My Gospel says Paul

Participant

I cant help but notice a few disturbing things with in the writings of Paul.

Paul teaches that if any one brings a gospel that Christ did not teach should not be listened to but he on a few occasions states that what he is preaching is his gospel:

Romans 16:24-25

24The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen. 25 Now to him that is of power to establish you according to [my gospel], and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began…

Romans 2:16

16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to [my gospel].

This is a strange passage and one that I have never taken notice of before tonight… it concerns me and i just wanted to seek clarification of others.

6 I marvel that you are so soon removed from [him]* that called you into the grace of Christ to [another gospel]: 7 Which is not another; but there be [some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ]. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel to you than that you have received, let him be accursed.

* It sounds like this HIM is Paul… mmm not too sure I like what I am seeing. Is Paul replacing Jesus's gospel for his own… Is it not God or should I say the HS that draws us to understand this message…

Does the gospel change with the introduction of the man of Tarsus

A slow but steady change – to something that Jesus never taught.

…and the curse pronounced, this does not sound like something Jesus would have done… but more like somene assirting his authority out of insecurity that they are not following Paul's doctrine…

Lets start here for now… what do others think.

March 21, 2006 at 5:36 pm#11887

Cubes

Participant

Hi A007,

Hope all is going well at school. Good to see you on again.

My take on it is that Paul is preaching the Gospel of God, which is also the gospel of Jesus Christ. And if we preach the same, it becomes our gospel as well to judge us or persecute us by. I don't know if it makes sense.

I feel that would have been clearer to say the gospel of Jesus Christ and saved the trouble of this thread, and yet, having said what he said…or what any of us say…. bottomline is was Paul preaching a DIFFERENT gospel than what was already established? Are any of us preaching a different gospel? If we are, then it is no longer the gospel of God. If not, then like Jesus and Paul, we preach the gospel of God, but to the extent where we are the servants being used of God to declare that truth, it also becomes our gospel as we are one in Christ.

That's my understanding and I welcome others insigts as well.

Having said that, I believe that the gospel of Paul is the gospel of Jesus Christ.

March 21, 2006 at 7:02 pm#11889

Woutlaw

Participant

I agree Cubes

March 22, 2006 at 5:14 pm#11896

Cubes

Participant

Quote (Woutlaw @ Mar. 21 2006,19:02)

I agree Cubes

Thanks, Woutlaw.

March 22, 2006 at 10:02 pm#11899

Participant

Quote (Woutlaw @ Mar. 21 2006,14:02)

I agree Cubes

I second that.

March 23, 2006 at 1:57 am#11900

Participant

It seems that if paul was speaking not with the Spirit he said so: Yea not I but the Lord..Say I not the Lord.

1Co 7:10 But unto the married I give charge, “yea not I, but the Lord”, That the wife depart not from her husband

1Co 7:12 But to the rest “say I, not the Lord”: If any brother hath an unbelieving wife, and she is content to dwell with him, let him not leave her.

1Co 3:6 I planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.

1Co 3:10 According to the grace of God which was given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder I laid a foundation; and another buildeth thereon. But let each man take heed how he buildeth thereon.

The Spirit uses everyone different as the person is different but the end message is always the same.

Rom 16:25 Now to him that is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which hath been kept in silence through times eternal,
Rom 16:26 but now is manifested, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, is made known unto all the nations unto obedience of faith:

Notice the glory goes to God!

One person may be able to open the eyes of a same person that I (because of the WAY I preached) could not and vise versus. We each have our own (because of each individual) way that the Spirit uses.

The way I see it that's the case with Paul. Paul had his own way of bringing the “good news”

However we should be careful when reading Paul's writings.

2Pe 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote unto you;

2Pe 3:16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; wherein are some things hard to be understood, which the ignorant and unstedfast wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

March 23, 2006 at 6:16 pm#11949

Cubes

Participant

I agree, Ken.

We employ various ways to expound the same truth given our individuality, however, our truth must align perfectly with God's truth all along and in the end, not that God's should conform to what we consider to be truth. After all, various world religions consider their religion to be one of the many ways that lead to God but when a template of their faith is put over YHWH's, it would not align and become one with it because it is different. I believe Paul's to have the quality which makes it align with YHWH's and is verifiable.

March 25, 2006 at 6:03 am#11987

Participant

Hey Cubes,

It is good to be back online. I eventually got broadband installed and it is good to be connected again. I have still to answer your email you sent ages ago.

