Christ's Gospel? Paul's Gospel?
- Thread starter JGIG
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
.
Christ's Gospel? Paul's Gospel?
Are they different? Or are they complementary? Is Paul's Gospel 'his', or is it God's Gospel embraced by him? Are Paul's (and the other apostolic writings in the New Covenant Scriptures) what Jesus alluded to in John 16?
I was asked this question in an email recently:
"Another question, some at hrm [Hebrew Roots Movement/Torah pursuant folks] say there is the gospel of Jesus vs the gospel of Paul. Basically they teach that Paul wrote his own gospel even though Jesus clearly stated after his death burial and resurrection there would be more to come(information)."
My response:
That's a great question! In John 16, Jesus says this:
12 “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
Jesus is clearly telling His disciples that there is more truth to come that they, on that side of the Cross, could not, would not understand.
The Work of the Cross, the Resurrection, the Ascension, and His Perfect High Priesthood all needed to be in place before the fullness of the Gospel of Grace could be explained.
With the implications to the Law and Israel's relationship with it and God, when you think about it, it kinda had to be Paul to receive that revelation of the Gospel of Grace.
Paul was a Pharisee of the highest reputation, knowing the Law inside and out. For him to embrace the Gospel of Grace, which he proclaimed to be 'his' Gospel, was huge. To address that question real quick, Paul, by the end of his letter to the Romans states that it is 'his' Gospel, not in an 'I thought it up and created it' way, but in an 'I now embrace this as my Good News, applied to my life - the New Covenant, superior to the Old Covenant for which I had such passion' way.
Note that in Romans 1 Paul says this:
16 For I am not ashamed of >>> the <<< gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. 17 For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed—a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”
At the beginning of the letter to the Romans it is 'the' Gospel, and the letter to the Romans is a treatise on our
>>> need <<< for the Gospel for Jews and Gentiles alike, the
>>> supply <<< of the Gospel for Jews and Gentiles alike, and the
>>> results <<< of the Gospel for Jews and Gentiles alike.
And Paul expertly weaves the proper use of the Law and the application and superiority of Grace throughout - at the end proclaiming, as a former Pharisee Law-keeper, that this is *his* Gospel - a Gospel that he embraces himself, after having gone through the issues of Law and Grace point by point throughout the letter (and also in his other letters).
Now read Paul's closing comments in Romans 16:
25 Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages 26 but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations,
>>> according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith— <<<
27 to the only wise God be glory forevermore through Jesus Christ! Amen.
So the Gospel that Paul preached was not a gospel apart from Christ's, but Paul's and other apostolic New Covenant writings were the fulfillment of what Christ said in John 16.
Paul minces no words here when establishing the source for what he was teaching to the Galatians:
11 For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel. 12 For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it,
>>> but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. <<<
13 For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it. 14 And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, 16
>>> was pleased to reveal his Son to me, <<<
in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone; 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.
One thing to note here, as well, is that Jesus said that the Spirit of Truth would point to and glorify Christ - not to point to and glorify the Law, but to Christ, which is what Paul and the other apostles do all throughout the New Covenant Scriptures.
God was no longer relating to mankind - nor was He desiring mankind to relate to Him - through the Law, but through the Work and Person of God in the flesh, Christ Jesus.
So Paul (and the others) were not writing their own 'gospels'; they were carrying out the fulfillment of Jesus' words in John 16 - they were receiving that further information that could be understood on the side of the Cross where they now lived and we do too - revealing what was actually accomplished at the Cross, the Resurrection, the Ascension, and with the High Priesthood of Christ - and writing it down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
(I found the photo at a pro-Islam think tank site, btw. Funny, they use the same arguments that HRMers tend to use!)
Grace and peace to you in our Lord, Jesus Christ!
-JGIG
Christ's Gospel? Paul's Gospel?
Are they different? Or are they complementary? Is Paul's Gospel 'his', or is it God's Gospel embraced by him? Are Paul's (and the other apostolic writings in the New Covenant Scriptures) what Jesus alluded to in John 16?
