Are there two gospels or ONE?

[John146]

If you believed 12 disciples also preached the gospel of grace in the 4 gospels, let's test that hypothesis by taking a look at 2 passages from Luke.

First, lets look at Luke 9:6.
6 And they departed, and went through the towns, preaching the gospel, and healing every where.

This passage clearly states that the 12 were "preaching the gospel". But what gospel did they preach? Was it the same as what Paul said in 1 Cor? It was later on in Luke 18:33-34 that we found out

33 and after they have scourged Him, they will kill Him; and the third day He will rise again.” 34 But the disciples understood none of these things, and the meaning of this statement was hidden from them, and they did not comprehend the things that were said.

So the simple point is, "how could the Disciples be teaching Paul’s gospel of grace– the death, burial and resurrection (I Corinthians 15:1-4) if they didn’t know about the death, burial and resurrection?"

The 12 were teaching the Gospel of the Kingdom. The 12 were not wrong. They were doing what they had been told to do. They didn’t have to understand the divine exchange, all they need to do was to acknowledge that Jesus is the Messiah.

Preach! It’s amazing reading the plain text some still don’t get it.

 

[Absolutely]

If you believed 12 disciples also preached the gospel of grace in the 4 gospels, let's test that hypothesis by taking a look at 2 passages from Luke.

First, lets look at Luke 9:6.
6 And they departed, and went through the towns, preaching the gospel, and healing every where.

This passage clearly states that the 12 were "preaching the gospel". But what gospel did they preach? Was it the same as what Paul said in 1 Cor? It was later on in Luke 18:33-34 that we found out

33 and after they have scourged Him, they will kill Him; and the third day He will rise again.” 34 But the disciples understood none of these things, and the meaning of this statement was hidden from them, and they did not comprehend the things that were said.

So the simple point is, "how could the Disciples be teaching Paul’s gospel of grace– the death, burial and resurrection (I Corinthians 15:1-4) if they didn’t know about the death, burial and resurrection?"

The 12 were teaching the Gospel of the Kingdom. The 12 were not wrong. They were doing what they had been told to do. They didn’t have to understand the divine exchange, all they need to do was to acknowledge that Jesus is the Messiah.

Go back and SEE what i said.

Apostles.

You reared back and created all that over what you heard,not what I said.

Nobody thinks the DISCIPLES understood fully the dbr. Nobody thinks that.

 

[Absolutely]

Preach! It’s amazing reading the plain text some still don’t get it.

Oh i get it.
You both misread my plain text.

Kinda like how you think in your mind that Jesus Gospel is foriegn to "Paul's gospel".

But it is what you think. So therefore it is.
Inspite of the plain text.

Mocking? Come on brother, don’t go there. I’m simply trying to show you that we must rightly divide the word of truth or we can make a mess of the Scripture.

Yes.
It really should be.

Untill then we will disagree

 

[Absolutely]

Verses please from the 4 gospels. Thanks.

You need me to teach you that Jesus preached grace?

 

[Sipsey]

Unless you are a Jew, I would strongly recommend you follow what the Apostle Paul said in Romans 10

9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

If you as a Gentile, confess that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the promised Messiah and stop there, I think you will "probably" still be saved though. But then, why take chances?

I guess maybe I was not clear enough in my assertions. I was simply contrasting the old covenant with the new. Sorry if you misunderstood.

Are you saying Jews need not follow Paul’s advice?

 

[Absolutely]

The early prophesies spoke of a coming Messiah. Some descriptive passages speak of His purpose.

It would seem to me that if someone accepted, by faith, that God would indeed make a way for this Messiah to “save” His people, then that would be faith enough.