Thanks for your reply on this: however I am not too sure I agree that Paul and Jesus teachings align. There seems to be incompatibility not only in doctrine but also in action and methods of conduct. Jesus is the ultimate teacher: he is the author and perfector of our faith – Paul is not? Jesus taught us to love not only our neighbour but also our enemies and to follow the law of God. Something I am seeing in a new light as I study his teaching. Jesus did not come to start a new religion but to bring what God had instituted back into the order of what God originally intended. It is Paul’s teachings that put ideas into our minds that Jesus never taught.

Jesus did not abolish or destroy the law as Paul so often implies but fulfilled it: when we say fulfilled that doesn’t mean he brought it to completion. It simply means that all that was written about him in the Law and the Prophets was true and fulfilled within Jesus’ lifetime.

Matthew 5:17 Jesus speaking:

17 Think not that I am come to [destroy] the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
18 For verily I say unto you, [Till heaven and earth pass], one jot or one title shall in [no wise] pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall {break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so}, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall [do and teach them], the same shall be called [great] in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall [exceed] the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in [no case enter] into the kingdom of heaven.

This is what Jesus says in my reading of it:
1.to enter this KOG requires exceeding the righteousness of the Pharisees… he does not state as I have been told – which is, we can’t enter by following law, because we cannot obey it in ourselves, we need a saviour to take our place. That is not Jesus’ words here as far as I can see.
2.to be called [great in the KOG] in this passage, you have to do and teach the law
3.heaven and earth have not yet passed away, which by the words of Jesus mean that not one title or jot is to be taken away from the law till all is done. Christ is still to come to complete all things and fulfil the plan of God.

Over the past two days, I have been looking to see in what manner Jesus preached salvation. Was it of “grace alone”, “faith alone” or was it “by works” (obedience to his Words). It started when I began to notice certain inconsistencies in Paul's teaching to that of Jesus. As well as differences in his accounts to that of Lukes… Paul seems to invent stuff, ideologies that Jesus never preached, women in Paul’s words are the image of the man – to fit his theories, Jesus taught like in Genesis, that men and women were made equal, in the image of God, male and female created he them: so where did Paul get that doctrine from. It all points to his conception of original sin… is this something Christ taught, did he preach the concept of original sin?

We are called Christians – Christ like ones, Jesus was the Messiah – therefore surely his words should form the foundation of our doctrine not Paul’s. Jesus said THIS Gospel will be preached… that was the Gospel that Jesus, not Paul. Paul has inserted concepts and ideas Jesus never said.

As far as I can see in my brief study so far and I will continue – there is no-where that Jesus states about salvation by grace. Well most certainly not in the first three gospels. I have not got into John just yet. In these Gospels, salvation or entrance into the Kingdom of God is by obedience to the commandments and following Jesus words: Jesus is gracious and forgiving – this I agree. He seems more so than Paul ever was. Jesus forgave the sinner and set them right – we never know if all who encountered Jesus forgiveness changed because we are not given that much info; Paul on the other hand was at times heavy handed and judgemental to those who did not follow HIS Gospel or like John Mark measure up to his ideal. Jesus preached forgiveness and exemplified it on a number of occasions. Paul preached grace and love but did not exemplify it unless his way was kept. I had never noticed it before but now I see how ruthless he was unless it was for his benefit. He was not the servant of all… as was Jesus.

Paul preached grace for salvation and that the OT Law is done away with – it served as a teacher to bring us to Christ and was not for the Christian to live by but an old institution that {God} had not made perfect; does God make things imperfect or was this Paul’s new gospel because he could not live the life commanded by God.

Paul declared that his gospel was independent from men, free of dependence on all authority figures [my thoughts: probably a dig at the Apostles in Jerusalem], institutions, and laws that interfere with “the direct communion between the individual and his God. (The Interpreter's Bible; Volume 10: Page 429)

Sounds like a self made man to me – fighting for recognition, one who always has to puff himself up and make claims of direct calling from God, whilst pretending, he is himself, speaking in humility… unlike Jesus when he was accused – he opened not his mouth nor once bragged about his commission. Paul however, often blurts out whom he is! Look at my credential; how he was chosen, what he has done and how important he is etc. This is said too many times for me not to take notice that evidently there is something not right about the situation… how many times in his letters do we see this statement:

“Paul an apostle – [not from men nor through man], but through [Jesus Christ] and God the Father…” (Galatians 1:1; RSV) Does he possess an insecurity problem?

