The Idea of Two Gospels

[RichardBurger]

16 However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life.


Where does that say that Paul was the first to be saved under grace? Are you saying that there were humans that did not need grace to be saved?

All I see it saying is that Paul was first (as it relates to the Gentiles to whom he preached) to need to be shown more than the usual long-suffering before he accepted God's grace.

Don't confuse grace and long-suffering.

You read too much into the scripture Richard.

You must see the phrase "the dispensation of grace" as though a new time period.

It has nothing to do with a time period. "Dispensation of grace" merely means the act of dispensing grace. And it has been being dispensed from the foundation of the world when the Lamb was slain.

Revelation 13:8 "And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."

I am not saying anything that the scripture does not say.

16 However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me """"FIRST""" Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, """as a pattern to those who are """going """ to believe on Him for everlasting life."""


Ignore it if you wish but I will not.

 

[Vengle]

I am not saying anything that the scripture does not say.

16 However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me """"FIRST""" Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, """as a pattern to those who are """going """ to believe on Him for everlasting life."""


Ignore it if you wish but I will not.

LOL.

He could not have been a pattern to those that believed prior to him could he?

After all, they needed no pattern who already believed.

The pattern he speaks of was for those that were a bit more resistant to grasping on to grace as he was.

Context Richard look at the resistance he speaks about in the first 9 or so verses of that chapter.

He was just saying, Hey, you these guys yet trying to be teachers of the law are just like I was.

You also see it as you wish Richard. I have no problem with that.

 

[Prentis]

Richard, I did not say that you claimed we didn't have to be born of the Spirit.

I pointed out that both Jew and Gentile are reconciled by the same means, and have the same Gospel.
[sup]16[/sup]And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
Here's an interesting quote from Paul:
[sup]22[/sup]Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:

 

[prism]

Prentis, my challenge remains.
The word 'reconcile' (katalasso) is used four times in the NT and NEVER in the present or future tense.God has 'reconciled' the world unto himself through Christ.
Only Paul uses/reveals this word as it is used.
'Saved' is a much broader term and the two should not be equated.

G2644
καταλλάσσω
katallassō
Thayer Definition:
1) to change, exchange, as coins for others of equivalent value
1a) to reconcile (those who are at variance)
1b) return to favour with, be reconciled to one
1c) to receive one into favour
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G2596 and G236
Citing in TDNT: 1:254, 40

 

[Prentis]

I concede that the word reconciled is not used this way, and agree. It is not used the way I used it.

Reconciliation remains the beginning of our walk, we are reconciled that we might forget what is behind, and look forward to Christ. We are reconciled that we might walk in faith and surrender to the Lord.

 

[prism]

This discussion is fruitless. Creating a false dichotomy between gospels is not helpful. Christ is calling us to forget dichotomies and simply love with wild abandonment! Stop determining right from wrong! The fact is, you are woefully incapable of determining right from wrong - that is God's business, not yours! We are called to love, PERIOD! So get to loving.

I thought we were in Debate forum not Agape forum, although I agree we are to speak the truth in love. But how can we speak 'the truth' unless we are attempting to discern and determine what is right and wrong? You made multiple dogmatic 'declarations' in your post; are they right? Are they wrong? Neutral?

 

[James Forthwright]

1 Timothy 1:15-16

15 This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.

16 However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life.

NKJV

Verse 16 says that Paul was the first to be saved under grace but the religious refuse to believe him.

Why do people continue to close their eyes to the truth? Because they have been blinded!

The scriptures teach that only those that have been born of the Holy Spirit can see the truth in God's word. IMHO people do not want the words of God to mean what they say, but what they want them to say.

If a person does not believe verse 16 then they do not believe the words of the scriptures. Plain and simple.

As a later post proclaimed (but did not explain) context makes all the difference in deciphering such passages as these. In the case of 1 Timothy 1:16 being the "first" Paul explains in the prior verse. (Often referring to multiple translations can shed light on these kinds of issues.)

