1. 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!

Did Jesus come to minister to the Gentiles?

Discussion in 'Christian Theology Forum' started by RichardBurger, Jun 2, 2008.

  1. RichardBurger

    RichardBurger New Member

    Messages:
    1,498
    Likes Received:
    19
    (tim_from_pa;51477)
    Hey FoC:Tone down a bit lad. Anyone who has to rapid fire several posts at a time must be too hot under the collar.My two questions has everything to do with Judah and Israel and what we are talking about for the NT draws off of the OT.And as is oftentimes the case I find with experience, you did not answer my questions, and certainly do not know what the birthright is, of critical importance in the bible. How can you play the game of chess when you only understand what the pieces look like but do not understand that the object is to catch the king? That's exactly what you are doing as you are not speaking from knowledge and maneuvering around scripture and rattling it off without understanding the background and purpose.Here's a thread I started about the birthright and I explain it:I'm hungry: sell me your birthrightAnd the promises involving the purpose of them go to Israel. And as a clue, the way the world is blessed today is thru Christ and Christianity if we are talking spiritually.
    Tim, please start your own thread about your subject. This thread is not the place for it and it clouds the issue of this thread, which is that Jesus did not come to minister to the Gentles.Richard [​IMG]
     
  2. Elias

    Elias New Member

    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    0
    What do learn from this Richard????The Lord said, "Most assuredly I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door, but climbs up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber" (Jn 10:1), "I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out, and find pasture" (Jn 10:9). "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me" (Jn 14:6). "I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing" (Jn 15:5).
     
  3. FoC

    FoC New Member

    Messages:
    165
    Likes Received:
    0
    (tim_from_pa;51477)
    Hey FoC:Tone down a bit lad. Anyone who has to rapid fire several posts at a time must be too hot under the collar.
    Now that is funny. How about lets not read emotion INTO my post, ok....THAT is what causes problemsMultiple posts have nothing to do with emotional state. It is solely about my spending time finding different passages to prove my stance. [​IMG]
    My two questions has everything to do with Judah and Israel and what we are talking about for the NT draws off of the OT.And as is oftentimes the case I find with experience, you did not answer my questions, and certainly do not know what the birthright is, of critical importance in the bible. How can you play the game of chess when you only understand what the pieces look like but do not understand that the object is to catch the king? That's exactly what you are doing as you are not speaking from knowledge and maneuvering around scripture and rattling it off without understanding the background and purpose.
    No, what I am doing is speaking with knowledge of the fact that Paul calls himself 'Jew' in the NT and also 'Israelite' in the NT thereby destroying any erroneous claim that "jew" must have some meaning that is not synonymous with 'Israelite'.Both CAN be the same thing in the NT or Paul would pretty much be a liar.When we see "Jew" in the NT it does not necessary mean 'of the house of Judah"When we see "Israel", "Israelite: or "house of Israel" in the NT it does not necessarily mean "not of the house of Judah" and if it did we have a huge problem with Paul being of the tribe of Benjamin yet calling Israel his brethren.You may not like it, Tim, but Ive proven the point *I* was making fairly conclusively [​IMG]
    Here's a thread I started about the birthright and I explain it:I'm hungry: sell me your birthrightAnd the promises involving the purpose of them go to Israel. And as a clue, the way the world is blessed today is thru Christ and Christianity if we are talking spiritually.
    Interesting.All this and none of it actually refutes what Ive claimed which is that when we see 'Jew' or 'Israel' in the NT it does NOT necessarily mean 'kingdom of Judah' versus 'kingdom of Israel'And *IF* that were the case then Pauls claiming to be both make no sense.I have already stated that Im not interested in the least in the history of Israel in this thread.My ONLY purpose, yet again, is in showing that 'Jew' is many times in the NT speaking generically about the descendants of Jacob, not specifically the house of Judah and in that I believe I have given conclusive evidence to back that point [​IMG]
     
  4. FoC

    FoC New Member

    Messages:
    165
    Likes Received:
    0
    (RichardBurger;51475)
    You have it right. The Jews were called Israelites before the nation split. I think this line of discussion is pointless and should not be on this thread. It only puts up a smoke screen that hides the subject of this thread Richard [​IMG]
    Well, Im specifically responding to the point that 'other sheep' means 'house of Israel' and not the gentiles.If Jesus' words 'other sheep' there mean the gentiles, and we then see him actually helping out a gentile or two, it does seem to fit within the topic of "Did Jesus come to minister to the gentiles'...kwim ?Ill take a look at the OP again, tho [​IMG]
     