I was asked this question in an email recently:
"Another question, some at hrm [Hebrew Roots Movement/Torah pursuant folks] say there is the gospel of Jesus vs the gospel of Paul. Basically they teach that Paul wrote his own gospel even though Jesus clearly stated after his death burial and resurrection there would be more to come(information)."
My response:
That's a great question! In John 16, Jesus says this:
12 “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
Jesus is clearly telling His disciples that there is more truth to come that they, on that side of the Cross, could not, would not understand.
The Work of the Cross, the Resurrection, the Ascension, and His Perfect High Priesthood all needed to be in place before the fullness of the Gospel of Grace could be explained.
With the implications to the Law and Israel's relationship with it and God, when you think about it, it kinda had to be Paul to receive that revelation of the Gospel of Grace.
Paul was a Pharisee of the highest reputation, knowing the Law inside and out. For him to embrace the Gospel of Grace, which he proclaimed to be 'his' Gospel, was huge. To address that question real quick, Paul, by the end of his letter to the Romans states that it is 'his' Gospel, not in an 'I thought it up and created it' way, but in an 'I now embrace this as my Good News, applied to my life - the New Covenant, superior to the Old Covenant for which I had such passion' way.
Note that in Romans 1 Paul says this:
16 For I am not ashamed of >>> the <<< gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. 17 For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed—a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”
At the beginning of the letter to the Romans it is 'the' Gospel, and the letter to the Romans is a treatise on our
>>> need <<< for the Gospel for Jews and Gentiles alike, the
>>> supply <<< of the Gospel for Jews and Gentiles alike, and the
>>> results <<< of the Gospel for Jews and Gentiles alike.
And Paul expertly weaves the proper use of the Law and the application and superiority of Grace throughout - at the end proclaiming, as a former Pharisee Law-keeper, that this is *his* Gospel - a Gospel that he embraces himself, after having gone through the issues of Law and Grace point by point throughout the letter (and also in his other letters).
Now read Paul's closing comments in Romans 16:
25 Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages 26 but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations,
>>> according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith— <<<
27 to the only wise God be glory forevermore through Jesus Christ! Amen.
Paul minces no words here when establishing the source for what he was teaching to the Galatians:
11 For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel. 12 For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it,
>>> but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. <<<
13 For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it. 14 And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, 16
>>> was pleased to reveal his Son to me, <<<
in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone; 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.
One thing to note here, as well, is that Jesus said that the Spirit of Truth would point to and glorify Christ - not to point to and glorify the Law, but to Christ, which is what Paul and the other apostles do all throughout the New Covenant Scriptures.
God was no longer relating to mankind - nor was He desiring mankind to relate to Him - through the Law, but through the Work and Person of God in the flesh, Christ Jesus.
So Paul (and the others) were not writing their own 'gospels'; they were carrying out the fulfillment of Jesus' words in John 16 - they were receiving that further information that could be understood on the side of the Cross where they now lived and we do too - revealing what was actually accomplished at the Cross, the Resurrection, the Ascension, and with the High Priesthood of Christ - and writing it down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
(I found the photo at a pro-Islam think tank site, btw. Funny, they use the same arguments that HRMers tend to use!)
Grace and peace to you in our Lord, Jesus Christ!
-JGIG
the Holy spirit, teaches From the Gospel. Jesus spoke the entirety of the Gospel of the Kingdom, there is Only 1 Gospel, 1 faith, One baptism, One Lord, One church. Paul spoke from the foundation of the 4 gospels Like every apostle did.,
The Law was given entirely By Moses, then the prophets came giving understanding, calling the people to repentance telling them " look to the Law of Moses"
The Gospel was given entirely By the Mediator of the covenant. the apostles were sent to spread His Message to the World, to teach the World , those things He had taught them. Many of the things Jesus said, they didnt yet understand, it doesnt remove or change the words, the Holy spirit gave them Insight to understand the things He had already said. the Words do Not change, the Holy spirit will never teach other than Jesus. the thoing is " Jesus gospel vant Be understood Until the person Recieves the Holy ghost.
