Different Gospels

[Musicmaster]

I curious as to why some quickly equate the Gospel to the Word of God. Insights?

The Gospels are the foundations, along with the Law, to the word of God, which originated from God Himself, which is why we call it "the very word of God...all of it."

Does that help?

MM

 

[Thaddeus]

You did answer somewhat...in the affirmative that you don't have faith. I would deal with that if I were you. Please do so.

MM

I did not answer or infer I did not have faith, either you are deliberatley lying, or you have no comprehension skills to understand what is written to you. As I cannot believe it is the latter, I will no longer be continuing this conversation with you

 

[Musicmaster]

Title says gospels so why not reply to me, as I posted so we can form a foundation ,til then the log spin and one falls in the water

I assume these verses are to what you're referring.

2 Corinthians 11:3-4
3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

So, how does this apply in this conversation?

If we say that every person who reads those passages, be they Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Protestants, can apply them as a justification for standing firmly on what they THINK is THE Gospel that applies to us today, we need not evangelize them, so applying that, even in a round-about way, to this conversation, it begs the question.

So, I agree with you about establishing a foundation upon which we can proceed.

These three verses say much:

Galatians 2:7-9
7 But contrariwise, when they [the twelve] saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
8 For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision (Israel), the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:
9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship [not permission or commission as so many seem to assume into the text]; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

So that you know I'm not making this up, Thayer's Greek Lexicon defines the Greek word translated as "fellowship" in verse 9 means:

"the right hand as the sign and pledge of fellowship (in fulfilling the apostolic office), Galatians 2:9"

Some have tried to tell me that the twelve "commissioned" or "empowered" Paul for his role as the apostle to the Gentiles, as if Paul needed their blessing to proceed and was thus under their authority; regardless of the fact that Paul had been trained up and sent forth by Christ already. Paul chose to counsel with them, yes, and they extended to him fellowship with them as a fellow apostle. Now, I'm not saying you're of that strange stripe of the nay-sayers, but there are those around who are displaying those spots with pride, contrary to the text.

Additionally, the differentiation of the Gospels is made clear in verse 7. Had they actually been one and the same gospel, then the division would make no sense, and the language used would make no sense. Paul could easily have said:

"7 But contrariwise, when they [the twelve] saw that the gospel committed unto me for the uncircumcision, as the it was to Peter unto the circumcision;

or

7 But contrariwise, when they [the twelve] saw that the ministry of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the ministry of the circumcision was unto Peter;

Two different ministries when replacing "gospel" with "ministry," ...two different gospels by that same consistency with the grammar.

But the Lord chose to insert reference to the gospels, and grammatically that phraseology points clearly to two different gospels. That's not to say there are also two Christs, for there is not but One, over all.

So, in relation to my first altered phraseology, THAT would be a viable argument for a singular gospel from the grammar, but that is not at all the grammar the Lord chose to express what he inspired Paul to write. Why make the distinction along the lines of Israel and Gentiles, for Peter had already preached to a small hand full of Gentiles and brought them into the fold of Jews, yes, but he did not at all teach them to forsake the Law nor did he command them to not circumcize their children as did Paul to the Jews to whom he ministered who had not yet been under the ministry of the twelve.

Thoughts?

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

I did not answer or infer I did not have faith, either you are deliberatley lying, or you have no comprehension skills to understand what is written to you. As I cannot believe it is the latter, I will no longer be continuing this conversation with you

Then, pray tell, what was supposed to be meant with your example of that woman shedding tears over her own lack in her faith to do those things? Did you accidentally pull up the wrong comparative back in that post?

MM

 

[Thaddeus]

Then, pray tell, what was supposed to be meant with your example of that woman shedding tears over her own lack in her faith to do those things?

lol:
With tears streaming down her cheeks, she said:
''Anyone can see the power in their services I have seen in mine, but it costs everything''

 

[biblestudent78]

The Gospels are the foundations, along with the Law, to the word of God, which originated from God Himself, which is why we call it "the very word of God...all of it."

Does that help?

MM

Please explain the Law?

 

[Musicmaster]

Please explain the Law?

