The Idea of Two Gospels

[RichardBurger]

You are either denying the deity of Christ or else the fact that He came as a man. If you think that God lacks the power to convert a man and abide in Him then you are still dead in your sins. You have yet to believe the gospel and be actually renewed.

I suppose I need to pick up snakes and talk in tongues too.

Why do you and Prentis want to show that I am not a child of God? Is it because my message of salvation by the shed blood of Jesus on the cross pays for all my sins and you do not?

You want men to place their belief, faith, trust, and confidence in what they do to be saved. My belief, faith, trust and confidence is in Jesus' work on the cross, NOT MY WORKS BUT JESUS' WORK ON THE CROSS.

You can believe what ever you wish.

 

[Prentis]

So Jesus was not fully man, and not tempted as we are! It is by the power of God in us that we overcome... But you don't believe in overcoming!

 

[James Forthwright]

I believe it is a major doctrinal issue. Most of the theologies in the churches today teach a social/moral gospel using The teachings of Jesus and the 12 (11).

OK Richard, I see your viewpoint. You commented on my first paragraph but ignored the main body of the post (of which we may well be in agreement). Care to comment?


THE TWO GOSPELS OF THE EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH


The scriptural quest to reconcile the seemingly contradictory comments by the Apostles James & Paul concerning the merits of the Law of God, led to researching some of the beliefs of various sects in the early Christian Church. Many of us like to entertain the false assumption that after the death and resurrection of Christ the nascent Christian Church was one unified body of believers each having basically the same (or largely similar) set of doctrinal beliefs. But such was not the case.
Just as there were various sects within Judaism (Pharisees, Sadducees, Zealots, Essenes, etc.), a number of divisions began to emerge amongst the early Christian Church. The Nazarenes, Ebionites, Arians, Gnostics, Elkasites, Circumcellions, Jacobites, Nestorians and the Orthodox, sometimes called Rum, i.e., the Romans or the Byzantines are just some of these early Christian sects.

The Apostle Paul plainly addressed this growing problem in his first letter to the Corinthians:

1Cor. 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided?

Though I suppose the “correct answer” to the apostle’s rhetorical question above is an emphatic “NO!”, however in practice, the Body of Christian believers were going off in a myriad of different doctrinal directions. Whether such church divisions were caused by Satanic influence to inject heresy to divide the body of Christ or merely the natural tendency of mankind to seek the company of like-minded individuals (or some combination of both) I’ll leave for you to decide.

Thus a series of religious councils were convened to address these bitterly divisive matters and to attempt to separate the heretics from the true believers. The first recorded Church Council occurs in the fifteenth chapter of Acts. The main two topics of discussion were:

• Whether Gentiles can/should be converted to Christianity? and if so,
• Are these Gentile believers compelled to, likewise, be circumcised and follow the Law of Moses as was readily being observed by the Christian Church at Jerusalem?

I’m sure there must have been some extended heated debate on all sides of the issues not recorded by the author of the Book of Acts but after both Peter, Paul and Barnabus gave their stirring testimonies regarding the marvelous manifest works of God evident amongst the Gentiles it was quickly agreed that the answer to the first question was squarely in the affirmative.
The answer to the second thorny question was summarized by James, the brother of the Lord and Bishop of Jerusalem.

Acts 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and [from] fornication, and [from] things strangled, and [from] blood.

Though James’ wise summation appears to be universally agreed upon by all the esteemed church leaders, it still leaves considerable areas of doctrinal doubt and confusion that persist in the Christian Church today. Though not explicitly stated, are these Gentile converts exempt from following the Ten Commandments? Certainly logic tells us that besides the aforementioned idolatry, fornication and certain food laws they would likewise be prohibited from practicing murder, blaspheming, stealing, bearing false witness, covetousness, etc. But are they exempt from honoring the seventh day Sabbath as prescribed by the Law of Moses or the other unclean food laws?

