Did Jesus and Paul teach differnt gospels?

FollowtheShepherd · Oct 5, 2019

That is odd because have you not been saying differently that past days? Ahh ok you say it in the next post.

So if

Does notthe fact that there are things that can only be found in Paul's writings mean you believe he taught different?

Also have you not been saying that the disciples of Jesus were sent to Jews and Paul was sent to gentils?

These are some of the reasons I wanted to start this topic and work these ideas out to find a conclusion.

FollowtheShepherd · Oct 5, 2019

UnitedWithChrist said:

I alwys viewed that parable as the difference between a contrite man that knows He has sinned and asks for mercy and humbles himself before GOd as opposed to the other who says/thinks he is better than other men that sin just like he does but this man thinks he is better than them, and does not ask for forgiveness.

Because one man asked for forgiveness, because he knew he was not perfefct.

The other did not ask for forgiveness, because he thouight he was better than others.

UnitedWithChrist said:

In your view How do we believe the one sent? and what does "the one sent mean?"

This is how I view it

The one sent is derived from here:

Deuteronomy 18:18-19, " 18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. 19 And whoever will not listen to my words that he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him.

and believeing this one would be following Him in faith and deed IMO:

John 14:23-24, " 23 Jesus answered him, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. 24 Whoever does not love me does not keep my words. And the word that you hear is not mine but the Father's who sent me.

John 8:51 “Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone guards My Word he shall never see death at all.”

That is why I beleive John said this:

1 John 2:3-6, " 3 And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. 4 Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, 5 but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him: 6 whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.

Finally unless Jesus is a liar, I do not believe He is, Jesus did say:

John 5:28-29, " 28 Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice 29 and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.

there is a clear difference between eternal life and eternal damnation in this verse.

FollowtheShepherd · Oct 5, 2019

Hevosmies said:

Do you suppose the disciples changed their mind about meat sacrificed to idols, because this is a verse that I am finding as odd or seeing disparity in:

Acts 15:28-29, “For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”

1 Corinthians 10:25, “Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience.” also (1 Corinthians 8 explains more)

FollowtheShepherd · Oct 5, 2019

posthuman said:

What is your take on Paul saying this:

2 Corinthians 5:16-17, “From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.”

Many people have told me this means Jesus words while on earth are no longer the gospel, I don;t see that personally but these issues are the ones why I started this topic.

Hevosmies · Oct 5, 2019

FollowtheShepherd said:

Nope, they did not change their minds because in the book of Revelation Jesus is stil angry at people eating meat sacrificed to idols. Paul is talking about a situation where you dont know, just buy it from the market IF your conscience can bear it!

Read a few verses ahead Paul makes it clear you aint supposed to do it if you know its sacrificed to idols:

verse 28: "But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, both for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience. "

FollowtheShepherd · Oct 5, 2019

Hevosmies said:

Yes that makes sense, but what about the reasoning?

1 Corinthians 10:25-30, " 25 Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience. 26 For “the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof.” 27 If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. 28 But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience— 29 I do not mean your conscience, but his. For why should my liberty be determined by someone else's conscience? 30 If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks?"

If no questions are asked then one might eat meat sacrificed to idols without knowing?

He says " if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice" what if they do not tell you and you do not ask? That seems like a way to accidentally eat meat sacrified to idols?

and What about this verse in bold? This seems to trivialize it?

1 Corinthians 8:1-13, "Now concerning food offered to idols: we know that “all of us possess knowledge.” This “knowledge” puffs up, but love builds up. If anyone imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know. But if anyone loves God, he is known by God. Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.” For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. However, not all possess this knowledge. But some, through former association with idols, eat food as really offered to an idol, and their conscience, being weak is defiled. Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do. But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, will he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols? And so by your knowledge this weak person is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died. Thus, sinning against your brothers and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble."

Melach · Oct 5, 2019

FollowtheShepherd said:

Yes that makes sense, but what about the reasoning?

1 Corinthians 10:25-30, " 25 Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience. 26 For “the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof.” 27 If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. 28 But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience— 29 I do not mean your conscience, but his. For why should my liberty be determined by someone else's conscience? 30 If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks?"

