TWO GOSPELS

[BeforeThereWas]

For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Matthew 26:28


Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God, 6 who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. 2 Corinthians 3:5-6

That's an interesting section of scripture, especially as it pertains to that cup the Lord passed to His disciples. Looking at the two terms in question, a covenant versus a testament, they are somewhat related but still distinct concepts. A covenant is a mutual agreement between two living parties, often involving promises and obligations while both parties are still living. A testament is a written declaration, similar to a will, that becomes enforceable AFTER the death of the person who made it. In the context of the Bible and with Christ, the terms are often erroneously used interchangeably, but they have different implications regarding the nature of the agreements and their enforcement.

In the context of Christ and His shed blood, the price for sin wasn't paid until AFTER His death, not before, therefore the atonement not effective until after the death of the Testator. That is the reason the King James stands at odds with modern translations that replace "testament" with "covenant." That switching if terms enforces one of many elements of replacement theology as a modern and evil doctrine.

BTW

 

[Doug]

That's an interesting section of scripture, especially as it pertains to that cup the Lord passed to His disciples. Looking at the two terms in question, a covenant versus a testament, they are somewhat related but still distinct concepts. A covenant is a mutual agreement between two living parties, often involving promises and obligations while both parties are still living. A testament is a written declaration, similar to a will, that becomes enforceable AFTER the death of the person who made it. In the context of the Bible and with Christ, the terms are often erroneously used interchangeably, but they have different implications regarding the nature of the agreements and their enforcement.

In the context of Christ and His shed blood, the price for sin wasn't paid until AFTER His death, not before, therefore the atonement not effective until after the death of the Testator. That is the reason the King James stands at odds with modern translations that replace "testament" with "covenant." That switching if terms enforces one of many elements of replacement theology as a modern and evil doctrine.

BTW

Right
A covenant does not always require death or blood

The relationship between the new testament and the new covenant is that in the new covenant God will forgive national Israel their iniquities. To do so the blood of the new testament was required..........without shedding of blood there is no remission of sin

 

[BeforeThereWas]

Right
A covenant does not always require death or blood

The relationship between the new testament and the new covenant is that in the new covenant God will forgive national Israel their iniquities. To do so the blood of the new testament was required..........without shedding of blood there is no remission of sin

Additionally, covenants end with the death of one or both parties of the covenant unless specifically agreed upon as binding beyond the originator and second party to the succeeding generations of one or both.

BTW

 

[Doug]

Additionally, covenants end with the death of one or both parties of the covenant unless specifically agreed upon as binding beyond the originator and second party to the succeeding generations of one or both.

BTW

Interesting
Is there any scripture for this? Would love to see it if so

 

[BeforeThereWas]

There are those who may disagree with this, but here goes:

Biblical covenants are generally earthly, national, Israel-centered in nature and practice. For reference:

• Abrahamic Covenant – land, nation, blessing (Gen. 12, 15, 17)
• Mosaic Covenant – law, performance-based blessings/curses (Ex. 19–24)
• Davidic Covenant – throne, kingdom, Messiah ruling earth (2 Sam. 7)
• New Covenant – Israel’s future spiritual restoration (Jer. 31:31-34)

A testament generally death-centric, inheritance-based and ratification related. For reference:

A testament (Greek: diathēkē) is:

• A will, inheritance, or instrument of death.
• Put into effect only by the death of a testator (Heb. 9:16–17).

When people claim it was a "covenant," that doesn't fit the narrative because, for example, when the Lord made His covenant with Abraham, it was active from the moment Abraham and the Lord traversed the space between the animal halves.

The "testament" Jesus established in His Blood, it was not yet shed until AFTER He was arrested and His Blood began to flow from the beatings all the way to His death. The ransom price for our sin was not paid until the point of His death when He declared, "It is finished."

So, if we look for a specific verse, there they are, but also reasoning through the actual meaning and the implications of the words we use. Replacement theology Gentiles want it to be a "covenant," which makes it easier for them to make the coming of Christ to also include them regardless of the fact that Jesus clearly stated:

Matthew 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Gentiles were not of Israel except those who joined with Israel and became Jews. If you want to study on that as well, then you can find it here:

Esther 8:17 And in every province, and in every city, whithersoever the king's commandment and his decree came, the Jews had joy and gladness, a feast and a good day. And many of the people of the land became Jews; for the fear of the Jews fell upon them.