there are No two gospels, there is only 1 Mediator. Like the Prphets did not go and change the Law, But they gave insight into the Law, and called for repentance thats what the apostles are doing. they are Not saying to anyone " theres a different Gospel coming the gospel of Grace"
Grace and truth Cane through Jesus. Paul calls the Only Gospel " the Gospel of Grace....the Gospel of Hope..the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, the Gospel of Light, the Gospel, the Gospel of God concerning His Son...." Because He uses different phrases to describe the gospel doesnt Mean there are a bunch of different Gospels, Jesus was promised for over 600 Years to come Be annointed By the Spirit at Baptism and preach the Gospel. the reason He is " annointed" to Preach the Gospel, is Because He is the Messiah. .....as far as continuing on when you receive the Holy Ghost, you receive Jesus the same Yesterday, today, and forever.
Paul is No different from any apostle, He preached the same Gospel, to the same church Peter and the rest Preached to, Peter says it, and Paul also says there are arguments " I follow, Paul...I follow cephus( Peter) in the church. theres Only 1 church, theres Only 1 Lord, 1 Lawgiver. Paul and the apostles are all speaking the same " Go to Jesus, Believe in Him, He is the Promised Christ.
the spostles all Have different style in writing, but ther are Not preaching anythng contrary to One another, and Never will part with the teachings of Jesus Christ, that is the "Gospel of Grace." the gospel of Hope, the Gospel of Gods dear son, ect that paul names probably 5-7 things. its all the Kingdom of God, Pauls teaching about the Kingdom.
Do you really presume to speak with the authority of God to judge, without error, the beliefs of another just because they do not line up with your position?
I think it would be wiser to outline what you believe and why you believe it and pray that the Holy Spirit work in the life of the other and yourself to lead you both into an understanding of God's truth in the matter.
Luke 4:18-19
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
This verse proves that Jesus preached the gospel. And we all know that there’s no such thing as the gospel of the old covenant. Which is because the old covenant was based on “if you do all the law then you’ll be blessed.”
I wonder is some posters actually understand how bad a legal contract the old covenant was. The Jews sure didn’t know at the time they agreed to it, or they wouldn’t have been so confident.,
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
This verse proves that Jesus preached the gospel. And we all know that there’s no such thing as the gospel of the old covenant. Which is because the old covenant was based on “if you do all the law then you’ll be blessed.”
I wonder is some posters actually understand how bad a legal contract the old covenant was. The Jews sure didn’t know at the time they agreed to it, or they wouldn’t have been so confident.,
Scripture says that "His commandments are not grievous" (not burdensome or oppressive) which also applies to all the commandments in the Old Covenant. And after what God had done for the Israelites in bringing them out of Egypt, there was no reason for any of them not to have total faith and trust in God.
Ever since the time of Abel, those who believed God were deemed to be righteous, therefore faith was essential. But the commandments themselves were not burdensome, and God had also made full provision for the Israelites to deal with their sins. This does not mean that the New Covenant was not necessary, but the Old Covenant was not "bad". It was the Israelites who were always unbelieving and rebellious.
Ever since the time of Abel, those who believed God were deemed to be righteous, therefore faith was essential. But the commandments themselves were not burdensome, and God had also made full provision for the Israelites to deal with their sins. This does not mean that the New Covenant was not necessary, but the Old Covenant was not "bad". It was the Israelites who were always unbelieving and rebellious.
This is Satan's kingdom (II Corinthians 4:4) so I expect no more from those who are NOT in a Spiritual walk with the LORD but ONLY giving "LIP SERVICE" (Matthew 15:8) for "it is FOOLISHNESS unto them" (I Corinthians 2:14).
GOD SAID "They will put you out of the synagogues THINKING they've done GOD a service" (John 16:2). Therefore I find JOY when men persecute me and remarks from Satan e.g. "Well, you're certainly going to be JOYFUL!" lol
Prophecy is only being "fulfilled!" "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it" (Matthew 7:13-14).
Dear heart, Scripture "WITNESSES" other Scriptures and DO NOT "CONTRADICT" (Read Deuteronomy 19:15; Matthew 18:16; II Corinthians 13:1) for "GOD is NOT the author of confusion" (I Corinthians 14:33).
