Gospel Confusion...

  • 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.
FYI:
Paul didn’t die, only the stoners thought he was dead when they dragged him out of the city.
Do you know how stoning was carried out in those days? They did not use little pebbles that stung. The whole point was to kill. The final blow was a large rock on the victim's head. And they dragged him out of the city, assuming Paul to be dead. It was a more than reasonable assumption. It was the intent of the crowd.

Paul got up and was back to work the next day. That's a miracle in itself.

If Paul was not dead, then the following may be true:

God protected Paul from the stones, in contrast to Stephen who died on the spot.
Paul was knocked out but was able to throw off the massive injuries caused by the stoning

If God protected Paul, then the crowd would have known that he was uninjured. A dead body is much different from someone who is alive and feigning it. If Paul was knocked out, he still received a miracle healing. The disciples gathered around Paul. It's hard to imagine that they did not pray over him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GRACE_ambassador
Our small fellowship does anoint with oil. We pray for the sick. And often, people are healed. I've been healed several times, including from a potentially fatal bout of pancreatitis. Even one of the treating doctors was amazed. She told me that my wife's prayer for healing was answered to the letter.

How does one differentiate between the body's own healing processes and the miraculous? I too know quite a number of people who were unbelievers and yet made it through Pancreatitis infections and even cancers in the Pancreas that has only a an average 13% survival rate, who were not prayed over nor anointed with oil by any elders.

So, if you would, I'd be interested in hearing from you what acid test for the miraculous you applied to be convinced.

Some people believe healing is possible and some do not.

Please understand that I don't operate my beliefs box on the basis of what others believe, as I'd say you too are of that same mind.

Just wanted to make sure you understood that about me.

Paul did not mention healing. He did say why some get sick and die. I don't know that it means anything other than it was not a subject that came up. Paul was in effect raised from the dead after being stoned. Peter quoted Isaiah, "By His stripes you were healed".

That's a broad spectrum of topical discussion. So, given that Paul operated within those promised items at the beginning of his ministry, all of which diminished in operative working toward the latter part of his life with him even leaving sick people behind on his missionary journeys, namely Timothy, in the latter part of his earthly life, what of that? The things stated in Mark by Christ to Israel, if they were indeed operable, would they not be an amazing phenomenon still in operation today on a broad scale? Why are not elders emptying clinics and hospitals if those commands and promises of outcomes were still in operation today?

You see, if those things were still in operation today, then it would seem that Paul also preached the same gospel as the twelve, and yet he stated that what he preached, he received of no man on this earth. He obviously knew what the twelve preached before his conversion since he persecuted the Church on the basis of what the twelve preached. However, Paul preached a gospel he received from no other man on this earth. How do you account for that?

Galatians 1:11-12
11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

That seems pretty straightforward. Would you agree that had Paul merely been preaching the gospel preached by the twelve, his gospel would indeed be the same, and yet it was not. Nowhere did Paul preach water baptism as the means by which sins were and are remitted as did Peter in Acts 2. The twelve never stated their gospel being based upon salvation by grace through faith given that water baptism was an additional element in their gospel and what was preached by Christ Himself while walking this earth in the flesh.

Healing is a difficult issue.

I agree. It is indeed a difficult topic.

What are your thoughts about all those dudes on TV allegedly healing all those people, with them allegedly casting aside crutches that they could not already have done before the show? If the evidence were in their favor, do you suppose that the beds with wheels in the local hospitals would have been greatly worn down with the families pushing to them through the streets (figuratively speaking) to get them to the local elders for anointing and prayer?

There are reasons why people get sick and why some are healed and some are not. It's fundamentally a spiritual issue.

So, do you believe what those faith healers have said, in that those who do not get healed are in some sort of spiritually inferior state, thus putting the blame on them? I thought Jesus stated it being on the basis of the faith of the elders, not the individual. How does one get around that? Are you saying those elders were/are lacking in faith or that they have something else in their lives that's spiritually lacking?

The gospel is fundamentally the gospel of the Kingdom of God. Lord Jesus told us what is in Luke 4:18. He also demonstrated kingdom power throughout His ministry. Paul preached God's kingdom. So did Peter.