We follow Paul's teaching as almost higher authority than that of Jesus’, we disregard Jesus teaching in favour of a Pauline gospel and pretty much model the whole church structure and belief system Paul teaches… some things which simply do not match up to the teachings of Jesus. And all this based on a vision that Paul had… be it as it were an unwitnessed one, full of conflicting info.

How do we know this to be true? There were no outside witnesses of this event: Even Jesus had witnesses to all the important events of his life. Paul was not chosen whilst Jesus was here on earth. He was not one of the twelve and given that position by Jesus or those Jesus commissioned. We have only his account of his conversion, which changes every time it is told… the records are not consistent at all. If his very conversion is flawed, how then do we know that the rest of his work is not spurious? Just a thought.

Just something I noticed and maybe someone out there can shed some light on this for me as to why this is the case:

First account:
“Now as he journeyed he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed about him. And he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting; but rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do. The men who were travelling with him [stood speechless], {hearing the voice but seeing no one}.” (Acts 9:3-19; RSV)

This version: they heard the voice but saw no-one … also they stood speechless.

Second Account:
“Now those who were with me {saw the light but did not hear the voice} of the one who was speaking to me.” (Acts 22:9-13; RSV)

This time they {did not hear the voice they heard in the first account} but they saw the light that evidently blinded Paul, funnily enough that same light did not blind them – strange that, excuse the sarcasm but maybe they blinke
d at the right time. This bright light/blindness does not appear to happen anywhere else in scripture when humankind is visited by a heavenly presence… go figure.

In this account again, Paul is sent to Ananias to receive his 'calling' and a restoration of his sight… this is the instruction that the voice said to him to do… to go to Damascus and there he would be told what was to happen next.

If someone were to tell us something like this today without a witness, would we not look upon them with suspicions? We would challenge them I am sure. Why do we just accept this man’s word when there is no other proof as to this calling – he did great things there is no doubt about that, so did many others?

Third Account:
“At midday, O King, I saw on the way a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, shining round me and those who journeyed with me. And when [we had all fallen to the ground], I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language…” (Acts 26:13-14; RSV)

Now he is taking the story on by himself. “I” this and “I” that… and notice in later verses how he is not being sent to Ananias to receive sight and instruction of what to do but this voice is now speaking directly to him and commissioning him directly. Poor Ananias is out the picture – inconsistent with the previous accounts where he was told what to do by Ananias. His story has changed somewhat – to make him the hero and the initiator of his Gospel to the gentiles… Also notice that in this account everyone falls to the ground, the last account they were standing.

Was this all a fabrication which grew over time, did someone miss this before it could be corrected or changed so it did not contradict, or did Luke just get the details wrong – if so how can we trust his works, that he did not change or presume stuff about other things. Can someone help me to understand this?

Was Paul’s gospel in opposition to that of the disciples in Jerusalem – those so called “Super Apostles” who Paul speaks evil about in 2 Corinthians 10-13. And whom Paul said he wishes would go emasculate themselves… almost in those words… Romans 13 he talks about all authority being God ordained but he then challenges this God given authority in that of the Apostles.

Could Paul really learn in the 15 days of being with the Apostles in Jerusalem all that had taken them a number of years to understand… the rest Paul “claims” he learned directly from the Risen Jesus… funny that!!! Sounds a little like Mohammad’s Islam and divine revelation, but we are taught never to question these things – so I never did till now… I am loath to say this but this is the first time in my life I have noticed this stuff and it is a little disconcerting. I was brought up in a Pentecostal church and now all this is causing me to rethink and challenge all I have ever believed. I believe in Jesus for he has the key of eternal life. Paul on the other had – I am not too sure, I will continue to search and am willing to learn if anyone has got insight.

Paul never saw Jesus, well that is unclear – I guess it is down to hearsay, he saw a light brighter than the sun – but he claims Apostleship from Jesus and of the Father over and over, he never learned under Jesus nor spent much time with the disciples trying to understand all that Jesus had taught the disciples. Never once do you see any of the teachings of Jesus mentioned or any quotes reiterated from Jesus’ life… but you do see many new inventions and ideals – taken from often misquoted OT scriptures.

I will give him credit for his writing skills, he is a master at it. But I am not too sure I am as convinced anymore that he had the cause of Christ in is sights… or if it was his own agenda – his own Gospel message. His account of things seem to glaze over Luke’s accounts – or should I say steamroll them, he was the APOSTLE; Luke after all was just writing it all down. eg: In Luke’s account it says that Paul was summoned to Jerusalem by the Apostles but in Paul’s account, in Gal 2:2 he went up by divine revelation… I guess you could put it down to Author’s licence, but doesn’t Paul’s account sound a little high and mighty.