(Darby) Faithful is the word, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom *I* am the first. --Timothy 1:15

(KJV) This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. --Timothy 1:15

(NASB) It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all. --Timothy 1:15

So, in context, Paul is humbly referring to himself as being the FOREMOST OF SINNERS (because he actively persecuted the Church) that he is referring to in the following verse, NOT that he is the "first" to experience any particular revelation regarding 'another gospel' or first example of the gospel of grace. Even the two words, i.e.,"chief" and "first", in the translation you are using are the exact same Greek word:

G4413
πρῶτος
pro'-tos
Contracted superlative of G4253; foremost (in time, place, order or importance): - before, beginning, best, chief (-est), first (of all), former.

Having said that, I do believe that in spite of popular opinion, you are correct in that there are, indeed, TWO DIFFERENT GOSPELS specified in the N.T., but in a slightly different variation of what you have stated. I'll explain in a later post.

 

[RichardBurger]

As a later post proclaimed (but did not explain) context makes all the difference in deciphering such passages as these. In the case of 1 Timothy 1:16 being the "first" Paul explains in the prior verse. (Often referring to multiple translations can shed light on these kinds of issues.)

(Darby) Faithful is the word, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom *I* am the first. --Timothy 1:15

(KJV) This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. --Timothy 1:15

(NASB) It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all. --Timothy 1:15

So, in context, Paul is humbly referring to himself as being the FOREMOST OF SINNERS (because he actively persecuted the Church) that he is referring to in the following verse, NOT that he is the "first" to experience any particular revelation regarding 'another gospel' or first example of the gospel of grace. Even the two words, i.e.,"chief" and "first", in the translation you are using are the exact same Greek word:

G4413
πρῶτος
pro'-tos
Contracted superlative of G4253; foremost (in time, place, order or importance): - before, beginning, best, chief (-est), first (of all), former.

Having said that, I do believe that in spite of popular opinion, you are correct in that there are, indeed, TWO DIFFERENT GOSPELS specified in the N.T., but in a slightly different variation of what you have stated. I'll explain in a later post.

All you are doing is cloking the truth with rationalizations that say that what Paul said was not what we are to see.

16 However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me """"FIRST""" Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, """as a pattern to those who are """going """ to believe on Him for everlasting life."""


You say this is not what Paul meant. You can ignore it if you wish but I will not. I believe that Paul was the first saved under the gospel of grace because he said so in the scriptures, the scriptures that most say they believe.

 

[Buzzfruit]

The Idea of Two Gospels
:
There have been many discussions about the “gospel of the kingdom” and the “gospel of grace.” Most do not agree that there is any difference in them. This writing is my attempt at showing that there is a very big difference.

2 Cor 3:6-18 (NKJ) Paul writing.
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.

What was passing away? According to the above it was "the ministry of condemnation, verse 9 (the law). What was taking its place? According to the above, verse 8, it was "the ministry of the Spirit." Therefore there were two ministries, two gospels. One was passing away (the law that Jesus and the 12 taught) and another was taking its place.

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.

In the above we see that an old covenant was passing away. Take verse 8 and then look at verses 17 and 18. Men can not “transform themselves” by the choices THEY make and by their own power.

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. Clearly, Peter and Paul proclaimed two different messages.

Many say that Abraham and the Jews were saved by the grace of God in the “”same manner”” as we are in this age. I intend to show that it isn’t true.

It is true that Abraham "believed God" and it was accounted as righteousness before God. Does that mean that Abraham was saved at that moment? Did it mean he was saved by the grace of God and could enter into heaven to be with God? If he were saved at that moment, under the grace of God, he would not have been required to do the works that God had him do later in life. If his later works were required he was not saved by grace. It would have been by works.

We know that the Holy Spirit was not given until after Christ died on the cross. Abraham was not reborn and sealed by the Spirit. If he had been he would not have been required to do any works. If we look in Luke 16:19--- and read the story of the rich man and the tax collector who died we see that Abraham was in a part of Hades with both of them but not in the bad part, but in a separate part Jesus called Paradise from the cross.

