ECT A sort of good news for Israel within the Gospel

Interplanner

New member
The following statement should make the NT background and history cohere properly (instead of ignoring it) and should satisfy some people's need for 'another' gospel.

There is only one Gospel, but it was introduced in the early 1st century when the rebellion predicted by dan 9 was already showing. In Judas the Galilean in the days of the census. That is a fact of both history and Luke and Josephus. The Gospel of the Lamb of God had an 'angle' for Israel: if it became missionaries through the Spirit of the work of this Gospel it would be the fulfillment of all the lines of Genesis about blessing all the nations. It could get along with Roman admin, doing so.

The alternative: Israel could continue to resist Roman admin, because of beliefs from the prophets or all the way back to the Torah, without their meaning in Christ. Resistance would be futile, but obviously there were cracy messianics who believed God would fight for them. You will find these materials in the Dead Sea Scrolls etc.

This comes to a head in the letter of warning to the Hebrews because they are to hear the voice and enter the rest as did the 40 yr generation in the wildernness. If they do not, their land will be burnt. The only other allusion to this (well, the term desolation is general enough to include this too) is the parable in Mt 22:7, where those who don't come to the wedding have their city burnt.

In this view, there was a 'good announcement' for people of that time. Because most were dreading what would happen through the zealots. In acts 13, a group of Jews at synagogue in the 40s 3 countries away from Israel ask "Is there any encouraging news?" and the subject, Paul knew, was the country of Israel. The encouraging news was the ENVELOPEMENT of Israel's problems inside the resurrection and mission of the Gospel. For the resurrection fulfilled all promises to Israel.

In that sense only is there another good news, but it does not compete with justification in Christ as does MAD etc. It is simply a by-product benefit in those decades in Judea. To adopt any other Gospel is anathema, and it does no good to find a moment in Peter's mistaken slide and call that another 'legitimate' Gospel.
 

Danoh

New member
Why not just post your view; why always start and or end with picking a fight with the MADs?

Or am I being "paranoid" :chuckle:
 

Lazy afternoon

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Peter was given the keys to the Kingdom which was repeated by others and which allowed Paul into the Kingdom.

It has always been that way since the beginning.

Paul did not introduce another gospel to that which he entered himself.

Jud 1:1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:
Jud 1:2 Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied.
Jud 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

LA
 

Interplanner

New member
Why not just post your view; why always start and or end with picking a fight with the MADs?

Or am I being "paranoid" :chuckle:



OH, that because I just read Gal 1 again, and there seems to be an anathema for another Gospel, and the MADs keep validating their other gospels. It's like dealing with Mormonism or JWs but because it is such a direct hit on NT background, I feel more compelled.

But after reading more MADs, I learn that Gal 1 is really just relative and 'everyone's "truth" is equal to everyone else's "truth"' so maybe there's not so much of a problem.
 

Interplanner

New member
Why not just post your view; why always start and or end with picking a fight with the MADs?

Or am I being "paranoid" :chuckle:



Yours is a really stupid question as it IS my view, and you are just doing your amateur, immature pscyh ops things again instead of real questions. Where is your statement on the gap? You could care less when there is psych ops to be done. You are like hearing the DNC in the news each day. 'Ransom? No, it just happened at the same time for two different reasons.' etc ad nauseum

I don't plan on much interaction as long as you are acting this way.
 

Danoh

New member
Peter was given the keys to the Kingdom which was repeated by others and which allowed Paul into the Kingdom.

It has always been that way since the beginning.

Paul did not introduce another gospel to that which he entered himself.

Jud 1:1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:
Jud 1:2 Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied.
Jud 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

LA

All you have proven is that YOU think those passages are describing what YOU think they are describing.

The proper way is to post passages that show that each's preaching was basically the same; if they actually were.

Passages that first need to be carefully examined before concluding on them.

Carefully examined both as to their similarities, if any, as well as to their differences, if any.

Case in point...

Matthew 6:14 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: 6:15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Ephesians 4:32 And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.

One of those is conditional.

The other is not.

The dividing line - The Things That Differ - between the two?

Romans 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

One of those passages was how things worked under the Law.

The other is how things work under Grace.

Mystery Grace, not Prophesied Grace.

You will right off disagree. You will not bother to attempt to get clear on what I may or may not have meant by any of that before you conclude against it.

Your issues with some Mads for both your mutual ungraciousness towards one another; blinding you even further from being able to even consider the above.
 
Top