A forgotten point about the four gospels

[Pilgrimshope]

I begin to understand the misapplied and misunderstood posts you create from time to time, so much better now

I guess then, that this verse, found in II Timothy 3:16, is not something you would consider

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

“I begin to understand the misapplied and misunderstood posts you create from time to time, so much better now ”

yes I’ve noticed you don’t agree much with me.


“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness”


yes I completely agree with that.

What’s your point ? If you have one let’s discuss it I’m willing to accept scripture how about yourself ?

 

[Pilgrimshope]

I cannot condone how you say you take the Bible though. kind of like a buffet where you only take something you have already had and pass over most else. nothing after the gospels? really?

I'll check out the link later and get back

it doesn’t really apply to
Me what you condone does it ? Like it wouldn’t apply to you whether I condone what you perceive the Bible to say that’s irrelevant either way

I realize you don’t agree with me much you’ve made that pretty clear all along , and I’m perfectly ok with that. I welcome it if you want to present your arguments with scripture to help me come to your understanding but the bickering and veiled insults and everything we should leave out

if you want to discuss things in scriptire with me let’s do that I’m open but I’m not open to theilogical
Arguments that aren’t in scripture so if you see some great error let’s look at what scripture is telling you this stuff

 

[glen55]

Sometimes we forget that the gospels were written not before the church began , but when the church was in full swing and the Holy Ghost was still exalted among believers .


The point is when we try to make the four gospels something that isn’t the church doctrine were eliminating the foundations of church doctrine. The gospels were written as the apostles and early church began to age and in order to carry out the commission they simply recorded in scripture the things Jesus had taught them , to go teach the world about him and of him.

there seems to always be a reason we don’t want to accept the four gospels and instead we want to try to learn from the epistles which is a great thing but the epistles are only companions to help us understand the gospel

Paul for instance what did he teach the Ephesians ? Is it his Ephesians letter that was thier doctrine ? Or did Paul spend two years in person preaching and teaching them the gospel and later wrote a single epistle correcting and exhorting and comforting them ?

the epistles are just a glimpse into what Paul was teaching most of his writings are to churches he helped establish in person with men like Luke and barnabus , Apollos and Priscilla and aquilla, Timothy and mark

Paul sent letters from far away places he was establishing other cities in the gospel and hearing thkngs and sending letters to help keep them following the gospel. His epistles were never the source of doctrine for anyone they were companions and additions to the gospels. To help us remain and be comforted and edified further

if we could hear Paul’s in Morrison message it would fully include the gospels as the foundation and irrevocable word of Christ.

it’s not a good idea to remove Jesus words and replace them with Paul’s epistles we don’t even have a clear image in those few short and specifically designed letters sent to correct , rebuke and encourage the church they are wonderful but are companions to the gospel not the replacements

consider when people are insisting on Paul’s letters being everything , what they really are saying about Jesus

Paul knew OT was all allegory and Imagination was God in man not classic theology Saul and all sons of man are blind about thinking like sons of God in them, Phil 2:5Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

 

[Pilgrimshope]

Paul knew OT was all allegory and Imagination was God in man not classic theology Saul and all sons of man are blind about thinking like sons of God in them, Phil 2:5Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

the ot was a witness of Christ the messiah is that what you mean by allegory ? If so I agree

Paul knew the revelation of the gospel which is the culmination of the law and prophets

“For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭11:13‬ ‭KJV‬‬

the fulfillment of the prior prophetic witness of Christ the messiah

Paul understood where the word is divided

“The law and the prophets were until John:

since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.”
‭‭Luke‬ ‭16:16‬ ‭KJV‬‬

and Paul preached the same revelation as the other apostles did with the same conmission they had

Paul received this revelation when he met Christ on the road to Damascus

“Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?

And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:

And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of these things.”
‭‭Luke‬ ‭24:25-27, 44-48‬ ‭KJV‬‬

So Paul’s doctrine comes from that exact same revelation and commission

“But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea,

and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.

Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come: That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.”
‭‭Acts‬ ‭26:20, 22-23‬ ‭KJV‬‬

paul is one of the twelve apostles and the light that Christ would give us he’s speaking of is here in prophecy like the is one

“Hearken unto me, my people; and give ear unto me, O my nation: for a law shall proceed from me, and I will make my judgment to rest for a light of the people.”
‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭51:4‬ ‭KJV‬‬

the gospel of the kingdom is that light

 

[SophieT]

I begin to understand the misapplied and misunderstood posts you create from time to time, so much better now

I guess then, that this verse, found in II Timothy 3:16, is not something you would consider

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

yes I’ve noticed you don’t agree much with me.

yes I completely agree with that.