...just in case some nay-sayer decides to argue this point in contradiction to the inspired scriptures.

Hope that helps you in your studies.

BTW

 

[JLB]

That switching if terms enforces one of many elements of replacement theology as a modern and evil doctrine.

Replacement Theology is not a valid doctrine. Agreed.


Do you believe the New Covenant in His blood is for Christians?

 

[Doug]

There are those who may disagree with this, but here goes:

Biblical covenants are generally earthly, national, Israel-centered in nature and practice. For reference:

• Abrahamic Covenant – land, nation, blessing (Gen. 12, 15, 17)
• Mosaic Covenant – law, performance-based blessings/curses (Ex. 19–24)
• Davidic Covenant – throne, kingdom, Messiah ruling earth (2 Sam. 7)
• New Covenant – Israel’s future spiritual restoration (Jer. 31:31-34)

A testament generally death-centric, inheritance-based and ratification related. For reference:

A testament (Greek: diathēkē) is:

• A will, inheritance, or instrument of death.
• Put into effect only by the death of a testator (Heb. 9:16–17).

When people claim it was a "covenant," that doesn't fit the narrative because, for example, when the Lord made His covenant with Abraham, it was active from the moment Abraham and the Lord traversed the space between the animal halves.

The "testament" Jesus established in His Blood, it was not yet shed until AFTER He was arrested and His Blood began to flow from the beatings all the way to His death. The ransom price for our sin was not paid until the point of His death when He declared, "It is finished."

So, if we look for a specific verse, there they are, but also reasoning through the actual meaning and the implications of the words we use. Replacement theology Gentiles want it to be a "covenant," which makes it easier for them to make the coming of Christ to also include them regardless of the fact that Jesus clearly stated:

Matthew 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Gentiles were not of Israel except those who joined with Israel and became Jews. If you want to study on that as well, then you can find it here:

Esther 8:17 And in every province, and in every city, whithersoever the king's commandment and his decree came, the Jews had joy and gladness, a feast and a good day. And many of the people of the land became Jews; for the fear of the Jews fell upon them.

...just in case some nay-sayer decides to argue this point in contradiction to the inspired scriptures.

Hope that helps you in your studies.

BTW

Thanks

 

[BeforeThereWas]

Replacement Theology is not a valid doctrine. Agreed.


Do you believe the New Covenant in His blood is for Christians?

As I had stated before, what Jesus passed on wasn't a covenant. The newer translation panels seem to have had an axe to grind. As stated in post #85, calling it a "covenant" is only an inroad for replacement theology, which ignores the fact that, until Acts 9 and beyond, Gentiles had to join with Israel for salvation and gaining access to the blessing and promises of Abraham.

The question is, do you agree with post #85 or do you have reason to disagree?

For those translation panels to claim translation as "covenant" in what Jesus passed on, that's as erroneous as to have translated the agreement made with Abraham a "testament," meaning that the promises made would not be active until after Abraham's death and only on that basis. Do you see the problem? The Lord is the One who made the covenant with Abraham that extended out beyond Abraham's own earthly life, but it was made with a man still living. Testament is the basis for what Jesus passed on to Israel on the basis of His death, not in spite of it. Does that make sense?

Bottom line for what I'm saying is that what Jesus passed on, it was a testament because it was based ONLY upon His death and what that death was to accomplish from that death, onward, just as a relative having written a will that was only executable after the death of the testator as the purpose for the statement.

BTW

 

[BeforeThereWas]

Galatians 1:11-12
11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Given that Paul persecuted the believing Jews on the basis of what he learned from men, which was the Kingdom Gospel, this section of scripture makes it abundantly clear that Paul's Gospel of Grace was not a continuation of Peter's works-based gospel of the Kingdom.

If Paul was preaching among the Gentiles precisely what Peter and James were preaching to the Jews, we may as well cast our Bible into the trash.

MM

 

[BeforeThereWas]

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Compare:

1 Corinthians 15:2-4
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

That some out there claim these are precisely the same...oh, wow!