Abraham was accounted as righteous but he could not BE righteous until Jesus shed His blood on the cross to pay for his sins in the flesh. No one was ever saved until the sin debt was paid. Salvation was, and is, in the work that Jesus (God) did on the cross. Everything points to Christ. Everything begins and ends with what Jesus did on the cross. To say that salvation came before Christ is to say His death was not necessary.

When we read about Abraham we must consider the whole life he lived, we see that he was required to offer up his son, that he was required to circumcise himself and all the males in his family. God’s relationship with Abraham was modified as time went on and eventually the law was given through Moses. It is clear to me that, although Abraham believed God and it was accounted as righteousness before God, there were works that were added at a later date.

During the dispensation of the Law of Moses a person was righteous before God by having faith in Him and by demonstrating their faith by their works just as Abraham did. This is exactly what James is writing about in James 2. James uses Abraham as an example and the words “justified” by works. James is correct in what he has said. He was preaching the gospel of the kingdom.

We can see that Jesus told the Jews to keep the laws of Moses and we can see that the 12 were teaching the same thing. It was the gospel of the kingdom and it was faith plus (+) works. They, the Jews, were to accept Jesus as the Messiah and He would set up His kingdom rule on this earth. But they rejected Jesus and His gospel of the kingdom. This teaching did not change until Paul came on the scene. We can see that, by reading the early chapters of Acts. I believe Acts to be a transitional book.

Paul teaches that Abraham’s faith making him righteous before God was a """""foreshadowing""""foreseeing"""beforehand"""would be"""
of the gospel of Grace that was to come (Gal 3:7-9). This means this was to be true in the future.

7 Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham.
8 And the Scripture, """foreseeing""" that God """would""" justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham """beforehand,""" saying, "In you all the nations shall be blessed."
9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham.
(NKJ)

Therefore the mystery Paul spoke of was much more than an acceptance of the Gentiles. It was a whole new gospel that was not seen in the O.T. -- Peter acknowledges that the message has changed when he says that the Jews would ""NOW"" be saved in the same manner (way) the Gentiles are, see verse 11 below.

Acts 15:7-11
7 And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them:"Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.
8 So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us,
9 and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
10 Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they."
NKJV

The above verse 11 begs the question, in what manner were the Jews saved before???

My only conclusion is that the gospel for the Gentiles is a unique gospel given to Paul for the age of the grace of God. Although it was told to Abraham """beforehand""" it was not ""in effect"" and applied until Jesus died on the cross.

I see that the gospel of faith + works is a gospel that is suited for religion since it requires men to do religious things. I also see that Jesus did not think very highly of man’s religious works.

I see that the gospel of grace is not a religion. It is about a covenant relationship with God in the heart based on belief in God‘s work on the cross. It is a relationship of Father to son. It is a relationship of belief, faith, trust, and confidence in our heavenly Father and His work on the cross. If you have this relationship God does not require anything else.

Richard

The gospel of the kingdom is a message for those outside the Church that Christians are to let them know about. The gospel of the kingdom is not a message about Jesus....it is about the re-establishment of God's kingdom/government on the Earth. But Christian cannot correctly explain to those outside the Church what God's kingdom is, if he or she is trying to understand it through the lends of Democracy or any government that is not like a kingdom government.

But grace is what all Christians are to know through the studying of God's word.

 

[veteran]

The false double Gospel idea of men, from the proponents of Hyper-Dispensationalism, is a false teaching plain and simple.

It's rooted in the erroneous idea that all Israel refused The Gospel of Jesus Christ, when our Lord Jesus' rebuke was upon the religious leadership over the Jews of the day that were misleading the people.

