Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
The "good news" that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, is NOT the same "good news" that the Lord Jesus died for our sins.
Nice try, though!
ECT Two Gospels Preached During The Acts Period
- Thread starter Jerry Shugart
- Start date
The "good news" that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, is NOT the same "good news" that the Lord Jesus died for our sins.
Nice try, though!
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
At the time they were preaching the kingdom of God (Lk.9:2) they didn't even know the Lord Jesus was going to die (Lk.18:33-34).
So tell me, how is it possible that they were preaching that Christ died for our sins at Luke 9:2?
Made up. No, Survey Luke 9:6 KJV- Judas preached a "gospel"good news, as did the other 12, while the Lord walked this graveyard.. Even a 5 year old can see it, but you cannot, since your Professor Demas/Jezebel told you so, and you thought, "Well, I will be just fine." You assert "one gospel/one piece of good news" in the book. No scripture testifies to that-NADA.
So, tell us, genius, just what the h___ good news did Judas, and the 11 preach, while "Jesus was still breathing," per Luke 9:6 KJV?
Sit.
Last edited:
So which one is correct?
:carryon:
Interplanner
Well-known member
It's a very stupid mistake Jerry because it doesn't understand Greek grammar. and it doesn't understand the story being told. The unity of the gospels here is clear because it is the preaching that is the same. The target audience was different but has the same grammatical case as that target. The preaching (ie the content was the same).
It is also very uninformed to say that some division exists between being the Christ and justification. The very center of Is 53 is that he 'will justify many by his experience/ordeal.' Very unified.
It is ridiculous to be uninformed about Greek grammar these days. It will help if you consult a Greek text commentary or grammatical commentary before you blab.
The good news of the Kingdom and the way to enter it is all part of the same message preached by all Apostles.
LA
whitestone
Well-known member
lol, off to the clinic after a quick post,,,
If they were the same and it was so obvious to all then there would have not been any need for the disciples/apostles to gather to discuss the matter in Acts 15...
There would not have been a need to write a letter to the Gentiles stating they were not require to fulfil the law. And the apostles/disciples would not have thought there was still a necessity of an kingdom on earth "after" they were already preaching the same gospel(that would mean they didn’t grasp the gospel you think they were preaching)... Acts 1:6-7 KJV
If they were the same and it was so obvious to all then there would have not been any need for the disciples/apostles to gather to discuss the matter in Acts 15...
There would not have been a need to write a letter to the Gentiles stating they were not require to fulfil the law. And the apostles/disciples would not have thought there was still a necessity of an kingdom on earth "after" they were already preaching the same gospel(that would mean they didn’t grasp the gospel you think they were preaching)... Acts 1:6-7 KJV
Interplanner
Well-known member
You don't realize that the 'other' gospel (and there was one going around NOT sanctioned by the apostles) was the creation of the Judaizers. Why don't you just sit down and read Galatians some day to capture all the drama? The church had some enemies, not much different from nearby Colossae. They were Judaizers. They said Christ was great but the idea that he was COMPLETE--no that's a total mistake. You have to be circed and you have to keep the whole law to be justified.
So Paul comes up with a great pun: "Who CUT IN on you?" (and made fellowship complicated). Answer: THE JUDAIZERS. The CUTTERS. Get it? CIRC CIRC CIRC. The group that believes the Gospel PLUS CIRC!!!
That is NT history. However, MAD and D'ist theories about another Davidic theocracy are worthless.
He's still "Dodging" the issue.
As usually, you make NO sense. Keep up the bad work.
I want you to know that I really appreciate your ignorance. I find it rather endearing.
Go ahead and depend on your BOOKS for wisdom and knowledge. As for me, I'll continue to trust the Holy Spirit to give me guidance.
Paul ONLY preached the Grace Gospel that the ascended Christ gave him. Your opinion, is just that, your opinion.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
That is ridiculous!
The "good news" that the Lord Jesus died for our sins is not the same "good news" that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.
I never said anything which contradicted that. All who believed the "good news"of Christ, no matter what "good news"that is, were saved by grace through faith made possible by the finished wiork of the Lord Jesus upon the Cross.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Both are correct.
It is true that Christ died for our sins.
It is true that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.
This is two instances of the "good news" of Christ or the gospel of Christ.
And belief in either instances of the good news of Christ brings salvation to everyone who believes.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
I cannot believe that there are so many people on this thread who continue to insist that the "good news" that the Lord Jesus died for our sins is the same "good news" that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.
It boggles my mind that so many are able to stand reason on its head and insist that both instances of "good news" are the same "good news."
Act 15: 5 says "But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses." "Them" are the non-Jewish Christians.
That there were Pharisees who were said to believe on Christ but who insisted all Christians be circumcised supports the assertion of Paul in Galatians 1: 6-9 that what are called the Judaizers were teaching another Gospel. In Galatians 3: 3 Paul says "Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?" Being made perfect by the flesh can mean being circumcised in order to be saved as Acts 15: 1 says the men who came from Judea were trying to teach Paul's Greek Christians. Being made perfect by the flesh in Galatians also refers to the teaching that being perfect in the eyes of God is being is being a flesh descendant from Abraham.