There is more but I need to go to sleep… if anyone has some insight into this that would be good.

I will keep searching… your replies will be helpful

March 25, 2006 at 6:41 am#11988

Participant

One more scripture that you mentioned Kenrch:

1Co 3:10
According to the grace of God which was given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder I laid a foundation; and another buildeth thereon. But let each man take heed how he buildeth thereon.

We know that the one who builds the house is God (Heb3:4). We know who the foundation of the Church is Jesus, the Christ. Paul has the audacity here to say that he is a master builder… and that he has laid the foundation in Corinth. I am sure he was instrumental here but what a pompus claim to make in the light of he wrote a few chapters later. 1 Cor 13:4.

I just don't seem to get this guy's inconsistencies and seeming insecurity problems… can anyone help me.

March 25, 2006 at 12:35 pm#12002

Participant

Quote (Artizan007 @ Mar. 25 2006,01:41)

One more scripture that you mentioned Kenrch:

1Co 3:10
According to the grace of God which was given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder I laid a foundation; and another buildeth thereon. But let each man take heed how he buildeth thereon.

I just don't seem to get this guy's inconsistencies and seeming insecurity problems… can anyone help me.

Your problem is not with Paul, but with the Word of God.

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Tim 3:16-17)

Before you begin to attempt to evaluate any portion of scripture you need to be clear on what you believe about the Bible. It appears to me that you don't believe the Bible is the Word of God, but instead the word of men.

knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. (2 pet. 1:20-21)

The Bible says that no portion of scripture is written by man's will, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. If we use your reasoning then the Bible is not an authority at all, but rather man is. What you call “inconsistencies” has nothing to do with the Word of God, it is your insecurites and lack of understanding that is inconsistent. Please explain to me what you believe the Bible to be. The Word of God was given to change us, but we continually want to change God.

because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.(Rom. 1:21-23)

One more thing. Here is the definition of the Gospel given by Paul. Is this inconsistent with Jesus?

Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.
For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, (1 Cor. 15:1-4)

March 25, 2006 at 4:46 pm#12006

Participant

Quote (Artizan007 @ Mar. 25 2006,06:41)

One more scripture that you mentioned Kenrch:

1Co 3:10
According to the grace of God which was given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder I laid a foundation; and another buildeth thereon. But let each man take heed how he buildeth thereon.

I just don't seem to get this guy's inconsistencies and seeming insecurity problems… can anyone help me.

1Co 3:10
According to the grace of God which was given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder I laid a foundation; and another buildeth thereon. But let each man take heed how he buildeth thereon.

…. as a wise masterbuilder I laid a foundation; and another buildeth thereon.

Paul laid the foundation of Christ. He being a masterbuilder through the Holy Spirit knew how to preach the message that the people would accept. Then as if to humble himself he says another builded upon.

Paul's message is that Jesus died for our sins. Paul was human and I'm sure He made mistakes as humans do.
That's why Peter warned that Paul's writings are hard to understand:

2Pe 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote unto you;

Peter doesn't say Paul's writings are wrong. Just that they are hard to understand and to that I would agree.

Why are the Gospels sligtly different from each other? Because these were flesh and blood men. One saw it one way the other saw it the other way but they all came to the same conclusion.

Jesus did not teach that He did away with the law (Matt. 5:17-19). But Paul's writings seem to say just that. Paul's message about the Ten Commandment is that we have forgiveness for sin. Not that the Ten were done away with by our Lord. Heaven and earth have not passed away.

When Paul told Timothy that He was his father that begot him through the gospel. The first thing that came to my mind was that was exactly the oppsite of what Jesus taught.
When it comes down to either Jesus' teaching or an apostle's teaching one would definitely believe the Lord's teaching.
After very little reserch Paul is not speaking of an spiritual father but a father as a higher teacher.
1Ti 5:1 Rebuke not an elder, but exhort him as a father; the younger men as brethren:
1Ti 5:2 the elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, in all purity.

Paul's writing's are hard to understand but they are not blasphemous.
I believe that the Lord wants us to seek not be deceived.

March 25, 2006 at 5:41 pm#12007

Participant

Hey Sultan,

Thank you for your response, I have always believed what you believe about the word of God and still want to but I have seen somethings that dont seem to measure up and so I thought i would come to this place to find answers.

