JESUS AND THE TWELVE PREACHED A DIFFERENT GOSPEL
- 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!
(my emboldening)
But you believe that Jesus and the apostles spoke only to Israel. So nothing they said or preached apply to us.
When he was speaking of his death he was preaching.
"the mystery of the cross that would justify all freely"
Are you suggesting universalism?
And you have not yet replied to posts #47 & #48
I was referring to asking you what kingdom Jesus was preaching in my statement.
What kingdom was being preached in the verse below:
Matthew 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Romans 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
Ephesians 3:5 says it was revealed by the Spirit.
There is no verse I know of that says it was first revealed to Paul only that the mystery was revealed to him by Christ.
Jesus preached the Davidic kingdom on earth, the earthly aspect of the kingdom of God.
Paul preached the heavenly kingdom aspect of the kingdom of God (2 Timothy 4:18).
What God revealed to Adam and Eve was what they needed to know to make right... or wrong choices for them. What God has reveal or will reveal to us is what we need to know to make right or wrong choices for us. Ultimately are these different?
I've of course heard of these supposed dispensations before and know that on this forum and others it is not an uncommon subject about which people discuss and argue. I wonder how edifying those discussions and arguments are? [Rhetorical question.] What does any person today need to know or to do or to believe in order to move closer to God? What is God's purpose in this respect for each of us?
I am not sure we need to know exactly what was required of people living in other periods of time besides our own time... except insofar as it impacts us now. If I had been a follower of Moses in the wilderness it should have been important for me to know how to act or react so as to please or to approach God or simply to love Him. How would the answer to that for them differ from the answer to the same question about us today? Since I did not live then, but my time is now, my concern with that period would more likely involved in the prophecy and in types of shadows applicable to me and/or other people now.
As for there being more than one good news [gospel] today, is there? If you saying there is a different good news [gospel] for each dispensation of time, presuming that there are such things as dispensations in the eyes of God? Why should I be concerned? If our heart is right and we are seeking His face with all that we have and are following the leading of the Holy Spirit, where would we go wrong? Is God not fair and just? Has God ever changed?
Last edited:
shnarkle
Well-Known Member
- Nov 10, 2013
- 1,689
- 569
- 113
- Faith
- Other Faith
- Country
- United States
I agree with your first two posts, but I would like to know why you think Paul's gospel is different than what Christ and his disciples taught. What I mean is do you think they're contradictory or in conflict?
shnarkle
Well-Known Member
- Nov 10, 2013
- 1,689
- 569
- 113
- Faith
- Other Faith
- Country
- United States
Here's what John's account reveals:
"And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself.” Jn.12:32
Now an argument could be made that John wrote his gospel narrative after Paul, but I'm not so sure this is convincing unless we're going to admit that it isn't inspired truth. Paul's revelation isn't that Christ would reconcile humanity to himself, it wasn't that the gentile world would receive joint blessings either. It was that the gentile would be joint heirs which would have given Israel a just cause to reject the messiah. It couldn't be revealed until after they had rejected the gospel.
Right.
So it was revealed to both the apostles and to Paul.
So why are you pitting Paul against the apostles?
Davy
Well-Known Member
Your claim in the thread title is not a realistic claim. If you're not seeing what our Lord Jesus preached and what His Apostles preached as the same... Gospel, then it is because you are not understanding what all is contained in The Gospel of Jesus Christ, and/or instead have allowed men's leaven to creep in.
God's promise to David about one sitting on his throne unto all generations is a mystery. David's throne is still manifested here on earth today, but not in Jerusalem, and it is established in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, literally not just spiritually. If you're not aware of that it means you haven't yet understood about God's Birthright promises that began with Abraham, and continued to Ephraim and Manasseh, whom it still continues among today:
1 Chron 5:1-2
5:1 Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel, (for he was the firstborn; but, forasmuch as he defiled his father's bed, his birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph the son of Israel: and the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright.
2 For Judah prevailed above his brethren, and of him came the chief ruler; but the birthright was Joseph's
KJV
Genesis 49:10 is another Scripture proof that David's throne is still manifested here on earth with one of the house of David sitting upon it, which is to continue like that until Jesus returns (rendered as "Shiloh" there).
Our Lord Jesus in Matthew 21 revealed the kingdom would be taken from the unbelieving Jews in Jerusalem and instead given to a "nation" that would bring forth the fruits of the vineyard. Those fruits represent the spread of The Gospel and those who would believe, of both Israelite and Gentile, and they would become one body under Christ Jesus.
And that reign over nations has historically been true with what peoples after God ended David's throne in Jerusalem back in Jeremiah's day? With the western Christian nations under The Gospel. This has been true historically especially at the height of colonial rule by the western Christian nations. The Christian west are financially bailing out poorer nations still, lending them monies. Can't apply this to the Jews either, for the state of Israel in the middle east no longer existed when this happened since the Romans destroyed it in 70 A.D. The Christian nations were instrumental in helping the Jews to re-establish their nation state of Israel in the middle east in 1947.
Not just the believing remnant of Israel will possess the kingdom but also the believing Gentiles, together 'with' Israel. Christ's Church is made up of both, together, as one body. Both inherit together.
John Nelson Darby with his Dispensationalism was instrumental in hiding this, since he falsely taught that at Christ's return Israel is a separate restored kingdom on earth while Jesus and His Church reign from Heaven. Darby and et al, created that idea to help drum up support for the Pre-trib Rapture theory.
