You're welcome.
That is a nonsensical statement.
No more so than Paul's.
From what?
That is not talking about what is going on at the time that Paul said it. Paul is essentially giving a history lesson.
Of course. Any event in the past is history. But the point is that Paul was preaching the faith that he had previously persecuted. Here's who Christ said Paul was persecuting:
Acts 9:2 KJV - And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of
this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.
Acts 9:4 KJV - And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou
me?
Acts 9:5 KJV - And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said,
I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: [it is] hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
And Christ had a job for him, to bear His name before Gentiles, kings and children of Israel.
Acts 9:15 KJV - But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:
Now we've already talked about the Jewish believers in Jerusalem that considered Paul to be preaching the faith that he had persecuted, but what about the term "this way" whereby Paul referred to the believers? Did he use the term later to describe what he was preaching? Luke, Paul's companion, did so here:
Acts 19:9 KJV - But when divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus.
Paul referred to "this way" here, in a retelling of his conversion and how he persecuted the believers:
Acts 22:4 KJV - And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women.
The second is where he explains that it is how he considers himself:
Later Paul associates what he believes with "the way":
Acts 24:14 KJV - But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets
So even if you don't agree Paul was confirming that he persecuted the same faith that he later preached, he tells us in Acts (through Luke) that it is the same. These are stronger evidence, because Paul might have at first been preaching the same as the 12, then later learned more about "his" gospel.
The "new creature in Christ" is the one new man, where there is neither Jew NOR Greek.
Ok, so you are, I think, referring to this verse:
Galatians 6:15 KJV - For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
But that verse is referring not to a body of believers, but a single person, who, believing in Christ, is a new creature, whether circumcised or not. Furthermore, the next verse helps us understand what he meant about Israel:
Galatians 6:16 KJV - And as many as walk according to this rule, peace [be] on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.
"the Israel of God" is obviously not unbelieving Israel (because they are not walking according to "this rule"), so he must be speaking of believing Israel, meaning that they are "in Christ", and he had just asserted that there is no difference between the believers of Israel (circumcised) and the Gentiles. So if there is no difference between the two, then they are saved by the same gospel.
The same concept is stated in Romans 10:
Romans 10:8 KJV - But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, [even] in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is,
the word of faith, which we preach;
Romans 10:9 KJV - That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Romans 10:10 KJV - For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Romans 10:11 KJV - For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
Romans 10:12 KJV - For there is
no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
Romans 10:13 KJV - For
whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Note he's not saying there's no difference for someone in Christ, but that there is no difference in how you get saved, whether Jew or Greek, because it is the same Lord. If you say it is different for Jews, then essentially you are saying there is a different Lord for the two groups.
Silly nonsense and that is NOT what the TEXT says. It does NOT SAY "those that hear the gospel through me". It says "to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting".
Of course, because he would be bringing the gospel to a whole new group of people. So those who Paul would tell about the gospel would be assured their case was at least no worse than of the one who persecuted Christ and His body before being saved. If you make this merely about a chronology of those who come to faith, you weaken it to almost worthlessness.
Stop blaspheming God by perverting His Word.
It is interesting you suggest this, because it should make you even more careful how you divide divide the word, seeing that you think anyone who is wrong is blaspheming God.
Still making stuff up by forcing your ideas on the scripture instead of letting scripture speak.
No, what you're suggesting is absurd.
Because the scripture, AGAIN, does NOT say what you're saying that it says.
You said "Rather Paul confirms that he once persecuted the faith that he now preaches" and it says NO SUCH THING.
What it DOES SAY is that other were saying that and that does NOT make it true.
But Paul tells us what they were saying, and does not tell us they were wrong, leaving it unclear, if there is a difference in message rather than a difference in audience. And the other scripture I cited shows that Paul was persecuting the "way" he later was part of.
Absolutely I am... PAUL said NO SUCH THING.
Paul said nothing about it's accuracy or inaccuracy. Again you PREFER it to mean what you want it to means. You're making a claim that you cannot support.
No, he does NOT. Again, you're inventing things that are not there.
Not inventing, just reporting what Paul (and Luke) recorded.
That is, AGAIN, nonsense. There is a reason that Paul calls his gospel MY GOSPEL. If it was not new he has no grounds on which to say such a thing (MY GOSPEL).
Good, let's talk about Paul's gospel. He uses that phrase only 3 times, 5 when you include "our gospel". Other times he calls it by other monikers, including earlier in the 1Timothy chapter you started us on:
1 Timothy 1:11 KJV — According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.
He called it "the gospel of Christ" 11 times, "Christ's gospel" once, " the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ" once, "The gospel of His Son" once, "the gospel of God" 8 times, "the gospel of peace" twice, "the gospel of your salvation" once. I assume you would agree that all of those refer to the same thing, especially since 4 of the different terms occur in the first 2 chapters of Romans.
No doubt that you also believe that the gospel of the CIRCUMCISION is the same as the gospel of the UNCIRCUMCISION
Certainly, since Paul says (Supra) the Jew and the Greek are no different in how they are saved, it being the same Lord who saves both.
(which is a complete contradiction in terms and explicitly denied by Galatians 2).
No, it isn't, if Paul and Peter had different target audiences, which I think you would agree with.
