ECT Jesus by Jesus

[Danoh]

The following is a rather lengthy but basically well presented article Scripture wise on the gospel that Jesus and the Twelve had actually preached.

It can be a trying article, due to all the passages it cites, but only if one really has no real interest in actually looking at the abundance of passages the article's author's case is so well-founded on.

I mean, people complain that Mid-Acts is off-base, but do they really bother to look at the abundance of passages?

So, who's up to the task?

The best to each of you in this.

http://www.midactstruths.com/2013/05/04/did-jesus-and-paul-preach-the-same-gospel-2/

 

[Tambora]

The following is a rather lengthy but basically well presented article Scripture wise on the gospel that Jesus and the Twelve had actually preached.

It can be a trying article, due to all the passages it cites, but only if one really has no real interest in actually looking at the abundance of passages the article's author's case is so well-founded on.

I mean, people complain that Mid-Acts is off-base, but do they really bother to look at the abundance of passages?

So, who's up to the task?

The best to each of you in this.

http://www.midactstruths.com/2013/05/04/did-jesus-and-paul-preach-the-same-gospel-2/

I'm sleepy and about to hit the hay, but I have bookmarked it to look at later.

Thanks.

 

[Nihilo]

"Part of the problem stems from the “red letter” Bibles that so many of us now have. Although I appreciate the red letters for study purposes, we need to recognize that the red letters printed to emphasize Jesus’ words, by no means make what was preached in the four gospels any more important than any other part of Scripture."​

Versus Jesus is our Creator incarnate.

 

[jamie]

So, who's up to the task?

I wasn't, but I skimmed through the first part far enough to see the author did not know what he was talking about.

Nothing Paul taught preempts Jesus' teachings.

 

[Interplanner]

The following is a rather lengthy but basically well presented article Scripture wise on the gospel that Jesus and the Twelve had actually preached.

It can be a trying article, due to all the passages it cites, but only if one really has no real interest in actually looking at the abundance of passages the article's author's case is so well-founded on.

I mean, people complain that Mid-Acts is off-base, but do they really bother to look at the abundance of passages?

So, who's up to the task?

The best to each of you in this.

http://www.midactstruths.com/2013/05/04/did-jesus-and-paul-preach-the-same-gospel-2/

Besides the fact that Danoh disdains reading others (!), I would like to point out something in the language here that is supposed to justify our taking exception to Danoh's own rule and to read this. it is the expression 'the number of passages cited.'

There is a pastor in town whose sermon's I don't tolerate because they are the most sound-byting productions I know of. Many times it is not even a whole sentence, let alone a paragraph. But yeah, he is the record-holder of #s of passages cited.

A position is not solidified by #s of passages cited, because each of them has a context and the whole thing does as well.

This writer is probably "right" in that it certainly appears that the gospel was one message at one point in time and another at another point in time. But by the "citing #s of passages" method we could also say that Peter's capitulation was warranted--he did and so did those pressing him! But it was wrong.

Imagine a long runway, and the crowd at an air show is told that an unusual aircraft is coming which has never been seen in that area. The age of Messiah was such a big 'aircraft' landing that it needed a runway 40 years long, and it is no wonder spectators at one end say they saw one thing, while those at the other end say they saw something else. But that is because the ones at the front end had never seen such a thing before. But when it comes to a stop, it is confirmed that it was one and the same craft, and it did not take off or was not joined by another matching part along the way!

The gospel that belonged to the reign of God was named that because it was compelling people to obedience in a 'divine romance,' not in the old way of the letter and the threat of failure. No matter who you are, it can take years to clear out all the old gear, equipment, and practices of the letter!

 

[Danoh]

Besides the fact that Danoh disdains reading others (!), I would like to point out something in the language here that is supposed to justify our taking exception to Danoh's own rule and to read this. it is the expression 'the number of passages cited.'

There is a pastor in town whose sermon's I don't tolerate because they are the most sound-byting productions I know of. Many times it is not even a whole sentence, let alone a paragraph. But yeah, he is the record-holder of #s of passages cited.

A position is not solidified by #s of passages cited, because each of them has a context and the whole thing does as well.

This writer is probably "right" in that it certainly appears that the gospel was one message at one point in time and another at another point in time. But by the "citing #s of passages" method we could also say that Peter's capitulation was warranted--he did and so did those pressing him! But it was wrong.

Imagine a long runway, and the crowd at an air show is told that an unusual aircraft is coming which has never been seen in that area. The age of Messiah was such a big 'aircraft' landing that it needed a runway 40 years long, and it is no wonder spectators at one end say they saw one thing, while those at the other end say they saw something else. But that is because the ones at the front end had never seen such a thing before. But when it comes to a stop, it is confirmed that it was one and the same craft, and it did not take off or was not joined by another matching part along the way!

The gospel that belonged to the reign of God was named that because it was compelling people to obedience in a 'divine romance,' not in the old way of the letter and the threat of failure. No matter who you are, it can take years to clear out all the old gear, equipment, and practices of the letter!

You continue to misrepresent what I have often noted - an OVER reliance on books supposedly "Bible based" is no way to attempt to understand the Scripture.

I have also noted that I have read many books in my life, and still do.