GOD SAID there is ONLY "one baptism" (Ephesians 4:5) and "one" means "one" no matter WHAT you've been TAUGHT to TRY to justify TWO! A "water" baptism and a "Holy Spirit" baptism equals TWO and "GOD DOES NOT LIE" (Numbers 23:19) so whose the LIAR?
Now you have to LISTEN TO WHAT GOD SAID and NOT what you've been TAUGHT; "one" means "one!"
GOD "chose" Paul (Acts 9:15) to "fulfill the word of God" (Colossians 1:25) but in doing so, you mean to tell me that JESUS "chose" and Apostle that turned his back on HIM and DISOBEYED Matthew 28:19 after John said "If any man doesn't KEEP JESUS' WORD, he is "A LAIR?" (I John 2:3-5).
Well Paul certainly did according to I Corinthians 1:17 in which he said "Christ sent me NOT to baptize." WHAT? What does he mean "Christ sent him NOT to baptize" AFTER JESUS COMMANDED [ALL] disciples [including Paul] to "Teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost?" Who does he think he is? MORE THAN GOD?
OR
Could it possibly be that Matthew 28:19 was "ADDED" into Scripture by your VICEGERENT?
Then Paul has the audacity to say he "received revelation from God" (Galatians 1:12) to say GOD TOLD HIM that there was "one baptism" (Ephesians 4:5) when JESUS ALLEGEDLY SAID there was a "water" (Matthew 28:19) baptism and a "Holy Spirit" (Acts 1:5) baptism making TWO. Who does he think he his? MORE THAN GOD?
Then Paul has the audacity after saying JESUS "REVEALED" the Word to him (Galatians 1:12) and after saying there is "one baptism," to define that "one baptism" as Holy Spirit baptism in Romans 6:4; I Corinthians 12:3; Galatians 3:27 AND Colossians 2:12. Maybe he remembered JESUS SPOKE of a Holy Spirit baptism that gives "POWER" (Acts 1:8) to perform MIRACULOUS actions in Mark 16:16-20? Otherwise, who does he think he is? MORE THAN GOD?
I'm CONFUSED here! If Matthew 28:19 is TRUE (water baptism) AND what JESUS SAID is TRUE (Acts 1:5; Mark 16:16; Holy Spirit baptism) that makes TWO baptisms AND Ephesians 4:5 "A LIE!"
Just curious? Are you as CONFUSED as I am?
If not, you can't ADD!
As far as "communion" is concerned, JESUS SAID HE would "fulfill" it (Luke 22:16; 18) and HE DID (II Peter 3:9)!
The Kingdom of GOD "came" on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:2) taking "the communion" to an ALL SPIRITUAL "communion" with the LORD and is why Paul could TRUTHFULLY say "Therefore when you come together into one place this is NOT to eat the Lord's Supper (I Corinthians 11:20). He told us NOT TO BE IGNORANT about it when he said in I Corinthians 10:3-4 "And did all eat the same Spiritual meat; And did all drink that same Spiritual drink; for they drank of that Spirit ROCK that followed them: and that ROCK was Christ" who is ALL SPIRITUAL!
"Christ is our Passover" (I Corinthians 5:7) who is ALL SPIRITUAL!
"Therefore when you come together into one place TARRY one for another" (I Corinthians 11:33)!
Does that sound like "setting up a table" (Hebrews 9:1-14)? It sure doesn't mean "WAIT" for the others so we can eat LITERALLY either because they sure didn't "WAIT" on Paul when they ALLEGEDLY "broke bread" in Acts 20:9!
Where does GOD SAY "Do not judge one another?" Matthew 7:1 is an IMPERATIVE SENTENCE meaning "YOU judge not..." but DO SO with the Word of God! How can we make new converts if we don't use the Word to JUDGE their unrighteousness? There are Scriptures after Scriptures in both the OT and the NT that says we should "JUDGE" and even one that says "Do you not know that we shall JUDGE ANGELS? how much more things that pertain to THIS LIFE?" (I Corinthians 6:3).