That said, I must thank you for your insight on my insecurities and lack of understanding – I can assure you, you don’t have to tell me, I know I have them but it is not because of either that I am asking these questions. Just so you know, I did not claim I know everything there is to know about God, life, the Scriptures and will never claim too, I am learning and this is what I see as I study the word of God. Notice I asked if anyone was out there that could explain this inconsistency between Paul and Jesus. So Sultan, is this the way you deal with all who do not understand the way you do? … just a question.

My problem is not with God nor his Word to us, which I don’t want to change by the way, but I see things in the life of Paul that seem inconsistent and out of order. What are your answers to the questions I asked… sure I have insecurities like I am sure you do, sure I don’t have full understanding like no doubt there is in your case too. We are all learning, and these are my questions from what I am learning. So how can you help. Put your thoughts and reasoning forward. I am all ears.

My question is who decided what went into the word of God and what stayed out of it. MAN, decided this – men of Integrity? Some of these so called Godly men that decide these things, I question. When was it put together: Some 300ish years after the books were written and it includes books written by Authors that we are not sure even wrote the books – go figure. What was changed in 300/400 years. What was left out. Do we “know for sure” that nothing was tampered with.

Would you say with the highest confidence that there are absolutely no inconsistencies at all – well how come some manuscripts have certain things included that others don’t… tell me is that consistent, is there room in these little changes for man’s involvement. Is every manuscript around today completely consistent with the others. I am afraid this is not so. Little changes to words vary the meaning of sentences (see Matt 26:28 NKJV – one says “new” covenant whilst the NU Text omits new – this changes the meaning of the sentence completely does it not?), whole verses are left out or added in places between different manuscripts and some whole passages questioned as being inserted. You tell me that man has not added his thought to the Bible, well what about 1 John 5:7. One man’s footnote changed the meaning of a verse… If they can do it to that verse, and completely change its meaning. One which men have used to convey a theory that is now a dogma, and has caused great upheaval in church history. Then my question is, did they change other parts as well. Questions abound. Faith is not blind. There must be answers. That is why I ask the questions I have. To get answers.

Why did we change the order of the OT in our Bible today. Was it not a closed Cannon use in the way it was by Jesus, Peter, James, Paul, John etc. So then why did it change? It does not carry the same weight into the NT the way it is outlayed in our Bibles today!

Why are Paul’s gospels put first in the NT. Should they not go in order that they were written – maybe we would see a different story. Why Paul’s books first, sure he wrote the most but do you not think this a little strange.

Sultan, did God drop the scriptures out of the sky? I think not.

You quote:
“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work”. (2 Tim 3:16-17) “YOU forget vs 15”…

Which part of scripture was Paul talking about when he said this. Certainly not the New Testament scripture because it had not even been compiled as scripture. So it was the OT that Paul was talking about as being the HOLY SCRIPTURES. I am right to think this – what are your thoughts.

You quote:
“knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit’. (2 pet. 1:20-21)

What is Peter speaking about, NT or OT prophecy… prophecy given by the Apostles in the NT times or the Prophets of the Old Testament. From reading that scripture I believe it was the Old Testament Prophets who were the holy men of God Peter is speaking of. Which I agree with you… is for doctrine, reproof, correction and righteousness.

You quote:
Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.

For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, (1 Cor. 15:1-4)

Is this the gospel message: I think not… It is only part of the Gospel message. Jesus’ blood was shed for our sin – no doubt about that, he was raised to life immortal on the third day, unquestionable: this is a sure proof of our future resurrection and his overcoming of death, but that is only part of the Gospel message. If you only preached the D & R, is that enough to save. What about the words that Jesus spoke, the message of the Kingdom of God… You tell me – what was the message of the Kingdom of God and why did Jesus spend the majority of his ministry life delivering it. Or was Jesus life and ministry only about the D & R? Notice I do not decry the D & R but it is not all of the message and this does not grant you eternal life – it is our pardon from sin.

In Luke 4:43 Jesus states this was the reason he was sent. He came to preach the KOG. So was the work of Jesus only the Cross and the Resurrection? … I don’t think so.

Peter, when asked if he would leave Jesus said: surely not Lord, only you have the “WORDS of eternal life” and backs this up in 1 Pet 1:23.

James 1:21 says this too – Nothing is said about the death and resurrection in these verses.

Did all who James wrote to not receive salvation? There is no mention of the death and resurrection in all his book. Is it faith alone that saves here in this book, not at all – rather it is by works James says, we are made perfect. (the both working together) It is interesting to note here that James does not abolish law like Paul does. James says if you show partiality you are convicted by the law as a transgressor.