What kind of explanation do you want? One way to understand the Law, apart from the ceremonial, Levitical and cultural Laws, this thread I created, in the OP, gives a good parallel comparison between what we today consider benevolence and good works and the Law. That helps to show that Paul's instructions in relation to the Law actually was his appeals to the one authority that defines benevolence toward others (good works) toward others for rewards in Heaven.

That's one way to explain the Law, especially as it relates to us today.

On another level, the Law is still in force today as the one authority of indictment against all who reject Christ Jesus. The Law has not passed away. The writers of Hebrews said this:

Hebrews 8:13
In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Notice the tense of that statement in relation to the Mosaic Law. It "decayeth" [present tense], and it "waxeth old" (present tense) and it IS ready to vanish away, and it will do so after the return of Christ and the Great White Throne Judgment.

Lastly, the Law is that to which we of the body of Christ is dead, and when we read those key passages in their contexts, that deadness is in relation to the curse of the Law in relation to us who are in Christ Jesus, just as a speeding ticket given to a dead man in a car wreck is not subject to the penalties of that traffic ticket, even they still issue one in relation to the one at fault, even if he died at the scene or soon thereafter. Though we are dead to the Law, it is the measure of our rewards as to what constitutes the good works that we did here in this life.

Does that help?

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

Please explain the Law?

Oh, that link is this for that discussion about good works defined in the Law:

Thread 'The Law or Good Works? What's the Difference...if Any?'

Jun 13, 2026

Many today like to divide up the scriptures as if there were some differentiable distinction between the Law and good works that one may do.

Where it's true that the Mosaic Law (Torah), prescribes commandments, rituals and ethical duties given to Israel, many of its requirements overlap with what modern Christians call "good works" — otherwise defined as morally commendable actions, charity, justice, and even some religious observance. Let's look at some comparisons.

Mosaic law: Establish courts, judges, impartial justice; prohibit perverting justice, taking bribes, favoring the...

• Musicmaster
• Replies: 105
• Forum: Bible Discussion Forum

MM

 

[amazingrace]

would not two different gospels require two different covenants, two different saviors with two different atonements, and two different methods of attaining eternal salvation?

thks

 

[biblestudent78]

What kind of explanation do you want? One way to understand the Law, apart from the ceremonial, Levitical and cultural Laws, this thread I created, in the OP, gives a good parallel comparison between what we today consider benevolence and good works and the Law. That helps to show that Paul's instructions in relation to the Law actually was his appeals to the one authority that defines benevolence toward others (good works) toward others for rewards in Heaven.

That's one way to explain the Law, especially as it relates to us today.

On another level, the Law is still in force today as the one authority of indictment against all who reject Christ Jesus. The Law has not passed away. The writers of Hebrews said this:

Hebrews 8:13
In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Notice the tense of that statement in relation to the Mosaic Law. It "decayeth" [present tense], and it "waxeth old" (present tense) and it IS ready to vanish away, and it will do so after the return of Christ and the Great White Throne Judgment.

Lastly, the Law is that to which we of the body of Christ is dead, and when we read those key passages in their contexts, that deadness is in relation to the curse of the Law in relation to us who are in Christ Jesus, just as a speeding ticket given to a dead man in a car wreck is not subject to the penalties of that traffic ticket, even they still issue one in relation to the one at fault, even if he died at the scene or soon thereafter. Though we are dead to the Law, it is the measure of our rewards as to what constitutes the good works that we did here in this life.

Does that help?

MM

How does your perspective deal with Matthew 25? This seem to be an A vs B perspective. Not a measure.

 

[BartholomewB]

In the end, however, he will either accept the truth or he will reject it, some going so far as to try and pit the word of God against itself on the basis of some modern, English translations that lead some down the pathways of what those translations claim are the "best texts."

Hi @Musicmaster. I’m arriving late at this thread, which is already up to over a hundred posts. I’ve done my best to look through them all but I may have missed one where you have already answered my question. If so, I apologize.

In your OP, I’m a bit mystified by your remark about translations. You don’t seem to have explained what your criteria are for judging whether a given translation is or isn’t based on the best texts.

Would you care to list one or two examples of the translations that meet with your approval and also of the ones that don’t? Thanks!

