands, upon Shaul, (Acts 9:12, Acts 9:17). So Hananyah laid the Power upon Shaul, and the Power is the Word, and therefore surely the Testimony of the Master in the Gospel accounts in this case:

This is going too far into trying to prove something for no apparent reason. Ananias laid his hands on Saul. Nothing more. It’s notable that you not only argue to the Hebrew-biblical thought of the word hand referring to power without warrant for doing so in this context and, considering that cheir is translated as "hand" or "hands" 170 times out of the approximately 174 times it is used, you absolutely wouldn’t do that consistently, but you also change the plural “hands” to the singular “Power.” According to your position, it should be “Powers.” Such inconsistencies often happen when one goes about needlessly changing things.

Strong's Greek: 5495. χείρ (cheir) -- Hand

Justified · 2026-06-14T12:02:02-0500

dak said:
Hananyah gave Shaul a record of what has now come to be known as the Gospel of Luke. And when Hananyah did so, what then was it which he admonished Shaul to do? Hananyah admonished Shaul to arise and be immersed, (Acts 22:16). Immerse in what? Immersion is not literal water immersion: Biblical immersion is immersion into the Word of Elohim.

Again, needless speculation that ignores the plain meaning of what is stated. It most likely means Paul was baptized in water, as all new believers were:

Act 22:16 And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’

Isn’t that identical to:

Act 2:38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Act 10:47 “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”
Act 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.

Once again there is no need to go about changing the plain meaning of the text.

dak said:
Thus Shaul went into Arabia, (for six months, but that is another line of discussion), and he immersed in the Gospel which Hananyah had laid upon him: the Power of Elohim, the Word of Elohim, and in this case it was the Gospel we now know as Luke by way of the quote we have from that Gospel account in 1Cor 11:23-25.

Now therefore the Galatians, according to Gal 3:1, had indeed begun in the Spirit, which is the Testimony of the Master, which is Spirit, (John 6:63), for Paul had delivered unto the Galatians that which he himself had also received, just as he says he did with the Corinthians.

The passage actually tells us that the Galatians had a Gospel account in their possession, no doubt given to them by Paul, which is assuredly the Gospel we now know as Luke, being quoted from and expounded in 1Cor 11:23-26, 1Cor 14:37-38, and on through 1Cor 15:1-6. This is why Paul says to the Galatians:

Galatians 3:1
1 ω ανοητοι γαλαται τις υμας εβασκανεν οις κατ οφθαλμους ιησους χριστος προεγραφη εσταυρωμενος

προεγραφη = written before(hand)

Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries
G4270 προγράφω prographo (pro-gra'-fō) v.
1. to write previously.
2. (figuratively) to announce, prescribe.
[from G4253 and G1125]
KJV: before ordain, evidently set forth, write (afore, aforetime)
Root(s): G4253, G1125

Paul is reminding the Galatians of a literal Gospel account which they had received from him. The Galatians were not at Golgotha to have seen the crucifixion for themselves, with their own eyes: that rather came by the message and the Gospel account which Paul had delivered unto them.

Galatians 3:1 LSV (Literal Standard Version)
1 O thoughtless Galatians, who bewitched you, not to obey the truth—before whose eyes [it] was previously written [about] Jesus Christ having been crucified?

They had received and had read/studied the writing, a Gospel account full of the Testimony of the Master, ("Paul's Gospel", a.k.a. "Luke"), and thus he says in the above statement, "before whose eyes it was previously written". And if testimony is spirit, and it is, (whether for the good or whether for the evil), then this is where they had received the Spirit because the Testimony of the Meshiah in the Gospel accounts, (John 6:63), is the new Spirit of the new-renewed covenant, (Eze 11:19-20, Eze 36:26-27).

Now you’re misusing a dictionary to select the meaning you want to “support” your claim, while ignoring other meanings which better fit the context: “to announce;” “set forth.” It certainly can refer to speech, to teaching.

Not to mention the same main issue as with 1 Cor.--Gal. was written prior to Luke's gospel. More than that, Paul is writing about a previous time when the gospel had been made known to the Galatian church, making it that much earlier than Luke's gospel, even prior to 1 Cor.

Wick Stick · 2026-06-14T15:36:47-0500

Justified said:
Unless I’ve misunderstood, you’ve got things backwards. The main problem for your position is that 1 Cor. was written 5-10 years before Luke’s gospel. Another problem is that Luke’s gospel contains eyewitness testimony, the vast majority of which is from sources other than Paul (if Paul was even a source). If Luke wrote down what Paul taught the Corinthians in 1 Cor. 11:23-25, it would only have been those few verses and then it would most likely have been corroborated with eyewitness testimony from the apostles.