It's an even more outlandish theory when considering that the MAJORITY of the peoples of Israel were not even in Judea/Jerusalem when Christ came to die on the cross! The majority of the house of Judah had already been scattered among the nations, as the ten tribes of Israel (house of Israel) had been scattered among the nations also. They were not even in the holy lands in that time.

 

[James Forthwright]

All you are doing is cloking the truth with rationalizations that say that what Paul said was not what we are to see.

16 However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me """"FIRST""" Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, """as a pattern to those who are """going """ to believe on Him for everlasting life."""


You say this is not what Paul meant. You can ignore it if you wish but I will not. I believe that Paul was the first saved under the gospel of grace because he said so in the scriptures, the scriptures that most say they believe.

Whether or not Paul is "the first saved under the gospel of grace" is NOT a major doctrinal issue. It's OK if we differ on the interpretation of this passage. IMO the context of the chapter doesn't support your thesis but you are entitled to your beliefs. However, any doctrinal conclusion should not be based solely on ONE VERSE OF SCRIPTURE. Do you have any other verses to support your interpretation? I'm willing to change my opinion on this matter if you can supply a more concrete foundation.

From the moment of Paul's dramatic conversion to Christianity he seemed destined to lead an extra-ordinary life. One would think that it would be natural for Paul to begin his nascent Christian walk by conferring with the disciples who personally witnessed the miracles of the LORD Jesus and those that heard Christ's many sermons. In the same way, young Christians today are directed to a mature Pastor for a series of Bible Studies before they set out for the mission fields. Paul, instead immediately sequesters himself for three years in Arabia of all places. (Gal 1:16-17) Then after those three years in seclusion, he meets with the Apostle Peter and James, the Lord's brother, for TWO WEEKS and then sets out for Syria and Cilicia for a FOURTEEN YEAR gospel mission. (Gal 2:1-2) Paul, truly was a remarkable man!

THE TWO GOSPELS OF THE EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[RichardBurger]

Whether or not Paul is "the first saved under the gospel of grace" is NOT a major doctrinal issue.

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

The Jewish believers believed that Jesus was their Messiah and king. No where in the first 4 books of the N.T. do we find the gospel of God's grace. Nor is it found in the first 7 chapters of Acts. All the 12 were trying to do was to get the Jews to accept Jesus as their Messiah and King. They still taught the Law of Moses for the Jewish believers. It was the Gentiles that were first called Christians, not the Jewish believers.

No where do we find the gospel of grace as given to Paul being taught by the 12 (11). Only in the last writings of John and Peter do we find John and Peter teaching grace and that was many, many, many years after Pentacost.

 

[Prentis]

The Gospel of free entrance given arbitrarily is not in the gospels indeed... You may find it in Paul, but only by a twisting of the meaning.

The Gospel of the power of God in us, on the other hand, can be found in the four gospels, in the acts, and in the letters of Paul. As Jesus says, 'with God, all things are impossible', even what men cannot do, with God, they can. Paul also says that 'I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me'.

But surely the all here must not include walking as he walked, right Richard?

 

[RichardBurger]

Romans 8:1-11 --- Free from Indwelling Sin:

1 There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, ****who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.****
( the words between the **** are not in the original writings.)

1 There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus,
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death.
3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh,

4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
(Their walk is directed by the Holy Spirit not by the will of man as Pentis believes)

5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.
6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.
8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.
10 And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
11 But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.
NKJV

Romans 8:14-17
14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.

( this is what the Holy Spirit does in the child of God. It is not what a man does by his own will.)

15 For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out,"Abba, Father."
16 The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,
17 and if children, then heirs — heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together.
NKJV

Romans 8:31-39 ---- God's Everlasting Love:
31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us?
32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things?
33 Who shall bring a charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies.
34 Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us.
35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
36 As it is written: "For Your sake we are killed all day long; We are accounted as sheep for the slaughter."
37 Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us.
38 For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come,
39 nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
NKJV

Are you persuaded???

The Gospel of free entrance given arbitrarily is not in the gospels indeed... You may find it in Paul, but only by a twisting of the meaning.