If no questions are asked then one might eat meat sacrificed to idols without knowing?

He says " if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice" what if they do not tell you and you do not ask? That seems like a way to accidentally eat meat sacrified to idols?

and What about this verse in bold? This seems to trivialize it?

1 Corinthians 8:1-13, "Now concerning food offered to idols: we know that “all of us possess knowledge.” This “knowledge” puffs up, but love builds up. If anyone imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know. But if anyone loves God, he is known by God. Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.” For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. However, not all possess this knowledge. But some, through former association with idols, eat food as really offered to an idol, and their conscience, being weak is defiled. Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do. But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, will he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols? And so by your knowledge this weak person is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died. Thus, sinning against your brothers and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble."

can you or someone explain this to me? seems here st.paul is contradicting Jesus in revelation? why Jesus say even after resurrection to churches not good to eat but st.paul here doesnt care? what am i not understanding? help help help

FollowtheShepherd · Oct 5, 2019

Melach said:

SO this is a reason I started this topic. People were telling me a number I things I found odd. That Jesus words pre-resurrection/ascention were abolished, the Paul was the only apostle to Gentiles (a guy in this thread has been saying that but not now in the thread) and someone told me that if the meat was sacrificed of not does not matter and cited Romans and Corinthians. I disagreed but want to hear other peoples view and give my view also. To hopefully get some insight from others I will post the verses and some ideas and questions with the verses in following posts.

FollowtheShepherd · Oct 5, 2019

1 Corinthians 8:1-13, "Now concerning food offered to idols: we know that “all of us possess knowledge.” This “knowledge” puffs up, but love builds up. If anyone imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know. But if anyone loves God, he is known by God. Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.” For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. However, not all possess this knowledge. But some, through former association with idols, eat food as really offered to an idol, and their conscience, being weak is defiled. Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do. But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, will he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols? And so by your knowledge this weak person is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died. Thus, sinning against your brothers and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble."

"But some, through former association with idols, eat food as really offered to an idol, and their conscience, being weak is defiled. Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do"

What I do not get about this is if Acts 15 and Revelation says do not eat food to idols:

Acts 15:28-29, “For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”

How can it be possible that this "We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do" is proper? If the holy Spirit said in Acts 15 "abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols" how can this be ignored and it does not matter?

Also I do not see how it could be a matter of conscience? "if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols" if the holy Spirit forbids it how is it a "weak conscience" to obey the holy Spirit, would it then be a "strong conscience" to disobey the holy Spirit

FollowtheShepherd · Oct 5, 2019

1 Corinthians 10:23-33, “All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up. Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor. Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience. For “the earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof.” If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience— I do not mean your conscience, but his. For why should my liberty be determined by someone else’s conscience? If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks? So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved."

I do not believe "all things are lawful" stealing, lying, murder, among many others are not lawful, how can these be sin and "all things are lawfu" at the same time?

"All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up. Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor. Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience"

If no questions are asked then one might eat meat sacrificed to idols without knowing? If the holy spirit says "do not" then why would it be ok to be willingly ignorant and "do"?

He says " if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice" what if they do not tell you and you do not ask? That seems like a way to accidentally eat meat sacrified to idols?

and What about this verse in bold? " eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. "This seems to trivialize it? So again if hey do not tell you and you are "not supposed to ask" that sounds like a stumbling block to accidentally eat meat sacrificed to idols becaused one did not ask.

Then another part that I don't feel comfortable with is this"then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience— I do not mean your conscience, but his. For why should my liberty be determined by someone else’s conscience?"

So Paul says "do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience— I do not mean your conscience, but his"

but the next verse says "For why should my liberty be determined by someone else’s conscience?"

I don't hink it matters what people think I think it matters what God thinks, the holy Spirit said no in Acts 15 why does conscience even play a roe in determining what to do or not to do when the holy Spirit plainly stated not to?

MattforJesus · Oct 5, 2019

FollowtheShepherd said:

Jesus and Paul preached the same Gospel, and why would people think they did not.