Here is an excellent summation of that thread that runs through the entire O.T. , from an old Ungers book;


The Messianic Idea The OT messianic revelation appears not merely in particular predictions. The whole of the OT is rather to be looked upon as bearing a prophetic character. The idea underlying the whole development of these Scriptures and the life dealt with therein is that of God's gracious manifestation of Himself to men and the establishment of His kingdom on the earth. This idea becomes more and more distinct and centralizes itself more and more fully in the Person of the coming King, the Messiah. The creation and Fall of man and the growing sinfulness of the race make clear the need for deliverance. The preservation of a part of mankind from the Flood, and the continuance of human history, have great suggestion of promise. The call of Abraham, with the promise “in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed” revealed the divine purpose, which had been previously indicated, yet more distinctly (see Ge 22:18; cf. 12:3; 9:26; 3:15). The founding of the Jewish nation, its theocratic character, its institutions, its ritual, and its history all center on this one idea. The sinfulness of sin, the possibility of a divinely appointed method of deliverance from sin, and the realization of a kingdom of righteousness lie at the very basis of the Jewish economy. Moreover, the chosen nation bore its peculiar character not merely for its own sake, but also for the sake of the world. Upon condition of fidelity to the covenant the promise was given: “You shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Ex 19:6). The devout wish of Moses was significant also in the same direction, “Would that all the Lord's people were prophets” (Nu 11:29). But the highest glory of Israel was that from the nation One was to come in whom these noble relations to God and man, only to a large extent symbolized by the nation itself, should be perfectly fulfilled. The actual “Son” and “Servant” of God, the true Prophet, Priest, and King, was to be the Messiah. This is the key to the whole body of the OT Scriptures.

Nice.
The overwhelming depth to God's plan and man included intimately into it.

Thats what irks me about those attepting to disenfranchise the non pauline books

 

[Absolutely]

Notice what the Apostles said in early Acts about the cross, before Paul was called to preach the Gospel of Grace. Jesus’s death and resurrection were used by Peter, not to illustrate the divine exchange as Paul did, but as the final proof that Jesus is indeed the Son of God, the promised Messiah. In fact, not only did Peter not preach the divine exchange aspect of Jesus’s crucifixion on the cross, I notice one constant theme he hammered to his Jewish listeners was that they were responsible for crucifying Jesus.

Acts 2:36, where Peter says, "... Jesus, whom ye crucified ...." Peter also says in Acts 3:14-15, "But ye denied the Holy One ... and killed the Prince of life ...." Then in Acts 5:30 he says, "... Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree." Finally Stephen, who also preached Peter's gospel, told the Jews in Acts 7:52, "Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers ...."

My point is that, until the conversion of Saul/Paul, the crucifixion had been pointed out by the 12 apostles to their intended audience, the Jews, as something to be ashamed of and repented of.

Only after the ascended Jesus revealed the mystery of the gospel of grace to Paul (Ephesians 3:3-5), then all of us Gentile Christians, together with Paul, can look back to the crucifixion and cry: "He loved me and gave Himself for me!" Jesus was not murdered, instead he laid down his life for ME.

Indeed, the follow non-exhaustive list of verses written by Paul that testified to the importance of the cross in the divine exchange is as follows

Romans 3:25 (NLT) For God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin. People are made right with God when they believe that Jesus sacrificed his life, shedding his blood. This sacrifice shows that God was being fair when he held back and did not punish those who sinned in times past

1 Corinthians 1:18 New Living Translation (NLT) 18 The message of the cross is foolish to those who are headed for destruction! But we who are being saved know it is the very power of God.

Galatians 6:4 New Living Translation (NLT) As for me, may I never boast about anything except the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Colossians 1:20 (NASB) and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.

Colossians 2:14 (NIRV) He wiped out the written Law with its rules. The Law was against us. It opposed us. He took it away and nailed it to the cross.

Hebrews 12:2 fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Question to pauline adherants.

Was hebrews written by paul?

 

[Absolutely]

If a Gentile was healed it was a sign to the Jews.

You are still dodging the question. Every time elders pray over the sick, is the sick person healed? If not, then either the book of James is lying or that doctrine is not Church Age doctrine. Which is it?

I did answer it.
Does everyone prayed for recieve salvation?
No. They don't.
Soooooooo your PREMISE is bogus.

In fact,your premise goes directly to Jesus.
He could do no miracles,or only a few ,in nazareth.

So he failed under your template.
Your template,as i already pointed out,is backwards.
You are measuring the word by your own experience.
That is incorrect

 

[Absolutely]

Unless you are a Jew, I would strongly recommend you follow what the Apostle Paul said in Romans 10

9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

If you as a Gentile, confess that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the promised Messiah and stop there, I think you will "probably" still be saved though. But then, why take chances?

