He shall save His people from their sins

[Right Divider]

I think you are a failure on all three of those things.

Of course you would say that. You are wrong about everything.

The plainest meaning of the apostles themselves about 'Israel' reaching the nations is the mission work that went all over the known world. that is why Jesus launched with the 70, which became about 220 by the time Pentecost happened. The Gospel has no place in your thinking and has been disenfranchised by Israel the nation.

I believe ALL of the gospels.

[Interplanner]

Of course you would say that. You are wrong about everything.


I believe ALL of the gospels.

There are 4 literary docs called gospels. I'm referring to the one gospel preached by Christ and the apostles (though hid from them when they realized it wasn't about a miracle-monarchy in Israel) that has nothing to do with your theological complications.

No one is wrong or right about everything. Hopefully you will have the maturity to see that and not find your identity in putting down before you even think.

[Right Divider]

There are 4 literary docs called gospels. I'm referring to the one gospel preached by Christ and the apostles (though hid from them when they realized it wasn't about a miracle-monarchy in Israel) that has nothing to do with your theological complications.

I was not talking about "literary docs". I was talking about the many gospels throughout scripture.

No one is wrong or right about everything. Hopefully you will have the maturity to see that and not find your identity in putting down before you even think.

You have shown yourself to be so consistently wrong that I was using a generalization. A real writer and grammar scholar would understand that.

[Interplanner]

I was not talking about "literary docs". I was talking about the many gospels throughout scripture.


You have shown yourself to be so consistently wrong that I was using a generalization. A real writer and grammar scholar would understand that.

There is only one gospel when you get to the post-exilic era starting with Isaiah. That is why, as you know as a grammar scholar, it is called the gospel in Lk 4 and Is 61.

When the disciples realized it was going to be about the death of Christ and not a miracle-soaked monarchy in Israel, they blustered. That does not mean what they thought was a gospel was true, nor that any change whatsoever had been made. it means they were immature and in denial.

This is why we are not to take snippets of an unfolding historic account like the gospels-as-literary-docs and say, 'see, there's a different gospel there, than here...'

Watching the disciples mature (which is a big part of the synoptic--Acts taken together) is not saying there are other gospels. Even Paul said he once 'knew' Christ 'kata sarka / in the ordinary way' but now knows... That statement alone means there never was another gospel, just immature and carnal observers.

This is also why we are not to contradict Paul who said there was just one--or be accursed.

[SaulToPaul]

There is only one gospel when you get to the post-exilic era starting with Isaiah. That is why, as you know as a grammar scholar, it is called the gospel in Lk 4 and Is 61.

When the disciples realized it was going to be about the death of Christ and not a miracle-soaked monarchy in Israel, they blustered. That does not mean what they thought was a gospel was true, nor that any change whatsoever had been made. it means they were immature and in denial.

This is why we are not to take snippets of an unfolding historic account like the gospels-as-literary-docs and say, 'see, there's a different gospel there, than here...'

Watching the disciples mature (which is a big part of the synoptic--Acts taken together) is not saying there are other gospels. Even Paul said he once 'knew' Christ 'kata sarka / in the ordinary way' but now knows... That statement alone means there never was another gospel, just immature and carnal observers.

This is also why we are not to contradict Paul who said there was just one--or be accursed.

More humanism and rationalization from Dr. Phil.

[SaulToPaul]

When the disciples realized it was going to be about the death of Christ and not a miracle-soaked monarchy in Israel, they blustered.

Humanism, rationalization, unbelief.

[SaulToPaul]

This is also why we are not to contradict Paul who said there was just one--or be accursed.

He did not say there was just one existing gospel, to the Galatians. You made that up.

[Right Divider]

There is only one gospel when you get to the post-exilic era starting with Isaiah. That is why, as you know as a grammar scholar, it is called the gospel in Lk 4 and Is 61.

I never claimed to be a grammar scholar, but thanks anyway.

The numerous uses of "the gospel OF" clearly and unambiguously shows that there are multiple gospels.

It's so simple that even a grammar scholar should be able to understand it.

When the disciples realized it was going to be about the death of Christ and not a miracle-soaked monarchy in Israel, they blustered. That does not mean what they thought was a gospel was true, nor that any change whatsoever had been made. it means they were immature and in denial.

You always use the funniest terminology.

This is why we are not to take snippets of an unfolding historic account like the gospels-as-literary-docs and say, 'see, there's a different gospel there, than here...'

Watching the disciples mature (which is a big part of the synoptic--Acts taken together) is not saying there are other gospels. Even Paul said he once 'knew' Christ 'kata sarka / in the ordinary way' but now knows... That statement alone means there never was another gospel, just immature and carnal observers.

That is because the church which is His body is not Israel. Israel has promises of a land and a kingdom in that land. The churches place is seated in heaven.

This is also why we are not to contradict Paul who said there was just one--or be accursed.

Another piece of silliness.

[SaulToPaul]

You always use the funniest terminology.

A tell tale sign of commentary worshipers.

[dodge]

He did not say there was just one existing gospel, to the Galatians. You made that up.

Looks like one gospel .


Gal 1:7
Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

[Right Divider]

Looks like one gospel .

Gal 1:7
Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

Gospels:

• the gospel of the kingdom
• the gospel of Christ
• the gospel of God
• the gospel of the grace of God
• the gospel of the uncircumcision
• the gospel of the circumcision
• the gospel of peace
• the everlasting gospel

All related, but not identical.

[SaulToPaul]

Gospels:

• the gospel of the kingdom
• the gospel of Christ
• the gospel of God
• the gospel of the grace of God
• the gospel of the uncircumcision
• the gospel of the circumcision
• the gospel of peace
• the everlasting gospel

All related, but not identical.

Yes, and if dodge would research the identity of the perverters, he'd see that they were believers.


Acts 15
5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.

[SaulToPaul]

Looks like one gospel .


Gal 1:7
Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

The Galatians, indeed, had been given one gospel by Paul.
But others existed, obviously.

[dodge]

The Galatians, indeed, had been given one gospel by Paul.
But others existed, obviously.

Nope, Paul preached the same gospel that God hinted at in Genesis 3 !

[Right Divider]

Yes, and if dodge would research the identity of the perverters, he'd see that they were believers.

Acts 15
5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.

Excellent point.