Jesus taught the 2 greatest commandments love God, and love people, and Paul taught the same.

The Bible says that Jesus preached the Gospel, and Paul did the same.

Jesus preached have faith, confession of Him, and repent of sins, and Paul taught the same.

Jesus told the rich man that in order to have salvation is to obey the commandments that have to do with loving people, for love is the fulfilling of the law, and told him to sell all his things that were not a necessity and give to the poor for that is love, and Paul taught the same by saying we do not void out the law through faith, but we establish the law, which the 10 commandments are love towards God and people the 2 greatest laws that a Christians obeys, and said if a person does not have charity then they are nothing, and anybody that covets after money has erred from the faith, for the love of money is the root of all evil because it neglects the poor and needy which lacks love.

Paul said he did not receive the revelation of Jesus from man, but from Jesus, for it was Jesus that gave Paul all his teachings to teach, so why would Paul say something different than Jesus when he said that all his teachings come from Jesus.

If Paul addressed something that people think Jesus did not address while on earth does not mean they are not preaching the same, and Paul received all his teachings from Jesus so it would be covered there, but Jesus and Paul preached the same.

Paul, Peter, and the other writers would cover things that Jesus did not, or go in to more detail, and knowledge, for Jesus came to preach the Gospel and not to get in to every aspect of the future although He did tell us the future, and other things.

Jesus covered it and they went in to more detail, and knowledge about it, and it is all the same.

Did the Old Testament writers cover things that Moses did not write about, of course they did for they went in to more detail, and knowledge, but Moses still knew the future but he was not given to write every aspect of it like the future writers.

Moses taught wisdom, but the later writers went in to more detail about it like Psalms, and Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, and the fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, which it is important so they went in to more detail, and knowledge about it.

Jesus taught have faith and Paul went in to more detail about it.

Jesus taught love and Paul went in to more detail about it.

Paul went in to more detail about what Jesus taught, but Jesus still covered it all, and it is still the same teachings, and all from Jesus, so Jesus went in to more detail about it by Paul.

Paul said if anybody preaches another Gospel let them be accursed, and this is the Gospel that Jesus taught.

Paul said he did not want to know anything among the saints but Jesus and Him crucified.

Jesus preached the Gospel, have faith, confess Him, repent of sins, obey the 2 greatest commandments love God, and love people, and allow the Spirit to lead you to be Christlike, and Paul preached the same.

I do not understand how they can be contradictory.

Is it because Paul said we are saved by faith, and not by works, but Jesus taught the same thing, and in the Old Testament it says our righteousness is as filthy rags, so why would Jesus teach works to be saved.

There is nothing we can do to be saved but have faith, for when we first confess Christ we do it in the flesh before we receive the Spirit so none of our works while in flesh means anything, and then when we receive the Spirit we are in a saved condition, and do the works of God and not of the flesh.

Which these works are works of love towards people, which Paul said love works no ill towards their neighbor, therefore love is the fulfilling of the law, and charity, love in action, is greater than faith.

I do not know that much about it what people say but Jesus and Paul are not contradictory.

Jesus told the Jews to keep things of the Old Testament for when He was on earth the Jews were still under the Old Testament and needed to obey it.

But Jesus preached the Gospel, and the New Testament, while on earth, and when He died the Jews would have to accept Him, and go by the New Testament.

That does not even make sense that Jesus' teachings are done away when He is God, and His teachings are not done away with.

Also Jesus' said His words shall never pass away.

Also Jesus is the founder of the New Testament, the chief cornerstone of the Church, and the head of the Church above Paul.

Every single saint is built upon Jesus, and Peter is built after Jesus upon that building, which is why Jesus said upon this rock I will build my Church, but Jesus is the foundation and all the Church is built upon Him.

Also Jesus is the author and finisher of our faith.

It does not even make sense for then they are saying that Paul's words is above Jesus' words, if they say some of Jesus' words do not apply and Paul's words apply, and Jesus is God manifest in the flesh, Lord and Savior, Creator of all things, and all the word of God was given by Him for He is God.

I would not even want to make such a statement, and would be scared to do it.