Also, what piqued my interest was that, if you read a bit between the lines, there was a clear distinction or doctrinal lines of demarcation being made between the Gospel of Christ being observed by the Israelite Christians at Jerusalem and what was decided to be preached as Gospel to the Gentile Christian congregations. The Church at Jerusalem appears to have maintained the practice of circumcision, keeping the Sabbath holy, feast days, temple worship, etc. Whereas, the Gentile converts were generally not subject to those Laws.

And two distinct gospels begin to surface. One for the Israelite Christians around Jerusalem and another specifically directed to the Gentiles.

Gal 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

 

[RichardBurger]

So Jesus was not fully man, and not tempted as we are! It is by the power of God in us that we overcome... But you don't believe in overcoming!

You are so foolish. It is by faith in Jesus' (God) work on the cross; ""the power of the cross."" -- But you claim it is by your works.

What you fail to see is that the creator of all that we see is perfectly capable of creating a man of flesh without having an earthly father. He can even give speach to a rock. And He can save sinners who sin.

I never said that Jesus was not fully man, you said that. What I said was that Jesus did not have a father of flesh. He was concieved by the Holy Spirit. Do you deny that?

We overcome by faith in the one that overcame (Jesus). But you deny this by saying you overcome by your works of the flesh.

OK Richard, I see your viewpoint. You commented on my first paragraph but ignored the main body of the post (of which we may well be in agreement). Care to comment?


THE TWO GOSPELS OF THE EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH


The scriptural quest to reconcile the seemingly contradictory comments by the Apostles James & Paul concerning the merits of the Law of God, led to researching some of the beliefs of various sects in the early Christian Church. Many of us like to entertain the false assumption that after the death and resurrection of Christ the nascent Christian Church was one unified body of believers each having basically the same (or largely similar) set of doctrinal beliefs. But such was not the case.
Just as there were various sects within Judaism (Pharisees, Sadducees, Zealots, Essenes, etc.), a number of divisions began to emerge amongst the early Christian Church. The Nazarenes, Ebionites, Arians, Gnostics, Elkasites, Circumcellions, Jacobites, Nestorians and the Orthodox, sometimes called Rum, i.e., the Romans or the Byzantines are just some of these early Christian sects.

The Apostle Paul plainly addressed this growing problem in his first letter to the Corinthians:

1Cor. 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided?

Though I suppose the “correct answer” to the apostle’s rhetorical question above is an emphatic “NO!”, however in practice, the Body of Christian believers were going off in a myriad of different doctrinal directions. Whether such church divisions were caused by Satanic influence to inject heresy to divide the body of Christ or merely the natural tendency of mankind to seek the company of like-minded individuals (or some combination of both) I’ll leave for you to decide.

Thus a series of religious councils were convened to address these bitterly divisive matters and to attempt to separate the heretics from the true believers. The first recorded Church Council occurs in the fifteenth chapter of Acts. The main two topics of discussion were:

• Whether Gentiles can/should be converted to Christianity? and if so,
• Are these Gentile believers compelled to, likewise, be circumcised and follow the Law of Moses as was readily being observed by the Christian Church at Jerusalem?

I’m sure there must have been some extended heated debate on all sides of the issues not recorded by the author of the Book of Acts but after both Peter, Paul and Barnabus gave their stirring testimonies regarding the marvelous manifest works of God evident amongst the Gentiles it was quickly agreed that the answer to the first question was squarely in the affirmative.
The answer to the second thorny question was summarized by James, the brother of the Lord and Bishop of Jerusalem.

Acts 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and [from] fornication, and [from] things strangled, and [from] blood.

Though James’ wise summation appears to be universally agreed upon by all the esteemed church leaders, it still leaves considerable areas of doctrinal doubt and confusion that persist in the Christian Church today. Though not explicitly stated, are these Gentile converts exempt from following the Ten Commandments? Certainly logic tells us that besides the aforementioned idolatry, fornication and certain food laws they would likewise be prohibited from practicing murder, blaspheming, stealing, bearing false witness, covetousness, etc. But are they exempt from honoring the seventh day Sabbath as prescribed by the Law of Moses or the other unclean food laws?