  5. FoC

    FoC New Member

    Messages:
    165
    Likes Received:
    0
    (RichardBurger;51404)
    From the post, “AN OVERVIEW OF THE BIBLE.”Most Theology and doctrines say that Jesus came to the Gentiles Too, not just to the Jews. But what does Jesus say in the Bible?Let me make it clear that Jesus Christ 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."And 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.This is not to say that God did not have another purpose for Jesus' death on the cross. His plan was to save the Gentiles and all that would place their faith, trust, confidence and hope in the work of His Son, Jesus on the cross. This purpose was hidden in God and revealed to Paul.Richard [​IMG]
    Jesus not coming TO anyone but the house of Israel was because prophecy REQUIRED that He come to His own to be rejected by them so that that same gospel could be offered to the gentile nations.When Jesus said He only came to Israel, His intent by no means is to say that there are two different gospels, one for the Jew, the other for the gentile.Under His new covenant we are both 'one NEW man', Jews and Gentiles, and BOTH must be grafted into the olive tree....the Jew being the natural branch since that is their original state, while the gentiles who did not know God previously are more like wild branches being grafted in.After His death on the cross and the ratification of this new covenant BOTH Jew(the nation of Israel) and Gentile MUST be grafted into the olive tree equally.No one gets a free ride under this covenant by birth, but it is ONLY thru faith in Jesus Christ.
    If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them. For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead? For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches. And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree? (Rom 11:14-24 KJV)Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye 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: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. 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. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit. (Eph 2:11-22 KJV)​
     
  6. tim_from_pa

    tim_from_pa New Member

    Messages:
    1,656
    Likes Received:
    12
    FoC:The book Judah's Sceptre /Joseph's birthright explains what Paul was saying, too lengthy to elaborate on a whole book here. But it answers some of your questions regarding Paul differentiating between Judah and Israel. You'd have time to read it I assure you if you spent less time with all your lengthy posts saying something that you don't understand. The house of Israel as a whole did not reject the gospel, but were more open to it than the Jew. In other words, I am saying the actual house of Israel brought the gospel to the world and became the nations that sent out missionaries, founded bible societies and so forth. That the Jew did not do at least on a grand scale, and the Jews never became Gentile nations. BIG difference. (See my genealogy link in my signature as well).Richard:This has everything to do with Jesus, the church, and Gentiles. You just don't see it yet. Rather, you want to define things on your own terms and understanding instead of what God's word says. However, I agree with you that I won't say any more on this thread. You are correct that there are other threads this can be discussed. For the moment, I'm going to do something that will bear more fruit and be far more productive, like contributing to the poor and then teaching my cats how to do calculus. [​IMG] (I was the actual model for this smiley icon [​IMG])
     
  7. Jackie D

    Jackie D New Member

    Messages:
    420
    Likes Received:
    1
    (tim_from_pa;51501)
    For the moment, I'm going to do something that will bear more fruit and be far more productive, like contributing to the poor and then teaching my cats how to do calculus. [​IMG] (I was the actual model for this smiley icon [​IMG])
    you go! :cool:
     
  8. RichardBurger

    RichardBurger New Member

    Messages:
    1,498
    Likes Received:
    19
    The point I am making is that since Jesus came only to the "lost sheep of Israel" He did not come to the Gentiles in the Gentile nations.If this is true then why does Theology base so many things on what Jesus said to the Jews and, to a large degree, ignore the mystery gospel that was hidden in God and revealed to him. Is it because they just can't see that there was a message to the Jews and another to the Gentiles?The RCC and the Protestant religion is based on the Apostles, which agreeded not to to go to the Gentiles. --- Most people will tell you that if they must choose whether to believe the 12 Apostles or Paul they will go with the 12.A close read of James will reveal that his book is NOT about God's grace shown on the cross. However, Paul's writings are all about grace.Richard [​IMG]
     
  9. FoC

    FoC New Member

    Messages:
    165
    Likes Received:
    0
    (tim_from_pa;51501)
    FoC:The book Judah's Sceptre /Joseph's birthright explains what Paul was saying, too lengthy to elaborate on a whole book here. But it answers some of your questions regarding Paul differentiating between Judah and Israel. You'd have time to read it I assure you if you spent less time with all your lengthy posts saying something that you don't understand. The house of Israel as a whole did not reject the gospel, but were more open to it than the Jew. In other words, I am saying the actual house of Israel brought the gospel to the world and became the nations that sent out missionaries, founded bible societies and so forth. That the Jew did not do at least on a grand scale, and the Jews never became Gentile nations. BIG difference. (See my genealogy link in my signature as well).
    And as Ive said I dont care about all this.You have insinuated that 'Jew' means 'House of Judah' by default in the NT and I have proven that insinuation false.I think we are done on that particular issue.
     