Glory to Jesus, not glory to Paul, and Paul said that there are divisions among some saints for some say I am of Paul, and some say I am of Apollos, and some say I am of Cephas, and I of Christ.

But Paul said you are only of Christ and no one else.

billabong · Oct 5, 2019

FollowtheShepherd said:

I'm not too sure we could use the word "different", If Paul's message was different this would of been rejected by the noble bereans.
Advance, as God is turning his attention to the gentils after the Jewish nation rejected Christ. A time -line of events still taking place. Once the church-age of grace is complete God will again turn His attention back to the Jews.

Also have you not been saying that the disciples of Jesus were sent to Jews and Paul was sent to gentils?[/QUOTE]

Not too sure If I did say that here on CC, but I will say it now, after all isn't it said in the epistles?

FollowtheShepherd · Oct 5, 2019

billabong said:

Well actually Jesus sent all His chosen disciples to too people including Gentiles.

While Jesus may had started in Israel, He sent all His chosen disciples to all the nations in the world:

Acts 1:6-8, " 6 So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” 7 He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”

Matthew 24:14, “And this Good News of the reign shall be proclaimed in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end shall come.”

Luke 24:44-49, “44 Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, 47 and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. 49 And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”

SO I don't see it as a "church age then turning back to Jews" I see it as a starting in Israel to form a base then spreading the Gospel to the entire world.

FollowtheShepherd · Oct 5, 2019

MattforJesus said:

Jesus and Paul preached the same Gospel, and why would people think they did not.

Jesus taught the 2 greatest commandments love God, and love people, and Paul taught the same.

The Bible says that Jesus preached the Gospel, and Paul did the same.

Jesus preached have faith, confession of Him, and repent of sins, and Paul taught the same.

Jesus told the rich man that in order to have salvation is to obey the commandments that have to do with loving people, for love is the fulfilling of the law, and told him to sell all his things that were not a necessity and give to the poor for that is love, and Paul taught the same by saying we do not void out the law through faith, but we establish the law, which the 10 commandments are love towards God and people the 2 greatest laws that a Christians obeys, and said if a person does not have charity then they are nothing, and anybody that covets after money has erred from the faith, for the love of money is the root of all evil because it neglects the poor and needy which lacks love.

Paul said he did not receive the revelation of Jesus from man, but from Jesus, for it was Jesus that gave Paul all his teachings to teach, so why would Paul say something different than Jesus when he said that all his teachings come from Jesus.

If Paul addressed something that people think Jesus did not address while on earth does not mean they are not preaching the same, and Paul received all his teachings from Jesus so it would be covered there, but Jesus and Paul preached the same.

Paul, Peter, and the other writers would cover things that Jesus did not, or go in to more detail, and knowledge, for Jesus came to preach the Gospel and not to get in to every aspect of the future although He did tell us the future, and other things.

Jesus covered it and they went in to more detail, and knowledge about it, and it is all the same.

Did the Old Testament writers cover things that Moses did not write about, of course they did for they went in to more detail, and knowledge, but Moses still knew the future but he was not given to write every aspect of it like the future writers.

Moses taught wisdom, but the later writers went in to more detail about it like Psalms, and Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, and the fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, which it is important so they went in to more detail, and knowledge about it.

Jesus taught have faith and Paul went in to more detail about it.

Jesus taught love and Paul went in to more detail about it.

Paul went in to more detail about what Jesus taught, but Jesus still covered it all, and it is still the same teachings, and all from Jesus, so Jesus went in to more detail about it by Paul.

Paul said if anybody preaches another Gospel let them be accursed, and this is the Gospel that Jesus taught.

Paul said he did not want to know anything among the saints but Jesus and Him crucified.

Jesus preached the Gospel, have faith, confess Him, repent of sins, obey the 2 greatest commandments love God, and love people, and allow the Spirit to lead you to be Christlike, and Paul preached the same.

I do not understand how they can be contradictory.

Is it because Paul said we are saved by faith, and not by works, but Jesus taught the same thing, and in the Old Testament it says our righteousness is as filthy rags, so why would Jesus teach works to be saved.