Ok,i am gathering from this Jesus,to you, is indirectly connected to either ethnic persona's salvation. ( the direct connection being how correctly/incorrectly you yourself kraft the wording of the prayer)

Jesus saves,no matter how badly i muddy up the prayer.

Salvation is Jesus. He is salvation.
Whether jew or gentile we all enter through the blood of Jesus.

The components prayed are not salvation. The person of Jesus is salvation.

Now,watch,somebody is going to slam me for saying we need to intentionally muddy up the sinners prayer.

 

[Absolutely]

The real question is, "When did they understand that message?" They definitely did not understand that before the Crucifixion.

And in Acts of the Apostle, when they preach that message to the Jews, did they tell them to believe that Jesus died for their sins and rose from the dead for their justification?

Or was it the same message as in the 4 Gospels, "Repent from your unbelief and now believe that Jesus is the Son of God and your Messiah, and he will return to Earth to rule as your King" (Acts 3:19-20)

When we preached Paul's Gospel of Grace to the Gentiles, which message do we use?

" pauls gospel" was a person.
Somehow,no matter how that is said,it completely alludes you.

That is why we differ. You do well to study and aspire to paul.

Not so well to use paul to muddy up the other Holy Spirit writings

 

[John146]

Oh i get it.
You both misread my plain text.

Kinda like how you think in your mind that Jesus Gospel is foriegn to "Paul's gospel".

But it is what you think. So therefore it is.
Inspite of the plain text.

Yes.
It really should be.

Untill then we will disagree

Can you post plain text where the disciples preached the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ for sins? Hint, it ain't there.

 

[John146]

I did answer it.
Does everyone prayed for recieve salvation?
No. They don't.
Soooooooo your PREMISE is bogus.

In fact,your premise goes directly to Jesus.
He could do no miracles,or only a few ,in nazareth.

So he failed under your template.
Your template,as i already pointed out,is backwards.
You are measuring the word by your own experience.
That is incorrect

I'll try one more time. The plain text in James 5 about the elders praying over the sick is not speaking of sickness as a lost condition. The sick in James 5 is physically ill. That's why the elders were called to pray over him. Salvation is not the issue. So, the question is, when elders pray over the sick, are they healed every time? James says yes. What do you say? If no, then James' audience must not be the body of Christ. Rightly divide the word of truth.

 

[John146]

" pauls gospel" was a person.
Somehow,no matter how that is said,it completely alludes you.

That is why we differ. You do well to study and aspire to paul.

Not so well to use paul to muddy up the other Holy Spirit writings

Paul's gospel is defined in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, how Christ died for our sins, he was buried and on the third day he rose again. That's the gospel message. It's just not Jesus. We have to preach who Jesus is and what He came to do.

 

[Sipsey]

That God foretold the “good news”, that He made a way for us to be “reconciled” to Him, is really really good news. The fact that He has a great plan and destination for the redeemed is also great news. God has foretold lots of “good news.”

But all of the good promises are conditional upon accepting Christ for who He is and what He would do and did; all of the other “good news’s” hinge upon that.

So to say there is more than one gospel in one sense is true, but I don’t think they can be separated from the gospel of reconciliation through Christ, in my humble opinion.

 

[iamsoandso]

Notice what the Apostles said in early Acts about the cross, before Paul was called to preach the Gospel of Grace. Jesus’s death and resurrection were used by Peter, not to illustrate the divine exchange as Paul did, but as the final proof that Jesus is indeed the Son of God, the promised Messiah. In fact, not only did Peter not preach the divine exchange aspect of Jesus’s crucifixion on the cross, I notice one constant theme he hammered to his Jewish listeners was that they were responsible for crucifying Jesus.

Acts 2:36, where Peter says, "... Jesus, whom ye crucified ...." Peter also says in Acts 3:14-15, "But ye denied the Holy One ... and killed the Prince of life ...." Then in Acts 5:30 he says, "... Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree." Finally Stephen, who also preached Peter's gospel, told the Jews in Acts 7:52, "Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers ...."