Just as a side thought – I wonder who James was speaking to in Chpt 2:20

Was it just the death and resurrection of Jesus? Did the disciples preach the death and resurrection of Jesus before he died and was raised from the dead. No they did not, but they preached the Kingdom of God message and signs followed it. It is in this message we find life. What was the seed that the sower sowed… was it the D & R of Jesus or was it more than that. Jesus says in Matt 13 that it was the word of the Kingdom that we need to understand and in understanding we would find life. He also says that if we don’t understand this parable we will not understand any of them (Mark 4:13)

Phillip in the revival city of Samaria only preached the gospel of the Kingdom of God and the name of Jesus. He did not preach the death and resurrection… so how come the revival, I would have to question if they were even saved according to Paul’s message. Because that was not preached to them.

Jesus said in Matthew 24:14 – This Gospel of the Kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations and then the end will come. Je
sus had not gone to the cross, the disciples did not even understand the meaning of the cross fully and yet in Matt 10 they had been out preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom. What was that message, was it the death and resurrection or was it something else.

It is late but hopefully this will give you an idea of where I am coming from… I await your kind response, no matter if you agree or disagree.

Take care, be blessed.

March 25, 2006 at 5:46 pm#12008

Participant

Thanks Kenrch,

I will respond later. What you said makes sense but I would like to ask a few more questions from what you have written but I must get some sleep.

I promise I will keep seeking with all my heart.

take care, be blessed.

March 25, 2006 at 6:00 pm#12009

Participant

Attizan007,

The 2nd half of the gospel is “The Kingdom Of Heaven is at hand”.

God is great is He not!!

March 25, 2006 at 7:01 pm#12010

Adam Pastor

Participant

Greetings Artizan007

I enjoyed your post very much.
I thought I ought to point out …

There is solely one Gospel …
That is, the Gospel of the Kingdom of GOD

It is the Gospel that John the Baptist preached [Matt 3:1-2]
It is the Gospel that Christ preached [Matt 4.17, 23; 9.35; Mark 1.14-15, Luke 4.43, 8.1, 9.11]
It is the Gospel that Christ's disciples preached [Matt 24.14; Luke 9.1-2,6; 10.9; Acts 8.12]

And in context of your question,
it is most definitely the Gospel that Paul preached!
Paul preach the very same Gospel as his Master, Jesus the Messiah, preached.

(Acts 19:8) And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God.

(Acts 20:24-25) … and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God. 25 And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more.

(Acts 28:23) And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.

(Acts 28:30-31) And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him, 31 Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.

Paul preached the identical Gospel that Christ preached in the very same manner!!
Compare for example,
(Luke 8:1) And it came to pass afterward, that he went throughout every city and village, preaching and showing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God: and the twelve were with him,

Like Christ, this “one Gospel” became Paul's life-blood, his magnificent obsession!
Hence, he personalize it … calling it my Gospel … being a shorthand for “the Gospel that I preach!”

Where there may be some confusion is 1 Cor 15.
And it is not Paul's fault … it is how the translators translated what Paul said.

Paul said in 1 Cor 15:3 that he delivered unto you en protois … Christ's death & resurrection!
That is, seeing that 1 Cor 15 is all about the Resurrection,
Paul delivered among things of first importance, that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; … etc …
That is what en protois means! … among things of first importance

He was not saying that the D&R is the Gospel …
however, the D&R of Jesus the Messiah, is amongst things of first importance, which Paul delivered.
For the sake of the Corinthians, in Chap. 15, Paul was emphasizing on the Resurrection.

Sadly, our translators translated en protois as first of all; hence, giving the [false] impression that the gospel which Paul preached [v. 1] was solely the D&R of Jesus; making it appear that Paul preached a different Gospel than what Christ and maybe even the rest of the apostles preached!!

Not so, Paul preached the same Gospel.
Paul in I Corinthians 15:1-3 declared that Jesus' death and resurrection
were “amongst matters of first importance” in the Gospel. He did not say
they constituted the entire Gospel. In the same chapter he assumes that his
audience understands the term Kingdom of God, and he uses the term
characteristically as the Kingdom which cannot be inherited by a human person
in his present constitution (“flesh and blood”) but can be entered/inherited
only at the future resurrection when Jesus returns to establish the Kingdom
of God on earth (I Cor. 15:50-52).

Therefore, Paul preached the very same Gospel as Christ.
The most important facts of the death & resurrection of Christ were added in addition to the preaching of the Gospel of the Kingdom.
This then is the Gospel that Christ's Apostles consistently preached! Hence, compare …
(Acts 8:12) But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

(Compare with the above quotes from Acts concerning Paul's message)

Quote (Henry Alford @ his commentary on 1 Cor 15:1-3)

The death and resurrection were among the most important elements (en protois) in the Gospel.