You seem to be conflating the use of "gospel" in reference to the four specific books with the use of gospel to refer generally to the good news. Paul certainly taught the good news but certainly didn't read from or deliver Luke’s gospel as it had not even been written yet.

The chronological problem you're pointing out... isn't much of a problem. Luke didn't invent his gospel out of thin air one day. Perhaps we should say that Paul's gospel became the foundations of Luke's gospel.

Justified · 2026-06-14T16:24:22-0500

Wick Stick said:
The chronological problem you're pointing out... isn't much of a problem. Luke didn't invent his gospel out of thin air one day. Perhaps we should say that Paul's gospel became the foundations of Luke's gospel.

It’s a massive problem for the claim that Paul delivered a written copy of Luke’s gospel.

PeterAndroz · 2026-06-14T18:16:06-0500

Justified said:
Again, needless speculation that ignores the plain meaning of what is stated. It most likely means Paul was baptized in water, as all new believers were:

Act 22:16 And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’

Isn’t that identical to:

Act 2:38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Act 10:47 “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”
Act 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.

Once again there is no need to go about changing the plain meaning of the text.

Now you’re misusing a dictionary to select the meaning you want to “support” your claim, while ignoring other meanings which better fit the context: “to announce;” “set forth.” It certainly can refer to speech, to teaching.

Not to mention the same main issue as with 1 Cor.--Gal. was written prior to Luke's gospel. More than that, Paul is writing about a previous time when the gospel had been made known to the Galatian church, making it that much earlier than Luke's gospel, even prior to 1 Cor.

Acts 2:38 is before Paul
Yes, Paul did initially water baptize a few yet later no longer did
If water baptize is a justification requirement today then why :-
1 Cor 1 :17
For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel:
And why does Paul not list it as a condition of the Gospel that Christ taught to him ?
Gal 1:11-12
But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
1 Cor 15:1-4
Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Wick Stick · 2026-06-14T19:17:53-0500

Justified said:
It’s a massive problem for the claim that Paul delivered a written copy of Luke’s gospel.

It really isn't. I don't know what date you looked up for Luke's gospel, but whatever date it is... it existed well before that. Maybe not word-for-word the same as the version that was canonized. Perhaps missing the first few chapters. But the core of it was in circulation already. Hence the 3 synoptic gospels being... well, synoptic.

The idea here isn't that Paul was delivering red-letter leather-bound copies of the Gospel of Luke in Asia Minor. It's that Luke came to exist largely as a Pauline-derived version of THE gospel.

That's not a very controversial position. That's a mainstream position among New Testament scholars.

@dak has said some things here that go well past mainstream. But this isn't one of them.

dak · 2026-06-15T00:55:13-0500

Justified said:
Unless I’ve misunderstood, you’ve got things backwards. The main problem for your position is that 1 Cor. was written 5-10 years before Luke’s gospel. Another problem is that Luke’s gospel contains eyewitness testimony, the vast majority of which is from sources other than Paul (if Paul was even a source). If Luke wrote down what Paul taught the Corinthians in 1 Cor. 11:23-25, it would only have been those few verses and then it would most likely have been corroborated with eyewitness testimony from the apostles.

Nice speculation but there is plenty of speculation coming from all corners: the fact of the matter is that if your speculation isn't that, and can rather actually be proven from the writings, only then is it worthy commentary. How about the following speculation, is it indeed just speculation?

Luke is called "the Physician", that's Raphael the Healer of El, and that is not even a man but an angel.
I've studied this out and there is evidence for this, yes, even in the writings.

Justified said:
You seem to be conflating the use of "gospel" in reference to the four specific books with the use of gospel to refer generally to the good news. Paul certainly taught the good news but certainly didn't read from or deliver Luke’s gospel as it had not even been written yet.

In your mind you have negated the possibility that Paul speaks of a written account wherever he says "my Gospel". Moreover you've no doubt done the samje where he states the following:

Galatians 1:11-12 KJV (T/R)
11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Galatians 1:12 T/R
12 ουδε γαρ εγω παρα ανθρωπου παρελαβον αυτο ουτε εδιδαχθην αλλα δι αποκαλυψεως ιησου χριστου

Revelation 1:1 T/R
1 αποκαλυψις ιησου χριστου ην εδωκεν αυτω ο θεος δειξαι τοις δουλοις αυτου α δει γενεσθαι εν ταχει και εσημανεν αποστειλας δια του αγγελου αυτου τω δουλω αυτου ιωαννη

Do you really expect everyone to believe that Paul went out into the desert of Arabia, and Jesus appeared to him in a physical form, and sat down with him, and taught him everything he knew concerning the Gospel? If so, that's fantasy doctrine and likewise heretical:

Matthew 24
23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
25 Behold, I have told you before.
26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.