Where do you all get this stuff from?
I belong to "THE SPIRIT" and that is "THE CHURCH!"
Blessings
GOD SAID "They will put you out of the synagogues THINKING they've done GOD a service" (John 16:2). Therefore I find JOY when men persecute me and remarks from Satan e.g. "Well, you're certainly going to be JOYFUL!" lol
Prophecy is only being "fulfilled!" "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it" (Matthew 7:13-14).
Dear heart, Scripture "WITNESSES" other Scriptures and DO NOT "CONTRADICT" (Read Deuteronomy 19:15; Matthew 18:16; II Corinthians 13:1) for "GOD is NOT the author of confusion" (I Corinthians 14:33).
GOD SAID there is ONLY "one baptism" (Ephesians 4:5) and "one" means "one" no matter WHAT you've been TAUGHT to TRY to justify TWO! A "water" baptism and a "Holy Spirit" baptism equals TWO and "GOD DOES NOT LIE" (Numbers 23:19) so whose the LIAR?
Now you have to LISTEN TO WHAT GOD SAID and NOT what you've been TAUGHT; "one" means "one!"
GOD "chose" Paul (Acts 9:15) to "fulfill the word of God" (Colossians 1:25) but in doing so, you mean to tell me that JESUS "chose" and Apostle that turned his back on HIM and DISOBEYED Matthew 28:19 after John said "If any man doesn't KEEP JESUS' WORD, he is "A LAIR?" (I John 2:3-5).
Well Paul certainly did according to I Corinthians 1:17 in which he said "Christ sent me NOT to baptize." WHAT? What does he mean "Christ sent him NOT to baptize" AFTER JESUS COMMANDED [ALL] disciples [including Paul] to "Teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost?" Who does he think he is? MORE THAN GOD?
OR
Could it possibly be that Matthew 28:19 was "ADDED" into Scripture by your VICEGERENT?
Then Paul has the audacity to say he "received revelation from God" (Galatians 1:12) to say GOD TOLD HIM that there was "one baptism" (Ephesians 4:5) when JESUS ALLEGEDLY SAID there was a "water" (Matthew 28:19) baptism and a "Holy Spirit" (Acts 1:5) baptism making TWO. Who does he think he his? MORE THAN GOD?
Then Paul has the audacity after saying JESUS "REVEALED" the Word to him (Galatians 1:12) and after saying there is "one baptism," to define that "one baptism" as Holy Spirit baptism in Romans 6:4; I Corinthians 12:3; Galatians 3:27 AND Colossians 2:12. Maybe he remembered JESUS SPOKE of a Holy Spirit baptism that gives "POWER" (Acts 1:8) to perform MIRACULOUS actions in Mark 16:16-20? Otherwise, who does he think he is? MORE THAN GOD?
I'm CONFUSED here! If Matthew 28:19 is TRUE (water baptism) AND what JESUS SAID is TRUE (Acts 1:5; Mark 16:16; Holy Spirit baptism) that makes TWO baptisms AND Ephesians 4:5 "A LIE!"
Just curious? Are you as CONFUSED as I am?
If not, you can't ADD!
As far as "communion" is concerned, JESUS SAID HE would "fulfill" it (Luke 22:16; 18) and HE DID (II Peter 3:9)!
The Kingdom of GOD "came" on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:2) taking "the communion" to an ALL SPIRITUAL "communion" with the LORD and is why Paul could TRUTHFULLY say "Therefore when you come together into one place this is NOT to eat the Lord's Supper (I Corinthians 11:20). He told us NOT TO BE IGNORANT about it when he said in I Corinthians 10:3-4 "And did all eat the same Spiritual meat; And did all drink that same Spiritual drink; for they drank of that Spirit ROCK that followed them: and that ROCK was Christ" who is ALL SPIRITUAL!
"Christ is our Passover" (I Corinthians 5:7) who is ALL SPIRITUAL!
"Therefore when you come together into one place TARRY one for another" (I Corinthians 11:33)!