Also, what piqued my interest was that, if you read a bit between the lines, there was a clear distinction or doctrinal lines of demarcation being made between the Gospel of Christ being observed by the Israelite Christians at Jerusalem and what was decided to be preached as Gospel to the Gentile Christian congregations. The Church at Jerusalem appears to have maintained the practice of circumcision, keeping the Sabbath holy, feast days, temple worship, etc. Whereas, the Gentile converts were generally not subject to those Laws.

And two distinct gospels begin to surface. One for the Israelite Christians around Jerusalem and another specifically directed to the Gentiles.

Gal 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

It is good writing to state the subject of it in the first paragraph and then state the reasons that support it. That is what I do. I have been on forums for so long that I look for the subject and know what will follow because I have heard it all before. Sorry if I offended you.

 

[Prentis]

You make overcoming a 'metaphor'. You say we overcome with one breath, and say we can't be as he is with the other, which shows the lack of any reality in the 'overcoming' you talk about.

According to you, the flesh is more powerful than the Spirit of God. The fallen man has his body rule over his soul, which rules over his spirit. The oppose of the spiritual man, which has his spirit rule over his soul, and his soul over his body, and his spirit is ruled by God.

But you say God is not mighty to reverse the fall. He can't do it while we live... It's just too much!

Basically, you're saying the giants are too big, and either God doesn't want us to conquer to promised land, or he's not able to make us do so. So let's just sit in the desert! When we obey God, and HE does HIS works through us, then we are partakers of the works of God. To compare this with works of the flesh would require to turn a blind eye to the fact God works through men.

 

[RichardBurger]

1. You make overcoming a 'metaphor'. You say we overcome with one breath, and say we can't be as he is with the other, which shows the lack of any reality in the 'overcoming' you talk about.

2. According to you, the flesh is more powerful than the Spirit of God. The fallen man has his body rule over his soul, which rules over his spirit. The oppose of the spiritual man, which has his spirit rule over his soul, and his soul over his body, and his spirit is ruled by God.

3. But you say God is not mighty to reverse the fall. He can't do it while we live... It's just too much!

4. Basically, you're saying the giants are too big, and either God doesn't want us to conquer to promised land, or he's not able to make us do so. So let's just sit in the desert! When we obey God, and HE does HIS works through us, then we are partakers of the works of God. To compare this with works of the flesh would require to turn a blind eye to the fact God works through men.

1a. It is in the spirit that we overcome by faith. Actions of our flesh count for nothing.

2a. According to scripture the flesh is already condemned to die because of sin. Our flesh has no power to save us.

3a. Those are your words, not mine. God has never reversed the fall. The power of God is shown on the cross and it is His power that saves us, not our power.

4a. Basically what I am saying is that it is our spirit that has been born of the Holy Spirit, not our flesh. -- God works through His children to bring forth other children of God, not to make them self-righteous in the flesh as you claim. -- What you are saying is rubbish.

Galatians 3:3
3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?
NKJV

Galatians 2:20-21
20 I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.
21 I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain."
NKJV

Colossians 2:20-23
20 Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations —
21 "Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,"
22 which all concern things which perish with the using — according to the commandments and doctrines of men?
23 These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.
NKJV

 

[James Forthwright]

It is good writing to state the subject of it in the first paragraph and then state the reasons that support it. That is what I do. I have been on forums for so long that I look for the subject and know what will follow because I have heard it all before. Sorry if I offended you.

No offense taken, Richard. I just wondered why you didn't comment on the rest of my post which was in defense of your position.

We seem to have received a similar revelation of the Two Gospels of Christ but from a slightly different perspective. As I begin to more fully recognize the physical connection of many Gentile believers to the dispersed Israelite nations I see less controversy of those Christians who prefer to follow the more "Law-based gospel" of Jerusalem Christians, (e.g., Seventh Day Adventists), than the more liberal "Grace-based " Gentile church. And likewise, this reveals the supposed differences of the Apostle James epistles from the Apostle Paul's ministry were more matter of whom their letters were addressed than completely alternative viewpoints.