Acts 16:30-31
30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Saved...when? At the point of believing upon Christ Jesus is what Paul said, no matter what transpired later, this is what Paul and his fellows said to the Philippian jailer. No command to be water baptized nor DO anything else. Just faith, which is NOT what Pater and the other eleven preached to Israel.

To WHOM did Jesus send the twelve?

Matthew 10:6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Not the Gentiles, but to Israel given that their gospel was not the same as what had to be delivered to Gentiles AFTER salvation had come directly to Gentiles.

To WHOM did Jesus come?

Matthew 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Israel alone was the nation of priests, not Gentiles...not yet at the time when that was spoken.

Romans 11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

Given that salvation CAME unto the Gentiles what obviously wasn't available to them before apart from joining with Israel, it CAME unto Gentiles after the fall of Israel to provoke Israel to Jealousy.

BTW

 

[BeforeThereWas]

This was addressed to Israel, and Israel alone from Jesus Himself, keeping in mind that ALL of scripture is inspired by this same Lord and Christ:

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Keeping in mind what Jesus said:

Matthew 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Paul preached no requirement for water baptism, and yet there are those who claim Paul preached the same gospel for salvation while having not one verse to point at without corrupting the text with their injections, misrepresentations and corruptions of the texts; misrepresentations such as claiming that since Paul DID baptize and SMALL number of people, he never commanded that work as a requirement for salvation. Later, Paul even stated:

1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

This shatters the claim that the baptism spoken of prior was only a spiritual baptism. That renders Paul's words here as making no sense given that Paul COULD NOT be talking about spiritual baptism, so all the false claims about meaning and key objects within the contexts addressed here, simply read scripture yourself for what is actually says, and those people's claims out there who are works-based salvationists, you will see them for what they are...people who believe what they WANT to believe regardless of what scripture teaches to the astute reader and learner of what scripture states in the clarity of its language.

BTW

 

[DJT_47]

Lets start with Jesus and the twelve. During Christ's earthly ministry he built his church..........[Matthew 16:18 KJV] 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it............Christ brought people into the church by preaching his gospel. Christ's gospel was to repent because the prophetic Davidic kingdom was at hand........[Matthew 4:23 KJV] 23 And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people.............This gospel of the kingdom was the only gospel Jesus preached, and this is the gospel he sent the twelve to preach..........[Luke 9:1-2, 6 KJV] 1 Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases. 2 And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick 6 And they departed, and went through the towns, preaching the gospel, and healing every where.

In the gospels the apostles preached to believe on the name of Christ. They had to believe Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God............[John 1:12 KJV] 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:
[John 3:18 KJV] 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
[John 20:31 KJV] 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

After the ascension of Christ, Peter and the apostles preached to believe on his name.........[Acts 3:16 KJV] 16 And his name through faith in his name hath made this man strong, whom ye see and know: yea, the faith which is by him hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all.
[Acts 4:12 KJV] 12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
[Acts 8:12 KJV] 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.

After Jesus's ascension Peter preached the water baptism of John for the forgiveness of sins, plus receiving the Holy Ghost................ [Acts 2:38 KJV] 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost..............this is the gospel of the circumcision...............[Galatians 2:7 KJV] 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;..............Paul preached a different gospel, the gospel of the uncircumcision.

Paul did not preach the gospel of the kingdom. Paul preached more than the name of Jesus. Paul preached all that the cross accomplished.

This is the gospel Paul preached............[1Corinthians 15:1, 3-4 KJV] 1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:............This is the gospel we are to believe.

These are the elements of Paul's gospel............[Romans 3:24-26 KJV] 24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25 Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 26 To declare, [I say], at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
[Romans 4:22-25 KJV] 22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. 23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; 24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; 25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.
[Ephesians 1:7 KJV] 7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
[1Corinthians 1:21 KJV] 21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
[Titus 3:7 KJV] 7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

Romans 15:18-19

18For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed, 19Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.

How many gospels? Pretty clear there is only one.

 

[BeforeThereWas]

Romans 15:18-19

18For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed, 19Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.

How many gospels? Pretty clear there is only one.

