Are the Gospels written specifically to Jews only?

[JaumeJ]

All we need in the OT? I wouldn't understand the pictures and shadows in the OT if it weren't for the NT. I wouldn't have a clue about the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ without Paul's letters.

So many people's minds go directly to the shadows andnot to the Light.

 

[WalkingTree]

Nothing against Christmas, but I do not celebrate it.

Missing the point. Observance to the law contained in it the observance to the Spirit. It was the goal of the Law to bring the follower to the observance of the Spirit through faith. It did this by reminding the follower of their sins, AND the need for those sins to be forgiven.

So you would rather continue to be reminded of your sin endlessly than to be forgiven and have them removed?

The redeemer has come, he is no longer being patterned he is being revealed. The revelation of Jesus Christ is the goal of the Law. The final outcome, it's purpose.

So you would rather sit in school the rest of your days than to walk out the doors a free man willing and able to utilize all that has been imparted to you? Your 'new life' in Jesus awaits those who will allow him to break the chains that bind and walk according to his Spirit.

All the law patterned and foretold of the day Jesus would come and free not only the nations but regather Israel for the very same purpose. The giving of the Spirit so all may walk with God in righteousness and love, as one. The law leads to the Spirit, it patterns the Spirit, in this way it is spiritual. Because it leads all to the indwelling of the Spirit of God. In this way the law is holy and good. Pure and true, an 'image' of Jesus and his Word.

The law is a veil, but the veil has been removed from obscuring your view of Jesus. How does it obscure? Because in it only contains the pattern and design of the living Word. We need to stop holding on to the blueprints as if they are the goal and accept that the Master Builder has already constructed the plans. But some will continue to grasp the plans refusing to enter the constructed building.

 

[JaumeJ]

You may or may not observe whatever you want. I observe what Jesus teches about all subjects not just those I chose to know about.

I understand why He stearnly warns against teaching against the least of the laws. I obey Him, not a bunch of shadow seekers who do not see anything for all that obscurity,.

As for missing the point, I have all the gifts I need in Jesus Christ, Yeshua, from the cross, and though I do not deserve it, I accept it daily with joy and peace. Please, if you do nto know what peple post, do not reply.

 

[John146]

My question would be, if the four gospels were enough, why Paul's thirteen letters? If we have all we need in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John then why would the Holy Spirit reveal more instructions to Paul to preach?

It's called progressive revelation. As human history proceeds through time, God has given to man exactly what man needed at that point in time. There was more truth for those who would live after the resurrection and after Israel's rejection of their Messiah. Most of what Paul was given is for the Church made up of mostly Gentile believers, as the eyes of Israel have been blinded.

More truth will be needed after the rapture of the Church in which Paul speaks of, hence, Hebrews, James, etc...

Example:

OT - eye for an eye (Law)
Gospels - turn the other cheek (kingdom of heaven, Millennium)
Paul's letters - if it's possible live at peace, sometimes it's not possible, self defense (Church Age)

 

[WalkingTree]

You may or may not observe whatever you want. I observe what Jesus teches about all subjects not just those I chose to know about.

I understand why He stearnly warns against teaching against the least of the laws. I obey Him, not a bunch of shadow seekers who do not see anything for all that obscurity,.

As for missing the point, I have all the gifts I need in Jesus Christ, Yeshua, from the cross, and though I do not deserve it, I accept it daily with joy and peace. Please, if you do nto know what peple post, do not reply.

Yes, you do seem quite sure of yourself, even though your actions betray you. And I am not really sensing this joy and peace you speak of.

Also, trying to limit ones response is a dead give away that you have no real answer or desire to communicate. A standard reaction from democratic socialists. Not that I know you are one, just that you're actions pattern them. Claiming peace and moral majority while being offended and trying to squelch their perceived oppositions. Again, your actions betray you. Good day, Jaumej.