Justified said:
In verses 3 and 4, “the scriptures” is a reference to the OT, as that is how it is used exclusively in the NT.

More speculation: where is your evidence for your double assertion?

From a babe Timothy knew the sacred writings:

14 But abide thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
15 and that from a babe thou hast known the sacred writings which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

First of all no one knows the sacred writings upon coming out of the womb as physical babe: this no doubt speaks of spiritual birth, being born from above, and the sacred writings spoken of here are what taught Timothy what he had learned at this point, (not Paul), and therefore one of the sacred writings is most likely the Gospel we now know as Luke, and therefore Paul says, "knowing of whom thou hast learned them", and therefore his Teacher from the time of his spiritual birth was the Master by his Testimony in that Gospel account. Are you so foolish that you cannot discern that all of those things Paul mentions in 1Cor 15:3-7 are contained in first century apostolic writings? They were not necessarily called "scripture" yet so the better understanding in that case is writings, (because the word employed obviously means both, as already explained at the beginning of this thread).

Justified said:
Not to mention, once again, that the gospel of Luke had not been written yet.

No evidence, nothing but speculation, and a sad reliance on modern scholars over and above what Paul clearly states.

Justified said:
Interestingly, Luke alone records this:

Luk 24:25 And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!
Luk 24:26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?”
Luk 24:27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

Also interestingly, Luke alone also records what is highlighted below:

Luke 8:11-15 ASV
11 Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.
12 And those by the way side are they that have heard; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word from their heart, that they may not believe and be saved.
13 And those on the rock are they who, when they have heard, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, who for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.
14 And that which fell among the thorns, these are they that have heard, and as they go on their way they are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection.
15 And that in the good ground, these are such as in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, hold it fast, [G2722 κατέχω] and bring forth fruit with patience.

Did Paul also give his Gospel account to the Thessalonians? Is that why he sees no need to go into the full details once again? Did he preach and expound to them the parable of the Sower from what we now know as the Gospel of Luke? And if so, why would he not leave that account with them since he did so at Corinth and Galatia?

2 Thessalonians 2:5-6 ASV
5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
6 And now ye know that which restraineth, [G2722 κατέχω] to the end that he may be revealed in his own season.

G2722 κατέχω
Semantic Range in Scripture
The verb encompasses two chief actions: positive retention of what is good and active restraint of what is harmful. In the Gospels it may describe a crowd “trying to keep Him from leaving them” (Luke 4:42), while in Romans it depicts the ungodly “suppressing the truth” (Romans 1:18). Context therefore determines whether the holding is commendable or culpable.

Strong's Greek: 2722. κατέχω (katechó) -- To hold fast, to restrain, to possess, to keep

Justified said:
This is going too far into trying to prove something for no apparent reason.

If there is no apparent reason then why are these things disturbing you so?
I think most here know what a problem this information is for dispensationist dogma.

Justified said:
Ananias laid his hands on Saul. Nothing more.

Wrong, the Greek text does not say that: it says he laid the hands on Paul, not his hands.

Justified said:
It’s notable that you not only argue to the Hebrew-biblical thought of the word hand referring to power without warrant for doing so in this context and, considering that cheir is translated as "hand" or "hands" 170 times out of the approximately 174 times it is used, you absolutely wouldn’t do that consistently, but you also change the plural “hands” to the singular “Power.” According to your position, it should be “Powers.” Such inconsistencies often happen when one goes about needlessly changing things.

Your highly esteemed scholars appear not to be cognizant of the fact that, because of the Septuagint, the Greek language is nothing more than a language on loan being employed to explain the Hebrew writings in the Greek language. The thoughts, meanings of words, etc., retain the Hebrew meanings of those thoughts and definitions of the words now employed in Greek. Go and see how many times the Septuagint proves this point with just this one word alone.

2Kngs 19:26, Job 1:12, Psa 22:20, Psa 49:15, Prov 18:21, Isa 37:27, Dan 12:7, Hos 13:14.

As for two hands, I just showed you the other Power: but you will surely not believe it.

dak · 2026-06-15T02:52:14-0500

Justified said:
Again, needless speculation that ignores the plain meaning of what is stated. It most likely means Paul was baptized in water, as all new believers were:

Act 22:16 And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’

Isn’t that identical to:

Act 2:38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Act 10:47 “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”
Act 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.

Once again there is no need to go about changing the plain meaning of the text.

In all these passages you wrongfully attribute spiritual things to the natural, and to physical water: have you learned nothing from the Testimony of the Master in the Gospel accounts? nor even from the writings of Paul?

