Are the Gospels written specifically to Jews only?
- Thread starter Churinga
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
You left out verse 12.
12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.
12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.
-
1
- Show all
Hi thanks for the reply
Which word am I hung up on?
Words have meaning attached to them as a law not subject to change. Change the meaning of one word, change the authors intent and make it to no effect as a oral tradition of men .Deuteronomy 4
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.Deuteronomy 4:2
The warning at the end of the book of prophecy (Revelation) is in respect to any new prophecy seeing it can add and therefore demish the word of God, making it to no effect.
The perfect has come.
The good news of Jesus Christ is simply "good news" of Christ. It is not the good new of James, who argues with the good news of Paul who cannot agree on the good news of Moses. ..
Little words can carry big meaning. Its not the gospel of or according to Mathew, Mark, Luke or John any more than it is the gospel of Balaam's Ass that worked to restrain the madness of that false prophets.
Its not a big thing again something that can cause confusion to one who is beginning the journey of faith. I would offer to help them understand not to have the faith of Christ in respect to persons (humans) In doing so they blaspheme the holy name by which he does call us to move when we do hear his voice, mixing faith or believing God..the gospel.
Which word am I hung up on?
Words have meaning attached to them as a law not subject to change. Change the meaning of one word, change the authors intent and make it to no effect as a oral tradition of men .Deuteronomy 4
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.Deuteronomy 4:2
The warning at the end of the book of prophecy (Revelation) is in respect to any new prophecy seeing it can add and therefore demish the word of God, making it to no effect.
The perfect has come.
The good news of Jesus Christ is simply "good news" of Christ. It is not the good new of James, who argues with the good news of Paul who cannot agree on the good news of Moses. ..
Little words can carry big meaning. Its not the gospel of or according to Mathew, Mark, Luke or John any more than it is the gospel of Balaam's Ass that worked to restrain the madness of that false prophets.
Its not a big thing again something that can cause confusion to one who is beginning the journey of faith. I would offer to help them understand not to have the faith of Christ in respect to persons (humans) In doing so they blaspheme the holy name by which he does call us to move when we do hear his voice, mixing faith or believing God..the gospel.
The truth in Jesus' day was the law of Moses.
When the young rich ruler asked "What must I do to have eternal life? ", Jesus answered "Keep the commandments ". The Lord didn't say: "First have faith in me, then accept me, get baptized with water, get baptized with the Holy Spirit, keep yourself from sexual immorality, don't eat strangled animals, don't eat food sacrificed to idols, seek sanctification, make sure your faith is accompanied with good works (otherwise it is dead), and don't rely on them because you'll be saved by grace, not by works, .......... etc.
Jesus didn't say any of those things. Rather, He said: "Keep the commandments ". Why? Because they were still under the law of Moses.
When the young rich ruler asked "What must I do to have eternal life? ", Jesus answered "Keep the commandments ". The Lord didn't say: "First have faith in me, then accept me, get baptized with water, get baptized with the Holy Spirit, keep yourself from sexual immorality, don't eat strangled animals, don't eat food sacrificed to idols, seek sanctification, make sure your faith is accompanied with good works (otherwise it is dead), and don't rely on them because you'll be saved by grace, not by works, .......... etc.
Jesus didn't say any of those things. Rather, He said: "Keep the commandments ". Why? Because they were still under the law of Moses.
E
Jesus was making a point, he knew the person thought he obeyed as directed (perfect) and when the buy said he did, jesus proved him wrong, and he still did not get it, he walked away..
And jesus was not wrong, one way is to keep the commands, the problem was, we had to keep them perfectly.
No one was ever saved because they kept the commands. Jesus was the only man ever to keep them
And jesus was not wrong, one way is to keep the commands, the problem was, we had to keep them perfectly.
No one was ever saved because they kept the commands. Jesus was the only man ever to keep them
Yes, Jesus fulfilled the Law.
.
http://ourrabbijesus.com/articles/what-fulfill-the-law-meant-in-its-jewish-context/
To Fulfill the Torah
The translation of “to fulfill” is lekayem in Hebrew (le-KAI-yem), which means to uphold or establish, as well as to fulfill, complete or accomplish. David Bivin has pointed out that the phrase “fulfill the Law” is often used as an idiom to mean to properly interpret the Torah so that people can obey it as God really intends.2
The word “abolish” was likely either levatel, to nullify, or la’akor, to uproot, which meant to undermine the Torah by misinterpreting it. For example, the law against adultery could be interpreted as only about cheating on one’s spouse, but not about pornography. When Jesus declared that lust also was a violation of the commandment, he was clarifying the true intent of that law, so in rabbinic parlance he was “fulfilling the Law.”
