Are the Gospels written specifically to Jews only?

Who agrees with this?

All scripture is given by god and profitable for all believers, this includes the 4 gospels.

The division of the word "gospel" into 4 gospels I would think has done much damage in understanding the "good news".

If we say the gospel came after the Old testament beginning with Mathew and ending with John (4)much confusion can result. Then we have left out the God 's news of creation and the fall from what we are delivered from and the last chapter of the good news Revelation . The whole Bible is the gospel. One gospel the gospel of Christ.

it was good new to Abel who received the end of his faith the salvation nof his soul just as us today

Receiving the "end of your faith", even the salvation of your souls.Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

The graves were opened and those saints who prophesied of the grace that should come unto us experienced the glory of the first resurrection and many angels in heaven witnessed their arrival in the new heavenly Jerusalem prepared as His bride the church

So they were saved by faith, (even if it was mustard seed faith) as gentiles, during the period of law. Without having to convert to judaism!

Thank you

They were saved by believing the word of God. That's where I still studying that word believe and faith. Are they the same?

But notice, Nineveh did not believe in the d,b,r of Jesus Christ, nor were "looking forward" to the cross. They simply believed the message of destruction and cried out to God for mercy. I believe this justified Nineveh for Abraham's bosom, until the coming of Christ.

Is this how you see it? Thanks.

They were saved by believing the word of God. That's where I still studying that word believe and faith. Are they the same?

But notice, Nineveh did not believe in the d,b,r of Jesus Christ, nor were "looking forward" to the cross. They simply believed the message of destruction and cried out to God for mercy. I believe this justified Nineveh for Abraham's bosom, until the coming of Christ.

Is this how you see it? Thanks.

This is a good point here by John hey.

We (including I) have heard it a thousand times: "they were saved by looking forward to the cross". But where is that in the Scriptures? Come to think of it, the disciples didnt even have a clue what was going on and what was going to happen RIGHT BEFORE the cross happened, so no way they had an idea of it wayy back then.

Interesting.
I need to study this out!

Everyone has always been saved by faith for sure. I think the blood of Christ was applied on the OT saints AFTER it was shed. Where it says Jesus went to set captives free, that would make sense, but im not dogmatic on it need to study it out

How could they look forward to what no one could see.

They were still saved by faith in God, just like you and I, period

What's our message of salvation that we must believe? Is it different in the OT? That's been my whole point.

You're right, and the truth then was the law of Moses.

Nope it is the same, faith in God that he provided a way, we just know what that way was.

And remember, you think they were saved by the blood of bulls and goats, so....

I do not see this

The term gospels is 4 letters (many believe written to specific groups, or as in the case of luke, and his gospel and acts, as a historical record of accounts) should be taken for what they are. Historical records, or eyewitness acounts of jesus fulfilling the OT prophesies concerning him,

Marcelo said: 2“The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. If the Lord had then already freed the Jews from the Law He would have said: "Don't follow the teachers of the law and the Pharisees ".

Again, nice try,

These were the leaders, he also told them to obey ceasar and render to him what was his.
It has nothing to do with the law

Jesus came to do what we could not do, fulfill the law, so we will. Ot be condemned by it, he would not tell us after we have been saved from thr law to go back to the law,

Moses was a spiritual leader and the scribes and the Pharisees were sitting in his seat (they had authority to represent Moses). The Caesars were secular leaders and Jesus told the disciples to obey them because all authority comes from God.

Moses taught obedience to all 613 mitzvot and the scribes and Pharisees would do the same in Jesus' day because the Law was still in effect.

Sorry not trying to make it a big thing. Its something that I have thought on a few times. I should of started a new thread..

That's true what you say but only partial, for instance we do not call Genesis the gospel of Moses, or Jerimiah the gospel of Jerimiah . I think they are taken for what they are the gospel of Christ. But it would seem some use them as some sort of division between the two testaments ( Malachi from Mathew) for one. When the separation is simply the next chapter or book not the separation of law and grace as if one jot or tittle could be removed from the letter of the law before the last day.. .

Why not simply the gospel in the book of Mathew, or the gospel in the book of Ruth, the gospel in the book of Revelation . Why four gospels seeing it can cause confusion especially with new believers and then start comparing one saint to another .Like Paul against James losing its cohesiveness to bind together in unity of the Holy Spirit.

Sorry not trying to make it a big thing. Its something that I have thought on a few times. I should of started a new thread..

That's true what you say but only partial, for instance we do not call Genesis the gospel of Moses, or Jerimiah the gospel of Jerimiah . I think they are taken for what they are the gospel of Christ. But it would seem some use them as some sort of division between the two testaments ( Malachi from Mathew) for one. When the separation is simply the next chapter or book not the separation of law and grace as if one jot or tittle could be removed from the letter of the law before the last day.. .

Why not simply the gospel in the book of Mathew, or the gospel in the book of Ruth, the gospel in the book of Revelation . Why four gospels seeing it can cause confusion especially with new believers and then start comparing one saint to another .Like Paul against James losing its cohesiveness to bind together in unity of the Holy Spirit.

Can you?

I believe their sins were forgiven by the blood of animal sacrifices. After all, that's what Scripture says. They were forgiven, but not forgotten. Their sins were covered, but not washed away. If their sins were washed away through the blood of Jesus Christ (like yours and mine) they would have been present with the Lord upon death.

What would happen if they did not obey the law, but simply believed in God's future provision?

Look closer at the titles. "The Gospel According to Matthew", etc. The issue is that the word "gospel" has more than one use. In one sense, it is the good news of Jesus Christ. In another, it is simply "good news". In yet another, it is a retelling of the message of good news. Getting hung up on the word, and thinking it means the exactly the same thing in every case, is a certain path to confusion and error.

What point are you trying to make?