What’s your point ? If you have one let’s discuss it I’m willing to accept scripture how about yourself ?

first, are you having a problem with the quote feature? I've had to correct the way you quoted me because you just had a big quote going on without an indication of who said what. you have yourself saying what I said. that's neither here nor there however

you state you do not put much stock in anything after the gospels then you turn around and say you believe that all scripture is given for instruction, conviction, instruction and righteousness

well in point of fact, you don't. you cannot say you believe that and then say you don't. you are not willing to accept scripture and to say that you do, emphasized the fact that you do not. don't worry about me. I have been through the entire book which is why I know what comes after the gospels

don't ask me what my point is. you remind me of the cat with canary feathers sticking out of its mouth and saying...'what bird'?

 

[SophieT]

it doesn’t really apply to
Me what you condone does it ? Like it wouldn’t apply to you whether I condone what you perceive the Bible to say that’s irrelevant either way

I realize you don’t agree with me much you’ve made that pretty clear all along , and I’m perfectly ok with that. I welcome it if you want to present your arguments with scripture to help me come to your understanding but the bickering and veiled insults and everything we should leave out

if you want to discuss things in scriptire with me let’s do that I’m open but I’m not open to theilogical
Arguments that aren’t in scripture so if you see some great error let’s look at what scripture is telling you this stuff

no you are not open. you are closed after the gospels which is why you cannot understand what people are trying to tell you

whatever

you would not know what I was talking about if I started to discuss anything after the gospels

smh

news flash: people are not going to agree with you regarding the New Testament and your private interpretations

btw, don't challenge me like you are doing. you don't know enough to do that

 

[SophieT]

yeah I don’t personally follow what is established after the gospel and the apostles end in scripture too much is based on man after that point

right from the source

and wonders what everyone is talking about

 

[Pilgrimshope]

first, are you having a problem with the quote feature? I've had to correct the way you quoted me because you just had a big quote going on without an indication of who said what. you have yourself saying what I said. that's neither here nor there however

you state you do not put much stock in anything after the gospels then you turn around and say you believe that all scripture is given for instruction, conviction, instruction and righteousness

well in point of fact, you don't. you cannot say you believe that and then say you don't. you are not willing to accept scripture and to say that you do, emphasized the fact that you do not. don't worry about me. I have been through the entire book which is why I know what comes after the gospels

don't ask me what my point is. you remind me of the cat with canary feathers sticking out of its mouth and saying...'what bird'?

funny that you mention misquoting what I actually said was “I don’t put mich stock on what came after the gospel and the apostles ended in scripture “



And you now are making it into I don’t believe the apostles or scripture go back and troll that again more thoroughly

let me clear up this matter Jesus Christ is the lord and he began preaching the gospel of his kingdom after he received the spirit at baptism at that point this is true

“The law and the prophets were until John:

since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.”
‭‭Luke‬ ‭16:16‬ ‭KJV‬‬

the apostles all Of them and James and any other writing in the New Testament are witnesses of the gospel and fully acceptable to me or anyone else.

my response was to someone else who was asking if I agreed with Greek theologians teachings and so I responded “ no I don’t put much stock in thkngs that come after the gospel and apostles end in scripture”


My point is that the gospel doesn’t change from when Jesus Christ began preaching it , the apostles are helping us understand it in thoer brief letters not replacing it

I hope that clears it up but suspect when someone just doesn’t like you it probably won’t

 

[Pilgrimshope]

right from the source

and wonders what everyone is talking about

can you read ? Do you put much stock in thkngs coming after Jesus and the apostles ended in scripture?

How are you interpreting that as I don’t accept the scripture reading fundamentals are available for free online

 

[SophieT]

funny that you mention misquoting what I actually said was “I don’t put mich stock on what came after the gospel and the apostles ended in scripture “



And you now are making it into I don’t believe the apostles or scripture go back and troll that again more thoroughly

let me clear up this matter Jesus Christ is the lord and he began preaching the gospel of his kingdom after he received the spirit at baptism at that point this is true

“The law and the prophets were until John:

since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.”
‭‭Luke‬ ‭16:16‬ ‭KJV‬‬

the apostles all Of them and James and any other writing in the New Testament are witnesses of the gospel and fully acceptable to me or anyone else.

my response was to someone else who was asking if I agreed with Greek theologians teachings and so I responded “ no I don’t put much stock in thkngs that come after the gospel and apostles end in scripture”


My point is that the gospel doesn’t change from when Jesus Christ began preaching it , the apostles are helping us understand it in thoer brief letters not replacing it

I hope that clears it up but suspect when someone just doesn’t like you it probably won’t

 

[Pilgrimshope]

great revelation there

 

[Dino246]

can you read ? Do you put much stock in thkngs coming after Jesus and the apostles ended in scripture?

How are you interpreting that as I don’t accept the scripture reading fundamentals are available for free online

I know you don't want me to contribute, but hear me out...

