Interplanner
Well-known member
The hour is coming AND NOW IS when you will not worship in this mountain or that, but in spirit and truth.
It is you who take what is in Hebrews and deprive it from believers. It is juvenile.
ECT What is the Gospel?
- Thread starter Wick Stick
- Start date
The hour is coming AND NOW IS when you will not worship in this mountain or that, but in spirit and truth.
It is you who take what is in Hebrews and deprive it from believers. It is juvenile.
Right Divider
Body part
That verse it not talking about a covenant. But don't let any facts get in the way of a great "story".
The verse right BEFORE yours:
John 4:22 (AKJV/PCE)
(4:22) Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
You are such a know nothing, but at least you're puffed up about it.
Interplanner
Well-known member
You are all chopped up everything. The point was a new structure came that affected worship, temples, covenants, everything. You fragment; Christ draws the unifying thing out. You totally miss.
Salvation is of the Jews is still true--in Christ. But you don't know the magnitude of the expression in Christ in the apostles letters etc.
You do deprive people of Hebrews. I have never heard anyone ever do such a thing, so I think you' re a cult and you think you own this internet ghetto.
Right Divider
Body part
No, I do not miss a thing. You do not even understand what a Samaritan is.
Oh really? TODAY, in Christ, there, is NEITHER JEW NOR GREEK .... and we are NOT to know Jesus after the flesh?
Gal 3:28 (AKJV/PCE)
(3:28) There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
2Cor 5:16 (AKJV/PCE)
(5:16) Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we [him] no more.
OUR salvation in the dispensation of the grace of God is NOT of the Jews. But you do not know that. You're too busy trying to make everything about the "NT".
No, I do not. I know what the Bible says about the things God is doing.
Interplanner
Well-known member
It doesn't matter that it was a Samaritan because it could have been any non Jew. The point was Christ was jewish and that's how it came. sort of like Gen 12 said, if you know that.
I see you are totally confused on 'kata sarka.' It meant what Judaism thought Messiah was supposed to do, like several places in the gospels, for ex., Jn 12:34. We now know that God was in Christ as the new covenant, and that is the whole new creational change. Christ is part of, a taste of, the new creation, because it is Him. The old things are all the old things of Judaism , the fixation with the land, the desire for a Davidic theocracy etc, because it has all been surpassed by the magnificence of what has happened in Christ for all nations.
So our salvation (justification) is through christ who was jewish, as the terse summary given by Paul in 2 Tim 2:8: raised because he was perfect, descended from David. This is the Gospel.
You do deprive people of the new covenant in Hebrews because of misunderstanding one line. Your little proof text line. Well how about understanding the title of Christ there: THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS which harks back to Melchizedek, who was Christ and was seen by Abraham? Why is that missing from your recipe--and STP's cartoons?
List some verses from Hebrews for me that I can have, that we as Christians can have. I'm going to die today if you remove even one.
Right Divider
Body part
A Samaritan is an Israelite. Jesus didn't approach any gentiles.
So there are some parts of the Bible that you do believe?
Gen 13:15 (AKJV/PCE)
(13:15) For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever.
Is that one of them? Or this:
Exod 32:11-14 (AKJV/PCE)
(32:11) And Moses besought the LORD his God, and said, LORD, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand? (32:12) Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people. (32:13) Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit [it] for ever. (32:14) And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.
So you reject Isaiah 60 and Revelation 21? Good to know.
OUR salvation comes from the RISEN and ASCENDED LORD Jesus Christ whom WE are NOT to know after the FLESH (that's what a Jew is).
2Cor 5:16 (AKJV/PCE)
(5:16) Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we [him] no more.
2Tim 1:8-11 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:8) Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the gospel according to the power of God; (1:9) Who hath saved us, and called [us] with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began, (1:10) But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel: (1:11) Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.
Do you know what APPEARING Paul is talking about? Probably not.
:french:
:dizzy:
You are such a crazy dude.
Who are "the fathers" in Hebrews 1:1?
Interplanner
Well-known member
You really do read another Bible. He had interesting interactions with non Jews. And you may know that those Jews didn't consider Samaritans Jews, so you point is moot.
re Gen 12
But what you don't do is accept what the apostels said after being taught by Christ in the seminar. That's when we know that they realized all the promises were fulfilled in the resurrection for all nations. You are donig what Judaism did at that point; not accepting that, and you might have even fought for the land like the zealots.
Is and Rev have many passages about the NHNE after history.
We don't see Christ as Judaism did. they thought he was going to start a Davidic theocracy, Jn 5. God was in Christ, that's the gospel that was always intended, Immanuel, God with us, the governement on HIS shoulders.
The appearing in that passage is the Gospel. The clue: now.
Just as I thought: cartoons about Melchizedek, instead of a reasonable answer.
Where's my list mr scholar? Your the official split up Hebrews as I see fit guy, not me.
Yes, if your talking to jews, you refer to the forefathers, but that does not AUTOMATICALLY deprive non Jews from everything said. How about you make the reverse list: everything that applies to non-Jews? It starts in 1:2 through whom he made the universe. Oh, sorry, that's the Jewish universe, I forgot.
Right Divider
Body part
- Some gentiles approached Jesus.
- Jesus never approached a gentile.
You complete mis-interp because your force your silly story on the Bible, instead of letting all of the Bible be true. Which, OF COURSE, it is.
:nono:
"After history" is this another of your VanderLaaniamisms?
You have some strange thing that you call "Judaism". I have no idea that it means and the Bible never teaches anything called "Judaism".
I should have knows that you'd be THAT clueless. No, it is NOT!