The Pharisees who believed among the Jerusalem congregation, who may have been part of those later called the Judaizers, in teaching another Gospel were saying that circumcision and other parts of the Law (other than the moral law) were not done away with in the New Covenant and continue on as in the Old Covenant.
"Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing." Galatians 5: 2
"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17. Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ." Colossians 2: 16-17
In saying that the Old Covenant was done away with in II Corinthians 3: 7 and 3: 11 and Hebrews 10: 9, the New Testament affirms that circumcision and what Paul calls the "shadows" in Colossians 2: `17 were not continued into the New Covenant.
While the First Century Pharisees who believed - the Judaizers - taught that all Christians must obey the Law of Moses and be circumcised, etc - the founders of Separation Theology (Darby, Scofield and Chafer) taught that Old Covenant Israel as God's people by the fleshly descent from Abraham continue on, alongside the Church. This is the two peoples of God teaching.
But the two elect peoples of God teaching clearly contradicts John 10: 16, Romans 12: 4-5, Ephesians 4: 4, saying there is one elect group, not two. "There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling."
"For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office:
5. So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another."
Separation Theology's starting claim that God has two peoples, Old Covenant Israel and the Church is clearly contradicted by Romans 10: 12 and by Galatians 3: 28.
The "hermeneutic," or rules for interpretation of scripture of Separation Theology seem to allow the theology to teach doctrines clearly different from what scripture teaches in the case of Romans 10: 12 and Galatians 3: 28.
That there were Pharisees who were said to believe on Christ but who insisted all Christians be circumcised supports the assertion of Paul in Galatians 1: 6-9 that what are called the Judaizers were teaching another Gospel. In Galatians 3: 3 Paul says "Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?" Being made perfect by the flesh can mean being circumcised in order to be saved as Acts 15: 1 says the men who came from Judea were trying to teach Paul's Greek Christians. Being made perfect by the flesh in Galatians also refers to the teaching that being perfect in the eyes of God is being is being a flesh descendant from Abraham.
The Pharisees who believed among the Jerusalem congregation, who may have been part of those later called the Judaizers, in teaching another Gospel were saying that circumcision and other parts of the Law (other than the moral law) were not done away with in the New Covenant and continue on as in the Old Covenant.
"Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing." Galatians 5: 2
"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17. Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ." Colossians 2: 16-17
In saying that the Old Covenant was done away with in II Corinthians 3: 7 and 3: 11 and Hebrews 10: 9, the New Testament affirms that circumcision and what Paul calls the "shadows" in Colossians 2: `17 were not continued into the New Covenant.
While the First Century Pharisees who believed - the Judaizers - taught that all Christians must obey the Law of Moses and be circumcised, etc - the founders of Separation Theology (Darby, Scofield and Chafer) taught that Old Covenant Israel as God's people by the fleshly descent from Abraham continue on, alongside the Church. This is the two peoples of God teaching.
But the two elect peoples of God teaching clearly contradicts John 10: 16, Romans 12: 4-5, Ephesians 4: 4, saying there is one elect group, not two. "There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling."
"For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office:
5. So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another."
Separation Theology's starting claim that God has two peoples, Old Covenant Israel and the Church is clearly contradicted by Romans 10: 12 and by Galatians 3: 28.
The "hermeneutic," or rules for interpretation of scripture of Separation Theology seem to allow the theology to teach doctrines clearly different from what scripture teaches in the case of Romans 10: 12 and Galatians 3: 28.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
That is absolutely correct. There can be no doubt that Paul was preaching two different gospels during the Acts period. He recounts how he went to the Jerusalem church in order to see if he had run in vain for preaching a gospel that was different from that gospel that was being preached to the Jews:
"And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain" (Gal.2:2).
If there was only one gospel then Paul would not have singled out a gospel which he preached to the Gentiles. After all, he had been with the other Apostles earlier while he preached a gospel to the Jews (Acts 9:28-29) so if there was only one gospel then Paul would have had any doubts as to whether or not he had been running in vain. After explaining the gospel which he preached to the Gentiles to the other Apostles he said that they "added nothing to me" (v.6) and that "they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter" (v.7).
Speaking of Paul's two different ministries, Sir Robert Anderson says "to the Gentiles he preached a gospel which he had received by special revelation. And the specific purpose of his third visit to Jerusalem was to communicate that gospel to the other Apostles. (Galatians 2: 2) In writing to Timothy he speaks of it as 'the gospel of the glory of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.' It was the precious deposit which, on the eve of his martyrdom, he handed back, as it were, to the God who had entrusted it to him. (2 Timothy 1: 12) And this is the 'My gospel,' of the postscript to his Epistle to the Romans. (Romans 16:25,26)" (Anderson, Forgotten Truths,26).
Last edited:
beloved57
Well-known member
Paul stated pretty clearly He preached only one Gospel Gal 1:8-9 and He received it from Christ by revelation 11-12
This is deceptive teaching your introducing here.