My point is that, until the conversion of Saul/Paul, the crucifixion had been pointed out by the 12 apostles to their intended audience, the Jews, as something to be ashamed of and repented of.

Only after the ascended Jesus revealed the mystery of the gospel of grace to Paul (Ephesians 3:3-5), then all of us Gentile Christians, together with Paul, can look back to the crucifixion and cry: "He loved me and gave Himself for me!" Jesus was not murdered, instead he laid down his life for ME.

Indeed, the follow non-exhaustive list of verses written by Paul that testified to the importance of the cross in the divine exchange is as follows

Romans 3:25 (NLT) For God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin. People are made right with God when they believe that Jesus sacrificed his life, shedding his blood. This sacrifice shows that God was being fair when he held back and did not punish those who sinned in times past

1 Corinthians 1:18 New Living Translation (NLT) 18 The message of the cross is foolish to those who are headed for destruction! But we who are being saved know it is the very power of God.

Galatians 6:4 New Living Translation (NLT) As for me, may I never boast about anything except the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Colossians 1:20 (NASB) and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.

Colossians 2:14 (NIRV) He wiped out the written Law with its rules. The Law was against us. It opposed us. He took it away and nailed it to the cross.

Hebrews 12:2 fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

lol, Both Peter in Acts 2 and Paul , Acts 13:35, when speaking of the DBR of Jesus Both quote Psalms and David the only difference in them was that when Peter quoted it in Acts 2 Paul was still an unbeliever(Saul of Tarsus). The two Scriptures are the first two accounts of the two Apostles speaking of the DBR and are both recorded by Luke who was a deciple of Paul and so he(Luke) would have not shown Peter speaking of it before Paul if it was not so.

 

[iamsoandso]

Unless you are a Jew, I would strongly recommend you follow what the Apostle Paul said in Romans 10

9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

If you as a Gentile, confess that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the promised Messiah and stop there, I think you will "probably" still be saved though. But then, why take chances?

What do you mean by "unless you are a jew..."? I am Hebrew/Iberian but have always been of the Christian faith. Are you suggesting that if I am of the Hebrew/Jewish race I should not follow the teachings of Paul?

 

[FlyingDove]

No,he was given a NEW message that was different from his old one.

The apostles and the church all knew the gospel message paul preached.
Because they KNEW that was the fact of the testimony of Jesus.
They saw him live,die,resurrect and then get raptured to heaven.

Paul did not. He got tutored in what the apostles and church already knew.

The question I replied to, in the OP, was: Is the gospel of the kingdom different from the gospel of grace Paul preached?

My reply clearly points out the differences. Your reply has the facts backwards.

Paul, tutored the other apostles to the RISEN Christ's message that now included gentiles NOT under Mosaic law. My reply also points out the debate & outcome at the Council at Jerusalem (Acts 15).

 

[iamsoandso]

Again in Acts 10:13-14 the Lord is who Luke the disciple of Paul stated tutored Peter on the subject of the gentiles.

 

[Guojing]

Go back and SEE what i said.

Apostles.

You reared back and created all that over what you heard,not what I said.

Nobody thinks the DISCIPLES understood fully the dbr. Nobody thinks that.

So you are claiming that, in the book of Acts, the 12 "apostles" now preach grace to their Jewish listeners?

Okay, would you like to provide an example using any verses in Acts, and let your readers read for themselves? Or is it just a belief you hold?

 

[Guojing]

lol, Both Peter in Acts 2 and Paul , Acts 13:35, when speaking of the DBR of Jesus Both quote Psalms and David the only difference in them was that when Peter quoted it in Acts 2 Paul was still an unbeliever(Saul of Tarsus). The two Scriptures are the first two accounts of the two Apostles speaking of the DBR and are both recorded by Luke who was a deciple of Paul and so he(Luke) would have not shown Peter speaking of it before Paul if it was not so.

If you truly believe that Acts 2, the Pentecost sermon by Peter, also preached to his Jewish listeners that "Jesus died for our sins, was buried, and God resurrect him on the third day as a proof that all our sins are forgiven and we are now the righteousness of God in Christ, why don't you quote the sermon and let us read for ourselves?