 

[frederickdoc]

I assume these verses are to what you're referring.

2 Corinthians 11:3-4
3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

So, how does this apply in this conversation?

If we say that every person who reads those passages, be they Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Protestants, can apply them as a justification for standing firmly on what they THINK is THE Gospel that applies to us today, we need not evangelize them, so applying that, even in a round-about way, to this conversation, it begs the question.

So, I agree with you about establishing a foundation upon which we can proceed.

These three verses say much:

Galatians 2:7-9
7 But contrariwise, when they [the twelve] saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
8 For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision (Israel), the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:
9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship [not permission or commission as so many seem to assume into the text]; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

So that you know I'm not making this up, Thayer's Greek Lexicon defines the Greek word translated as "fellowship" in verse 9 means:

"the right hand as the sign and pledge of fellowship (in fulfilling the apostolic office), Galatians 2:9"

Some have tried to tell me that the twelve "commissioned" or "empowered" Paul for his role as the apostle to the Gentiles, as if Paul needed their blessing to proceed and was thus under their authority; regardless of the fact that Paul had been trained up and sent forth by Christ already. Paul chose to counsel with them, yes, and they extended to him fellowship with them as a fellow apostle. Now, I'm not saying you're of that strange stripe of the nay-sayers, but there are those around who are displaying those spots with pride, contrary to the text.

Additionally, the differentiation of the Gospels is made clear in verse 7. Had they actually been one and the same gospel, then the division would make no sense, and the language used would make no sense. Paul could easily have said:

"7 But contrariwise, when they [the twelve] saw that the gospel committed unto me for the uncircumcision, as the it was to Peter unto the circumcision;

or

7 But contrariwise, when they [the twelve] saw that the ministry of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the ministry of the circumcision was unto Peter;

Two different ministries when replacing "gospel" with "ministry," ...two different gospels by that same consistency with the grammar.

But the Lord chose to insert reference to the gospels, and grammatically that phraseology points clearly to two different gospels. That's not to say there are also two Christs, for there is not but One, over all.

So, in relation to my first altered phraseology, THAT would be a viable argument for a singular gospel from the grammar, but that is not at all the grammar the Lord chose to express what he inspired Paul to write. Why make the distinction along the lines of Israel and Gentiles, for Peter had already preached to a small hand full of Gentiles and brought them into the fold of Jews, yes, but he did not at all teach them to forsake the Law nor did he command them to not circumcize their children as did Paul to the Jews to whom he ministered who had not yet been under the ministry of the twelve.

Thoughts?

MM

Just go with the Gospel good news .it's not Seperate its Good News. I cant grasp all mixed scripture . The good news is All Jesus documented life to Glorified new Creation Nation Quickened Spirit. That not had to understand, very simple
if one hears then maytbe they want Holy Spirit teach them ?.

 

[frederickdoc]

The Kingdom Gospel preached by Jesus and the twelve:

Mark 16:15-18
15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

The Gospel of Grace given to Paul directly from that same Jesus after His acension:

1 Corinthians 15:1-4
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

When an honestly mistaken man sees the truth presented in black-n-white, such as what can be seen above, one of three things happens:

(1) he will either cease to be mistaken, or
(2) he will cease to be honest, or
(3) he will argue endlessly as his way of a continued refusal against what's written above to try and cover over his dishonesty.

In the end, however, he will either accept the truth or he will reject it, some going so far as to try and pit the word of God against itself on the basis of some modern, English translations that lead some down the pathways of what those translations claim are the "best texts."

If he accepts the truth of what's said in passages above, and remains consistent with proper hermeneutics by accepting the clear language of what's stated in the verses above, he's no longer mistaken.

If he rejects it, he's no longer honest with himself nor with others.

It's as simple as that.

There can't be, therefore, such a thing as an "honestly mistaken man" who, once seeing the truth presented to him from the scriptures, continues to reject by re-interpreting key passages and/or contexts that credibly fail to support his false position.

The masses of Gentiles who think they're adhering to the Kingdom Gospel preached by Jesus to His disciples and the twelve to Israel, none today are able to do the things Israel was promised they would be able to do following that Gospel, all while thinking we're under that Gospel today.