There is nothing we can do to be saved but have faith, for when we first confess Christ we do it in the flesh before we receive the Spirit so none of our works while in flesh means anything, and then when we receive the Spirit we are in a saved condition, and do the works of God and not of the flesh.

Which these works are works of love towards people, which Paul said love works no ill towards their neighbor, therefore love is the fulfilling of the law, and charity, love in action, is greater than faith.

I do not know that much about it what people say but Jesus and Paul are not contradictory.

Jesus told the Jews to keep things of the Old Testament for when He was on earth the Jews were still under the Old Testament and needed to obey it.

But Jesus preached the Gospel, and the New Testament, while on earth, and when He died the Jews would have to accept Him, and go by the New Testament.

That does not even make sense that Jesus' teachings are done away when He is God, and His teachings are not done away with.

Also Jesus' said His words shall never pass away.

Also Jesus is the founder of the New Testament, the chief cornerstone of the Church, and the head of the Church above Paul.

Every single saint is built upon Jesus, and Peter is built after Jesus upon that building, which is why Jesus said upon this rock I will build my Church, but Jesus is the foundation and all the Church is built upon Him.

Also Jesus is the author and finisher of our faith.

It does not even make sense for then they are saying that Paul's words is above Jesus' words, if they say some of Jesus' words do not apply and Paul's words apply, and Jesus is God manifest in the flesh, Lord and Savior, Creator of all things, and all the word of God was given by Him for He is God.

I would not even want to make such a statement, and would be scared to do it.

Glory to Jesus, not glory to Paul, and Paul said that there are divisions among some saints for some say I am of Paul, and some say I am of Apollos, and some say I am of Cephas, and I of Christ.

But Paul said you are only of Christ and no one else.

Thank you for the well thought out reply, there is a lot here so give me a few to read this and reply, I will try to touch on eveything one idea at a time!

Marcelo · Oct 5, 2019

FollowtheShepherd said:

Therefore you believe Jesus' teachings override Paul's, right? Do you mean we should disregard the teachings of the heavenly Jesus in favor of the teachings he gave us on earth?

The heavenly Jesus said a Christian can be rich provided they are generous and not arrogant.

The earthly Jesus said Christians must sell their possessions and give alms (it's easier for a camel ...)

Do you follow the earthly Jesus?

FollowtheShepherd · Oct 5, 2019

Marcelo said:

The only time "heavenly Jesus" directly speaks is in Revelation. and "Earthly Jesus" says His earthly words will never pass and those words He spoke on earth are the doctrine:

John 14:23-26, " 23 Jesus answered him, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. 24 Whoever does not love me does not keep my words. And the word that you hear is not mine but the Father's who sent me. 25 “These things I have spoken to you while I am still with you. 26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you."

Mat 24:35, “Heaven and earth may pass away, but My words (teachings) will not pass away.”

So in no way can ANYONE be believeing Jesus and say what He spoke on earth is done away and/or not still binding to the follower of Jesus.

According to the Father, Jesus words are above all:

Deuteronomy 18:18-19, " 18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. 19 And whoever will not listen to my words that he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him."

Jesus says the same:

John 12:48, “He who rejects Me, and does not follow My words has One Who judges him. The word that I have spoken, the same will be used to judge him in the last day.”

John 5:28-29, " 28 Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice 29 and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.

Peter intreprets Duet 18 that same way I do:

Acts 3:22-23, " 22 Moses said, ‘The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers. You shall listen to him in whatever he tells you. 23 And it shall be that every soul who does not listen to that prophet shall be destroyed from the people.’

Marcelo said:

I have not issue with this, I think the problem with riches and the rich man is when they put riches before God.

Marcelo said:

Is it wrong to have money or is it wrong to put money before God? I don't think it is wrong to have enough money to buy a meal and pay rent, however if I had millions and did not use most of it to help the poor I think that would be an issue and against what Jesus taught. Easier said than done without doubt, however if the love of money becomes a part of one's life it is a problem 100%

Marcelo said:

Yes. I have had a wake up call from Him years ago, and have continually ben guided to learn and be more like Him. It has been a slow and long process that is still not complete and I suppose will not be until I am with Him in His kingdom God willing. With that said I am not perfect an do sin. As an example Jesus chosen disciples did sin yet he called them friends and brothers that followed Him.

