ECT Do those who believe MAD have no problem disregarding what Jesus actually taught ?
- Thread starter dodge
- Start date
K:
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Why didnt you answer my question since you obviously consider yourself an expert about the good news of Christ?
Those who believed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, were given life and were born of God when they believed that (Jn.20:30-31;1 Jn.5:1-5).
=satanic, as she once again asserts that there is only one piece of good news in the bible, and Judas preached this 'one Gospel' of 1 Cor. 15:1-4 KJV.
How long have you been a satanist, toots?
dodge
New member
I believe you have that backwards. You are the one portraying them self as an expert.I simply believe what I read in the bible without adding a spin on what I read to ignore other scripture. I was taught a long time ago that to not make scripture say what I want it to say the scripture must fit into the context of ALL scripture ,must not place other scripture in conflict with what it is saying and must not violate the other prophecies or other teachings in scripture.. which you take the liberty to do on a regular basis.
I didn't answer your question because you have asked and I have answered the same question before, but I will answer it ONE more time.
After the resurrection the men that had walked with Jesus ALL saw Him after HE was resurrected, and from that time forward they "ALL" preached the D.B.R and ascension including grace as the only means of salvation. I know you have a dog in the hunt and that does not go along with the absolute destruction of scripture done by MADist to make scripture fit into their false belief of two different Gospels.
Because Jesus said once or twice this is for Israel does not negate ALL of His teachings for the BOC, but that does not fit the false narrative of MAD.
Last edited:
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
You said the following:
So according to you there was never a time when the Jews and the Gentiles had different gospels. But the heart and soul of the gospel which Paul preached to the Gentiles during the Acts period is the fact that Christ died for our sins. And you correctly say that the Scriptures must fit into the context of ALL scriptures.
So if you are right then the Twelve were preaching a gospel to the Jews at Luke 9:6 which was centered on the death of the Lord Jesus and the blessings which will flow from that death.
Please explain how they could possibly be preaching that message to the Jews since at that time they didn't even know that the Lord Jesus was going to die (Lk.18:33-34).
dodge
New member
Jerry, The Apostles I do not believe were preaching the grace aspect of the eternal Gospel until after Jesus resurrected. The men you are saying never preached the full Gospel including GRACE walked with Jesus,saw Jesus crucified,and saw Jesus after He resurrected. YOU have to ignore the prophets, prophecies, and the fact that over 8000 plus people were saved before Paul even became a Christian to accept more than ONE Gospel.
The Gospel is the same the recipients changed for a period of time when Israel was set aside. The Jews were removed and the gentiles grafted into the SAME tree NOT a different tree.
Cornelius was a saved gentile bro. What was the content of faith for Neil in order for his salvation my friend?
We are told that he was a gentile who feared the God of Israel. That's your hintski.
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
The difference between Cornelius and most of the other Gentiles was that he was a proselyte at the gate and would know the teachings found in the OT.
The message that was preached to him was the same message which had been preached to the Jews (Acts 10:36-37). And even before Peter had finished his sermon to him he realized that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. And upon believing that message he was given life when he was born of God (Jn.20:30-31;1 Jn.5:1-5).
There is no evidence at all that he was saved by believing that Christ died for our sins.
So you don't know his content of faith in order for him to have been saved? I do.
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
Interplanner
Well-known member
Jesus is the Christ has no other meaning than that he was sacrificed for sins and made Lord and Christ in honor of that accomplishment, Acts 2.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Sure! The Apostles knew that the Lord Jesus was the Christ but until shortly before the Cross they didn't even know that He was going to die (Lk.18:33-34).
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Totally made up, or lifted from a commentary.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
:chuckle:
Interplanner
Well-known member
As explained before it cannot mean that. He had burial herbs as a gift since he was born. More intriguing is that no one can express the outburst of denial that Peter did in the Trans scene unless they really know it. He was BLOCKING it out of his mind. The Lk 18 passage (and parallels) means that they were now so disturbed at his death (vs him being monarch) that God had to hide it from them, only later to give it back to them through the Spirit.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
More humanism from Dr Phil.
Right Divider
Body part
Why do so many want to deny these sorts of clear and unambiguous facts?
Unbelief?
The problem is down to one thing and that is once again the mistranslation of a word. The English word gospel does not convey what the original word conveyed. Gospel is a made up word that nobody knows the true and first meaning of. The word gospel didn't appear until the English translators adulterated the scriptures.
Evangelism is a transliterated noun and conveys, in truth and light, what the Hebrew besorah and the Greek euangelion means. All other European language Bibles use the transliteration of euangelion. The only exceptions are those that took their translations from the KJV instead of the original tongues.