What exactly is your need to distort my words on this?

Fact is I am curious about all sorts of views and how they work. As curious as I am about how all sorts of things in life work.

It's interesting. You are like some others on hete in their preferential treatment of those who agree with them.

How many times have I asked you how your online books business has been going only to never receive a response from you. Other than when you engage in your above misrepresentation of what I have noted?

I still believe you are better than that.

 

[Cross Reference]

You continue to misrepresent what I have often noted - an OVER reliance on books supposedly "Bible based" is no way to attempt to understand the Scripture.

I have also noted that I have read many books in my life, and still do.

What exactly is your need to distort my words on this?

Fact is I am curious about all sorts of views and how they work. As curious as I am about how all sorts of things in life work.

It's interesting. You are like some others on hete in their preferential treatment of those who agree with them.

How many times have I asked you how your online books business has been going only to never receive a response from you. Other than when you engage in your above misrepresentation of what I have noted?

I still believe you are better than that.

Good Luck!

 

[iamaberean]

The following is a rather lengthy but basically well presented article Scripture wise on the gospel that Jesus and the Twelve had actually preached.

It can be a trying article, due to all the passages it cites, but only if one really has no real interest in actually looking at the abundance of passages the article's author's case is so well-founded on.

I mean, people complain that Mid-Acts is off-base, but do they really bother to look at the abundance of passages?

So, who's up to the task?

The best to each of you in this.

http://www.midactstruths.com/2013/05/04/did-jesus-and-paul-preach-the-same-gospel-2/

Jesus was speaking to Jews who were living under the Law.

Paul was speaking to the Church in Rome, Christians who were living under Grace.

Two different ages, two different ways to salvation.

 

[Interplanner]

Jesus was speaking to Jews who were living under the Law.

Paul was speaking to the Church in Rome, Christians who were living under Grace.

Two different ages, two different ways to salvation.

Ah, ah, ah. There is no 2P2P in the Bible. The 2nd P of Judaism was a misconception they created, says Gal 3:17.

 

[Danoh]

Jesus was speaking to Jews who were living under the Law.

Paul was speaking to the Church in Rome, Christians who were living under Grace.

Two different ages, two different ways to salvation.

Given that you, and say, Tetelestai, Aaron the Tall, and Interplanner agree on so much that is often at odds with so much of what Interplanner refers to as 2P2P, and as a negative, it's odd to find you posting the above.

Then again, of those three, you have often proven the one more independent in thought.

I doubt you were asserting a 2P2P kind of a thing, though. But that's Interplanner for ya, ever reading his own conclusions into another's words, lol

 

[Interplanner]

what else can 'two ways of salvation' mean, Danoh?

 

[patrick jane]

I wasn't, but I skimmed through the first part far enough to see the author did not know what he was talking about.

Nothing Paul taught preempts Jesus' teachings.

No it doesn't preempt it postemps - supersedes - you see, Jesus came directly to Paul and told him new things. :duh:

 

[Danoh]

what else can 'two ways of salvation' mean, Danoh?

I'd ask him what he'd meant.

Why would I with regard to such a statement?

Because I subscribe to a Mid-Acts Hermenuetic, more or less.

A Hermenuetic I not only came to embrace out of being very rigorous out of my own, lifelong habit rigorously examining many things in life in general, but a Hermenuetic that greatly emphasizes the need to be vigilant in applying that same kind of rigorous questioning standard when reading/hearing another's take on a thing - asking what they meant.

I implied my application of said standard in my post to him. Only he knows what he meant.

The best to you on that...

 

[Interplanner]

No, words mean things. He said those in Romans had one way of salvation and those in another place had another. It is perfectly clear that there is 2P2P going on.

 

[Cross Reference]

No it doesn't preempt it postemps - supersedes - you see, Jesus came directly to Paul and told him new things. :duh:

What makes you believe for that? What "new" things? What new way of salvation?

 

[patrick jane]

What makes you believe for that? What "new" things? What new way of salvation?

Read Acts - Philemon :rapture:

 

[Danoh]

No, words mean things. He said those in Romans had one way of salvation and those in another place had another. It is perfectly clear that there is 2P2P going on.

I respectfully disagree; words do not mean things other than that which is perceived and or intended by either their receiver or their "intendor."

It is why life is so often frought either by an "I'm sorry; I'd thought you'd meant" such and so, or by the resulting conflict of not giving the words of others the benefit of the doubt, by simply asking them what they'd meant.

And even when one does ask, one is just as likely to run smack into the other side's misinterpretation of what one meant, or "was really up to" in their having asked for clarification.

Personally, I find all this conflict on these forums a cross between amusing and educational.

I mean, here all these people are, on a forum, each purporting to have found the holy grail to knowing how to get at the intended sense of the various writers of Scripture the Spirit inspired, and yet, much of what one sees from most is their constant misread, judging, misjudging of other's intent.

No thanks. I think I'll stick to asking others what they meant.

And I think I'll stick to giving others support where I agree, and the benefit of the doubt of asking them what they meant, where I am not sure.

 

[Cross Reference]

Read Acts - Philemon :rapture:

C'mon. Get real. I asked and you don't know, helps no one.