Marcelo, I say this honeslty, it seems to me you look for reasons not to follow Jesus, and you claims that "Earthly Jesus" words are not for you goes against what He said a number of times, particularly in John 14, the verse I continually quote to you. If you are really seeking Jesus how can you not hear His call, how can you so easily reject what He is saying?

John 14:23-26, " 23 Jesus answered him, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. 24 Whoever does not love me does not keep my words. And the word that you hear is not mine but the Father's who sent me. 25 “These things I have spoken to you while I am still with you. 26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you."

FollowtheShepherd · Oct 5, 2019

MattforJesus said:

Well a number of people have told me different and quoted verses as to the reason why, some of these verses raised questions for me. Those that have said this on this site have not yet posted in this thread but none the less I want to work this issue out in my own mind and suppose others can offer insight.

One thing that raised my concern was Galatians 2:

Paul uses this term "those who seemed to be influential" if we study it in context he is talking about the chosen disciples of Jesus Peter, James and John in particular. As Paul says:

" 6 And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me. 7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised 8 (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles), 9 and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars,"

Now I find a few things odd here.

One Peter was sent to Gentiles (as with all the disciples) but Paul says differently, that Peter and the 12 were sent to Jews and that in fact he was sent to Gentiles: 8 (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles)

However Peter himself says "God chose him to go to Gentiles"

Acts 15:6-7, “So the apostles and the elders met to consider this statement. After a lengthy debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God chose me to be the one among you through whom the Gentiles would hear the message of the gospel and believe."

and we see Jesus sending Peter and the rest of the disciples to the whole world, Gentiles included:

Acts 1:6-8, " 6 So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” 7 He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”

Next why does Paul say "" 6 And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me. 9 and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars,"

There were pillars, Paul implies they are not. Here is the greek word used:

G1380 δοκέω dokeo (d̮o-ke'-ō) v., 1. to suppose, consider, imagine., 2. (by implication) to seem (truthfully or uncertainly)., 3. (by inference) to presume., 4. (also) to repute or estimate., 5. (by extension) to be of reputation, estimable.

This word essentially means is said to be but actually is not. Paul says this about James, Peter and John, the issue I take with this is according to Jesus, they are on thrones in the kingdom and all of their names are written on the foundation of the kingdom:

Matthew 19:28, "Jesus told them, “I tell all of you with certainty, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne in the renewed creation, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, governing the twelve tribes of Israel."

Revelation 21:10-14, “He carried me away in the Spirit to a large, high mountain and showed me the holy city, Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven. The glory of God was its radiance, and its light was like a valuable gem, like jasper, as clear as crystal. It had a large, high wall with twelve gates. Twelve angels were at the gates, and the names of the twelve tribes of Israel were written on the gates. There were three gates on the east, three gates on the north, three gates on the south, and three gates on the west. The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the lamb were written on them."

Galatians 2:4-14, " 4 Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in—who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery— 5 to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you. 6 And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me. 7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised 8 (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles), 9 and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. 10 Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do. 11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. 13 And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

FollowtheShepherd · Oct 5, 2019

MattforJesus said:

The general principle here I agree with, love and walking in it is the way and what the commands truly teach. With that said many read Paul and in some form say the law is done away, to me Paul says many things that seem against he law and many things that seem for the law.

Romans 7:12-14, “So that the Law truly is holy, and the command holy, and righteous, and good. Therefore, has that which is good become death to me? Let it not be! But the sin, that sin might be manifest, was working death in me through what is good, so that sin through the command might become an exceedingly great sinner. For we know that the Law is Spiritual, but I am fleshly, sold under sin."

2 Corinthians 3:7-8, “But if the administering of death in letters, engraved on stones, was esteemed, so that the children of Yisra’yl were unable to look steadily at the face of Mosheh because of the esteem of his face, which was passing away, how much more esteemed shall the administering of the Spirit not be?”