 

[Guojing]

Oh saint there is error in what you say, please let me explain.
John's gospel presents in the very beginning Jesus being with the father always. The Jews believe there is only one God.
Case in point the Jews believe there Messiah will come from man. Not having any deity but by a natural way. That God will take this man and empower him to take over the world. And make all nation's subject to Israel.
Furthermore they have torn Isaiah 53 out of their o.t. reading saying it does not exsist.
There blindness is a blessing from God or they would be guilty of blasphemy. As Jesus said "judge not least you be judged.
There blindness also is to full fill prophecy of the valley of bones to come alive.
You stand corrected in my veiwpoint. Jesus came first to his own but his own rejected him so the father of the great feast sent his son to the highways and biways to gather as many that would come to sit at the table and eat.
John the Baptist ( the voice in the wilderness) is imo a picture of Israel in the last days. Reading scripture carefully Jesus was once embraced by the Jews....for he taught in the temple and they marveled at his words. Saying truly this man came from God.
But when he taught about the suffering Messiah the rebuke started because of pride and jelousy for they would follow him and not the the temple ways.

Okay, but your point is not addressing mine, its a totally different argument.

I am saying, in John 3:16 when John wrote "believe in him", John is most likely referring to "believing in Jesus as the Son of God". I am trying to argue why that is the correct interpretation from the context of what John said later on to the readers, on why he wrote the Gospel of John.

He did not meant. as Paul did, "believe in Jesus's death, burial and resurrection". We are reading that because we had the benefit of growing up with Paul's letters, so we read that meaning into John 3:16.

Are you disagreeing with that claim?

 

[JaumeJ]

Yes, you do seem quite sure of yourself, even though your actions betray you. And I am not really sensing this joy and peace you speak of.

Also, trying to limit ones response is a dead give away that you have no real answer or desire to communicate. A standard reaction from democratic socialists. Not that I know you are one, just that you're actions pattern them. Claiming peace and moral majority while being offended and trying to squelch their perceived oppositions. Again, your actions betray you. Good day, Jaumej.

Read and understand, I will never be "sure of myself" but I am certain of Jesus Christ.

You have brought up the subject of politics, which I have not. Know this my politics is the same as all who truly believe Jesus. It is that of the Kingdom, in other words, the Monarchy of Jesus Christ..

If you feel a need to talk politics, go to a political forum, this is not the place for your ideas, it is for teh truth of the Word.

Jesus Christ and His faithful have nothing to do with Caesar nor with Herod. Now, go your wayi.

 

[pottersclay]

Okay, but your point is not addressing mine, its a totally different argument.

I am saying, in John 3:16 when John wrote "believe in him", John is most likely referring to "believing in Jesus as the Son of God". I am trying to argue why that is the correct interpretation from the context of what John said later on to the readers, on why he wrote the Gospel of John.

He did not meant. as Paul did, "believe in Jesus's death, burial and resurrection". We are reading that because we had the benefit of growing up with Paul's letters, so we read that meaning into John 3:16.

Are you disagreeing with that claim?

Oh I agree, I never had seen Paul's gospel in it at all😃😃. But the phrase believe in him has a more deeper meaning than to identify Christ as "the son of God".

 

[Absolutely]

If i waited long enough i was sure someone actually knows what the Bible contains thank you

And you would both be wrong.
It says in the bible
" the law and the prophets were until John"

Even without that verse it is a no brainer that the gospels are NOT part of the ot.

The reason lies at Jesus's baptism.
That is another study, ( the priesthood).

You can not understand the gospels or any of the nt w/o the priesthood.

 

[Absolutely]

Oh I agree, I never had seen Paul's gospel in it at all😃😃. But the phrase believe in him has a more deeper meaning than to identify Christ as "the son of God".

Yes and the "forbidden book", James speaks specifically to part of their vast pauline misunderstanding

So ironic that by taking most of Gods word off the table they disenfranchise their own walk and understanding.

They are actually paranoid of no brainer verses.

