A different Gospel? or not?

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by rjprince, Jan 4, 2005.

?

Was the Gospel preached by Jesus & the Apostles the same Gospel Paul preached?

  1. Yes

    100.0%
  2. No

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. rjprince

    rjprince
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Was the Gospel preached by Jesus and the Apostles the same Gospel Paul preached?
     
  2. rjprince

    rjprince
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here are some references to look at before you answer!

    Mat 4:23; 9:35; Mark 1:14-15; Matt 10:5-7; 15:24; Mark 6:14-16; 1Cor 15:1-4; Gal 1:6-9

    Of course some may have already made up their minds and have little interest in what the Bible says. That ought to stir it up!!! I will weigh in with my ideas after we have had some discussion.
     
  3. rjprince

    rjprince
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wow. In the eight minutes it took me to add the references, I got three votes. Sorry. If you want to change your mind, do it in a followup post!
     
  4. Charles Meadows

    Charles Meadows
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think I know where you're going here RJ.

    Do you think that all (or even most) of Christ's teachings were directed at the Jews, speaking of the millenium? Do you assert that the Sermon on the Mount does not concern non-Jews?

    This is a most grievous error!!

    Did 2 Christs come? Did Christ come twice, once for the Jews and once for the Gentiles?

    The Gospel is the SAME.
     
  5. Archeryaddict

    Archeryaddict
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2004
    Messages:
    317
    Likes Received:
    0
  6. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,348
    Likes Received:
    14
    Paul said:
    Acts 26:22 Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:

    Jesus said:
    Matt 5:17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

    Paul taught nothing but what was foretold by Moses and the Prophets. Jesus came to fulfill that which was taught by the Law and Prophets.

    Same Gospel. Unless the Prophets taught two gospels.
     
  7. rjprince

    rjprince
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Directed at the Jews? You tell me...

    Matt 10:5-7, “These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

    Matt 15:24 "...I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

    Speaking of the kingdom? Again, you tell me...

    Mt 4:23 And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people.
    Mt 9:35 And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people.
    Mr 1:14 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,
    Mr 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

    (Oh, out of sequence here, but was Jesus preaching the Gospel of His death, burial, and resurrection? And was this what they needed to believe to have eternal life?)

    The Sermon on the Mount... Yes it is of value for both Jew and non-Jew alike. It was TO the Jew pertaining to a literal kingdom. It is not fully applicable to either Jew or Gentile today. AND YOU DON’T REALLY BELIEVE THAT IT IS EITHER!

    Do you have a job? (Matt 6:24-28)

    Do you lock the doors of your house? Your car? (Matt 5:40-42)

    If you fully believed and followed this, a 30 minute walk through Harlem would leave you beaten and totally naked, if you even made it through. However, in the millennium, when Christ is LITERALLY reigning and ruling in righteousness ON THE EARTH, His rod of iron would protect you from evil. Such is not the case today. His reign in Heaven today is not more or less real that His reign in Heaven BEFORE the cross. Yes, we are in a Spiritual Kingdom now. But the Bible speaks a great deal about a LITERAL EARTHLY KINGDOM. Just about ready to do another thread on that one. Look for it in a few days.

    A most grievous error? Not according to a literal (CLGH) interpretation of the Bible.

    The same gospel? How could salvation before the cross required an understanding of His death, burial and resurrection?!?! The twelve did not even understand it yet!
     
  8. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,348
    Likes Received:
    14
    So did the Prophets speak of 2 separate Kingdoms? Which is spoken of in Daniel 2?
     
  9. rjprince

    rjprince
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Grasshopper,

    Hate to break it to you, but Paul added things that were not said in Moses and the Prophets. His teachings were fully consistent with Moses and the Prophets but he said things that were not said by Moses and the Prophets. It fact, there was a pretty radical change from Moses and the Prophets when the death of Christ set aside the Mosaic covenant and the Mosaic law, do you need references for that, or do you accept that? Let me know, I’ve got plenty.

    Re Matt 5:17, do you eat bacon or catfish? You really do not fully believe the implication of your statement.

    Christ did not “destroy the law or the prophets” but His death most certainly did nail the law to the cross!

    The prophets did not teach to two gospels. They saw the suffering of Messiah, but they did not know how it all fit together. It was a mystery to them, even though they spoke of it.

    1Pet 1:10-12 “Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.”

    Come on, even the 12 did not understand the cross!!! Paul preached the Gospel of the Cross, not the gospel of the kingdom, though he did speak of the kingdom in a spiritual sense. Neither Jesus nor the 12, nor the 70, preached the Gospel of the Cross!!! That is absurd! More importantly, it is without Scriptural support. That is the real issue.

    RE your second post. No, the prophets did not speak of 2 kingdoms. They did not see the church, that is why Paul calls the uniting of Jew and Gentile together in one body a MYSTERY. They did not see it. No more than they saw the gap between the first and second coming. The linked the first coming with wrath, judgement, and a literal kingdom that filled the whole earth, more on that later this week.
     
