Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical
As usual your post lacks any sort of biblical scripture or theological support. Your post seems to suggest that each of the disciples had their own little heavenly vision which by implication means they preached their own gospel as well.
Just because there are many different ways to preach the gospel does not mean there are different gospels. Similarly just because the disciples had their own visions and callings does not mean there are different visions and callings - there is only one capital V and capital C Vision and Calling. This flows from the one God and one Spirit.
The "ones" of scripture is not something denominational people easily grasp.
If you think that I say THE heavenly gospel because I focus only on those three words and assume that there is only one heavenly vision, you would be wrong. Maybe that is how you interpret the bible but I don't.
I say THE heavenly vision because I know the relationship between THE heavenly vision and THE gospel and THE crucified Christ.
The limitation here is not with me not being a "normal person". It is with you, not knowing the Scriptures. I will explain in the follow.
Paul experienced many visions in his life. As did Peter.
But THE heavenly vision was the the initial and most dramatic vision that guided Paul's whole life.
Remember that Paul's heavenly vision was an experience of THE crucified and risen Christ.
THE heavenly vision that Paul had was also when God revealed THE gospel to him:
Gal 1:12 "I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ."
There is one heavenly vision and one gospel.
Ellicotts bible commentary explains that it was at or near this heavenly vision:
The context shows that it must have been at some time either at or near the Apostle’s conversion. This would be sufficient to exclude the later revelation of 2Corinthians 12:1. But can it be the vision on the way to Damascus itself alone? At first sight it would seem as if this was too brief, and its object too special, to include the kind of “sum of Christian doctrine” of which the Apostle is speaking. But this at least contained the two main points—the Messiahship of Jesus, and faith in Jesus, from which all the rest of the Apostle’s teaching flowed naturally and logically. When once it was felt that the death of Christ upon the cross was not that of a criminal, but of the Son of God, the rest all seemed to follow. Putting this together with the sense, which we may well believe had been growing upon him, of the inefficacy of the Law, we can easily see how the idea would arise of a sacrifice superseding the Law, and in the relegation of the Law to this very secondary position the main barrier between Jew and Gentile would be removed. St. Paul himself, by laying stress upon his retreat to the deserts of Arabia, evidently implies that the gospel, as taught by him in its complete form, was the result of gradual development and prolonged reflection; but whether this is to be regarded as implicitly contained in the first revelation, or whether we are to suppose that there were successive revelations, of which there is no record in the Acts, cannot be positively determined.
|
You complain about my lack of verses as if your verses actually say anything (at least that you think they say). And this particular post has only one verse/passage that also does not answer the question as to whether Paul had a vison that was unique relative to God for all persons at that time, or simply to himself and his part in the overall ministry of God. His references to that actions of others would indicate that he did not consider their preaching to be at odds with his.
But the most important point about all of this is that Paul, nor any other part of the scripture, causes either of these to clearly mean some overriding vision that controlled how God was working in everyone at that time. But it was clearly what Paul was acting according to. And since Jesus had sent the disciples into "all the world" and they did not consult with Paul before any particular one of them did whatever they did, it would be odd to think that what Paul was taught in the desert was part of some unique move of God that excluded all others, including that of the spreading of others to other places without ever seeing or hearing from Paul after the time of such teaching.
In short, Lee sought to make something he couldn't even properly define into some nebulous "Unique move of God" that precluded any Christian "move" as actually being from God unless it was aligned with Lee's. There is no construct of words, sentences, etc., found in the scripture that either declares it as so or specifically denies it (as if they were expecting the stupidity of Lee, so they commented on it negatively almost 2,000 years in advance).
In another thread you want to discuss logic yet fail miserably at understanding the meaning of simple words. When you start with a system of logic that reads like someone saying 3x > 5, therefore x =1, you establish that either you are pretty poor at logic, or you are reading from someone else that is poor at logic but presuming they are good at it without checking them out. I actually think it is at least partly the latter. You have been duped into thinking that if Lee said it, then it has to be true and you will not dare check it out because you are afraid of how wrong he might be and what that would do to you.
If you are lucky, one day you will be man enough to stand up to your fears and check Lee out without relying on what he said as the proof that he is right. I am pretty confident that if you do it that way, the walls will begin to crumble.
I don't need verses to declare that something that is not there is not there. You need to do more than refer to a vision that someone had and say it is universal and excludes anyone else from having any kind of vision that differs. You need to show how the scripture you are relying on actually creates an exclusionary aspect to Paul's vision.
And saying that Paul had a vision and it is God's unique move on the earth without finding where scripture actually says that is not proof. And just because you are not forbidden by scripture from saying such an unsubstantiated thing does not put the burden on me to prove you wrong. It is as if you are declaring that because the scripture does not say that grass cannot be purple that only purple grass will be allowed. And then declare that no one is proving from scripture that grass cannot be purple.
It doesn't prove your point. It makes you a fool. One with no ability to handle logic or scripture.