TWO GOSPELS
- Thread starter Doug
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
All Christians are looking for the earthly Kingdom of God to come! However, the Kingdom of God we look for shall not come to this earth that is destined to destruction, rather we look for the Kingdom of God that shall be after this first heaven and earth have passed away, then the Kingdom of God shall be on the New Earth and shall be FOREVER!
Rather than replacement theology, I believe the Bible teaches Inclusive Theology where there is neither Jew nor Gentile because the two have become ONE people in Christ. No longer known according to race, but according to having a new heart and new spirit through the Spirit of Christ in us.
The Bible tells us that Christ ushered in the New Covenant through His blood when He came to earth a man. If you're still waiting for the New Covenant through the blood of Christ to come when Christ comes again, I really don't know how I can help you! If the New Covenant through the blood of Christ has not already come to mankind, why does the Bible tell us the way to both know and enter the Kingdom of God "Ye must be born again". If the New Covenant did not come through the blood of Christ, why do we need to be born again to enter the Kingdom of God? Because Christ says that evidence that the Kingdom of God has come was by Him casting out demons. If Christ did not usher in the New Covenant through His blood, we wouldn't be told how to enter into the Kingdom of God by being born again, we would be told to covert to Judaism and obey the Levitical Laws! Which of course have all been abolished through Christ's atoning blood, and resurrecting from the dead.
Hebrews 8:6-13 (KJV) But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
Hebrews 12:24 (KJV) And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.
Hebrews 13:20-21 (KJV) Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
Ephesians 2:14-18 (KJV) For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
Hebrews 10:19-22 (KJV) Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; And having an high priest over the house of God; Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.
BeforeThereWas
Active Member
I'm not looking forward to it because we of the body of Christ will not inhabit that Kingdom. We will be in Heavenly places, as it is written, where our treasures will be.
I'm Israeli, and I'm still not looking for that Kingdom since I know we won't be in that Kingdom on this earth or the one to come.
BTW
BeforeThereWas
Active Member
BeforeThereWas
Active Member
BeforeThereWas
Active Member
The ramifications remain a mystery to so many:
Matthew 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
It's amazing how ignored this remain to this day. Replacement theology, in its many manifestations, makes it VERY easy to ignore this verse and many others that point to the side of the middle wall of partition wherein ALONE was the means for salvation for Gentiles, who were on the OTHER side of that wall.
Remember this?
Ephesians 2:12 That at that time ye [GENTILES] were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
Replacement theology followers ignore this as well. It's easy to do when ignoring the many, many declarations and meaning throughout pointing to the failed priesthood of Israel to remain the portal through which Gentiles had to enter to be saved and partake of the blessings and promises made to Abraham.
Get a clue here...the first Jews originated FROM the world of Gentiles. A small segment of the Gentile world BECAME the nation of Jews, with Israel having been God's chosen nation of priests to the world, but who failed miserably age after age after age, falling into idolatry and adultery with other nations and their false, pagan gods.
It makes perfect sense, then, that Gentiles throughout ancient times had to become Jews to acquire salvation. Replacement theology gangs, however, don't like this fact and prefer it remain shrouded in the mists of generalized ignorance of the Bible and what it teaches in the place of simply reading it for what it actually says. Some like to blame Jews for the crucifixion of Christ regardless of Jesus' prayer to the Father to forgive them given that they knew NOT what they were doing.
1 Corinthians 2:7-8
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8 Which none of the princes [demons] of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
See how telling the scriptures are when reading it all for what it actually says as opposed to the many injections false teaching pastors eisegetically force into the contexts things that aren't there?
This, along with many other texts, show the two distinct gospels, one being works-based by way of water baptism unto the remission of sins along with zealousness for the Law, and the other grace-based without any effort for the remission of sins and without a zeal for the Law.
BTW
Matthew 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
It's amazing how ignored this remain to this day. Replacement theology, in its many manifestations, makes it VERY easy to ignore this verse and many others that point to the side of the middle wall of partition wherein ALONE was the means for salvation for Gentiles, who were on the OTHER side of that wall.
Remember this?
Ephesians 2:12 That at that time ye [GENTILES] were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
Replacement theology followers ignore this as well. It's easy to do when ignoring the many, many declarations and meaning throughout pointing to the failed priesthood of Israel to remain the portal through which Gentiles had to enter to be saved and partake of the blessings and promises made to Abraham.
Get a clue here...the first Jews originated FROM the world of Gentiles. A small segment of the Gentile world BECAME the nation of Jews, with Israel having been God's chosen nation of priests to the world, but who failed miserably age after age after age, falling into idolatry and adultery with other nations and their false, pagan gods.