Where did Paul preach the Kingdom to Gentiles, which was promised only to Israel? This is interesting. Please elaborate. I have seen where Paul expounded on the Kingdom to the Jews and Jewish proselytes in places like the synagogues in Acts 19, but we in the body of Christ are not destined for the Millennial Kingdom.

Also, please expound upon Paul's refusal to preach to any grouping who had already been preached to by the twelve. If it's all one and the same gospel, in spite of the difference in water baptism for the remission of sins, why did it at all matter that the two groupings had no crossover? Would Paul not have simply strengthened the gospel preached by the twelve in their absence among those whom Paul encountered? Modern evangelists preach to peoples the world over who had already been ministered to by another evangelist who did not remain resident.

Do you see the problem here?

MM
 
Are you saying that happens all the time? Those verses I quoted leave no room for doubt that those things should happen all the time they are applied.

If you would, please explain why those same Charismatics and those from the other religions who can allegedly still operate upon those things stated in Mark, why do they ALL still have to go to learn the languages of other nations to evangelize them?

MM
From time to time, there are testimonies from people who have been able to speak and understand the language of the nations they've gone to without any education. So no, not ALL have to learn the local language.

John Wesley believed in the baptism of the Holy Spirit as a separate experience from salvation. When asked why there were no signs and wonders, he said that it was was doubt and unbelief.
 
I would therefore conclude that since it is somewhat relative with God , heaven, a kingdom, Paul's "my" gospel that the wording was simply a matter of choice for the author and not intending to suggest a second gospel

I believe every word to be inspired by God. Words were not up to the writer, but the Holy Spirit.

Has the end come? Why not?
 
  • Heart
Reactions: GRACE_ambassador
I agree with what you wrote.

There is no doubt that Paul wrote the doctrine of the church.

Paul clearly stated the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4.

Paul most strongly emphasized the power of the Holy Spirit.

The fruit, gifts, and ministry of the Holy Spirit.

Your up against 2,000 years of theologian's opinions and you lose.
Wasn’t the foundation Jesus Christ?
Didn’t the Holy Spirit heavily influence the doctrine?
If so, we don’t say the doctrine of Paul or Peter or Matthew, we say the doctrine of Christ.
 
  • Like
Reactions: John146
From time to time, there are testimonies from people who have been able to speak and understand the language of the nations they've gone to without any education. So no, not ALL have to learn the local language.

I hope you don't mind my stating that I'm not so easily swayed merely on the basis of someone testifying to something.

What are your thoughts about what Jesus stated in Mark; in that those who believe(d) would, could and will do all those things, given that there were no caveats to any of it, in that believers would and could do those things irrespective of all the injections modern people try to cram into the texts what clearly is not there? It seems to me that Jesus' statements were absolute, and yet we see not at all the evidence for the continuance of those things on the scale that it should be operating had those things still been valid for today.

Instead, we hear only of isolated claims that are not verifiable, with some even claiming it for themselves things that can and do manifest through the healing processes the Lord created into our bodies. Please understand, I'm not saying the Lord doesn't heal some today, but the operable scale Mark projected to his audience absolutely is not at all evident today. Are we in agreement on that?

John Wesley believed in the baptism of the Holy Spirit as a separate experience from salvation. When asked why there were no signs and wonders, he said that it was was doubt and unbelief.

As for me, what matters is what scripture states. Historic writers stated many things from their opinions that I cannot accept when it adds to scripture things that are not stated, or that take away.

I don't mean to sound obtuse, but many men of renown have written things various groups today venerate that simply don't hold theological water.

MM
 
Do you know how stoning was carried out in those days? They did not use little pebbles that stung. The whole point was to kill. The final blow was a large rock on the victim's head. And they dragged him out of the city, assuming Paul to be dead. It was a more than reasonable assumption. It was the intent of the crowd.

Paul got up and was back to work the next day. That's a miracle in itself.

