The fact remains that have not deal with what I said. It is further noted that you have just agreed with me that there WERE two gospels when you said "ONE old covenant' date=' the Mosaic, replaced by ONE new covenant that made the old obsolete.[/QUOTE']uh...not sure how you take that as agreeing with you, chap, but it hardly can be unless you are simply calling the Mosaic covenant 'gospel'.There are TWO covenants that we are discussing here, not a third. (obviously God has made more than two covenants to man, but we arent discussing the others).God gave the law thru Moses, a covenant to Israel in the wilderness.That covenant was quite temporal and was made entirely obsolete at the cross when Christ died and ratified this covenant.There was no covenant in between those two.Do you agree or disagree ?
I said, quote ""Notice that in Acts 3:21 Peter is proclaiming things made known by the prophets since the world began.
And I read what you said and found no reason to even bother with any response because that small verse says nothing about any 'gospel' between the other covenants.Are you reading something INTO the text there ?
In contrast, in the book of Romans, 16:25, Paul is proclaiming things kept secret since the world began."""""Something made known cannot be a secret and something kept secret has not been made known."""""
I think you are reading WAY too much into Pauls parting words there, poster...WAY too much.This does not show any other 'gospel' and Ive already shown that this new covenant caused the previous one to become obsolete.There was in intermediate covenant between the two.
Notice that Peter proclaimed the crucifixion of Jesus as something for the Jews to repent of (Acts 2) where Paul proclaimed that he gloried in the cross of Christ (Gal 6:11-15).Clearly, Peter and Paul proclaimed two different messages."
Its no wonder I didnt respond to what youre claiming there, its hard to even do so without making it seem like Im belittling your ability to understand what youre reading.Again, this does NOT show two different gospels. Youre reading WAY too much into a couple passages instead of reading and understanding the WHOLE of the NT to see what it shows overall.believe me, I deal with folks who focus on one or two minute details so greatly that theyve come up with completely preposterous conclusions...it happens.Heres what you need to do to PROVE your case that there were TWO different gospels to me.You must firstly find MORE than two verses to back your claim and when you do they MUST actually say what you are seemingly claiming that they say.Ive read your verses a few times now and I simply do not see how you are reading that there are TWO gospels from those.THEN you are going to have to show that this theme is entirely consistent with the WHOLE of Gods word.Sorry, but Hebrews alone can thrash any false teaching about anything more than ONE NEW covenant making ONE old covenant obsolete.
Its more about you reading and harmonizing ALL of the relevant data instead of picking at two verses that dont actually prove what you seem to be claiming they do.
Was Paul's gospel revealed as Peter said in Acts 3:21 or was it kept secret since the world began as Paul said it was.
THE one and only gospel was kept secret 'since the world began'.Again, you're reading WAY too much into the passages.Pauls words in Romans are parting words....its not like hes still teaching some doctrinal point to the Romans there, nor should you be jumping to the conclusion that he meant to say that there are TWO gospels based on that very small bit of evidence.The overwhelming evidence thru the WHOLE of Gods word shows the the ONE covenant made thru Moses was made obsolete by the ONE NEW covenant ratified at the cross.
Obviously both can't be correct.
Sure they can if one doesnt try to read some huge doctrinal statement INTO them that wasn't actually intended.
Certainly there seems to be a difference here unless you want to bury your head in the sand.
I 'bury' my head in the sand of Gods WHOLE word...not two verses that are clearly being misunderstood to create a second 'gospel' that scripture as a whole does not present.
If you say Paul's gospel was not hidden in God then Paul told a lie didn't he?
'MY gospel" there isnt Paul claiming to have a second gospel apart from ChristHere you go...yet a THIRD gospel for you to add to the list
Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. (2Th 2:14 KJV)
So now we have Christs gospel, Pauls gospel and a gospel that is the obviously a conglomeration of Pauls and the Thessalonian gospels
Maybe this can be a FORTH gospel..
1Th 2:9 For ye remember, brethren, our labour and travail: for labouring night and day, because we would not be chargeable unto any of you, we preached unto you the gospel of God.
Now God the Father has His own unique gospel too, I supposePauls use of 'my' gospel is not in ANY way claiming to have his own separate gospel apart from Christs.If youre going to play on the word 'my' to create yet another gospel, lets at least be consistent and track down ALL of the 'gospels' in the NT
Come on, since you think you are correct then you should have a ready answer for this. Richard
The problem is that you arent actually providing real evidence for your claims.Your taking two verses that have nothing to do with each other and making a doctrine of them that scripture does not support as a whole.Thats called 'false teaching' at best, heresy at worst.
If you can't resolve this then I am correct.
I believe there is a name for this logical fallacy, but Im not up on all of those currently.Just because someone cannot refute your claims that you have not yet supported, doesnt mean you win by default.As I said, you need to show that ALL of scripture supports your claims. Not just the two distorted verses you seem to think claim something they dont.