It makes perfect sense, then, that Gentiles throughout ancient times had to become Jews to acquire salvation. Replacement theology gangs, however, don't like this fact and prefer it remain shrouded in the mists of generalized ignorance of the Bible and what it teaches in the place of simply reading it for what it actually says. Some like to blame Jews for the crucifixion of Christ regardless of Jesus' prayer to the Father to forgive them given that they knew NOT what they were doing.
1 Corinthians 2:7-8
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8 Which none of the princes [demons] of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
See how telling the scriptures are when reading it all for what it actually says as opposed to the many injections false teaching pastors eisegetically force into the contexts things that aren't there?
This, along with many other texts, show the two distinct gospels, one being works-based by way of water baptism unto the remission of sins along with zealousness for the Law, and the other grace-based without any effort for the remission of sins and without a zeal for the Law.
BTW
Christ did not put the new covenant into effect. He died and shed his blood for the new testament NOT the new covenant......................[Heb 9:15-16 KJV] 15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions [that were] under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. 16 For where a testament [is], there must also of necessity be the death of the testator............he redeemed the transgressions Israel committed under the old testament. A testament is not in force til the death of the testator.
We arent told to be born again...................[Jhn 3:7 KJV] 7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.......The natural descendants of Abraham would not enter the earthly kingdom unless they were born again by believing Jesus was their Messiah, the Son of God. Israel is called the firstborn...................[Exo 4:22 KJV] 22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel [is] my son, [even] my firstborn:,,,,,,,,,,,,,Israel was born coming out of Egypt and had to be born again by belief.
The law has not been abolished. We arent under the law in the body of Christ, The law will be kept in the new covenant and the Levitical priesthood will resume in the kingdom Temple
BeforeThereWas
Active Member
As another reinforcement to your statement is this from Paul:
1 Corinthians 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
BTW
The Greek word that is translated as 'testament' by the KJV is diatheke which is translated as 'covenant' 20 times and 'testament' 13 times in the KJV. Most modern translations always use the word covenant, except for Hebrews 9:16,17, where they use 'will' or 'last will and testament' (although literal translations such as the YLT still use covenant). An extract from the long note in Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible on this word is (a dictionary definition of 'compact' is 'a formal agreement between two or more parties, states, etc.'):
Prof. Stuart has, undoubtedly, given the accurate original sense of the word. “The real, genuine, and original meaning of διαθήκη diathēkē (diatheke) is, “arrangement, disposition,” or “disposal” of a thing.” P. 440. The word from which it is derived - διατίθημι diatithēmi - means to place apart or asunder; and then to set, arrange, dispose in a certain order. “Passow.” From this original signification is derived the use which the word has with singular uniformity in the Scriptures. It denotes the “arrangment, disposition,” or “ordering” of things which God made in relation to mankind, by which he designed to keep up his worship on earth, and to save the soul. It means neither covenant nor will; neither compact nor legacy; neither agreement nor testament. It is an “arrangement” of an entirely different order from either of them, and the sacred writers with an uniformity which could have been secured only by the presiding influence of the One Eternal Spirit, have avoided the suggestion that God made with man either a “compact” or a “will.”
We have no word which precisely expresses this idea, and hence, our conceptions are constantly floating between a “compact” and a “will,” and the views which we have are as unsettled as they are unscriptural. The simple idea is, that God has made an “arrangement” by which his worship may be celebrated and souls saved. Under the Jewish economy this arrangement assumed one form; under the Christian another. In neither was it a compact or covenant between two parties in such a sense that one party would be at liberty to reject the terms proposed; in neither was it a testament or will, as if God had left a legacy to man, but in both there were some things in regard to the arrangement such as are found in a covenant or compact. One of those things - equally appropriate to a compact between man and man and to this arrangement, the apostle refers to here - that it implied in all cases the death of the victim.
If these remarks are well-founded, they should be allowed materially to shape our views in the interpretation of the Bible. Whole treatises of divinity have been written on a mistaken view of the meaning of this word - understood as meaning “covenant.” Volumes of angry controversy have been published on the nature of the “covenant” with Adam, and on its influence on his posterity. The only literal “covenant” which can he supposed in the plan of redemption is that between the Father and the Son - though even the existence of such a covenant is rather the result of devout and learned imagining than of any distinct statement in the volume of inspiration. The simple statement there is, that God has made an arrangement for salvation, the execution of which he has entrusted to his Son, and has proposed it to man to be accepted as the only arrangement by which man can be saved, and which he is not at liberty to disregard.