  10. FoC

    FoC New Member

    Messages:
    165
    Likes Received:
    0
    (RichardBurger;51505)
    The point I am making is that since Jesus came only to the "lost sheep of Israel" He did not come to the Gentiles in the Gentile nations.Richard [​IMG]
    His not coming TO anyone but the Israel, again, is exactly what was to occur.He came TO His own, His own rejected Him AND His good news.The gospel was then given to the gentiles and that hardhearted part of Israel was blinded..what little truth they did have was taken from them and that part of Israel will remain as such until the fulness of the gentiles has come in.His not coming TO anyone but Israel at that point is only meant to show what prophecy does...it does NOT mean that His gospel...THE gospel....was not meant FOR the gentile nations who ARE NOW "one NEW man" (those who believe) along with the Jews who do not remain in unbelief.Pauls gospel is Christs gospel. And it is given to 'one NEW man'.
     
  11. RichardBurger

    RichardBurger New Member

    Messages:
    1,498
    Likes Received:
    19
    (FoC;51508)
    His not coming TO anyone but the Israel, again, is exactly what was to occur.He came TO His own, His own rejected Him AND His good news.The gospel was then given to the gentiles and that hardhearted part of Israel was blinded..what little truth they did have was taken from them and that part of Israel will remain as such until the fulness of the gentiles has come in.His not coming TO anyone but Israel at that point is only meant to show what prophecy does...it does NOT mean that His gospel...THE gospel....was not meant FOR the gentile nations who ARE NOW "one NEW man" (those who believe) along with the Jews who do not remain in unbelief.Pauls gospel is Christs gospel. And it is given to 'one NEW man'.
    You are saying that the gospel never changed. I don't believe that. The gospel Jesus preached was to the Jews and then the Gentiles through the Jews.Paul's gospel was to everyone on an equal playing field. Each person has to come to God through Jesus.There are many scriptures that tell us the old was fading away and being replaced by the new. But men will not see it.FROM THE POST “An Overview of the Bible”Quote “G. THE OLD REPLACED BY THE NEW:”2 Cor 3:6-18 (NKJ)6 who also made us sufficient as ministers of the """new covenant,""" not of the letter (Law) but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.7 But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away,8 how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious?9 For if the ministry of condemnation (the Law) had glory, the ministry of righteousness (grace) exceeds much more in glory.10 For even what was made glorious had no glory in this respect, because of the glory that excels.11 For if what is passing away was glorious, what remains is much more glorious.12 Therefore, since we have such hope, we use great boldness of speech--13 unlike Moses, who put a veil over his face so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the end of what was passing away.14 But their minds were blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away in Christ.15 But even to this day, when Moses is read, a veil lies on their heart.16 Nevertheless when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.17 Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.18 But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as ""by"" the Spirit of the Lord.Heb 7:18-22 (NKJ)18 For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness,19 for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.20 And inasmuch as He was not made priest without an oath21 (for they have become priests without an oath, but He with an oath by Him who said to Him: "The Lord has sworn and will not relent, 'You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek' "),22 by so much more Jesus has become a surety of a better covenant.Heb 8:6-7 (NKJ)6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.7 For if that first covenant (Law) had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second.If there was never any other gospel (covenant) than the gospel of the grace of God, as some claim, why was it necessary to replace an old covenant (gospel)? If one was "unprofitable" then it must have failed to be profitable. In order to replace the old, the old had to exist in order to be replaced.Jesus and the 12 (or 11) taught the gospel of the Abrahamic Covenant. A covenant to which the law was added (Gal 3:16-19). The law failed because of " its weakness and unprofitable-ness" It was "unprofitable" because of the weakness of men. Men could not live up to the standards of God's perfect laws. But Jesus did and He did it for us.Notice that in Acts 3:21 Peter is proclaiming things made known by the prophets since the world began. In contrast, in the book of Romans, 16:25, Paul is proclaiming things kept secret since the world began. Something made known cannot be a secret and something kept secret has not been made known. Notice that Peter proclaimed the crucifixion of Jesus as something for the Jews to repent of (Acts 2) where Paul proclaimed that he gloried in the cross of Christ (Gal 6:11-15). Clearly, Peter and Paul proclaimed two different messages.Through Paul, God ushered in a new plan of salvation that does not depend on sinful man's ability to live up to God's standards. It all depends on the fact that Jesus DID live up to God's standards. Under the gospel of the grace of God a person must trust in God's Son (John 3:16-18). By that I mean, have faith, trust, confidence, and hope in what Jesus did on the cross to pay for our sins. When that happens God places that person "in Christ." The story of the "wedding feast is an analogy of these events (Matt. 22:1-13). The wedding garments are the righteousness that God gives a person. A man was thrown out because he chose to wear his own righteousness (Romans 10:3-4).Richard [​IMG]
     