 

[JaumeJ]

Long before the law, Abraham received the gospel.

 

[Absolutely]

Do you accept that the preaching of the coming Kingdom was His message?

No,he preached HIMSELF.
HE was come to them and He came as a sacrifice.

The kingdom come to earth is Jesus.

You guys dance all around that word " kingdom" and kinda come close with some one dimensional view,but miss 99 % of the time.
Why? Because you do not understand who Jesus was/is and and use 1/3 of his message to promote a exclusive doctrine.

 

[Absolutely]

There is but one Gospel for all…..…….

Thank you for sound exegesis.

I can not imagine picking up my bible and reading James with that pauline misconception prism.

They must accidentally open the bible there and shake their heads while thinking " that poor Holy Spirit in his misunderstanding grace put this bondage of law into our paul only bible.

 

[Absolutely]

Do you keep the whole law of Moses?

Did Jesus?

 

[Absolutely]

All four gospels are for all of us, but Matthew was especially written for the Jews, Mark for the Romans, Luke for the Greeks and John for all the world.

The gospels were written for all the world, but only the Jews were supposed to obey the commandments of Jesus related to the law of Moses. After the death of the Lord on the cross there was a long transition period between the Old and the New Covenant, but eventually all Jews were freed from the Law.

The over examination of the "who is it to" is a marvelous way out of the word being made alive for the born again saint. Under the "who is it to" wild card I am now erased from accountability to the words and commands of the Holy Spirit. IOW a sure fire formula to miss out on truth which is the entire word,not sectional favorites as my base.

 

[Absolutely]

"To the 7 churches....."

The pauline guy in our mens bible study told us revelation was written to the Jews only.

We all did a face plant in our palms.

This pauline deal is outa control.

 

[John146]

The over examination of the "who is it to" is a marvelous way out of the word being made alive for the born again saint. Under the "who is it to" wild card I am now erased from accountability to the words and commands of the Holy Spirit. IOW a sure fire formula to miss out on truth which is the entire word,not sectional favorites as my base.

Question: Is the following Scripture written TO you or FOR you?

Leviticus 19
20 And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free.
21 And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering.
22 And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the Lord for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him.

 

[Absolutely]

The universal appeal of John 3:16 is understandable and many of us Gentile Christians, that is probably one of the first verses we memorized.

Let me propose that when we Gentile Christians read John 3:16, we had the benefit of understanding Paul's Gospel of Grace. Hence when we read about "believes in him", we think of believing in his death, burial and resurrection, like what Paul would say in 1 Cor 15:3-4

But is that what John really had in mind when he wrote about "believe in him"? if you read John 20:31, it said, But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Again, we are back to the Gospel of the Kingdom, which was valid for Jews only. No doubt John's Gospel might have been written after Paul died, and John may have understood what Paul was trying to say, but those are speculations.

I am thinking you just gave yourself a way out of the commands,parables,and teachings of the King.

The red letters are just nice flowery concepts to the Jews.
And whatever is profitable in the " jews only" misinformed text is completely optional.

Great! Now it is near worthlessness to even open the Gospels. Pure misinformation.

 

[JaumeJ]

How does the title "gentile christians" come into the vocabulary of anyone who believes Jesus Christ? Are we not all come to the God of Abraham? Ae we not his spiritual offspring? The more people deny the Israel of God (Yahweh) and its New Jerusalem, the father they will be from the truth of the Gospel and the Way in Jesus Christ.

 

[Absolutely]

Question: Is the following Scripture written TO you or FOR you?

Leviticus 19
20 And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free.
21 And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering.
22 And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the Lord for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him.

No,the question is did the HOLY SPIRIT write it,no matter my opinion of it.

See,that is the ROOT of our differences.

You got to go back,back,back ......to the root.
The root is your/my starting place.

"......all scripture.......inspired......"

If it is some abstract,like you say,then we can treat it with that attitude.

If it is word for word from heaven,to me, it is priceless and precious.