  10. James_Newman

    James_Newman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    Romans 1:16
    ¶ 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.

    The sermon on the mount is for believers.

    Matthew 5
    1 And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:
    2 And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,
    11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
    12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
    13 ¶ Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.
    14 Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.

    Where did Jesus ever say that the Jews were the light of the world, salt of the earth? When do unbelieving Jews ever get persecuted for Jesus' sake? He is teaching His disciples. The 'them' in verse 2 does not refer to 'the people' three chapters later.
     
  11. rjprince

    rjprince
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    James,

    See the "disciple" post and question!

    In the Mil, the Jewish nation will be the light of the world and the salt of the earth. Does that idea appear outside of the Kingdom teachings anywhere? It is applied to post-Cross believers? Just some thoughts. Have not thought of it before myself. But it does seem consistent with my D position. (have decided to start abreviating for the Mil the Trib and Dism. UhOh, Dism is not going to work. Just D.)
     
  12. James_Newman

    James_Newman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joh 8:31
    Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;

    If you are not keeping Jesus words, you are not a disciple. Doesn't matter what your name tag says. You must be a disciple to reign in the kingdom, but you must be a believer to be a disciple.

    John 3:3
    Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
     
  13. Charles Meadows

    Charles Meadows
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    RJ,

    Several things. First, a LITERAL HERMENEUTIC is not the same as a literal/grammatical/historical hermeneutic. A literal hermeneutic is one that simply takes erything literally, regardless of context.

    Did the twelve understand the cross? Not until Pentecost! But are we to believe that Jesus entire earthly ministry was directed at the Jews, regarding a millenium in the future? That borders on cultish. Should Jesus have just been silent until He died since no one yet understood the cross?

    Did not Paul win converts, Jewish and Greek (Acts 14:1)? Did he give 2 different speaches, one for the Jews and another for the Greeks? Was it not the same Gospel?

    And if it was the same Gospel (which it WAS) then why would Jesus have given a different one to the Jews?
     
  14. rjprince

    rjprince
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Chas,

    NOBODY I HAVE EVER READ ARGUES FOR THE LITERAL HERMENEUTIC THAT YOU DEFINE!!! When writers speak of interpreting Scripture literally, they mean in a contextual, literal, grammatical, historical manner. This straw man just won't stay down! I am tired of it.

    Give me some quotes from some Ds who argue that all of the Bible is to be interpreted in a literal manner that does not allow for figures of speech. Personally, I do not think you can do it. SOOOO, all this argument against a "literal hermeneutic" is pointless. Let's deal with the issues.

    "Are we to believe that Jesus entire earthly ministry was directed at the Jews..." Yes, at least for a time. And I did not say it, He did. I quoted the text (1/4/05 - 9:44), respond to it! Don’t just repeat the same tired argument that I have already addressed.

    Did He later expand His ministry to include Samaritans and a few Gentiles? Absolutely, but only after the Jews had rejected the Gospel of the Kingdom. Was His death for the sins of all who believe? Absolutely. DID JESUS OR THE TWELVE EVER PREACH THE “GOSPEL OF THE CROSS” PRIOR TO THE CROSS – ABSOLUTELY NOT! Jesus telling the twelve about the cross was not preaching the gospel of the cross, if it was, they were all lost!!! because they neither believed it nor accepted it!

    As I reread your post (1/4/5 - 11:17), I cannot believe how badly you have attempted to misconstrue my position! PLEASE NOTE THAT WHEN I QUOTE SOMEONE I AT LEAST ATTEMPT TO RESPOND TO WHAT THE ACTUALLY DID SAY!!! Certainly, few people following this would believe my contentions to be “cultish” (when you use pejorative language like that, you should have some kind of a basis for your statement). Acts 14:1 was post-Cross. How could you have missed that and come up with your 2 messages, one for Jews and one for Gentiles idea? You certainly did not get it from anything I said!

    You have failed to deal with my points and instead have attempted to misrepresent my position. Is that supposed to enrich our dialogue and deepen our understanding of the Word or each others position!

    Jesus could not have preached the gospel of the Cross to the Jews. It had not happened yet. AND, even after it happened, most of them still did not accept it.

    Disappointed in your post. You usually have more to say and you often say it better than that.
     
  15. Charles Meadows

    Charles Meadows
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    RJ

    Sorry if I misrepresented your position.

    But I still have some serious issues with your assertions.