John 3:1-8 ASV
1 Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
2 the same came unto him by night, and said to him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that thou doest, except God be with him.
3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter a second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Born of water is not speaking of physical child birth, otherwise it already applies to every human being in the world without having done anything to enter the kingdom, not even a simple belief is required. Born of water comes by the washing of the water in the Word.

Ephesians 5:25-26 ASV
25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself up for it;
26 that he might sanctify it, having cleansed it by the washing of water with the word,

Ephesians 5:26 N/A-W/H
26 ινα αυτην αγιαση καθαρισας τω λουτρω του υδατος εν ρηματι

τω λουτρω του υδατος εν ρηματι ~ by the washing of the water in/into the rhemati

Rhemati is rhema, which is first spoken word and then written word, just as the Most High spoke to Mosheh, (rhema-word), and then Mosheh wrote down what the Most High had said to him, (still rhema word). The Logos-Word is reasoning and understanding and can only be understood by understanding the context of the written Rhema-Word, (or, if indeed one understands something having been spoken, then it is spoken Rhema-Word).

Critical point: unless one has thoroughly washed in/into the Rhema-Word, which is visible, he or she cannot know the Logos-Word, which is invisible.

John 4:9-10 ASV
9 The Samaritan woman therefore saith unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, who am a Samaritan woman? (For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.)
10 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.

Typical carnal minded answer:

John 4:11-12
11 The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: whence then hast thou that living water?
12 Art thou greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his sons, and his cattle?

John 4:13-14 ASV
13 Jesus answered and said unto her, Every one that drinketh of this water shall thirst again:
14 but whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall become in him a well of water springing up unto eternal life.

And the carnal mind still does not understand:

John 4:15 ASV
15 The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come all the way hither to draw.

How are you any different?

Justified said:
Now you’re misusing a dictionary to select the meaning you want to “support” your claim, while ignoring other meanings which better fit the context: “to announce;” “set forth.” It certainly can refer to speech, to teaching.

Are you resorting to lying so soon? It's right there in my post which you quoted.
Here it is again which anyone may see by looking at that post:

Galatians 3:1
1 ω ανοητοι γαλαται τις υμας εβασκανεν οις κατ οφθαλμους ιησους χριστος προεγραφη εσταυρωμενος

προεγραφη = written before(hand)

Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries
G4270 προγράφω prographo (pro-gra'-fō) v.
1. to write previously.
2. (figuratively) to announce, prescribe.
[from G4253 and G1125]
KJV: before ordain, evidently set forth, write (afore, aforetime)
Root(s): G4253, G1125

That is the literal meaning of the compound pro-grapho. Looking at the many translations on Bible-hub it is almost comical to see how many translators are scared to death to render the verse for what it says, and it's all because of the issue raised right here in this thread. There are only three translations at the link below the following literal renderings that render it for what it says, and they are listed under LITERAL translations.

Literal Standard Version
O thoughtless Galatians, who bewitched you, not to obey the truth—before whose eyes [it] was previously written [about] Jesus Christ having been crucified?

Berean Literal Bible
O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you?, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was previously written as having been crucified?

Smith's Literal Translation
O Unwise Galatians, who has cast a spell upon you, not to obey the truth, to whom before the eyes Jesus Christ was written beforehand, crucified in you?

Galatians 3:1 - Faith and Belief

O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified.

biblehub.com

Where is there any indication in the statement that it is to be understood figuratively? or that it doesn't actually mean what it plainly states? The subterfuge is because of one simple underlying reality: scholarly dogma, dating, and their translations within which they do not wish to rock the boat because they fear they will be called heretics or idiots and loose out on Bible sales.

Justified said:
Not to mention the same main issue as with 1 Cor.--Gal. was written prior to Luke's gospel. More than that, Paul is writing about a previous time when the gospel had been made known to the Galatian church, making it that much earlier than Luke's gospel, even prior to 1 Cor.

If you choose scholarly estimates on the dating of N/T writings over the plain words of Paul, that's on you: I have shared with you the truth, and you have rejected it in favor of your highly esteemed scholars and traditions of men.

Search

Search

Paul's Gospel

Wick Stick

Well-Known Member

David Lamb

Well-Known Member

Wick Stick

Well-Known Member

dak

Well-Known Member

David Lamb

Well-Known Member

PeterAndroz

Active Member

David Lamb

Well-Known Member

PeterAndroz

Active Member

Justified

Active Member

Justified

Active Member

Wick Stick

Well-Known Member

Justified

Active Member

PeterAndroz

Active Member

Wick Stick

Well-Known Member

dak

Well-Known Member

dak

Well-Known Member

Galatians 3:1 - Faith and Belief

Similar threads