Does that sound like "setting up a table" (Hebrews 9:1-14)? It sure doesn't mean "WAIT" for the others so we can eat LITERALLY either because they sure didn't "WAIT" on Paul when they ALLEGEDLY "broke bread" in Acts 20:9!
Where does GOD SAY "Do not judge one another?" Matthew 7:1 is an IMPERATIVE SENTENCE meaning "YOU judge not..." but DO SO with the Word of God! How can we make new converts if we don't use the Word to JUDGE their unrighteousness? There are Scriptures after Scriptures in both the OT and the NT that says we should "JUDGE" and even one that says "Do you not know that we shall JUDGE ANGELS? how much more things that pertain to THIS LIFE?" (I Corinthians 6:3).
Where do you all get this stuff from?
I belong to "THE SPIRIT" and that is "THE CHURCH!"
Blessings
Last edited:
I GIVE WORD!!!
Did I not?
There's NO WAY you can say "Peter didn't FORGET" when it says it in Acts 11:16 and Peter said "Then REMEMBERED I the word of the Lord, how that HE SAID, John indeed baptized with water; *BUT* [Which NULLIFIES everything preceding in a sentence] ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost."
WHEN SOME "REMEMBERS" SOMETHING, THAT MEAN THEY "FORGOT" SOMETHING!
It also "fulfills" what JESUS SAID in John 14:26 "...HE shall teach you ALL things, and bring ALL things to your REMEMBRANCE, whatsoever I have said unto you." Didn't JESUS "fulfill" John 14:26? HALLELUJAH! There's NO ONE like *my* JESUS! Thank you JESUS (Matthew 11:25)!
Praise break! Where was I?
No! It's "a grave error" on "Christianity" for the VICEGERENT has "DECEIVED" them!
I GAVE WORD and you call GOD "FAKE NEWS?" "BLASPHEMY" (Matthew 12:31-32)!
I GIVE WORD as "COMMANDED" (II Timothy 3:16) which "PROVED" Peter "FORGOT" and you tell *me* I Thess 5:21?
Just say you LOVE THE VICEGERENT'S teachings MORE THAN GOD'S which is a truer statement because I HAVE "PROVEN" with the WORD OF GOD that Peter "FORGOT" and ALL those water baptism in the Book of Acts were IN ERROR! Now you "PROVE" where TWO baptisms are necessary when GOD SAID "one baptism" (Ephesians 4:5)???
You need to LISTEN to how your VICEGERENT ENTWINED LIES into Scriptures after REVELATION had been receive by Peter (and he NEVER water baptized again and "REPENTED" in Acts 11:17 when he said "What was I to withstand GOD?") as Paul ALLEGEDLY performed the LAST water baptism in the Book of Acts.
LISTEN:
"Have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed?" (Acts 19:2).
"How were you BAPTIZED?" (Acts 19:3).
WHAT?
Why is Paul ASSOCIATING "receiving the Holy Ghost" with "being baptized" *IF* they had not received "revelation?"
Why would Paul define "baptism" as Holy Spirit baptism throughout the Epistles (Romans 6:4 "LIKE AS Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father; I Corinthians 12:13; Galatians 3:27; Colossians 2:12; "operation of God")?
There are OTHER LIES "ENTWINED IN SCRIPTURE BY YOUR "VICEGERENT" to make you believe a water baptism is "holding fast to that which is good!"
LORD HAVE MERCY!
Did I not?
There's NO WAY you can say "Peter didn't FORGET" when it says it in Acts 11:16 and Peter said "Then REMEMBERED I the word of the Lord, how that HE SAID, John indeed baptized with water; *BUT* [Which NULLIFIES everything preceding in a sentence] ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost."
WHEN SOME "REMEMBERS" SOMETHING, THAT MEAN THEY "FORGOT" SOMETHING!
It also "fulfills" what JESUS SAID in John 14:26 "...HE shall teach you ALL things, and bring ALL things to your REMEMBRANCE, whatsoever I have said unto you." Didn't JESUS "fulfill" John 14:26? HALLELUJAH! There's NO ONE like *my* JESUS! Thank you JESUS (Matthew 11:25)!