Interestingly, avoidance of being seen as foolish, they either never talk about their inability to do these things described in the verses above or they do the awkward slight-of-hand magic disappearance trick by making use of verses popular among the cessationists, feebly using those as an explanation for their failure in showing that Gospel as being operative today, which it is not.

The emphatic declaration by Jesus that those who had faith and were baptized, therefore absolutely able to do ALL those things, here we are with clinics, hospitals and care homes filled with people almost never visited, and therefore never healed, by these Gentiles who claim they believe what Jesus taught as allegedly applying to us today.

Is this failure on their part a demonstration for a severe lack of faith on their part or are they failing to love, care and express a heart-felt compassion for the sick and infirmed people, or is it a perpetual demonstration for a lack of saving faith on their part?

The reason they don't go about healing and being healed by those who claim they're followers of Christ and His instructions in His Kingdom Gospel message is because that Kingdom Gospel message was unique to Israel alone under the Kingdom Gospel dispensation not meant for us today given the fall of Israel. That is the uncomfortable truth at play here.

Romans 11:11
I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

Slapping, with warped glee, the seemingly negative sounding labels on the truth of dispensations as their practiced manipulation upon the weaker minds of others (those who routinely fail to "prove all things" by putting on their critical thinking caps long since taken from them by public and private primary and secondary schools), and those of a more liberal leaning buffoonery that permeates so much of modern education, this practice is an old trick empowered by the princes of this world and is still effectively at play today.

The most popular hang-up is the snideness applied in support of a manipulative crusade promotion of a more negative sentiment about the descriptor "dispensationalism," a term that fits Paul perfectly, given that he used the term underlying term "dispensations" a number of times in his epistles:

1 Corinthians 9:17
For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.

Ephesians 3:2
If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:

Collossians 1:25
Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;

So, when I see the snideness directed against the proper and honest teaching for dispensations within scripture, of which we are instructed to rightly divide within the word of God, especially the snideness perpetrated by people who themselves hypocritically practice dispensational differentiations given that they don't perform animal sacrifices in their back yards for their sins, along with many other of the 613 Mosaic Law requirements, their negativity against what was given to Paul for us today, they're indeed failing to remain honest with themselves and with others.

What about you? Do you see the differences here?

MM

Nothing for me to compare. The Gospel of Jesus is the good news that God offers salvation from sin through the life, death, and resurrection of His Son, Jesus The Christ. This message involves acknowledging man Sin accepting Jesus' sacrifice as the only way to be reconciled to God, and receiving eternal life through Faith rather Than of old works

 

[frederickdoc]

Nothing for me to compare. The Gospel of Jesus is the good news that God offers salvation from sin through the life, death, and resurrection of His Son, Jesus The Christ. This message involves acknowledging man Sin accepting Jesus' sacrifice as the only way to be reconciled to God, and receiving eternal life through Faith rather Than of old works

I think you mention many religious read same message with understanding ?
It a shame They all dont receive of Jesus the Same! So i suppose i will talk same Gospel to each religion .But most likely a doctrine of each group will say differently. Most religions hold some sort of truth and leave other truths out ,making the one Truth Not True. Most dont follow Jesus to the water and the holy Spirit is not welcome ,so he out side ,hoping to get inside to do Jesus Gospel

 

[Musicmaster]

Hi @Musicmaster. I’m arriving late at this thread, which is already up to over a hundred posts. I’ve done my best to look through them all but I may have missed one where you have already answered my question. If so, I apologize.

In your OP, I’m a bit mystified by your remark about translations. You don’t seem to have explained what your criteria are for judging whether a given translation is or isn’t based on the best texts.

Would you care to list one or two examples of the translations that meet with your approval and also of the ones that don’t? Thanks!

Yes, I did answer this, but not sure if it was addressed to you specifically without going back through all the pages of posts.

The manuscripts they have called "the best texts," upon which the modern translations are all based is what I question. I've discussed this with fellow scholars through the years, one of whom was one of the scholars who worked on the Interlinear Bible so popular among students. The primary criteria of modern scholarship is the fallacy of an appeal to antiquity as the basis for their manuscript choice for which have the higher grounding of trustworthiness.