  12. FoC

    FoC New Member

    Messages:
    165
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are saying that the gospel never changed.
    The Good News, itself did not change.It was offered to the Jew first, they rejected it as a whole, it was then offered to the gentiles.You may mistake the fact that Jesus was a Jew born under law who followed the law because he WAS a Jew under law as meaning something 'changed'...it didnt.His covenant would not actually be IN effect until His death on the cross when it was ratified (confirmed).
    I don't believe that.
    One thing about beliefs...they dont alter facts.
    The gospel Jesus preached was to the Jews and then the Gentiles through the Jews.
    Wrong.When Jesus taught his gospel it was to the Jews because that was where it had to go first (otherwise prophecies would have been false about Him).
    Paul's gospel was to everyone on an equal playing field. Each person has to come to God through Jesus.
    Pauls gospel was Christs gospel...he simply had a different type of audience.And Paul was not living under the old covenant, as Christ and John had been, by the time he started his ministry. Christ had already died and the New Covenant had been ratified by the time of the incident on the Damascus road.
    There are many scriptures that tell us the old was fading away and being replaced by the new. But men will not see it.
    Uh...there is one that I can think of in Hebrews and it has nothing to do with the GOSPEL changing or fading away but is entirely about the Mosaic Covenant that has been made obsolete at the cross.Frankly, much of what you posted is about the old Mosaic covenant and that way of life passing away. It has nothing to do with Christs 'good news' changing.
    If there was never any other gospel (covenant) than the gospel of the grace of God, as some claim, why was it necessary to replace an old covenant (gospel)?
    What was 'replaced' was the old covenant..the Mosaic Economy...not Christs 'good news'.Youre inserting quite a bit of your own thought into the texts you are quoting, poster.This is speaking about the OLD Mosaic economy being replaced with the NEW covenant of Christ
    7 For if that first covenant (Law) had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second.

    Jesus and the 12 (or 11) taught the gospel of the Abrahamic Covenant.
    No, John the Baptist paved the way for Christ to teach His NEW covenant that would be ratified by His death on the cross.You seem to think that things went into effect while Christ was preaching...they didnt.This covenant came into being with His death and the old Mosaic economy simply became 'obsolete'.
    And on account of this He is the Mediator of the new covenant, so that, since a death has occurred for redemption of the transgressions at the time of the first covenant, that those having been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. For where there is a testament, there is necessity for death to be offered of the one making the testament. For a testament is valid over dead people, since it is never valid when the one making the testament lives. Therefore not even the first covenant has been dedicated without blood. (Heb 9:15-18 EMTV)​
    ONE NEW covenant came into being at the cross and ONE OLD covenant was set aside.Christ was preaching about His NEW covenant that would be ratified by His death on the cross....sort of like a last will and testament....but in His case He resurrected [​IMG]
     
  13. Jordan

    Jordan Active Member

    Messages:
    4,886
    Likes Received:
    4
    One scripture...I Timothy 3:16 - And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.That's prove enough along with John 3:16 that He did come for the Gentiles also...
     
  14. FoC

    FoC New Member

    Messages:
    165
    Likes Received:
    0
    (thesuperjag;51654)
    One scripture...I Timothy 3:16 - And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.That's prove enough along with John 3:16 that He did come for the Gentiles also...
    [​IMG]Yeah...that one nails it pretty clearly.
     
  15. RichardBurger

    RichardBurger New Member

    Messages:
    1,498
    Likes Received:
    19
    Okay, you think you have explianed away everything else but I notice you didn't bother to try and explain this.Notice that in Acts 3:21 Peter is proclaiming things made known by the prophets since the world began.In contrast, in the book of Romans, 16:25, Paul is proclaiming things kept secret since the world began.Something made known cannot be a secret and something kept secret has not been made known.Notice that Peter proclaimed the crucifixion of Jesus as something for the Jews to repent of (Acts 2) where Paul proclaimed that he gloried in the cross of Christ (Gal 6:11-15).Clearly, Peter and Paul proclaimed two different messages.Richard [​IMG]
     