 

[veteran]

Also, what piqued my interest was that, if you read a bit between the lines, there was a clear distinction or doctrinal lines of demarcation being made between the Gospel of Christ being observed by the Israelite Christians at Jerusalem and what was decided to be preached as Gospel to the Gentile Christian congregations. The Church at Jerusalem appears to have maintained the practice of circumcision, keeping the Sabbath holy, feast days, temple worship, etc. Whereas, the Gentile converts were generally not subject to those Laws.

And two distinct gospels begin to surface. One for the Israelite Christians around Jerusalem and another specifically directed to the Gentiles.

Gal 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

That may sound like what happened, even with a type of cultural and religious separation between modern Messianic Jews and Gentile Christians that can be used to kind of support that. But that's not the idea from Paul in His Epistles, nor Acts, for both believing Jews and Gentiles were often gathered together as one body in those early days of the Church per Acts.

Even with Paul rebuking Peter in Galatians because of Peter separating from Gentile believers to eat with his Jewish brethren visiting from Jerusalem revealed Paul's stance on this matter.

The experience Peter had with the Gentiles like Cornelius in Acts 10-11, also reveals God's stance on this matter involving just ONE Gospel, not two with one for Israel and another one for Gentiles.


Gal 2:7-8
7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
8 (For He That wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles
(KJV)

Paul's explanation of how... he meant the 7th verse is given in the 8th verse with that "apostleship" idea.

In the Greek it means a 'commission'. And what kind of commission was that? A commission in The One Gospel of Jesus Christ, not a commission with more than one Gospel.

Paul especially had a 'commission' from Christ to take the same Gospel to the Gentiles, as Peter was given a commission to take that same Gospel to the Israelites. But BOTH actually preached to both Israelites and Gentiles at the same time per Acts.

That's what the whole argument with Richard Burger has been about, because the Hyper-Dispensationalist doctrine of men he holds on to is about the false idea that there can be more than one Gospel of Jesus Christ. And because of that idea, Hyper-Dispensationalists are wrongly taught that ONLY Scripture from Paul addressed to Gentiles is for Gentiles, while all OTHER Scripture in God's Word is only for Israel, and of no importance to Gentiles.

 

[lawrance]

Anyone who believes in two gospels, one for one people and another for others is just a sad joke as it robs Jesus of who he is.

I have a stupid Jewish mate who calls it the first testament and the second testament, i say it's the Old and the New. as there will not be an 3RD. as Jesus said everything he had to say.

Anyone who says there is a special race some where that is above Jesus Christ is of the Devil and anyone who says that you can't walk in the Spirit is giving false hope and if they rattle on about someone did it all, for you, so you can just sit by and do nothing as you are saved is a tempter of Satan. then when one puts forward it is not them that does the work but the Spirit in them that does it, then the tempter denies the Spirit.

One can not serve two masters. all must be in Christ as there is no other way to salvation.

 

[James Forthwright]

First of all, thanks for your well-reasoned reply, Veteran. Lately, after dealing with a number of posters who seem to thrive on petty bickering, your post was, indeed a pleasure to read, even though I still maintain some major differences of interpretation.

That may sound like what happened, even with a type of cultural and religious separation between modern Messianic Jews and Gentile Christians that can be used to kind of support that. But that's not the idea from Paul in His Epistles, nor Acts, for both believing Jews and Gentiles were often gathered together as one body in those early days of the Church per Acts.

OK, maybe for the VERY early Church in Jerusalem, the Body of Christian believers were fairly unified in doctrine and religious practices but soon the Gospel began to spread to much more distant lands and distinct schisms began to emerge. Of course, travel in the First Century was an arduous ordeal and most churches were localized. The cultural influences of the Greek and Roman societies that Paul and his ministerial companions frequented were quite different than the customs of Judea.
I’d also like to mention that there are many modern day Christian sects besides Messianic Jews that are now incorporating many of the traditions of the First Century Church of Jerusalem, e.g., following the OT example of food cleanliness, circumcision, keeping the traditional Sabbath & feast days, etc.