Imagine a pastor preaching that cheating on your taxes is fine, as long as you give the money to the church. He would be “abolishing the Law” – causing people to not live as God wants them to live.
http://ourrabbijesus.com/articles/what-fulfill-the-law-meant-in-its-jewish-context/
To Fulfill the Torah
The translation of “to fulfill” is lekayem in Hebrew (le-KAI-yem), which means to uphold or establish, as well as to fulfill, complete or accomplish. David Bivin has pointed out that the phrase “fulfill the Law” is often used as an idiom to mean to properly interpret the Torah so that people can obey it as God really intends.2
The word “abolish” was likely either levatel, to nullify, or la’akor, to uproot, which meant to undermine the Torah by misinterpreting it. For example, the law against adultery could be interpreted as only about cheating on one’s spouse, but not about pornography. When Jesus declared that lust also was a violation of the commandment, he was clarifying the true intent of that law, so in rabbinic parlance he was “fulfilling the Law.”
Imagine a pastor preaching that cheating on your taxes is fine, as long as you give the money to the church. He would be “abolishing the Law” – causing people to not live as God wants them to live.
Their error contains some truth.
In their dogma,it is IMPERATIVE that the gospel of peter.james.and John be heresy and basically in conflict with pauls gospel.
The truth is. TRUTH, that the Holy Spirit wrote THE WORD OF GOD.
All66 books.
The "paul" writings
VS
The "non paul" writings.
You really want to follow heretics?
In their dogma,it is IMPERATIVE that the gospel of peter.james.and John be heresy and basically in conflict with pauls gospel.
The truth is. TRUTH, that the Holy Spirit wrote THE WORD OF GOD.
All66 books.
The "paul" writings
VS
The "non paul" writings.
You really want to follow heretics?
E
Yes, Jesus fulfilled the Law.
.
http://ourrabbijesus.com/articles/what-fulfill-the-law-meant-in-its-jewish-context/
To Fulfill the Torah
The translation of “to fulfill” is lekayem in Hebrew (le-KAI-yem), which means to uphold or establish, as well as to fulfill, complete or accomplish. David Bivin has pointed out that the phrase “fulfill the Law” is often used as an idiom to mean to properly interpret the Torah so that people can obey it as God really intends.2
The word “abolish” was likely either levatel, to nullify, or la’akor, to uproot, which meant to undermine the Torah by misinterpreting it. For example, the law against adultery could be interpreted as only about cheating on one’s spouse, but not about pornography. When Jesus declared that lust also was a violation of the commandment, he was clarifying the true intent of that law, so in rabbinic parlance he was “fulfilling the Law.”
Imagine a pastor preaching that cheating on your taxes is fine, as long as you give the money to the church. He would be “abolishing the Law” – causing people to not live as God wants them to live.
http://ourrabbijesus.com/articles/what-fulfill-the-law-meant-in-its-jewish-context/
To Fulfill the Torah
The translation of “to fulfill” is lekayem in Hebrew (le-KAI-yem), which means to uphold or establish, as well as to fulfill, complete or accomplish. David Bivin has pointed out that the phrase “fulfill the Law” is often used as an idiom to mean to properly interpret the Torah so that people can obey it as God really intends.2
The word “abolish” was likely either levatel, to nullify, or la’akor, to uproot, which meant to undermine the Torah by misinterpreting it. For example, the law against adultery could be interpreted as only about cheating on one’s spouse, but not about pornography. When Jesus declared that lust also was a violation of the commandment, he was clarifying the true intent of that law, so in rabbinic parlance he was “fulfilling the Law.”
Imagine a pastor preaching that cheating on your taxes is fine, as long as you give the money to the church. He would be “abolishing the Law” – causing people to not live as God wants them to live.
Everyone else was under the curse of the law. Which is why christ had the come.
-
1
- Show all
7
you know, I had a little hope...silly me. you are determined to be right at the cost of the truth
Jesus ALSO said this:
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 18
so you better get busy because Jesus was talking to YOU since heaven and earth has not yet passed away
as you prefer to carve up the word, I thought you would like a bite out of some of it. better get your law keepers kit together and find someone to offer sacrifices for you
according to your own words, the audience is you since heaven and earth have not passed away
I expect you will be busy for many years to come and probably will no longer post here in your haste to follow Jesus words to YOU
-
1
- Show all
7
this divide up the word and we don't listen to Jesus here or Paul there business, is nothing new
people picking and choosing what they want to obey or believe from scripture is nothing new...it's just become a doctrine now...not found in scripture...context is one thing, but dismissing the words of Christ as inapplicable is approaching a heresy IMO
you prob know all that though
-
1
- Show all
E
I thought you knew thats why i fight legalism so hard.