Praise break! Where was I?
No! It's "a grave error" on "Christianity" for the VICEGERENT has "DECEIVED" them!
I GAVE WORD and you call GOD "FAKE NEWS?" "BLASPHEMY" (Matthew 12:31-32)!
I GIVE WORD as "COMMANDED" (II Timothy 3:16) which "PROVED" Peter "FORGOT" and you tell *me* I Thess 5:21?
Just say you LOVE THE VICEGERENT'S teachings MORE THAN GOD'S which is a truer statement because I HAVE "PROVEN" with the WORD OF GOD that Peter "FORGOT" and ALL those water baptism in the Book of Acts were IN ERROR! Now you "PROVE" where TWO baptisms are necessary when GOD SAID "one baptism" (Ephesians 4:5)???
You need to LISTEN to how your VICEGERENT ENTWINED LIES into Scriptures after REVELATION had been receive by Peter (and he NEVER water baptized again and "REPENTED" in Acts 11:17 when he said "What was I to withstand GOD?") as Paul ALLEGEDLY performed the LAST water baptism in the Book of Acts.
LISTEN:
"Have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed?" (Acts 19:2).
"How were you BAPTIZED?" (Acts 19:3).
WHAT?
Why is Paul ASSOCIATING "receiving the Holy Ghost" with "being baptized" *IF* they had not received "revelation?"
Why would Paul define "baptism" as Holy Spirit baptism throughout the Epistles (Romans 6:4 "LIKE AS Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father; I Corinthians 12:13; Galatians 3:27; Colossians 2:12; "operation of God")?
There are OTHER LIES "ENTWINED IN SCRIPTURE BY YOUR "VICEGERENT" to make you believe a water baptism is "holding fast to that which is good!"
LORD HAVE MERCY!
No you did not. When someone drops in out of the blue and calls all Bible-believing Christians spawns of the Roman Catholic Church, that is a huge red flag. And when someone comes along to question fundamental Bible doctrines and pervert the truth -- as a so-called “prophetess” -- then that is quite ominous.
Incognito has repeatedly attacked the doctrine of water baptism and claimed that it is now null and void. Here is a direct quote from another one of her rants:
But a careful examination of what Peter said in Acts 11 confirms that Peter DID NOT FORGET ANYTHING, and just like Christ and all the other apostles, he taught the necessity of BOTH Holy Spirit baptism and water baptism. And this is what all true Bible-believing Christians accept. So let’s get back to Acts 11:15-17:
For context, we read in Acts 10 how the apostle Peter (as a strict practising Jew) reluctantly went to the house of the Gentile Cornelius in Caesarea, preached the Gospel, and witnessed (along with other Jews) how God saved a whole group of Gentiles. (1) They all received the gift of the Holy Spirit, (2) they all spoke in tongues, (3) they all were commanded to be baptized with Christian baptism (immersion), and (4) they all submitted to Christian baptism.
In Acts 11, when Peter returned to Jerusalem, the Jewish Christians (who had thus far maintained strict separation from the “unclean” Gentiles), wondered why Peter had “defiled” himself by going to the Gentiles. So Peter explained exactly what happened and that it was God who has brought the Gentiles into the Church. And he certainly could not “withstand” God.
Now Peter (along with many of the apostles) had heard the preaching of the prophet John the Baptizer. And it was John who had – by Divine inspiration – stated “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire” (Mt 3:11).
Peter did two things in Acts 11:16: (a) he correctly attributed the words of John to “the word of the Lord” (the Word of God) and (b) he summarized what John had said instead of quoting all the words in Mt 3:11. And when Scripture says that Peter “remembered” these words, we are to simply take that as Peter “RECALLED” what John had said after he saw the Holy Spirit fall on the Gentiles and they began to speak in tongues.
If we take into account the fact that Peter was in the house of Cornelius under compulsion (since he was extremely reluctant to go there) we can understand why Peter “recalled” the words of John only when the Holy Spirit actually descended on the Gentiles. He immediately made the connection, and saw that what John had said included both Jews and Gentiles, while he had assumed it was only for the Jews. Peter did not "forget" anything but the Holy Spirit impressed on him that Gentiles were also included in that prophecy of John.