Even with Paul rebuking Peter in Galatians because of Peter separating from Gentile believers to eat with his Jewish brethren visiting from Jerusalem revealed Paul's stance on this matter.

I view that particular instance in a different light. It wasn’t so much that Paul was criticizing Peter for upholding traditional tenets of the Law regarding eating but Peter’s blatant respect of persons abandoning his Gentile acquaintances when James, the Lord’s brother arrived. Paul was especially annoyed that his travel companion Barnabus was being carried away by Peter’s dissimulation.

The experience Peter had with the Gentiles like Cornelius in Acts 10-11, also reveals God's stance on this matter involving just ONE Gospel, not two with one for Israel and another one for Gentiles.

Peter’s rooftop vision is certainly a watershed moment in opening his eyes that the Holy Spirit was about to direct the gospel to much larger scope where Gentiles and Samaritans were now to be welcomed into the fold rather than shunned as ‘unclean’. The vision had NO implication to the biblical food laws as is often suggested.

Gal 2:7-8
7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
8 (For He That wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles (KJV)

Paul's explanation of how... he meant the 7th verse is given in the 8th verse with that "apostleship" idea.

In the Greek it means a 'commission'. And what kind of commission was that? A commission in The One Gospel of Jesus Christ, not a commission with more than one Gospel.

Paul especially had a 'commission' from Christ to take the same Gospel to the Gentiles, as Peter was given a commission to take that same Gospel to the Israelites. But BOTH actually preached to both Israelites and Gentiles at the same time per Acts.

The seventh verse says what it says and unequivocally speaks of two gospels. It’s important that we avoid the temptation to redefine the meaning of seemingly contrary verses to conform to our personal beliefs.

And in light of the First Ecumenical council’s decree in Acts 15:29 & Acts 21:25 there’s a clear distinction between which laws that Gentile believers should follow (which were markedly less stringent) than what was readily practiced in the Church in Jerusalem.
“Commission” or “Apostleship” simply means set apart and sent forth and Paul is merely stating that both he and Peter were evidently commissioned by the same Holy Spirit but unto different audiences. Paul unto the uncircumcised and Peter to the circumcision. The vast difference of the audiences demanded some secondary differences in doctrine though the main message of salvation through Christ’s redemptive sacrifice remained identical.

That's what the whole argument with Richard Burger has been about, because the Hyper-Dispensationalist doctrine of men he holds on to is about the false idea that there can be more than one Gospel of Jesus Christ. And because of that idea, Hyper-Dispensationalists are wrongly taught that ONLY Scripture from Paul addressed to Gentiles is for Gentiles, while all OTHER Scripture in God's Word is only for Israel, and of no importance to Gentiles. .

Since I’m a newcomer to this forum I can’t rightly comment on RichardBurger’s beliefs and I’d prefer to hear it directly from him rather than from a second hand source. However, if Hyper-Dispensationalism is defined as you state and is exactly what he espouses I would definitely challenge that as a false doctrine.

Having said that, I do believe that those that consider themselves Christian Israelites are held to a higher standard regarding the Law than Gentile believers. Though it would be foolhardy for anyone to completely dismiss 2/3 of the NT (Paul’s writings) simply because they were primarily written to Gentiles. IMO, from an Israelite Christian perspective, what Paul’s writings require is a keen exercise of spiritual discernment as to what is pertinent rather than wholesale dismissal.

 

[RichardBurger]

“Commission” or “Apostleship” simply means set apart and sent forth and Paul is merely stating that both he and Peter were evidently commissioned by the same Holy Spirit but unto different audiences. Paul unto the uncircumcised and Peter to the circumcision. The vast difference of the audiences demanded some secondary differences in doctrine though the main message of salvation through Christ’s redemptive sacrifice remained identical.

Peter and the elders NEVER talked about salvation through the shed blood of Jesus on the cross. In ever thing they wrote in the first 4 books of the N.T. it was all about accepting Jesus as their Messiah and king. Not one mention of salvation through the shed blood of Jesus.

