elected4ever
New member
Do you sin?ApologeticJedi said:
Just One Gospel?
- Thread starter Clete
- Start date
God_Is_Truth
New member
elected4ever said:
i think they are saying that it was not preached to the Jews before the resurrection that he was the Christ. consider this passage:
Mark 16
20Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ.
now at this point the disciples had been preaching the gospel for quite some time, but yet they are told specifically not to say he is the Christ. thus, whatever was in the gospel they preached before the resurrection, would not have included that Jesus was the Christ. we do see in Acts 2 that Peter says Jesus is the Messiah, but this is after the resurrection.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Before the Lord Jesus appeared on the scene John the Baptist was preaching that ”The kingdom of heaven is at hand”(Mt.3:2).God_Is_Truth said:
The Jews would have understood that if the kingdom was at hand,then the King also must be at hand.
The Baptist said:
"And I knew Him not,but that He should be made manifest to Israel,therefore am I come baptizing with water"(Jn.1:31).
The Baptist also proclaimed that the Lord Jesus is the “Son of God”:
”And I saw,and bore witness that this is the Son of God”(Jn.1:34).
The Jews would also knew that the words “Son of God” meant that the Lord Jesus was God,as witnessed by the words of the Jews themselves:
” Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God”(Jn.5:18).
After the Baptist was put in prision,the Lord Jesus took up the same message,preaching that the Kingdom of God is at hand.He also said that He was that Messiah:
"The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am He"(Jn.4:25,26).
He also told the Jews that the Lord God had sent Him into the world,and that they should believe Him:
”This is the work of God,that ye believe on Him Whom He hath sent”(Jn.6:29).He said that those who “believeth on Him” would receive eternal life:
” And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day”(Jn.6:40).
The Lord Jesus told the Jews that He was before Abraham:
”Before Abraham was,I am”(Jn.8:58).
By His words the Jews would have known that He was proclaiming Himself to be the Messiah,the Son of the Living God.Combine that with the fact that He was able to perform miracles so the Jews had no excuse whatsoever for their unbelief.
Every thing about the ministry of John the Baptist and of the Lord Jesus pointed to one thing,and that is the fact that it is the Lord Jesus Who is the promised Messiah,the Son of the Living God.
And those who believed this fact were “born of God” at the moment that they believed this fact (Jn.1:12,13—1Jn.5:1-5).They also received eternal life at the moment that they believed (Jn.5:24).
However,after the leaders of Israel plotted His death,He told His disciples not to make Him known (Mt.12:14-16).He then began to speak in parables.He knew that the Jews would be given a second chance to believe after His crucifixion and resurrection,and that is exactly what happened on the day of Pentecost.
In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
I have already shown two different ways that we can know that there were two different gospels preached during the Acts period.First,we can see from the Acts narrative that the message that the Jews received is the truth that it is the Lord Jesus Who is their promised Messiah.The gospel that was preached to the Gentiles is in regard to the “purpose” of His death—that He died for our sins.
Secondly,Paul revealed that when he received the gospel that he preached to the Gentiles that he did not confer with other men but instead he immediately went into Arabia.The Acts narrative reveals that when Paul received the gospel that he preached to the Jews he did in fact confer with other men and he was many days in Damascus preaching that it is the Lord Jesus Who is the promised Messiah.
Next,we can see that the gospel that was preached to the Jews was according to what had previously been prophesised,while the gospel that was preached to the Gentiles was a secret that was not prophesised.
When Paul was arrested and charged with being a ”mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world”(Acts24:5),he defended himself saying that what he tauf=ght among the Jews was according to what the Jewish prophets said would happen:
” 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: That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles”(Acts26:22,23).
However,the gospel that Paul preached to the Gentiles had been kept secret and were not revealed by the prophets:
” But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this age knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory”(1Cor.2:7,8).
The “purpose” of the death of the Lord Jesus upon the Cross was not revealed in prophecy,and the reason is simple.If the princes of this age knew that purpose they would not have put Him to death.
So the gospel that was preached to the Jews had been prophesised in the OT Scriptures,and the gospel that was preached to the Gentiles had not been prophesised but instead had been kept secret until Paul made it known.
