THE APOSTLES DID NOT PREACH THE SAME GOSPEL

[thborn]

The twelve Apostles were not preaching the same gospel as Paul, but rather the gospel of the kingdom, which Paul never preached.

It is imperative to believe the gospel that was given to us and be justified unto eternal life.

Yes, at least to the second, certainly. I have a lot of catching up to do, having not grown up really with teachers who talked about dispensationalism or the big ideas in Pauline theology or the details of the end times (which I realize are important to understand, as much as the average person can...Revelation 22:7 "Behold, I am coming soon! Blessed is he who keeps the words of the prophecy in this book.") My mind is reeling a bit from having to change my opinions a lot in only a short time...

This is what I've gleaned from reading in this thread. The Kingdom is in heaven. It is in the hearts of those believers who are in the Body of Christ according to the mystery as preached by Paul. It was in the hearts of some who believed Jesus while he preached. A form of the kingdom will exist on the earth, to be ruled by Christ and certain of the Jews, in the future. I'm not sure which earth this necessarily is, but I am open to suggestion. Aside from these manifestations, the Kingdom will exist forever, for all Jews and Gentiles who are justified.

Paul says new things in his epistles. These are perfectly in line with what Christ taught (John 3:18 "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son." (NIV) Paul explained further what is said here (that nobody at this time has to follow the bulk of the law's regulations) and further spelled out doctrines of faith, the elect, and Christian kindness.

Peter and Paul do not seem to have preached the exact message regarding every regulation (luckily I am virtually a vegetarian and don't normally have to worry about how meat has been slaughtered). So, at least in some sense, Paul's message IS different.

But are you saying that the message Jesus preached during the few years of His earthly ministry did still at that point include all the regulations of the law? If so, I am open to the teaching (unless I am forgetting a line of Scripture that clearly denies this, and if this can be reconciled with the quote from John above). However, that would seem not to be very relevant to us, especially if the end times have not truly begun yet? Please help me out if you think I'm going off the rails at any point...I am not sure about some things yet.

May God bless you in every way through His Son Our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[thborn]

What is obvious isn't necessarily true, for example man going to the moon. The short story is that the technical challenges (especially the hazard posed by the van Allen radiation) could not be overcome by NASA in the sixties, so their elites faked it rather than admit defeat. One of the proofs is that there's no hypergolic flame evident for the ascent stage leaving the lunar module, another is the short communications response time.

The idea of a free gift is first expressed as a light to the Gentiles, which is associated with the idea of judgement (Isaiah 42:1-6); i.e. there's no such thing as a free lunch.

The idea of constancy is expressed here:

For I am YHWH, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.
Malachai 3:6

One of the qualities of YHWH is justice/righteousness:

For the righteous LORD loveth righteousness; his countenance doth behold the upright.
Palm 11:7

Tying together the ideas of justice and judgment, the inconsistency between that and the idea of an innocent man being crucified as part of a divine plan is pretty stark. Adding the repudiation of sacrifice by the prophets and the alternative expression of the sign relating to the crucifixion, there's grounds for testing the idea that the crucifixion isn't what it seemed to be, IMO.

I have the ability to make up many religion I want, or follow any religion I want. But if a person is among God's elect, they will not. They will follow Scripture revealed by God. (Of course, there is the question of how one defines that. But the warnings for failing to identify holy scripture or to add or take away from it are clear.)

I'm rather existentialist. I'm not so much into head knowledge or head logic. Relationships are what matter to me, connections with pets, people, persons I long to see face to face. I want to follow Jesus. I want a closer kinship there. So I'm going to hold onto what has been written about him that has moved so many other people... even if many of those people have not been moved in such a way as to have eternal life.

I agree, there is no free lunch. But.. Exodus, 9:15 "I show mercy to whom I show mercy" Romans 33:19: "I show mercy to whom I show mercy"

Often in this life I am disgusted by the world, the bodily, disgusted by human governments and isms. I see myself as a lowly worm. The only way I could be made right with God is by something that defies everyday, straightforward human thinking.

This does not mean that God's mercy replaces justice and judgment. And of course, the great failing of many so-called Christians over the centuries to act with justice and righteousness must be condemned by believers.

As to the prophets repudiating sacrifices, doesn't this refer to the Israelite's sacrifices? The ordinary people? I'm talking about something God did.

Christ's sacrifice abolishes all other sacrifice, and He is not offered up again and again. It is a sacrifice but also a demonstration, an invitation.

As to the injustice of condemning an innocent man, let's not forget that Christ was willing to die for us.

The Scriptures Christians have inherited form a longer body of writing than in many other faiths. People have come up with a ton of different ways to reconcile hundreds chapters detailing many stages of tradition. Please make sure you are not trying to reevaluate God's Word without God.

 

[Theo102]

I have the ability to make up many religion I want, or follow any religion I want. But if a person is among God's elect, they will not. They will follow Scripture revealed by God. (Of course, there is the question of how one defines that. But the warnings for failing to identify holy scripture or to add or take away from it are clear.)

Scripture isn't part of the new covenant.

But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith YHWH, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their Elohim, and they shall be my people.
Jeremiah 31:33

 

[God's Truth]

Scripture isn't part of the new covenant.

But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith YHWH, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their Elohim, and they shall be my people.
Jeremiah 31:33

Everything in the Bible is God breathed and scripture.

What Paul wrote is scripture:

2 Peter 3:15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

 

[Theo102]

Everything in the Bible is God breathed and scripture.

What Paul wrote is scripture:

2 Peter 3:15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2 Timothy 3:16

In context Paul is talking about the texts that predated the gospels.

"The Bible is true because the Bible says that it is true" is circular reasoning.

Peter's endorsement of Paul should also be considered in context, i.e. Paul's warning.

Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.
John 21:18

 

[God's Truth]

And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures,

...old testament scriptures.

which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2 Timothy 3:16

...old testament scriptures AND NEW testament scriptures.

In context Paul is talking about the texts that predated the gospels.

The gospels are scriptures.

You were given scriptures that say they are scriptures.

"The Bible is true because the Bible says that it is true" is circular reasoning.

There is a way to know.

Do you want to find out how to know?

Peter's endorsement of Paul should also be considered in context, i.e. Paul's warning.

Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.
John 21:18

That isn't a warning to Paul. Prove it that it is. Paul wasn't even an apostle yet.

 

[Theo102]

...old testament scriptures.

Yes.

...old testament scriptures AND NEW testament scriptures.

No, Paul didn't distinguish between what he wrote and what the Chruch fathers didn't include.
In context it means the same as the previous verse since there's nothing there to change the meaning.

The gospels are scriptures.

So are the Gnostic texts and the Quran.

You were given scriptures that say they are scriptures.

That's ambiguous.

That isn't a warning to Paul.

Of course. In context it's a warning about him.

 

[God's Truth]

Yes.


No, Paul didn't distinguish between what he wrote and what the Chruch fathers didn't include.
In context it means the same as the previous verse since there's nothing there to change the meaning.



So are the Gnostic texts and the Quran.



That's ambiguous.


Of course. In context it's a warning about him.

The Old Testament is about prophecies; the New Testament is prophecies fulfilled and explained.

The Old Testament was about Jesus.

Jesus came and fulfilled the scriptures; and he taught the Way in which was prophesied to be the way to be saved.

Paul spoke about the Old Testament many times to the Jews and Gentiles, explaining the same things that Jesus did.

Paul quoted Old Testament over a hundred times in just the letters we have from Paul in the Bible.