If Paul was not dead, then the following may be true:

God protected Paul from the stones, in contrast to Stephen who died on the spot.
Paul was knocked out but was able to throw off the massive injuries caused by the stoning

If God protected Paul, then the crowd would have known that he was uninjured. A dead body is much different from someone who is alive and feigning it. If Paul was knocked out, he still received a miracle healing. The disciples gathered around Paul. It's hard to imagine that they did not pray over him.
Noble Berean here:
I’m just responding because Scripture never said that he had died, it just said that the Stoners (people throwing the stones) thought he was dead.

It may be this, or it maybe that; it wasn’t given to us to know. Why throw conjecture in the mix? Wouldn’t what you said be adding?
This is how people remember false statements like:
-Adam and Eve ate the “apple”, or
-Jesus was born on Xmas, or
-Jonah was swallowed by a “whale”, or
-Mary, mother of Jesus, continued to be a virgin (she bore at least 7 kids), or
-now, Paul was stoned “to death”

Yes, I’m aware of what they did!
 
  • Like
Reactions: DavidLamb
Given that the topic of baptism is such a hot topic in spite of the differences in the gospels, I'll post this video for those who won't look up references posted here to see for themselves changes that took place through time in the life of Paul and the twelve:


Being water baptized is all fine and dandy, but it doesn't have the force of requirement once placed upon it in relation to Israel.

MM
 
James 5:14-15
14 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:
15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.

The single gospel gang has a problem here. This clearly is not operable today. Those who think it is, prove it! I'd really like to see it.

The singular gospel claim rests upon a foundation of consistency, even though Paul's Gospel of Grace isn't exactly the same as that preached by the twelve as if evidenced in the texts of scripture...but there are those who believe otherwise, contrary to the evidence.

So, why aren't the singular gospel gang practicing this part of James' teaching? Some will thrown out the convenient claim that the Lord doesn't operate that way. That is throwing consistency out the window they claim is still ongoing today...those things spoken to Israel and Israel alone, not Gentiles.

So, if the Kingdom Gospel is the same as that preached by Paul, then why didn't Paul preach the anointing with oil for healing. James said not one word about that phenomenon disappearing over time that some will claim in order to try and force a level of continuity between and upon the two gospels that doesn't exist, pretending they're one and the same.

MM
Are you thinking a robotic word for word account is believable?

If we apply your REASONONG to the Gospels themselves with all the definate differences, they would be copies and fakes.

Hyperpauline doctrine is one of disenfranchisement.

If I studied Hyperpauline doctrine, which I have, under less feldic and a book called greens letters, and I swallow that doctrine down, and became a very potent advocate of that particular doctrine, It would harm anyones relationship between Jesus, God, and man.

They present 2 Holy Spirits.
One:good Holy Spirit" inspiring Paul, and another "not so good Holy Spirit", inspiring Jesus, Peter, John, and James.
The "not so good Holy Spirit" cunningly inspiring, and bringing error and traps for Paul to fix.
Iow, most of the bible is a trap to them.
Paul came to fix Jesus and the entire non Paul Bible.

Hyperpauline doctrine is flat out evil
 
Noble Berean here:
I’m just responding because Scripture never said that he had died, it just said that the Stoners (people throwing the stones) thought he was dead.

It may be this, or it maybe that; it wasn’t given to us to know. Why throw conjecture in the mix? Wouldn’t what you said be adding?
This is how people remember false statements like:
-Adam and Eve ate the “apple”, or
-Jesus was born on Xmas, or
-Jonah was swallowed by a “whale”, or
-Mary, mother of Jesus, continued to be a virgin (she bore at least 7 kids), or
-now, Paul was stoned “to death”

Yes, I’m aware of what they did!
To death is implied.

Actually no foul either way.
Let the reader decide
 
Given that the topic of baptism is such a hot topic in spite of the differences in the gospels, I'll post this video for those who won't look up references posted here to see for themselves changes that took place through time in the life of Paul and the twelve:


Being water baptized is all fine and dandy, but it doesn't have the force of requirement once placed upon it in relation to Israel.

MM
Then you’re dismissing examples and Scripture!
 