“I declare to you…(I Cor. 15:1) the whole Gospel, not merely the death and resurrection of Christ which were en protois parts of it.“

Quote (New American Standard Bible @ 1 Cor 15.3)

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,

Pasted from http://unbound.biola.edu/index.cfm?method=searchResults.doSearch

Artizan007, I hope this helps answer your original question …

PS Kenrch

The preaching of the Kingdom of GOD is the FIRST Half of the Gospel.
The Death & Resurrection of Christ is the SECOND Half, being preached after these events.

March 25, 2006 at 8:14 pm#12011

Participant

Quote (Artizan007 @ Mar. 25 2006,12:41)

Hey Sultan,

Sultan, did God drop the scriptures out of the sky? I think not.

In Luke 4:43 Jesus states this was the reason he was sent. He came to preach the KOG. So was the work of Jesus only the Cross and the Resurrection? … I don’t think so.

Peter, when asked if he would leave Jesus said: surely not Lord, only you have the “WORDS of eternal life” and backs this up in 1 Pet 1:23.

James 1:21 says this too – Nothing is said about the death and resurrection in these verses.

Just as a side thought – I wonder who James was speaking to in Chpt 2:20

Phillip in the revival city of Samaria only preached the gospel of the Kingdom of God and the name of Jesus. He did not preach the death and resurrection… so how come the revival, I would have to question if they were even saved according
to Paul’s message. Because that was not preached to them.

Jesus said in Matthew 24:14 – This Gospel of the Kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations and then the end will come. Jesus had not gone to the cross, the disciples did not even understand the meaning of the cross fully and yet in Matt 10 they had been out preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom. What was that message, was it the death and resurrection or was it something else.

It is late but hopefully this will give you an idea of where I am coming from… I await your kind response, no matter if you agree or disagree.

Take care, be blessed.

Quote

Sultan, is this the way you deal with all who do not understand the way you do? … just a question.

Thank you for your response. I do not have time to fully read it and reply, but wanted to answer your question.

Yes this is how I deal with all who do not understand as I do. Actually this is how I find out exactly what you believe. I would be a fool to simply attempt to answer your questions without first understanding why you ask the questions. Jesus says do not cast our pearls before swine, so before I labor to answer I like to know who I am speaking with. Nevertheless your post did give me more insight, and I will reply later. Thank you for taking the time to reply with such clarity. I will reply shortly, and hope I can edify you, and be edified.

In Christ,
Sultan

P.S. We have dealt with some texts that were later added such as 1 John 5:7. There is a topic on this one. You may want to take a peak.

March 26, 2006 at 12:36 am#12013

Participant

Adam Pastor,

First you say:
There is solely one Gospel …
That is, the Gospel of the Kingdom of GOD

Then you say:
PS Kenrch

The preaching of the Kingdom of GOD is the FIRST Half of the Gospel.
The Death & Resurrection of Christ is the SECOND Half, being preached after these events.

Which gospel do they preach today?
I've heard the death and resurrection of Christ for the forgivness of sins this is the FIRST and ONLY GOSPEL I'VE HEARD.

So please tell me about the Kingdom of God that is at hand.
I haven't heard it that's why I thought the resurrection was the Gospel or the first half.

Jesus said while blood was still pumping through Him go and preach the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Mat 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth THE WILL OF MY FATHER which is in heaven.

Mat 10:7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Mat 10:8 Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.

March 26, 2006 at 9:11 am#12019

Adam Pastor

Participant

In my previous post, I give the refs of where Jesus and his disciples went about preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom of GOD.

In a nutshell, the Gospel is “the awesome fact that one day Almighty GOD will send the Messiah to earth to restore and inaugurate GOD's Kingdom here upon the earth.
At his Coming, he will raise the righteous dead and together with the living saints, they will be transformed and meet Christ in the air.
Together with the saints, Christ will descend to the earth, and establish GOD's Kingdom in the Promised Land. Thus, Jerusalem will be the capital city of the Kingdom of GOD.
From thence, Jesus & the saints will rule the world.
This planet therefore will be restored to its former paradisiacal state.
The bad news though, is there will be a judgement of nations at his return, a massive depopulation. Those nations that survive will be reigned over. This includes the nation of Israel.
Therefore, immortals will reign over mortals with Christ for a 1000 years.
There will be no more war. The nation of Israel will dwell safely under the reign of the Messiah. And GOD's Kingdom will spread over the entire planet.”