The Gospel of the power of God in us, on the other hand, can be found in the four gospels, in the acts, and in the letters of Paul. As Jesus says, 'with God, all things are impossible', even what men cannot do, with God, they can. Paul also says that 'I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me'.

But surely the all here must not include walking as he walked, right Richard?

You decieve yourself if you think you are walking as Jesus walked. You are not God.

 

[Prentis]

I am not God, and I did not claim to walk as he walked.

Rather I said that with God, even that is possible, to walk as he walked. If we have not taken the promised land yet, we should atleast have faith in God and believe it possible THROUGH HIM. Now that I was able to clarify I don't claim this for myself, but rather have faith that man can indeed be in the light, and walk as he walked...

Are all things possible through Christ who strengthens us, Richard?

 

[Episkopos]

1 Timothy 1:15-16

15 This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.

16 However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life.

NKJV

Verse 16 says that Paul was the first to be saved under grace but the religious refuse to believe him.

Why do people continue to close their eyes to the truth? Because they have been blinded!

The scriptures teach that only those that have been born of the Holy Spirit can see the truth in God's word. IMHO people do not want the words of God to mean what they say, but what they want them to say.

If a person does not believe verse 16 then they do not believe the words of the scriptures. Pialn and simple.

Huge error here... Paul was not "first" to receive anything....the word is "foremost" as in needing it the most because he persecuted the church. In other words if Paul can be saved then ANYONE can be saved! If one who persecutes the church can be shown mercy then those who do far less harm can be saved as well.

The word for "first" in verse 16 is the same word for "chief" in verse 15. That word is the Greek protos.

So unless you also think Paul was the first man to ever sin...then and only then does your reasoning make any sense. Rather Paul was chief of sinners so that he could be chief among them who received mercy. He needed MORE forgiveness...that is the only context that is in any way reasonable.

You decieve yourself if you think you are walking as Jesus walked. You are not God.

Then you deny the deity of Christ? If one's life is hid in God, does that make God sinful????

 

[RichardBurger]

Then you deny the deity of Christ? If one's life is hid in God, does that make God sinful????

Why would you say that?

What I said was, quote "You decieve yourself if you think you are walking as Jesus walked. You are not God."

How is that saying I deny the deity of Christ????????

I believe in the trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. All of which is God and Prentis is not God.

 

[Prentis]

Was Jesus in flesh just like ours, Richard? And yet he walked as he did... Then if we are in the flesh, and are bearers of a new creation, Christ in us, it must also be possible to walk as he walked!

It says that the fulness of God was in Christ, and then Paul says 'may the fulness of God dwell in YOU'. We are to be as he is, it being no longer us who live but Christ who lives in us.

 

[Episkopos]

Why would you say that?

What I said was, quote "You decieve yourself if you think you are walking as Jesus walked. You are not God."

How is that saying I deny the deity of Christ????????

I believe in the trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. All of which is God and Prentis is not God.

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

 

[RichardBurger]

Was Jesus in flesh just like ours, Richard? And yet he walked as he did... Then if we are in the flesh, and are bearers of a new creation, Christ in us, it must also be possible to walk as he walked!

It says that the fulness of God was in Christ, and then Paul says 'may the fulness of God dwell in YOU'. We are to be as he is, it being no longer us who live but Christ who lives in us.

NO! He did not have flesh like ours.

You decieve yourself. If we could be like Jesus we would never sin. We (YOU) can't be like Jesus as long as you are in sinfuul flesh because you (WE) are not God (Jesus).

The sinful nature was pasted down to mankind through Adam. However, Jesus did not have a Father of sinful flesh. But you certainly do.

Jesus had a body of sinless flesh because God is His Father.

When Jesus was on the cross He took on all the sins of mankind and paid for them by His shed blood. He had to be perfect in order to do that so the answer to your foolish idea is that He (Jesus) was perfect. YOU ARE NOT PERFECT.