Then you’re dismissing examples and Scripture!

If you would, please be more precise so that I know what you're talking about.

If you're talking about the disregard that we all apply to some sections of scripture, including yourself, yes. I do not live by the Mosaic Law, which I assume you don't either. That's just a part of what Paul addressed when commanding that we all rightly divide the word of truth, which clearly shows to us that there are indeed divisions within biblical truths, although they are all true. Can we agree on that?

Also, did you watch that video from beginning to end?

MM
 
If you would, please be more precise so that I know what you're talking about.

If you're talking about the disregard that we all apply to some sections of scripture, including yourself, yes. I do not live by the Mosaic Law, which I assume you don't either. That's just a part of what Paul addressed when commanding that we all rightly divide the word of truth, which clearly shows to us that there are indeed divisions within biblical truths, although they are all true. Can we agree on that?

Also, did you watch that video from beginning to end?

MM
I think you said that you don’t believe that baptism is a command? And I believe that you used the word “gospels” as though there are more than 1.

There is only one, because there are no contradictions between the first 4 books; even though the Spirit wrote them through 4 different people.

What do you mean by divisions?
 
If you would, please be more precise so that I know what you're talking about.

If you're talking about the disregard that we all apply to some sections of scripture, including yourself, yes. I do not live by the Mosaic Law, which I assume you don't either. That's just a part of what Paul addressed when commanding that we all rightly divide the word of truth, which clearly shows to us that there are indeed divisions within biblical truths, although they are all true. Can we agree on that?

Also, did you watch that video from beginning to end?

MM
Since you’re accusing me of disregarding some Scripture, please be more specific? Scripture please? I’m all ears! 🙂
 
Some common sayings among many believers are:

“There's only one gospel throughout all the Bible, and so everyone is saved in the exact same way.”
“Jesus, along with His 12 apostles, and along with Paul, all preached the same gospel message.”
“All that happened was Paul came along later and continued Peter's ministry gospel and ministry, but to the Gentiles.”

Those claims sound very biblical to many, but are the assumptions behind these claims correct?

1. To whom did Jesus and His 12 disciples preach?
2. What was their gospel message?
3. Paul was the apostle to....whom?
4. What was Paul's gospel that he preached?

Please share your thoughts on these questions.

MM
I appreciate the invitation to openness. The 790,000 odd words, in english, that is the bible, should be seen as a library. In that library are many categories of literature common to any library. There is poetry, supernatural heros, villians, history, wisdom literature, state and national legal dictates, epic human adventures, theological treatises, other world imaginings, wars, international conflicts and a compelling description of how humans can access the divine.

However, there no one idea of what should be in the library. The number of books varies from 66 to 81 based on ancient traditions.

I like the framing of your question. It is not necessarily probing at what many believers believe, as if in any group of 10 few would answer the same way. The frame of your question is about what believers say they believe in. This is very comfortable ground. We already we can say we believe things that we do not fully understand and have no intention of making relevant in our lives. That does not mean we don't say them.

When asking questions about our assumptions, you are poking a stick at the soft underbelly of many Christians. In reality, Christianity is something given to us by friends or families. it assumes their theological framework used to value one idea over another or to restrict thought about both the ramifications and alternate perspectives results in the only obvious truth.

In my opinion the first question is impossible to answer without qualifications. Is there "one gospel" throughout the bible? If there is, I have no idea of what it would be. If we start with the story of Adam and Eve, was their gospel message, "don't believe evil reptiles." Or perhaps being naked makes God aware you are sinful." Or "If God talks to you face to face, do whatever He says." What was the gospel as it applied to the oversexed anatomically male angels who came (flew?) to earth to breed with irresistible human women and in so doing so angered God that He decided to kill every living on earth. Is their gospel message, check the heritage of your potential husband? Is the gospel message of Samson don't let anybody cut your hair? Is the gospel of the Hebrew people that no matter how hard you try, you will never be able to please God? Of that God will crush and punish His chosen people for a 1,000 years before giving them hope but only if they stop doing what He demanded they do for a 1,000 years?