Then please explain Galatians 1: 11-12 and how that doesn't show TWO. Paul persecuted believing Jews on the basis of the Kingdom Gospel, and then preached the Gospel of Grace, which he had not learned from men as he had the Gospel of the Kingdom, preaching the grace gospel to Gentiles. How do you figure they're one and the same, especially given that Peter's gospel of the kingdom in Acts 2:38 differs from Paul's gospel in 1 Cor. 15: 1-4? It's impossible to honestly come to that conclusion you made.

BTW

 

[rvmb]

Christ was and is indeed the foundation of both gospels, but the two gospels (one preached by Peter and the other by Paul) are not one and the same in every respect. THAT is what I've been saying.

BTW

HOORAY and that is supported by ALL the early Bibles Gal 2:7-9 :-
Peter- Gospel OF the circ to the circ
Paul - Gospel OF the UNcirc to the UNcirc.
It's plain simple English that the later Bibles chose to change OF to TO thereby implying the same Gospel but to 2 different audiences.
KJV

Peshitta

Even the OLD Catholic Bibles wrote the same :-
Duoay Rheims

Vulgate

Other Old Bibles

 

[BeforeThereWas]

HOORAY and that is supported by ALL the early Bibles Gal 2:7-9 :-
Peter- Gospel OF the circ to the circ
Paul - Gospel OF the UNcirc to the UNcirc.
It's plain simple English that the later Bibles chose to change OF to TO thereby implying the same Gospel but to 2 different audiences.
KJV
View attachment 74962
Peshitta
View attachment 74963
Even the OLD Catholic Bibles wrote the same :-
Duoay Rheims
View attachment 74964
Vulgate
View attachment 74965
Other Old Bibles
View attachment 74966

Generally speaking, there are some out there who think that they can foist upon that reference in Galatians 2 the idea that the language is addressing ONLY two groupings of people rather than pointing toward two different gospels.

There's no end to how dishonest some will be with their handling of the texts. When they give direction to their kids and/or subordinates, they must observe confusion on a daily basis for their wording...

BTW

 

[Doug]

Romans 15:18-19

18For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed, 19Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.

How many gospels? Pretty clear there is only one.

Ther is only one now and it's Paul's gospel of Christ, but Peter and the apostles didnt preach it. They preached the gospel of the kingdom and to only believe the name of Jesus

 

[rvmb]

Generally speaking, there are some out there who think that they can foist upon that reference in Galatians 2 the idea that the language is addressing ONLY two groupings of people rather than pointing toward two different gospels.

There's no end to how dishonest some will be with their handling of the texts. When they give direction to their kids and/or subordinates, they must observe confusion on a daily basis for their wording...

BTW

Gal 2:7
Paul Gospel OF UNcirc, Peter Gospel OF circ.
If disagree then please list ANY pre 1700 Bible that writes Gal 2:7 Gospel >>TO<< instead of >>OF<<.

 

[DJT_47]

Ther is only one now and it's Paul's gospel of Christ, but Peter and the apostles didnt preach it. They preached the gospel of the kingdom and to only believe the name of Jesus

The one and only gospel saves as was preached by Philip to the Ethiopian eunuch.

Ther is only one now and it's Paul's gospel of Christ, but Peter and the apostles didnt preach it. They preached the gospel of the kingdom and to only believe the name of Jesus

Notice the words in Paul's Romans 15 statement, and also note that there are no idle or insignificant words used in scripture; even the very smallest of words you'd generally consider to be insignificant are to the contrary, very significant and uniquely chosen. Paul's words in Romans 15 says "THE gospel of Christ", not 'a' gospel of Christ. If there were more than one, which there isn't, the word used would be 'a' and not "the", 'a' inferring more than one and "the" meaning a very specific ONE gospel.

 

[rvmb]

""The one and only gospel saves as was preached by Philip to the Ethiopian eunuch.""
""Paul's words in Romans 15 says "THE gospel of Christ"""
Was that Eph 1:13, 1 Cor 15:1-4 ?

 

[rvmb]

Ther is only one now and it's Paul's gospel of Christ, but Peter and the apostles didnt preach it. They preached the gospel of the kingdom and to only believe the name of Jesus

Yes, KJV Gal 2:7-9 confirms it :)
Paul - Gospel OF the UNcirc to the heathen/gentiles >> Eph 1:13, 1 Cor 15:1-4
Peter - Gospel OF the circ to the circ>>>>>>>>>>>>>Acts 2:38-45