1 Corinthians 10:23-, “All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,”

1 John 3:4, "Whoever commits sin, transgresses also the Law; for sin is the transgression of the Law."

Revelation 14:12-13, " 12 Here is a call for the endurance of the saints, those who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus. 13 And I heard a voice from heaven saying, “Write this: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on.” “Blessed indeed,” says the Spirit, “that they may rest from their labors, for their deeds follow them!”

Romans

The law reveals sin but cannot fix it. (Romans 3:20)

If the law worked then faith would be irrelevant. (Romans 4:14)

The law brings wrath upon those who follow it. (Romans 4:15)

The purpose of the law was to increase sin. (Romans 5:20)

Christians are not under the law. (Romans 6:14)

Christians have been delivered from the law. (Romans 7:1-6)

The law which promises life only brings death through sin. (Romans 7:10)

The law makes you sinful beyond measure. (Romans 7:13)

The law is weak. (Romans 8:2-3)

1 Corinthians

The strength of sin is the law (1 Corinthians 15:56)

2 Corinthians

The law is a ministry of death. (2 Corinthians 3:7)

The law is a ministry of condemnation. (2 Corinthians 3:9)

The law has no glory at all in comparison with the New Covenant. (2 Corinthians 3:10)

The law is fading away. (2 Corinthians 3:11)

Anywhere the law is preached it produces a mind-hardening and a heart-hardening veil. (2 Corinthians 3:14-15)

Galatians

Christians are dead to the law. (Galatians 2:19)

The law frustrates grace. (Galatians 2:21)

To go back to the law after embracing faith is “stupid”. (Galatians 3:1)

The law curses all who practice it and fail to do it perfectly. (Galatians 3:10)

The law has nothing to do with faith. (Galatians 3:11-12)

The law was a curse that Christ redeemed us from. (Galatians 3:13)

The law functioned in God’s purpose as a temporary covenant from Moses till John the Baptist announced Christ. (Galatians 3:16 & 19, also see… Matthew 11:12-13, Luke 16:16)

If the law worked God would have used it to save us. (Galatians 3:21)

The law was our prison. (Galatians 3:23)

The law makes you a slave like Hagar. (Galatians 4:24)

Ephesians

Christ has abolished the law which was a wall of hostility (Ephesians 2:15)

Philippians

Paul considered everything the law gained him as “skybalon” which is Greek for “poop”. (Philippians 3:4-8)

1 Timothy

It was made for the unrighteous but not for the righteous. (1 Timothy 1:9-10)

Revelation 22:14-15, " 14 Blessed [are] they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. 15 For without [are] dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

PERFECTION · Oct 5, 2019

There is only one gospel and there is only one people to whom the gospel is directed.
Jesus, during His physical time of ministry on earth could not have made it any more clear He came that ALL who believe( JEW OR GENTIL) might have eternal life.
However there was much more than being born again that had to be established during this time.
So we see Jesus here among us bringing His apostles together instructing them with His teaching. He was telling them "see these people, love them as I have loved you"
Now comes the other part of the purpose of Jesus ministry the establishment of the church.
There was no one who was given a greater understanding of this than Paul.
Now there is only one church. So at this point the most important issue is to bring all of these born again believers into the knowledge of the church.
Peter and Paul had both meet Jesus. Even though the ministry of the two often seem to butt heads the ministry was always one in the same. The road was bumpy to begin with but in the end they both understood they were there to advance the Kingdom Of God.
And as time went on they both understood it was going to cost them their lives.

You may have questions about who preached what gospel in the begging but in the end there was no question all of the apostles were in one mind and there was no distinction between Jew and Gentile.

billabong · Oct 5, 2019

FollowtheShepherd said:

Yes that was the original plan. But when the opportunity came and they could have had the King and the Kingdom, and they could have brought all the nations of the world to a knowledge of their God. But In their unbelief they rejected the King and the Kingdom. So God turned to the Gentiles through the Apostle Paul without using the Nation of Israel.
Now God has not forgotten the nation of Israel, after the church age is complete and rapture has taken place, God reverts His attention back to the nation of Israel, the two witness, the 144000 etc

Did Jesus and Paul teach differnt gospels?

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Banned

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Member