“Jesus, along with His 12 apostles, and along with Paul, all preached the same gospel message.”
Good question. Up until Jesus resurrection, the 13 had no clear understanding of anything called a gospel. They had not yet even figured out who Jesus was...."some say Elijah.... We have the sermon preached 50 days after Jesus resurrection. Repent and be baptised to be saved, but today a huge portion of Christianity rejects this "gospel" so perhaps Paul has a "gospel" all Christians can agree on. Paul's gospel was at odds with the gospel of the head of the church in Jerusalem, James and of course Peter. In Paul's gospel no gentile needed to become a Jew or practice Jewish law to be saved. So, they got their heads together and came up with a more commonly acceptable gospel as it related to Jews, which were the vast majority of early Christians. Their agreed upon gospel included the requirement for Jews converting to Christianity to abstain from 4 things. No eating animals sacrificed to idols, No eating of blood or things strangled and no sexual immorality. For a while that was part of the agreed upon gospel message, but then Paul decided that his gospel would be different. What you ate means nothing, but sexual immorality is still wrong. Over time Paul's gospel won out and Paul even convinced Peter, after a difficult face to face confrontation, to harmonize with Paul's view on Jewish converts as well as gentile converts. We don't know who Matthew, Mark or Luke were and the details of their gospels differ in only a few details. The Gospel of John was supposed to be written by a Aramaic speaking poor uneducated fisherman, who came to write beautiful, powerful and a deeply Greek theological gospel focused on the Greek concept of "logos." I believe the composite gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John deliver a clear and mostly harmonious story of the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

Strangely enough, many think of the Apostle Paul as a missionary to the gentiles. However, his normal method was to start his missionary work first in the Jewish Synagogues in the cities he visited. The Jews first, then the gentiles. Paul's gospel was complex. It highly leveraged Hebrew scriptures. In his biggest work, his letter to the Romans, Paul quotes the Hebrew Bible at least 80 times and alludes to other Hebrew scriptures as well. Thus, while the house churches in and around Rome were largely Gentiles, they had a Jewish orientation. Judaism had spread around the world of the Mediterranean and had been accepted by hellenistic Romans. As Roman education taught Greek literature and culture.

Judaism became a highly respected theology because it was the only religion of its time with a strong moral center where ethical behavior and living in harmony with 1 God was a big step up from the worship of idols who only took and provide uncertain benefit. Thus, Paul's heavily leaning on the Hebrew Bible reassured Roman fans of Judaism who were attracted to Christianity that it extended even further a moral and ethical connection to the 1 God of the universe through faith in God's son and obedience to God's will. They were familiar with sacrifices and the idea that the 1 God would, in love, sacrifice His only Son was a powerful message in Rome and around the Roman empire. Paul in Romans 5-8 provides a masterclass in salvation. We are relieved of the power of sin in faith and he power of death by experiencing water baptism where we repeat Christs death burial and resurrection.
 
I think you said that you don’t believe that baptism is a command?

It was a command to Israel, yes, but not to us today. I'm Israeli and also don't believe it is commanded for us today given that Israel is now fallen.

And I believe that you used the word “gospels” as though there are more than 1.

There was the Kingdom Gospel under which Israel functioned, and then there is the Gospel of Grace preached by Paul that he clearly said was not given to him by any man bu Christ. Given that he already knew the Kingdom Gospel preached by the twelve as the basis for his persecution of the Messianic Jews before his conversion, what he received directly from Christ that was not what was taught by the twelve, that leaves no room but to conclude that there were/are two different gospels within scripture, not to mention the differences in content quoted in an earlier post above or on a previous page or pages. I quoted the differences right from scripture in a recent, former post, if you care to look it again.

There is only one, because there are no contradictions between the first 4 books; even though the Spirit wrote them through 4 different people.

What do you mean by divisions?

Do you not see that saying this makes Paul out to be a liar?

MM
 
I appreciate the invitation to openness. The 790,000 odd words, in english, that is the bible, should be seen as a library. In that library are many categories of literature common to any library. There is poetry, supernatural heros, villians, history, wisdom literature, state and national legal dictates, epic human adventures, theological treatises, other world imaginings, wars, international conflicts and a compelling description of how humans can access the divine.