The problem here is that your sentence is structured in such a way that your meaning is not clear. Or, to put it bluntly, and without intending to insult you in any way, your grammar is terrible. In light of that, your sarcastic comment, "can (sic) you read?" is rather ironic.

 

[Pilgrimshope]

I know you don't want me to contribute, but hear me out...

The problem here is that your sentence is structured in such a way that your meaning is not clear. Or, to put it bluntly, and without intending to insult you in any way, your grammar is terrible. In light of that, your sarcastic comment, "can (sic) you read?" is rather ironic.

I don’t care if you contribute to any thread , I just don’t want to constantly argue because someone doesn’t get what I said whether it’s because of grammar or the capacity to hear it

im alright with my grammar and if people aren’t that’s ok too . If you notice everyone has a different way of speaking but I agree my grammar isn’t the best but I’m not sure anyone’s is perfect either and not sure perfect grammar is a qualification to post in a biblical discussion forum

usually I post 80 percent scripture so I can’t help the grammar there

 

[Pilgrimshope]

I know you don't want me to contribute, but hear me out...

The problem here is that your sentence is structured in such a way that your meaning is not clear. Or, to put it bluntly, and without intending to insult you in any way, your grammar is terrible. In light of that, your sarcastic comment, "can (sic) you read?" is rather ironic.

“In light of that, your sarcastic comment, "can (sic) you read?" is rather ironic.”
oh you mean for a conversation I had with someone else who misquoted this

“ I don’t put much stock in what came after the gospel and apostles ended in scripture “

that’s not my grammar that’s the issue it’s reading comprehension

 

[Dino246]

I don’t care if you contribute to any thread , I just don’t want to constantly argue because someone doesn’t get what I said whether it’s because of grammar or the capacity to hear it

im alright with my grammar and if people aren’t that’s ok too . If you notice everyone has a different way of speaking but I agree my grammar isn’t the best but I’m not sure anyone’s is perfect either and not sure perfect grammar is a qualification to post in a biblical discussion forum

I agree; good grammar is not a qualification to post in this forum (or any on this site, for that matter). It just makes communication easier.

 

[Pilgrimshope]

I agree; good grammar is not a qualification to post in this forum (or any on this site, for that matter). It just makes communication easier.

yeah but that statement wasn’t about bad grammar

 

[Dino246]

“In light of that, your sarcastic comment, "can (sic) you read?" is rather ironic.”
oh you mean for a conversation I had with someone else who misquoted this

“ I don’t put much stock in what came after the gospel and apostles ended in scripture “

that’s not my grammar that’s the issue it’s reading comprehension

Again, respectfully, the problem is not with reading comprehension. I had at least as much difficulty figuring out what you meant as Sophie did. The sentence is confusing. Neither the gospel nor the apostles "ended" in Scripture at all. The "gospels" (records) ended, as did all the individual books. Scripture records the "end" of the earthly lives of a few of the apostles. However, whatever you happen to mean by your sentence is opaque to others.

 

[Dino246]

yeah but that statement wasn’t about bad grammar

Which statement?

 

[Pilgrimshope]

Which statement?

the statement I made and wuoted to you that you apparently didn’t read this statement I made to someone other than you or the other person who adressed it from a conversation I had with a third person

someone asked me if I agreed with a Greek theologian and I said “ no I don’t put much stock in what came after the gospel and apostles ended in scripture “


The other person then said “ you don’t accept the apostles or scripture “ and created a whole idea about it quoting that very statement as proof

then you came along and caught the end of the conversation and told me my bad grammar and insults about reading comprehension ect….

my point is that statement wasn’t confusing because of bad grammar , and further it was never addressed to the other person or you and was part of a conversation o had with another person about a Greek theologies argument.

her conclusion was I was rejecting scripture lol and your was I was out of line with my grammar

it’s always helpful to read first where the conversation came from and what’s being addressed

 

[DavidTree]

the statement I made and wuoted to you that you apparently didn’t read this statement I made to someone other than you or the other person who adressed it from a conversation I had with a third person

someone asked me if I agreed with a Greek theologian and I said “ no I don’t put much stock in what came after the gospel and apostles ended in scripture “


The other person then said “ you don’t accept the apostles or scripture “ and created a whole idea about it quoting that very statement as proof

then you came along and caught the end of the conversation and told me my bad grammar and insults about reading comprehension ect….

my point is that statement wasn’t confusing because of bad grammar , and further it was never addressed to the other person or you and was part of a conversation o had with another person about a Greek theologies argument.

her conclusion was I was rejecting scripture lol and your was I was out of line with my grammar

it’s always helpful to read first where the conversation came from and what’s being addressed

i got a good laugh out of this (i am laughing with you)