The 12 were to get Israel to to accept Jesus as their Messiah and king. That was their message "the kingdom at hand" If you disagree then show a scripture in Acts where Peter mentions the shed blood for salvation and salvation by faith in it.

 

[Episkopos]

Peter and the elders NEVER talked about salvation through the shed blood of Jesus on the cross. In ever thing they wrote in the first 4 books of the N.T. it was all about accepting Jesus as their Messiah and king. Not one mention of salvation through the shed blood of Jesus.

The 12 were to get Israel to to accept Jesus as their Messiah and king. That was their message "the kingdom at hand" If you disagree then show a scripture in Acts where Peter mentions the shed blood for salvation and salvation by faith in it.

You are saying that Jesus only died for Gentiles?

 

[Prentis]

1a. It is in the spirit that we overcome by faith. Actions of our flesh count for nothing.

2a. According to scripture the flesh is already condemned to die because of sin. Our flesh has no power to save us.

3a. Those are your words, not mine. God has never reversed the fall. The power of God is shown on the cross and it is His power that saves us, not our power.

4a. Basically what I am saying is that it is our spirit that has been born of the Holy Spirit, not our flesh. -- God works through His children to bring forth other children of God, not to make them self-righteous in the flesh as you claim. -- What you are saying is rubbish.

Galatians 3:3
3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?
NKJV

Galatians 2:20-21
20 I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.
21 I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain."
NKJV

Colossians 2:20-23
20 Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations —
21 "Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,"
22 which all concern things which perish with the using — according to the commandments and doctrines of men?
23 These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.
NKJV

In other words, we have this new creation, Christ in us, and by this we are saved, simply on the merits of having it, but it bears no power or anything of the like to make us overcome?

 

[Episkopos]

Sweeping sins under a carpet does not change the situation...it merely masks it. Those who believe in this form of justification are really only wearing a mask...like an actor. The exterior appears clean before men...but inside are all manner of vices and sins.

Of course this is diametrically opposed to the message of Christ.

Luther went too far with his idea of a dunghill (us) that is covered with a fresh sprinkling of snow that "justifies" (hides) what is really there.

We are not merely to look as white as snow...be BE as white as snow.

 

[jiggyfly]

Sweeping sins under a carpet does not change the situation...it merely masks it. Those who believe in this form of justification are really only wearing a mask...like an actor. The exterior appears clean before men...but inside are all manner of vices and sins.

Of course this is diametrically opposed to the message of Christ.

Luther went too far with his idea of a dunghill (us) that is covered with a fresh sprinkling of snow that "justifies" (hides) what is really there.

We are not merely to look as white as snow...be BE as white as snow.

Where does the snow come from?

 

[Episkopos]

Where does the snow come from?

Bits of dust that are frozen in the cooler temperatures.

If we are to be tried by fire then what is under the snow will be made manifest at judgment. There is no fooling God.

 

[James Forthwright]

Peter and the elders NEVER talked about salvation through the shed blood of Jesus on the cross. In ever thing they wrote in the first 4 books of the N.T. it was all about accepting Jesus as their Messiah and king. Not one mention of salvation through the shed blood of Jesus.

What a load of hog-wash!

First of all, we are called to follow Jesus' testimony above any of man's words including the words of the Apostles and elders (or the musings of Mr. Burger). Christ's own words bear record of the importance of His own shed blood for salvation and remission of sin. (Matt. 267:28, Mark 14:24, Luke 22:20, John 6:53-56)

The 12 were to get Israel to to accept Jesus as their Messiah and king. That was their message "the kingdom at hand" If you disagree then show a scripture in Acts where Peter mentions the shed blood for salvation and salvation by faith in it.