However, there no one idea of what should be in the library. The number of books varies from 66 to 81 based on ancient traditions.

Yes, there are a number of traditions, all of which disagree with one another on various points, thus showing to us that they can't all be true, but they can all be false. Can we agree on that?

I like the framing of your question. It is not necessarily probing at what many believers believe, as if in any group of 10 few would answer the same way. The frame of your question is about what believers say they believe in. This is very comfortable ground. We already we can say we believe things that we do not fully understand and have no intention of making relevant in our lives. That does not mean we don't say them.

When asking questions about our assumptions, you are poking a stick at the soft underbelly of many Christians. In reality, Christianity is something given to us by friends or families. it assumes their theological framework used to value one idea over another or to restrict thought about both the ramifications and alternate perspectives results in the only obvious truth.

(grin) I've been asked many times what I am...Baptist, Lutheran, etc., etc., etc. I don't rightly know that there is a label to which I conform...other than to say that I'm a Biblicist. What about yourself?

In my opinion the first question is impossible to answer without qualifications. Is there "one gospel" throughout the bible? If there is, I have no idea of what it would be. If we start with the story of Adam and Eve, was their gospel message, "don't believe evil reptiles." Or perhaps being naked makes God aware you are sinful." Or "If God talks to you face to face, do whatever He says." What was the gospel as it applied to the oversexed anatomically male angels who came (flew?) to earth to breed with irresistible human women and in so doing so angered God that He decided to kill every living on earth. Is their gospel message, check the heritage of your potential husband? Is the gospel message of Samson don't let anybody cut your hair? Is the gospel of the Hebrew people that no matter how hard you try, you will never be able to please God? Of that God will crush and punish His chosen people for a 1,000 years before giving them hope but only if they stop doing what He demanded they do for a 1,000 years?

The only restraint upon Adam and Eve was for them to abstain from eating from just one tree, with their diet being restricted to fruits, vegetables, nuts and berries. Later, in Genesis 9, that all changed to man being allowed to eat everything that moved upon the earth. Then, in Leviticus, we of Israel were restricted from eating quite a variety of animals that moved upon the earth...all of which is to say that the Lord changed the rules from time to time throughout history, including the Gospels and the requirements for salvation.

“Jesus, along with His 12 apostles, and along with Paul, all preached the same gospel message.”
Good question. Up until Jesus resurrection, the 13 had no clear understanding of anything called a gospel. They had not yet even figured out who Jesus was...."some say Elijah.... We have the sermon preached 50 days after Jesus resurrection. Repent and be baptised to be saved, but today a huge portion of Christianity rejects this "gospel" so perhaps Paul has a "gospel" all Christians can agree on. Paul's gospel was at odds with the gospel of the head of the church in Jerusalem, James and of course Peter.

That's true, although they were not so much at odds except that they were aimed at different groupings, with the Kingdom Gospel being for Israel and the Gospel of grace for Israel and for Gentiles, with Paul preaching ONLY to those Jews and synagogues that had not yet been visited by the twelve. The Kingdom Gospel required water baptism for the remission of sins, where the Gospel of Grace laid down no such requirement upon its adherents. I agree with you that there are many different groupings, all of whom have differing focus and differing doctrines...some polar opposites of one another, which is why I have no regard for group-think and socially engineered doctrines that deviate away from what inspired scripture clearly teaches to us.

In Paul's gospel no gentile needed to become a Jew or practice Jewish law to be saved. So, they got their heads together and came up with a more commonly acceptable gospel as it related to Jews, which were the vast majority of early Christians. Their agreed upon gospel included the requirement for Jews converting to Christianity to abstain from 4 things. No eating animals sacrificed to idols, No eating of blood or things strangled and no sexual immorality.

Can we agree that Paul wasn't nullifying the four items conveyed by James and the counsel, but simply arguing that, for example, the meats sacrificed to idols are nothing in and of themselves, but that doing so is an affront to some that may cause them to stumble, and that willfully doing so is an issue within the heart of the one doing so? If not, then please elaborate.