You see, the early Church had no concept about going to Heaven, (whether when one dies or at the rapture).
The early Church all looked forward to the Coming Kingdom on earth, hence, Christ taught us to pray
“Thy Kingdom Come”.
The patriarchs i.e. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc all died without ever possessing the Promised Land (hence, there must be a Resurrection).
Thus, this was the Land Promise.
GOD also promised David an everlasting throne & Kingdom.
David's & Solomon's Kingdom was “The Kingdom of GOD here upon the earth”
[e.g. 1 Chr 28.5, 2 Chr. 13.5,8]
This is the Kingdom Promise.

Because of iniquity, GOD overthrew the throne & kingdom, however, He promised that He would restore it to the One who right it is and that He would give it him … i.e. the Messiah.
[Ezek 21.27]

So, the Gospel of the Kingdom is about the Land & the Kingdom; how GOD promised that the patriarchs and their descendants/seed will possess the Land; and how that Land will have an everlasting king, kingdom & throne. Christ came the first time to confirm these promises. [Rom 15.8]
He went everywhere preaching the Good News about GOD's Coming Kingdom. [Luke 4.43]
He sent his disciples out to do likewise [Lule 9.1-2,6, Matt 24.14]
Therefore, in view of GOD's Coming Kingdom, people ought to repent of their sins, be baptized, and prepare themselves for entrance into the Kingdom. [Acts 8.12]
If one rejects the word/message/Gospel of the Kingdom one cannot be saved. [Matt 13.19] Such a one will not enter GOD's Kingdom.

At his Second Coming, Christ will restore the Kingdom to Israel [Acts 1.6] and all the saints including Abraham, Isaac & Jacob, will dwell in the Kingdom and reign with Christ. [Matt 8.11, Luke 13.28]
Christ and the saints will reign in Paradise here on earth. [Rev 5.9-10]

As for the Death & Resurrection of Jesus the Messiah.

The disciples of Christ never ever preached this during the ministry of Christ.
They never even believed it or understood it much less preached it!!
Throughout Matthew, Mark & Luke; Jesus the Christ never ever mentioned his death & resurrection until after Peter received the revelation from GOD that Jesus was indeed GOD's Messiah. Only then, did Christ start to teach them about his death and resurrection.
[e.g. Matt 16.16,21, Mark 8.29-31, Luke 9.20-22]

Compare the following two incidents:
(Mark 9:9-10) And as they came down from the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what things they had seen, till the Son of man were risen from the dead. 10 And they kept that saying with themselves, questioning one with another what the rising from the dead should mean.

(Luke 18:31-34) Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished. 32 For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on: 33 And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again. 34 And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken.

See! They did not know what the D&R meant neither did they understand it … it was hid from them. Therefore, what Gospel had they been preaching for the past 3 years.
That's right! The Gospel about the Kingdom of GOD.

Therefore, the awesome and most important facts concerning the Death and Resurrection of Jesus the Messiah are now preached as an important addendum to the Glad Tidings of the Coming Kingdom of GOD; hence the Book of Acts as such verses as: (Acts 28:31) Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, …

BTW, the reason why the Kingdom of GOD is not explained in great depth in the NT, is because the audience already knew what John the Baptist, Jesus & the disciples meant by the term 'Kingdom of GOD' from the OT.
The prophets spoke about the restoration of Paradise & the Kingdom consistently throughout the OT. One needs to therefore study the OT starting with the Land Promise in Genesis chapters 12,15,17 (as well as the Throne Promise in 2 Sam 7.)
As Paul said, GOD preached before “the Gospel” to Abraham. [Gal 3.8]

Hope the above helps, Kenrch
PS I believe Sammo touched on these issues in the “Do men ever go to heaven?” thread.

March 26, 2006 at 12:30 pm#12021

Participant

Quote (Adam Pastor @ Mar. 26 2006,04:11)

In my previous post, I give the refs of where Jesus and his disciples went about preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom of GOD.

Because of iniquity, GOD overthrew the throne & kingdom, however, He promised that He would restore it to the One who right it is and that He would give it him … i.e. the Messiah.
[Ezek 21.27]

As for the Death & Resurrection of Jesus the Messiah.

Hope the above helps, Kenrch
PS I believe Sammo touched on these issues in the “Do men ever go to heaven?” thread.

I don't know if it helped krench, but it was a blessing to me. Thank you.

March 26, 2006 at 4:28 pm#12022