But what we need to clearly understand is that Acts chapter 10 ESTABLISHES the necessity of both Holy Spirit baptism and water baptism (which is being attacked by Incognito):
44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
As to the “one baptism” mentioned in Ephesians 4:5, it is easy to see from the context that it is a reference to the baptism WITH the Holy Spirit (without which there can be no regeneration). The context is “the unity of the Spirit” (v 3).
In view of this, I am now asking Incognito to curb her “zeal without knowledge” and start learning Bible truth, instead of attacking it.
Incognito has repeatedly attacked the doctrine of water baptism and claimed that it is now null and void. Here is a direct quote from another one of her rants:
But a careful examination of what Peter said in Acts 11 confirms that Peter DID NOT FORGET ANYTHING, and just like Christ and all the other apostles, he taught the necessity of BOTH Holy Spirit baptism and water baptism. And this is what all true Bible-believing Christians accept. So let’s get back to Acts 11:15-17:
For context, we read in Acts 10 how the apostle Peter (as a strict practising Jew) reluctantly went to the house of the Gentile Cornelius in Caesarea, preached the Gospel, and witnessed (along with other Jews) how God saved a whole group of Gentiles. (1) They all received the gift of the Holy Spirit, (2) they all spoke in tongues, (3) they all were commanded to be baptized with Christian baptism (immersion), and (4) they all submitted to Christian baptism.
In Acts 11, when Peter returned to Jerusalem, the Jewish Christians (who had thus far maintained strict separation from the “unclean” Gentiles), wondered why Peter had “defiled” himself by going to the Gentiles. So Peter explained exactly what happened and that it was God who has brought the Gentiles into the Church. And he certainly could not “withstand” God.
Now Peter (along with many of the apostles) had heard the preaching of the prophet John the Baptizer. And it was John who had – by Divine inspiration – stated “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire” (Mt 3:11).
Peter did two things in Acts 11:16: (a) he correctly attributed the words of John to “the word of the Lord” (the Word of God) and (b) he summarized what John had said instead of quoting all the words in Mt 3:11. And when Scripture says that Peter “remembered” these words, we are to simply take that as Peter “RECALLED” what John had said after he saw the Holy Spirit fall on the Gentiles and they began to speak in tongues.
If we take into account the fact that Peter was in the house of Cornelius under compulsion (since he was extremely reluctant to go there) we can understand why Peter “recalled” the words of John only when the Holy Spirit actually descended on the Gentiles. He immediately made the connection, and saw that what John had said included both Jews and Gentiles, while he had assumed it was only for the Jews. Peter did not "forget" anything but the Holy Spirit impressed on him that Gentiles were also included in that prophecy of John.
But what we need to clearly understand is that Acts chapter 10 ESTABLISHES the necessity of both Holy Spirit baptism and water baptism (which is being attacked by Incognito):
44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
As to the “one baptism” mentioned in Ephesians 4:5, it is easy to see from the context that it is a reference to the baptism WITH the Holy Spirit (without which there can be no regeneration). The context is “the unity of the Spirit” (v 3).
In view of this, I am now asking Incognito to curb her “zeal without knowledge” and start learning Bible truth, instead of attacking it.
Last edited:
Christs Gospel was the good news of the kingdom. He announced the coming of the kingdom to Israel. The kingdom is spiritual not physical. This is important. He didnt ''offer'' the kingdom to Israel and have the offer refused as some insist on believing. That amounts to saying that Jesus failed so has has to return for another go. He brought the kingdom to Israel. Those Jews who believed in him were born again. Gentiles who believed in him became part of spiritual Israel. Those Jews who didn't were left to perish under the Law and still are. Jesus is the embodiment of Israel and his ministry fulfills the OT. Anyone who is saved through him also becomes part of Israel The idea that Paul had a different Gospel than that of Jesus is tantamount to saying that Christs kingdom was different from the one that Paul preached.