Strangely enough, many think of the Apostle Paul as a missionary to the gentiles. However, his normal method was to start his missionary work first in the Jewish Synagogues in the cities he visited. The Jews first, then the gentiles. Paul's gospel was complex. It highly leveraged Hebrew scriptures. In his biggest work, his letter to the Romans, Paul quotes the Hebrew Bible at least 80 times and alludes to other Hebrew scriptures as well. Thus, while the house churches in and around Rome were largely Gentiles, they had a Jewish orientation. Judaism had spread around the world of the Mediterranean and had been accepted by hellenistic Romans. As Roman education taught Greek literature and culture.

Can we agree that Paul intentionally went ONLY to us Jews and our synagogues who had not yet been under the ministry of the twelve? Can we also agree that, had the Kingdom Gospel been the exact same as the Gospel of Grace, that them crossing each other's paths in ministry would not have then been an issue? If not, then why...if you wouldn't mind expounding?

Also, Paul intentionally revealed that his ministry was indeed to the Gentiles, with him calling himself THE apostle to the Gentiles.

Romans 11:13
For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:

Galatians 2:7
But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

The claim they were one and the same gospel makes the above a very strange and utterly irrational statement, but, you're right, many groupings believe what is contrary to what's written. That's how they erect the walls of distinctions around themselves so that they uphold the divisions among the, various factions...as petty and pathetic as that all is.

Judaism became a highly respected theology because it was the only religion of its time with a strong moral center where ethical behavior and living in harmony with 1 God was a big step up from the worship of idols who only took and provide uncertain benefit. Thus, Paul's heavily leaning on the Hebrew Bible reassured Roman fans of Judaism who were attracted to Christianity that it extended even further a moral and ethical connection to the 1 God of the universe through faith in God's son and obedience to God's will. They were familiar with sacrifices and the idea that the 1 God would, in love, sacrifice His only Son was a powerful message in Rome and around the Roman empire. Paul in Romans 5-8 provides a masterclass in salvation. We are relieved of the power of sin in faith and he power of death by experiencing water baptism where we repeat Christs death burial and resurrection.

Having been raised up in Judaism and later walking away from it as an Israeli, all our knowledge of what was and is moral and adherence to stringent and Pharisaical traditions, what is known within Judaism is meaningless in its rejection of Christ Jesus as our Messiah. That much I can state authoritatively on the basis of personal experience and understanding. My brothers and sisters have no idea of what's coming their way within the wrath of the Almighty soon coming upon this earth and mankind.

MM
 
It was a command to Israel, yes, but not to us today. I'm Israeli and also don't believe it is commanded for us today given that Israel is now fallen.



There was the Kingdom Gospel under which Israel functioned, and then there is the Gospel of Grace preached by Paul that he clearly said was not given to him by any man bu Christ. Given that he already knew the Kingdom Gospel preached by the twelve as the basis for his persecution of the Messianic Jews before his conversion, what he received directly from Christ that was not what was taught by the twelve, that leaves no room but to conclude that there were/are two different gospels within scripture, not to mention the differences in content quoted in an earlier post above or on a previous page or pages. I quoted the differences right from scripture in a recent, former post, if you care to look it again.



Do you not see that saying this makes Paul out to be a liar?

MM
Everything you said is not Scriptural.
 
Opinion is indeed a powerful force, even among those who have all manner of letters attached to their names from Bible Cemeteries andtheological universities.

So, I remain waiting to see the evidence of those commands and promised outcomes stated to the twelve under the Kingdom Gospel.

MM
You have taken the first step but have you taken the next step, and broken through the traditional
reading of the scripture?

1 Corinthians 2:4
And my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power.

1 Corinthians 2:5
So that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.

1 Corinthians 4:19
But I will come to you soon, if the Lord wills, and I shall find out, not the words of those who are arrogant but their power.

1 Corinthians 4:20
For the kingdom of God does not consist in words but in power.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Musicmaster