In other words, those manuscripts they call out as being better are known to have been altered as many as five times in places, one of which was found in a trash pile to be burned (there's no record of who put it there). My main focus is upon the antiquity argument. Many seem to think that those copies that reside closer to the original autographs "must" be more authoritative. Their lack of any desire to stack that argument up against more than 6000 manuscripts collected from different parts of the ancient world that agree with each other more than 95% of the time, with the "oldest texts" disagreeing with each other at a far higher percentage than the majority tests, that's cause for pause, so to speak.

The differences are what come across as also more striking, some of which are a down-play on the deity of Christ. This listing that drives this study is much too numerous a discussion that could fill tens and even hundreds of forum pages and posts, which is why I kept the response down to a few paragraphs.

Hope that helps.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

Just go with the Gospel good news .it's not Seperate its Good News. I cant grasp all mixed scripture . The good news is All Jesus documented life to Glorified new Creation Nation Quickened Spirit. That not had to understand, very simple
if one hears then maytbe they want Holy Spirit teach them ?.

I understand what you're saying, and its a good thing where you stated to go with what Holy Spirit leads (1 John 2:27). The Spirit is the ultimage guide given that Holy Spirit is the inspiring author.

Amen

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

Nothing for me to compare. The Gospel of Jesus is the good news that God offers salvation from sin through the life, death, and resurrection of His Son, Jesus The Christ. This message involves acknowledging man Sin accepting Jesus' sacrifice as the only way to be reconciled to God, and receiving eternal life through Faith rather Than of old works

Yes, the Gospel preached by Jesus and the twelve was indeed the foundational means unto salvation. That Gospel also included the requirement for water baptism for remission of sins, which is not for us today.

In other words, we don't have to be water baptized for the remission of our sins as was the case in what Peter preached in Acts 2:38. Paul's Gospel of Grace had no such requirement in 1 Cor. 15:1-4. Paul's Gospel of Grace required only that one believe in the death, burial and resurrection in the third day of Christ Jesus for our sins. Anything else is a work; something of which many have boasted, thus cheapening the sufficiency of the Blood of Christ.

I understand the tendency within the "simplicity" stance to overlook differing elements given that Christ is the common denominator in both gospels, but the Kingdom Gospel simply is not for us today because you Gentiles don't have to join with us of Israel to be saved by the Blood of Christ. Not any more. Our fall as a nation of priests brought down that middle wall of partition, thus salvation having come unto the Gentiles who, before, were without God, without Christ, outside the commonwealth of Israel and without hope.

Does that make better sense?

MM

 

[Thaddeus]

A water baptism for the forgiveness of sins was in place whilst Christ walked this earth. And yet, he forgave people their sins and told them they had received salvation without firstly telling them they must be baptised in water. Good to get the whole picture

 

[Musicmaster]

How does your perspective deal with Matthew 25? This seem to be an A vs B perspective. Not a measure.

Could you be more specific for me? I don't understand what it is you're seeing in that chapter about the virgins, talents, etc.

Were I to assume anything toward which to formulate an answer from scripture, perhaps it would be along the lines of this:

Matthew 16:27-28
27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

That didn't happen within the lifetime of those people standing there, and we know why given that we have hindsight that they didn't have back then. Some have made the feeble attempt at trying to claim that the transfiguration was that event, which did happen in the lifetime of those people. The problem is that the disciples at that event didn't see any angels, but only Christ, Moses and Elijah, no angels are mentioned as a confirmation of that false claim.

The Second Coming of Christ will be the event where those things manifest, not 2000 years ago as the hyper-Preterists like to claim.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

A water baptism for the forgiveness of sins was in place whilst Christ walked this earth. And yet, he forgave people their sins and told them they had received salvation without firstly telling them they must be baptised in water. Good to get the whole picture

True indeed. He even stated that those who believe upon Him shall be saved, with no mention of water baptism. However, Peter was very specific in his instructions to Israel in Acts 2 where the remission of sins was concerned. Of course, getting wet saved nobody, including the thief on the cross. So where it's true there was some exceptions where faith alone was the prime operator, obedience when feasible was indeed an element for salvation for Israel before our fall.

MM