BeforeThereWas
Active Member
When we read Genesis 1 and 2, we read that man was given the herbs and seeds to eat. Then in Genesis 9 we read that man could eat anything that moved upon the earth. Then in Leviticus 11, the Jews are restricted as to what animals the y could eat.
So, yes, same message (in this case, dietary definition) to different people at different times, but the CONTENT ofnthe message in relation to diet had differing elements. To say they all, throughout all time, were under the same message of instruction is to ignore the specifics as to what was relevant in the different time periods and the people involved.
The same goes for the gospels. Christ is the common foundation for both gospels, but water baptism was present in one and absent in the other, which was a crucial element under the Kingdom Gospel. That so many want to ignore that distinction in an attemptmto claim Paul was preaching the same gospel as Peter, that's just untrue and beyond dispute. It ignores the glaring difference, not to mention other sections ofnscripture that make distinctions.
Those who think they can earn their salvation through water baptism, good luck with that. I for one, who knows the integrity of being saved by grace through faith apart from any and all works of our own efforts, THAT is what I will remain faithful. I also will not adopt the fleshly pride of thinking that I can retain my salvation through my own efforts and works. That too is works-based salvation.
Those out there who think they can climb to higher ground by labeling this as "easy-believism," that's nothing but a cop-out of cowards who think that trying to cast a negative light on another's beliefs by slapping on a label with negative connotations, save it. Such people have nothing of value to add to this conversation. There's nothing easy about the battle between the spirit and the flesh. Sanctification as a process for growth is also never an easy process in this world of sin and evil.
BTW
BeforeThereWas
Active Member
Appeals to authority end up being the go-to in these discussions. Suffice it to say that "testament" is indeed a credible and expressive term for what Jesus had been saying for some time that His own disciples could not understand and were afraid to ask. For the new and final redemption of mankind to take effect, He had to die. That speaks of TESTAMENT rather than covenant. Covenants are only binding and lasting when the covenant makers are still alive. We of Israel BORKE the covenant the Lord made with us in our agreement to obey His Law, so there had to come the testament in the Blood of a sinless sacrifice in order to end the daily and yearly reoccourances of animal blood.
So, the word game salad Gentiles love to engage in a presumed assumption for their alleged understanding, that too is common among the academics of language divorced from historic and people-centric elements that add to the richness of understanding for what is being said in the texts. Many a scholar out there invents historic and cultural assumptions on a basis I cannot attest for in any measure. The rabbis under whose tutelage I sat under were adamant about the historic underpinnjngs behind the first century thought processes coupled with the historic lines of demakation before the first century.
Given that, Barnes and crew are representative of nothing more than the jackal mentality steeped in liberlism with letters attached to his their names that have no meaning to us.
BTW
This is part of the New Covenant, per Ezekiel...
"And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. You shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers, and you shall be my people, and I will be your God."
Ezekiel 36:26-28 ESV
The new Spirit that will indwell the Jews is not fulfilled as of today. The Jews do not walk in my statutes today. The Jews do not dwell in the land that the Lord gave to their fathers (they only occupy a small portion of it).
But the Gentiles become beneficiaries of part of the New Covenant, such as the indwelling Spirit. The fulfillment of this prophecy is when the Millennial Reign of Christ becomes a reality. The New Covenant has not been inaugurated yet.
[Heb 9:15 KJV] 15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions [that were] under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
Isnt it interesting that some translate Hebrews 9:16-17 as will or testament, but not v15 which they translate as covenant.
[Mat 26:28 KJV] 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins..................Most versions change testament to covenant. Here Jesus is stating his last will and testament if you will by stating what his blood was determined to accomplish and it is put into effect in Hebrews 9:15 which they change.
The greek word for testament is the same as covenant and is translated based on context. There is a difference between the two. A covenant does not require death, a testament does.
BeforeThereWas
Active Member
Gentiles partake of the blessings as co-heirs with Christ, but Gentiles do not partake of the promises of the Kingdom since that is only valid to Israel and those Gentiles who became/become Jews for their salvation before and after we who are saved by grace through faith. Replacement Theology has many Gentiles going about making all manner of false claims.
BTW
David in NJ
Well-Known Member
SHALOM
and Today, because of the Promised SEED of Avraham has Come, the Script is flipped
HalleluYAH - salvation cannot be attained by the works of the law
for God has considered all, Jew & Gentile, under SIN and therefore "dogs" that are BOTH unworthy of the Glory of God
HalleluYAH = GOSPEL
For God so Loved the world(Jew & Gentile) HE sent His only Begotten SON that whosoever believes will be SAVED = the LAMB that takes away the sins of the world
HalleluYAH = One Body of MESSIAH where the Jew & Gentile are One New Man
Similar threads
