The point is they are not preaching the Gospel we preach today. IT WAS HID FROM THEM UNTIL AFTER THE RESURRECTION. THEY WERE NOT PREACHING TO GENTILES ROMANS 10 ,9 .10
Jesus and Paul -two different gospels?
- Thread starter phil36
- 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.
Why would they be sad that Jesus was crucified if they understood all along the DBR ? Why was Peter trying to prevent it from happening? Why did they think Jesus s report of his resurrection was an ' idle tale ' . If a person denies the resurrection today can they be saved ?
What pleases God that we believe in 1 cor 1.21 ?
I'm not sure of your point here . Did you mean he cried for thier sakes ? Thats not what the verses say ?
Paul is using Abraham to show to us that he was credited with righteousness by God simply by believing God and the gospel that God told him, which is Genesis 15:5.
Paul is not saying that Abraham was preached the same gospel as us, that God would send his son to die and will rise again on the 3rd day as a sign of man's righteousness. You are trying to read that into Galatians 3.
The following is the good news Israel was waiting for and had been promised throughout the OT.
Luke 1
67 And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying,
68 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people, (what kind of redemption?)
69 And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David; (what kind of salvation?)
70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:
71 That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us; Ah, a physical salvation from their enemies
72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;
73 The oath which he sware to our father Abraham,
74 That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear,
75 In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.
This is all about the nation of Israel being delivered from their enemies and given a physical kingdom so they can serve God without fear. That’s the gospel of the kingdom that was preached prior to the resurrection. The disciples were still asking about it after the cross.
Acts 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
Isaiah 43:11
I, [even] I, [am] the LORD; and beside me [there is] no saviour.
There are not 'different' salvations from God.
He is not saying its a different salvation. He is saying that the gospel that Israel was preached was about the gospel of the kingdom, they had to believe Jesus was that promised King that was stated in 2 Samuel 7:11-16.
If the nation believed that, even as late as until Acts 3, when Peter preached the same "gospel of the kingdom" to Israel, Peter, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, told Israel that Jesus would return for the nation.
It will be then that Israel will be saved, and all the the sins of the nation would be forgiven (Acts 3:19-21).
So it is not a different salvation for Israel, but it certainly is a different gospel from 1 Cor 15:1-4.
And what would happen if they had?
No cross, no salvation for Gentiles, all the prophets proven false.
This was never on the table IMO. He came to prove to them, like presenting evidence in court, their rejection in their hearts of their true king.
This narrative does not explain why He hid Himself and why He would not allow them to make Him king.
Are you saying the Luke 1 passage and the Acts 1 passage is not physical but spritual?
Abraham understood the Gospel and how the Messiah is Lord and Master over the dead.
(Any translation will do)
Romans 4:17 NLT - "That is what the Scriptures mean when God told him, "I have made you the father of many nations." This happened because Abraham believed in the God who brings the dead back to life and who creates new things out of nothing."
Understanding the Gospel is easy, but in order to make this Gospel an easy "thing" to comprehend, all a person has to do is think about [HOW] the Gospel is fulfilled by and through Christ. When will "Christians" finally acknowledge the Work of Christ?
Colossians 2:9-15 NKJV - "For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; 10 and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power. 11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with [Him] through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it."
Colossians 2:9-15 NKJV - "For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; 10 and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power. 11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with [Him] through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it."
"Christians" like to talk about the Purpose of Christ (John 3:16, for example), but virtually none of them acknowledge the Work of Christ . . . and what He does to procure Salvation for the ones whom His Father had given to Him.
So we preach " how the Messiah is Lord and Master over the dead." today and this is Gospel ?
BIG amen to that! May I steal, er, Borrow your words?
Is this fruitful?
"If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to
Wholesome Words, Even The Words of our LORD JESUS CHRIST,
and to the doctrine which is according to godliness"
(1 Timothy 6:3 KJB!)
So, the "only Words Of CHRIST," are those found in the red letters
of the four "gospelS" {uh oh, More than 1?}, whilst HE Walked
upon the earth?
WHY was not "The Revelation Of The Mystery" { Mostly Different than
the red letters } TO Paul, The "Wholesome Words Of CHRIST," From Heaven"
(Romans 16:25 KJB!)
Should we "consent" to These Words?
--------------------------------------------------
Precious friend, what think ye of "words I stole, er, Borrowed from
the internet "stack exchange" on "Jesus vs Paul"?:
"It's not for nothing that Jesus is the hero of the first volume of Luke's
two-part history of the church, and Paul is The Hero of the second."? Say what?
God Bless!
Hyper dispensationalism (and the ilk) is certainly not fruitful in fact it's unbiblical twaddle.
Your red herring post is testiment to that.
So you are agreeing with me when I said the gospel preached to Abraham was not "God would send his son to die and will rise again on the 3rd day as a sign of man's righteousness."?
You can believe God can raise the dead to life without being preached that.
We were not there for the full discussion between God and Abraham. We do not know the full details, but what we know is that Paul said that the Gospel was given to Abraham. It's time to put this to rest. Please.
If they had, there would still be a cross. But it will come in another way, which is far off topic, but we can discuss if you are keen.
As for your question about the gentiles, they would have been saved thru the rise of Israel, which will still happen during the 1000 year reign of Christ during the millennial, as stated in Zechariah 8:23