Israel will be restored. That's what the Bible teaches. We are currently in time of God dispensing His grace freely to all without distinction. That will not last forever.
Interplanner
Well-known member
The Israel it was talking about is the one now with faith, no matter what background. That's what the Bible teaches. The apostles are loaded with it; Eph is loaded with it. God is not going back to Judaism, as there is no need, it is the former things, it is the old covenant, and all things are new. Old things are gone.
That's why what you are saying is nowhere in plain language in the apostle's teaching where it matters. It is not in Hebrews if you ever read the rest. Not in Rom 2 or 8 or 11 or 15, or 2 Pet 3, or I Cor 15, all about the 2nd coming.
Interplanner
Well-known member
I have noticed, though that everyone has dropped Rom 11 as they should. Maybe they are realizing it is fulfilled as it says, that "Israel" is by faith there, and that saved is justification from sins. As it says.
Greetings, AMR - hope all is well with you, brother!
A thought...obviously much of your above post is YOUR theological framework, read by you INTO those things...
Case in point to just one of your points - your assertion (if I understood you correctly) that "1 Cor 15 is the only time that Paul calls something "the Gospel'."
Romans 1:15 So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.
1 Corinthians 9:23 And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.
Galatians 2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
Galatians 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
Philippians 4:3 And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life.
Interplanner
Well-known member
btw, the Bible does mentioned Paul's former way of life in Judaism. We all know what that looked like I think.
Jesus talked to the Samaritan woman. You might as well say he never talked to a woman or a Gentile. I don't think they wanted to live in Judea if they could help it!
Interplanner
Well-known member
I don't know why, when you are introduced to the public as the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, there should be any confusion.
Israel knew from many OT passages that the Messiah would suffer. They didn't quite know how.
But once introduced as the Lamb, there were a number of things to address about how people 'did' Judaism, whether they were zealot- or temple-ritual based (the two groups did not get along). there were many things to say to both the zealots and the ritual-based. Those things were ethical. It was not as though the Gospel was forgotten--except that when Jesus went to pin it down, the disciples balked and said they didn't know what he was talking about.
I chalk that up to wishful thinking that there might be a zealot-type Messiah after all (setting up a monarchy) or a totally miraculous Messiah or both. The disciples realized half way through that they were really interested in one of those, not the suffering Lamb. Thus their balk.
The gospel never changed; the disciple's roots exposed.
It took an act of the Spirit to turn this corner. It took the 40 days of teaching that he was the fulfillment of all that was written in the Law and Prophets. It was still the offer of forgiveness through Christ and the fulfillment of promises to Israel when it was preached. For his travail, the slaughtered Lamb was honored with the throne of David, Acts 2:30-31, 13:36+.
Finally, there is the grammatical clarification that 'gospel of the kingdom' is possessive (the kingdom has a gospel) not nominative (the gospel was about the monarchy offer). To say that 'gospel of the kingdom' was a monarchy offer is like saying 'a truck of the store' means that the truck owns the store. No, the kingdom or reign of God had a gospel that energized it, and it was the one gospel found in Ps 22, Is 53 and Dan 9.
Israel knew from many OT passages that the Messiah would suffer. They didn't quite know how.
But once introduced as the Lamb, there were a number of things to address about how people 'did' Judaism, whether they were zealot- or temple-ritual based (the two groups did not get along). there were many things to say to both the zealots and the ritual-based. Those things were ethical. It was not as though the Gospel was forgotten--except that when Jesus went to pin it down, the disciples balked and said they didn't know what he was talking about.
I chalk that up to wishful thinking that there might be a zealot-type Messiah after all (setting up a monarchy) or a totally miraculous Messiah or both. The disciples realized half way through that they were really interested in one of those, not the suffering Lamb. Thus their balk.
The gospel never changed; the disciple's roots exposed.
It took an act of the Spirit to turn this corner. It took the 40 days of teaching that he was the fulfillment of all that was written in the Law and Prophets. It was still the offer of forgiveness through Christ and the fulfillment of promises to Israel when it was preached. For his travail, the slaughtered Lamb was honored with the throne of David, Acts 2:30-31, 13:36+.
Finally, there is the grammatical clarification that 'gospel of the kingdom' is possessive (the kingdom has a gospel) not nominative (the gospel was about the monarchy offer). To say that 'gospel of the kingdom' was a monarchy offer is like saying 'a truck of the store' means that the truck owns the store. No, the kingdom or reign of God had a gospel that energized it, and it was the one gospel found in Ps 22, Is 53 and Dan 9.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
All is well with me. Thanks for asking.
You misread me. In fact I argue that those seeking to make the passage from 1 Cor 15 as an incantation overlook the fact that Paul often refers to all of Romans as my gospel. So when odd ducks start to call for evidence that the disciples did not preach the Gospel, citing passages from 1 Cor 15 as some sort of litmus test of the Gospel, as proof there is some other Gospel out there, they have erred terribly and lack a proper understanding of what the Gospel actually means.
AMR
Last edited:
No problem with the whole of Romans being Paul's "my gospel."
At the same time, just as in Romans itself: he is often observed applying one passage or another in a manner that differs from how it had originally been applied and or intended, so is the case here and there throughout much in his other Epistles - including his words in 1 Cor. 15:1-4.
As in the following Contrast in Application...
Spoiler
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Which goat took away the sins? Was the Passover Lamb a sin offering?
No answer, as usual.
Remember, Mayor:"the kingdom or reign of God had a gospel that energized it." You are engaging in too much fracturization, and obtuseification. Get a grasp of these energized concepts.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Yes, this is an important point, and I do not want anyone to obtusify it away, de-energizing the momentum that has been built hitherforto.
HUH?