    The first is regarding the "literal hermeneutic". I have often heard the adage, "If the literal sense makes sense then that IS the sense." That does not conform to a CLGH hermeneutic! There are many biblical examples of nonliteral meanings - and these are not just symbols or figures of speech. In proper context (literary, grammatical, historical, contextual) Jesus comments about a kingdom do not refer to a literal kingom - Jesus told Pilate as much. If Jesus had said, "after I return there shall be a period of a thousand years during which you will reign with me in a renewed earth - following this wel will go to heaven to be with the Father forever..." then none of us would argue at all - that statement would be plainly obvious. But let's take Matthew 19:28. Jesus says that the 12 will sit with Him upon 12 thrones. A literal millenium? Let's look at the context. Look at Mk 10:45, Mt 19:30, Mt 5:10-12. The first shall be last. A literal reading of Mt 19:28 forces us to create a "kingdom" in which the apostles can reign with Christ. A review of the proper context reveals that Jesus was saying to them that while lowly on earth they would be great in heaven - that's the CLGH hermeneutic!

    The biggest problem I have with your position (I assume you're a classical dispensationalist) is that it makes much of Christ's ministry little more than a series of speeches to the Jews that we got to overhear! The son of God came to earth to speak to US!! We have comparatively little of His recorded words - we should cleave to ALL of them! They are for US! They are for Jew and Gentile alike!

    How would the 12 have known about the cross before it happened? How could the gospel have been preached to the Gentiles if it had not been fulfilled yet? And didn't Jesus Himself seek out the Samaritans (Jn 4)?

    Paul's writings are nicely doctrinal - indeed he wrote the individual letters to the various churches to teach them and give them the particulars.

    Whether we like it or not, Jesus did preach a moral ethic! He was not simply a moralist - but that WAS part of it.

    I think you're wrong about the millenium - but then I could be wrong too.

    But to say that Jesus' preaching was "not specifically for us" is a very dangerous proposition. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you?
     
  16. carlaimpinge

    carlaimpinge
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    376
    Likes Received:
    0
    There are four "forms" of the gospel.

    The gospel of the kingdom (Matt.3,4,10,24)
    The gospel of God (1 Peter 4, Mark 16, Acts 2)
    The gospel of the grace of God (Acts 20, Rom.1, Gal.1, Eph.3,6)
    The everlasting gospel (Rev.14)

    The gospel of the kingdom DID NOT include the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ as Paul's gospel of the grace of God did. The gospel of God did though. (Rom.1)

    The 12 preached a gospel which didn't INCLUDE those items for they didn't KNOW them or UNDERSTAND them (Luke 18), and didn't LEARN THEM until their eyes were OPENED by the Lord AFTER HIS RESURRECTION. (Luke 24) Therefore, they preached TWO DIFFERENT FORMS of the gospel at two different times. (One before and the other after the crucifixion.)

    It's very simple IF you believe what the Holy Scriptures state.

    THEY DID NOT PREACH PAUL'S GOSPEL DURING THE EARTHLY MINISTRY OF THE LORD, "nor" did the Lord. IT WAS NOT REVEALED UNTIL PAUL. That's "why" it is called MY GOSPEL by Paul. To believe such is outrageous heretical thought DENYING the verses.

    The gospel of the grace of God was given to Paul by DIRECT REVELATION from Jesus Christ. (Gal.1)
     
  17. Charles Meadows

    Charles Meadows
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is but one "Gospel".

    Now I'm not sure what some of you guys mean by saying that Paul and Jesus preached different things. They obviously did say some different things and were often addressing different problems.

    But how can one, believing there is but one way to heaven (namely Jesus), say that there were 2 different Gospels. Is that not explicitly contradictory?
     
  18. carlaimpinge

    carlaimpinge
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    376
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE, there is "more" than one, which is DOCUMENTED by the verses given preceding your post. They were ignored to state your thought WITHOUT BIBLICAL VERIFICATION of "one" only.

    AGAIN. The 12 did not preach Paul's gospel OR the gospel of God BEFORE THE CRUCIFIXION for they did not KNOW or UNDERSTAND the elements of it (Luke 18:31-34) NOR were they to DECLARE to "anyone" that JESUS OF NAZARETH was the Christ! (Luke 9:18-22)

    The gospels concerns different testimonies of subject, are preached to different persons at different times, and have varied details of it's message. They are ALL different.

    Your "misunderstanding" comes from your SUPPOSITION OF FALSEHOOD which contradicts scripture. The problem is not with the Bible but YOUR belief of one which is wrong.

    Believe the Bible, and it will correct your understanding.
     
  19. Charles Meadows

    Charles Meadows
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    The notion of 2 different gospels is heretical!

    It is only by approaching the Bible with presupposed notions (hyperdispensationalism) that one can come up with such a thing! Verses used out of context do not prove anything.

    This is a gross example of forcing once's own interpretation on the Bible.

    I mean think about it - 2 gospels?

    TWO GOSPELS???

    :confused: :eek:
     
  20. paidagogos

    paidagogos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2003
    Messages:
    2,279
    Likes Received:
    0
    So, if there are four forms, how many ways of salvtion are there?
     

Share This Page

Loading...