Why must everything of substance be mentioned in the book of Acts? Peter certainly mentions the blood of Christ in his first epistle. (1Pet. 1:2, 1Pet. 1:19). Likewise, the apostle John (1Jn 1:7, 1Jn 5:8, Rev. 1:5, Rev. 7:14, Rev. 12:11) The writer of Hebrews (Luke?) (Heb 12:24, Heb. 13:12, Heb. 13:20)

The Apostle Paul also makes multiple references of the power of the Blood of Christ unto salvation. (Acts 20:28, Rom. 3:25, Rom. 5:9, 1Cor. 10:16, 1Cor. 11:25)

The phrase "accept Jesus as your Lord and personal Savior" or "ask Jesus into your heart" has always rankled me. Those phrases don't appear anywhere in the scriptures, makes no mention of the need for repentance and baptism, and subtly makes it seem that we are somehow doing Jesus a favor by acknowledging His ultimate sacrifice for us. That's mighty big of you to "accept Jesus" into your life. He must be very grateful to you! (sarcasm)

 

[RichardBurger]

You are saying that Jesus only died for Gentiles?

Let me make it clear that Jesus Christ, by His own words, did not come to minister to the Gentiles, nor was His message "the kingdom gospel" sent to the Gentiles. He did not offer the "kingdom of heaven" TO the Gentiles. The following scriptures support my view.

Matt 10:5-7 (NKJ)
5 These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: "Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans.
6 "But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
7 "And as you go, preach, saying, 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand.'

Matt 15:23-24 (NKJ)
23 But He answered her not a word. And His disciples came and urged Him, saying, "Send her away, for she cries out after us."
24 But He answered and said, "I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

Paul said: Rom 15:8 (NKJ)
8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:
Note that in Matt 10:5-7 and Matt 15:23-24 Jesus said He did not come EXCEPT to the house of Israel. Jesus came to confirm/fulfill all that was written of Him in the O.T. His mission was to the Jews, not to the Gentiles. This is what Paul meant in Rom 15:8.

Acts 1:5-7
5 for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now."
6 Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, "Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?"
7 And He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority.
NKJV

It is clear to me that up until about 40 years after Jesus' death the Jews could have believed that Jeusu was their Messiah and King anf Jesus would have returned and set up His rule on the earth. But because of unbelief He did not. He turned from the Jewish program under law and and sent Paul with a message of grace.

IMPORTANT NOTE: -- This is not to say that God did not have another purpose for Jesus' death on the cross. But that purpose was “hidden in God” and revealed to Paul on the road to Damascus by Jesus. (Eph 3:9)

(The scriptures that men say they believe clearly state this but many refuse to believe that the message given to Paul """"WAS HIDDEN IN GOD AND REVEALED TO HIM.""" Instead they rationalize, interpret the scriptures to make Paul a liar.

NO! I am not saying Jesus only died for the Gentiles. His shed blood is available to all, Jew and Gentile, that will place their belief, faith, trust and confidence in God's (Jesus') work on the cross; His shed blood that pays for all the sins of mankind but is only applied if a person, Jew or Gentile, actually believe it does.

In other words, we have this new creation, Christ in us, and by this we are saved, simply on the merits of having it, but it bears no power or anything of the like to make us overcome?

As I have stated before, sinful man can not overcome by his/her works. The children of God overcome by placing their faith in the work of God on the cross.

 

[RichardBurger]

First of all, we are called to follow Jesus' testimony above any of man's words including the words of the Apostles and elders (or the musings of Mr. Burger). Christ's own words bear record of the importance of His own shed blood for salvation and remission of sin. (Matt. 267:28, Mark 14:24, Luke 22:20, John 6:53-56)

Well I suppose we all have to tear out all that was written by Paul. Okay since you wish to imply what I say as musing, tell me this, did Jesus ever reciend the Law of Moses? And while you are at it did Peter in the book of Act ever reciend the Law of Moses? ---- Matthew 23:1-3
23 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples,
2 saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat.
3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.
NKJV
It is clear to me that Jesus is telling them that they are still under tyheLaw of Moses and I defy you to find anyplace Jesus reciended the Law of Moses.

Why must everything of substance be mentioned in the book of Acts? Peter certainly mentions the blood of Christ in his first epistle. (1Pet. 1:2, 1Pet. 1:19). Likewise, the apostle John (1Jn 1:7, 1Jn 5:8, Rev. 1:5, Rev. 7:14, Rev. 12:11) The writer of Hebrews (Luke?) (Heb 12:24, Heb. 13:12, Heb. 13:20)

Because the book of Acts is a transistional book, from the law and the Jewish covenant to the gospel of grace.