I used the same or much of the same arguments many here use, because t was what i was taught, a pastor we had would actually tell us what other churches believed and argued the arguments they would make so we could see throuh them,
I call it being spoon fed
I used the same or much of the same arguments many here use, because t was what i was taught, a pastor we had would actually tell us what other churches believed and argued the arguments they would make so we could see throuh them,
I call it being spoon fed
7
not really
legalism is the death of actual freedom in Christ...which is your understanding now as you say you were set free
Jesus makes so much sense which is one reason the devil wants us to dismiss His words even though He was always with God
how on earth can someone dismiss what He says as not for them? then excuse saying that with 'you must follow the law if you apply His words to the current century'
it illustrates a very poor understanding of the comprehensive, eternal and relevant word of God we call the Bible
so much more could be said there, but no point IMO
-
1
- Show all
Wow.
You don't even track one post back in a conversation. It's bad enough that you haven't learned how to write a clear, concise sentence. On top of that challenge, you seem to take every single post as a completely new conversation with no context. It's no wonder your posts are disjointed and full of restated bafflegab.
When I quote you (for example), I am responding to what you wrote in the post that I quote. In order to understand what I write, you must read the quotation and consider my words in the context of your words. Then and only then should you consider what to write in reply to me... if anything.
Now... regarding your post specifically:
You're hung up on the word "gospel" as the rest of your post clearly demonstrates.
Most words have multiple meanings, or at least multiple nuances of meaning. The specific nuance of meaning is determined by the context. So, when the word "gospel" is used in one context, its exact meaning may be different than it might be in another context. That has nothing to do with adding or taking away from the word of God, and it doesn't diminish the meaning of "gospel" in a specific context in any way. Most readers understand this. If you don't understand it, then I ask that you simply accept it instead of arguing every little point as though it were a primary issue determining salvation.
You don't even track one post back in a conversation. It's bad enough that you haven't learned how to write a clear, concise sentence. On top of that challenge, you seem to take every single post as a completely new conversation with no context. It's no wonder your posts are disjointed and full of restated bafflegab.
When I quote you (for example), I am responding to what you wrote in the post that I quote. In order to understand what I write, you must read the quotation and consider my words in the context of your words. Then and only then should you consider what to write in reply to me... if anything.
Now... regarding your post specifically:
You're hung up on the word "gospel" as the rest of your post clearly demonstrates.
Most words have multiple meanings, or at least multiple nuances of meaning. The specific nuance of meaning is determined by the context. So, when the word "gospel" is used in one context, its exact meaning may be different than it might be in another context. That has nothing to do with adding or taking away from the word of God, and it doesn't diminish the meaning of "gospel" in a specific context in any way. Most readers understand this. If you don't understand it, then I ask that you simply accept it instead of arguing every little point as though it were a primary issue determining salvation.
Yes, Jesus fulfilled the Law.
.
http://ourrabbijesus.com/articles/what-fulfill-the-law-meant-in-its-jewish-context/
To Fulfill the Torah
The translation of “to fulfill” is lekayem in Hebrew (le-KAI-yem), which means to uphold or establish, as well as to fulfill, complete or accomplish. David Bivin has pointed out that the phrase “fulfill the Law” is often used as an idiom to mean to properly interpret the Torah so that people can obey it as God really intends.2
The word “abolish” was likely either levatel, to nullify, or la’akor, to uproot, which meant to undermine the Torah by misinterpreting it. For example, the law against adultery could be interpreted as only about cheating on one’s spouse, but not about pornography. When Jesus declared that lust also was a violation of the commandment, he was clarifying the true intent of that law, so in rabbinic parlance he was “fulfilling the Law.”
Imagine a pastor preaching that cheating on your taxes is fine, as long as you give the money to the church. He would be “abolishing the Law” – causing people to not live as God wants them to live.
http://ourrabbijesus.com/articles/what-fulfill-the-law-meant-in-its-jewish-context/
To Fulfill the Torah
The translation of “to fulfill” is lekayem in Hebrew (le-KAI-yem), which means to uphold or establish, as well as to fulfill, complete or accomplish. David Bivin has pointed out that the phrase “fulfill the Law” is often used as an idiom to mean to properly interpret the Torah so that people can obey it as God really intends.2
The word “abolish” was likely either levatel, to nullify, or la’akor, to uproot, which meant to undermine the Torah by misinterpreting it. For example, the law against adultery could be interpreted as only about cheating on one’s spouse, but not about pornography. When Jesus declared that lust also was a violation of the commandment, he was clarifying the true intent of that law, so in rabbinic parlance he was “fulfilling the Law.”
Imagine a pastor preaching that cheating on your taxes is fine, as long as you give the money to the church. He would be “abolishing the Law” – causing people to not live as God wants them to live.