That is not the proper interpretation of what Jesus said. When He said He was not sent 'but' unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel, He was pointing to the ten scattered tribes of the "house of Israel" that were not... even present in the holy land at His 1st coming. Your interpretation doesn't even recognize the Bible history about God's split of the old kingdom of Israel after Solomon's days (see 1 Kings 11 thru 2 Kings 17). After that happened only the ten northern tribes of Israel were known as the "house of Israel". The southern kingdom of Judah was known as the "house of Judah" (Jews). Not long after that split, which was long before Jesus' 1st coming and Ministry on earth, the majority of the ten tribes were still scattered beyond Euphrates.
So what did our Lord Jesus really mean with that Matthew 15:24 prophecy? Easy. He, meaning The Gospel, was actually sent to the scattered ten lost tribes, i.e., the "house of Israel" that was scattered among the Gentiles, and they along with the Gentiles would believe. Did this literally happen after the majority of Jews in Judea rejected Jesus? You bet it did! The nations where Christ's disciples preached The Gospel after His death and resurrection began to put away their idols and became the Christian nations of history! And it was a miraculous transformation. So by the idea of His being 'sent', it pointed to the receiving of The Gospel. Since Apostle Paul in Romans 11 showed God had blinded the Jews in Jerusalem so The Gospel would go to the Gentiles, it is the same kind of idea. Thus The Gospel had to be preached first at Jerusalem, but God's Plan wasn't that they would be the main ones ordained to receive it.
Thus our Lord Jesus was actually confirming The Gospel going to the nations.
So didn't this happen when the lost sheep of the house of Israel received Christ Jesus along with Gentiles they were scattered among? Yes, it did. So to treat believing Israel as a separate body from Christ's Church is un-Biblical. Christ's future Kingdom on earth is about His Church. The deceived like Darby, Scofield, et al, on the Pre-trib Rapture are confused about this and teach against written Scripture.
(Cont.)
Davy
Well-Known Member
That Acts 2:29-36 Scripture is too often misunderstood. David's throne is an earthly throne, not one in Heaven today. Our Lord Jesus at present is sitting on the right hand of The Father's throne, still expecting, until all His enemies are made his footstool. The Acts 2:34-35 verses directly reveal this, but a lot of country preachers often take a couple of verses and don't continue far enough in a chapter, often teaching misleading doctrines instead.
Acts 2:29-35
29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.
30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that His soul was not left in hell, neither His flesh did see corruption.
God promised David there would never fail a man to sit upon his throne (1 Kings 8:25). That throne, an earthly throne, is promised to our Lord Jesus Christ. Until Jesus returns, He is not sitting upon that throne yet. It is wrong to say He already is, which is how some wrongly teach this Acts 2 passage. Again, prophecy like Genesis 49:10 reveals one of the seed of Judah is to maintain David's throne on earth all the way up to Christ's return. That is when Jesus will literally take David's earthly throne, reigning here on earth with His elect.
32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, He hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, 'Sit Thou on My right hand,
35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool."
KJV
The key to the 'when' of Jesus taking David's earthly throne to reign is with that idea in red. Our Lord Jesus is waiting on the right hand of The Father until His enemies are made His footstool, and then He will sit upon David's throne. This event of taking David's throne on earth is also hinted at in Matthew 25 about the time of Christ's return when He separates the goats from His sheep.
There is NO separation between the idea of the 'kingdom' and the Gospel preached to Gentiles. Apostle Paul preached the 'kingdom' to Gentiles also, so all you're doing here is pushing men's leaven of Dispensationalist's false two-gospel theory, a false theory that has created men's leaven called Hyper-Dispensationalism. E.W. Bullinger was an excellent Bible scholar, but he succumbed to Darby's false Pre-trib Rapture theories and Darby's ideas of Dispensationalism. Bullinger took it farther and separated the one Gospel in two, which is a false idea no matter how scholarly educated one is.
As far as to whether we should be concerned as to dispensations or other gospels:
I think it would be fair to say past dispensations reveals the gospel of God, the progressive revelation of his purpose and plan for our redemption which was preached by Paul as well. God felt it was important to place it in scripture for our learning 2 Timothy 3:16. As to whether dispensations exist, they do if you think the KJV is the preserved word of God in which dispensation appears 4 times.
We have been given the ministry of reconciliation which is only found as revealed to Paul, our ministry is not found elsewhere and can only be carried out by knowing where to find our gospel, what it is, and how it differs.
Paul calls it my gospel, according to the mystery, and revealed by Christ (Romans 16:25 Ephesians 3:2-7) which distinguishes it from the gospels preached by Jesus and the twelve.
Paul's gospel preached the cross, the death for our sins and resurrection for our justification ( 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 Romans 4:25). Jesus preached his death and resurrection as fulfilled prophecy (Matthew 26:54 John 19:28). Jesus preached his shed blood for the new testament for Israel only (Hebrews 9:15). Paul preached the blood for forgiveness of sin for all (Ephesians 1:7) and all are justified freely in Christ (Romans 3:24).
The gospels are not in conflict or contradictory. The gospel of the kingdom was for Israel to reconcile the earth and fulfill their promises. All who believed that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God (John 3:16 John 20:31) were saved unto eternal life.
My response to what you posted below
"the mystery of the cross that would justify all freely"
Are you suggesting universalism?
Similar threads