The Apostle Paul also makes multiple references of the power of the Blood of Christ unto salvation. (Acts 20:28, Rom. 3:25, Rom. 5:9, 1Cor. 10:16, 1Cor. 11:25)

Your not listening are you. I never said to look in Paul's writings did I. Of course Paul writes about about the shed blood. That is mostly all he writes about.

The fact that 1st John and 1st Peter write about the blood is because it is many years after Paul started precahing the gospel of grace, about AD 67.

However let us look at what James wrote and see if he is preaching the shed blood of Jesus for salvation.

1. The word “Law” is found in 18 places
2. The word “grace” is found in 2 places
3. The word “Christ” is found in 2 places
4. The word “Justified” is found in 2 place with the words “by works” after them
5. The words “by faith” is found 1 time (justified by works and not by faith only)
6. The word “cross” is not found
7. The word “reconciled” is not found
8. The word “sanctified” is not found
9. The word “saved” is not found
10. The words “in Christ” are not found
11. The shed blood of Jesus on the cross is not mentioned.

 

[Episkopos]

Let me make it clear that Jesus Christ, by His own words, did not come to minister to the Gentiles, nor was His message "the kingdom gospel" sent to the Gentiles. He did not offer the "kingdom of heaven" TO the Gentiles. The following scriptures support my view.

Matt 10:5-7 (NKJ)
5 These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: "Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans.
6 "But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
7 "And as you go, preach, saying, 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand.'

Matt 15:23-24 (NKJ)
23 But He answered her not a word. And His disciples came and urged Him, saying, "Send her away, for she cries out after us."
24 But He answered and said, "I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

Paul said: Rom 15:8 (NKJ)
8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:
Note that in Matt 10:5-7 and Matt 15:23-24 Jesus said He did not come EXCEPT to the house of Israel. Jesus came to confirm/fulfill all that was written of Him in the O.T. His mission was to the Jews, not to the Gentiles. This is what Paul meant in Rom 15:8.

Acts 1:5-7
5 for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now."
6 Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, "Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?"
7 And He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority.
NKJV

Jesus Christ fulfilled the promise of visitation to the people of Jerusalem. Jesus paid His vows in the flesh to His people according to the flesh. To the Jew FIRST and then the Gentile....not...To the Jew and NOT the Gentile.

So Jesus called out the Jews first. It is like the parable of the wedding feast. First the friends are invited, when they do not attend, THEN they go into the highways and byways. That is the order of things. Jesus came firstly to seek the lost sheep of His own flock...then the continuation is to the nations because the children of the kingdom did not respond.

It is not a different gospel, but rather an order of calling...to the Jew first but ALSO the Gentile. So we have a place with the original children of God at the table.

It is clear to me that up until about 40 years after Jesus' death the Jews could have believed that Jeusu was their Messiah and King anf Jesus would have returned and set up His rule on the earth. But because of unbelief He did not. He turned from the Jewish program under law and and sent Paul with a message of grace.


IMPORTANT NOTE: -- This is not to say that God did not have another purpose for Jesus' death on the cross. But that purpose was “hidden in God” and revealed to Paul on the road to Damascus by Jesus. (Eph 3:9)

(The scriptures that men say they believe clearly state this but many refuse to believe that the message given to Paul """"WAS HIDDEN IN GOD AND REVEALED TO HIM.""" Instead they rationalize, interpret the scriptures to make Paul a liar.

NO! I am not saying Jesus only died for the Gentiles. His shed blood is available to all, Jew and Gentile, that will place their belief, faith, trust and confidence in God's (Jesus') work on the cross; His shed blood that pays for all the sins of mankind but is only applied if a person, Jew or Gentile, actually believe it does.

One can only speculate as to the outcome of the entire nation of Judea turning to Christ. We see that those who would have made Jesus king according to the present conditions were rebuffed by Jesus. He refused to be made the king of a temporal power. His kingdom is not of this world...period!