  16. FoC

    FoC New Member

    Messages:
    165
    Likes Received:
    0
    (RichardBurger;51658)
    Okay, you think you have explianed away everything else but I notice you didn't bother to try and explain this.Notice that in Acts 3:21 Peter is proclaiming things made known by the prophets since the world began.In contrast, in the book of Romans, 16:25, Paul is proclaiming things kept secret since the world began.Something made known cannot be a secret and something kept secret has not been made known.Notice that Peter proclaimed the crucifixion of Jesus as something for the Jews to repent of (Acts 2) where Paul proclaimed that he gloried in the cross of Christ (Gal 6:11-15).Clearly, Peter and Paul proclaimed two different messages.Richard [​IMG]
    Just because I didnt detail out every word of your post doesnt mean a thing, Rich [​IMG]What I provided shows that your views are incorrect.There werent two gospels, but one.ONE old covenant, the Mosaic, replaced by ONE new covenant that made the old obsolete.[​IMG]
     
  17. Jordan

    Jordan Active Member

    Messages:
    4,886
    Likes Received:
    4
    (FoC;51661)
    (RichardBurger;51658)
    Okay, you think you have explianed away everything else but I notice you didn't bother to try and explain this.Notice that in Acts 3:21 Peter is proclaiming things made known by the prophets since the world began.In contrast, in the book of Romans, 16:25, Paul is proclaiming things kept secret since the world began.Something made known cannot be a secret and something kept secret has not been made known.Notice that Peter proclaimed the crucifixion of Jesus as something for the Jews to repent of (Acts 2) where Paul proclaimed that he gloried in the cross of Christ (Gal 6:11-15).Clearly, Peter and Paul proclaimed two different messages.Richard [​IMG]
    Just because I didnt detail out every word of your post doesnt mean a thing, Rich:)What I provided shows that your views are incorrect.There werent two gospels, but one.[​IMG]Amen FoC, but I feel like quoting scriptures and put it to perspective...John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.Hebrews 13:8 - Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.Ecclesiastes 1:9 - The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.In short, the New Testament is not exactly new, but old. The New Testament is only Old Testament revealed.
     
  18. RichardBurger

    RichardBurger New Member

    Messages:
    1,498
    Likes Received:
    19
    (FoC;51661)
    Just because I didnt detail out every word of your post doesnt mean a thing, Rich [​IMG]What I provided shows that your views are incorrect.There werent two gospels, but one.ONE old covenant, the Mosaic, replaced by ONE new covenant that made the old obsolete.[​IMG]
    ******No it hasn't! It may have in your mind but certainly not in mine. The fact remains that have not deal with what I said. It is further noted that you have just agreed with me that there WERE two gospels when you said "ONE old covenant, the Mosaic, replaced by ONE new covenant that made the old obsolete. A new covenant is a new "good news" (gospel) for mankind.I said, quote ""Notice that in Acts 3:21 Peter is proclaiming things made known by the prophets since the world began.In contrast, in the book of Romans, 16:25, Paul is proclaiming things kept secret since the world began."""""Something made known cannot be a secret and something kept secret has not been made known."""""Notice that Peter proclaimed the crucifixion of Jesus as something for the Jews to repent of (Acts 2) where Paul proclaimed that he gloried in the cross of Christ (Gal 6:11-15).Clearly, Peter and Paul proclaimed two different messages."Which is it? Was Paul's gospel revealed as Peter said in Acts 3:21 or was it kept secret since the world began as Paul said it was. Obviously both can't be correct if the gospels were the same. Certainly there seems to be a difference here unless you want to bury your head in the sand. If you say Paul's gospel was not hidden in God then Paul told a lie didn't he?Come on, since you think you are correct then you should have a ready answer for this. If you can't resolve this then ""What I provided shows that your views are incorrect.""Richard [​IMG]
     
  19. FoC

    FoC New Member

    Messages:
    165
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  20. FoC

    FoC New Member

    Messages:
    165
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here you go Rich...maybe this will help some [​IMG]
    which was kept secret since the world began, or "from eternal times": from all the ages of the former dispensation, or that have run out from the beginning of the world; not that this mystery of the Gospel was entirely unknown, nor any hints given of it in those ages; for there certainly were, as to our first parents after the fall, to Abraham, Moses, David, Isaiah, and others; but it was but obscurely revealed, only some dark intimations were given of it; it was exhibited in types, shadows, and sacrifices; and, in a comparative sense, was wrapped up in darkness and silence, in reference to the more clear discovery and open exhibition of it under the Gospel dispensationJohn Gill​
    .As I said, I think you are reading WAY too much into one little passage there [​IMG]
     
Loading...