In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html
Secondly,Paul revealed that when he received the gospel that he preached to the Gentiles that he did not confer with other men but instead he immediately went into Arabia.The Acts narrative reveals that when Paul received the gospel that he preached to the Jews he did in fact confer with other men and he was many days in Damascus preaching that it is the Lord Jesus Who is the promised Messiah.
Next,we can see that the gospel that was preached to the Jews was according to what had previously been prophesised,while the gospel that was preached to the Gentiles was a secret that was not prophesised.
When Paul was arrested and charged with being a ”mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world”(Acts24:5),he defended himself saying that what he tauf=ght among the Jews was according to what the Jewish prophets said would happen:
” 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: That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles”(Acts26:22,23).
However,the gospel that Paul preached to the Gentiles had been kept secret and were not revealed by the prophets:
” But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this age knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory”(1Cor.2:7,8).
The “purpose” of the death of the Lord Jesus upon the Cross was not revealed in prophecy,and the reason is simple.If the princes of this age knew that purpose they would not have put Him to death.
So the gospel that was preached to the Jews had been prophesised in the OT Scriptures,and the gospel that was preached to the Gentiles had not been prophesised but instead had been kept secret until Paul made it known.
In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html
Inferences and other things...
Inferences and other things...
Jerry –
Anyone’s response as to what John and Jesus preached during the time of their respective personal ministries has turned out to be quite meager, especially when you consider all that was taught. I am not certain why that is.
But on to other matters…
Let’s drag those verses out here and have a look.
John 1:12 ”But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:”
It appears that those who “receive” Him are the one to whom He give the “RIGHT” to become children of God - those that “believe on His name”. This is an expression that lends itself to the idea of recognizing & appealing to His authority. I can not find the idea in this passage of being saved “at the moment” of belief. At the “moment” of belief, only the “right” is granted to become a child of God.
13who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”
Who were born [by the will] of God - is the thought presented in this verse. It is by God’s will that will we become children of God. So what is it that God wills that we may become His children? When we learn and do what is meant in the expressions “receive Him” and “believe on His name”, then we can know we are “born of God”. I know that more information can be found in John 3:3f – not all of God’s will for becoming His child is found in John 1:12&13.
John 12:42 - ”Nevertheless even of the rulers many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess [it], lest they should be put out of the synagogue…”
I am wondering if one would think that these rulers were “born of God” at the moment they believed – or should we consider the differences between objective and subjective belief ?
John 5:24 – “…He that hears my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.”
Those who would rush headlong into obtaining everlasting life might want to heed - “He that hears my word…”. The would-be believer has something to hear first – perhaps some of the things that Jesus taught during His 3 year ministry here on earth. Perhaps something like…
Matt. 7:21 – “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven.”
And just for added emphasis…
Verse 24 – Every one therefore that heareth these words of mine, and doeth them, shall be likened unto a wise man, who built his house upon the rock…
It appears to me that Jesus wants us to do more than just acknowledge His presence and that there won’t be any lazy dummies in heaven. Just a few thoughts to think about…
It may just be me, but there seems to be some inferences made here that need to be thought out.
In Matthew 12, after healing a man’s hand, the Pharisees (with the Herodians) plot to destroy Jesus. When Jesus knew this, He withdrew (to the sea of Galilee). After many were healed by Him here, He told them to not “make him known”.
It seems to me that it is inferred above that it was at this time that Jesus had a change of mind about letting people know who he was, and also began to speak in parables at this time because of that change. That a second chance to “believe” was required due to these changes, is what I am reading here, without other opportunities to believe being afforded prior to Acts 2.
Some analysis…
Matthew 12 is not the first time Jesus told others to not reveal who he was or what He had done. Two prior events are recorded by Matthew. If you will check Matthew 8:4 when Jesus healed a leper, He charged the leper to “tell no man”. Later in Matthew 9:30 Jesus healed two blind men and He told them “See that no man knows”.
Jesus also charged His disciples & others after the occasion of Matthew 12 in Matthew 16:20, Matthew 17:9*, and in the account of Mark 7:36 which is not recorded in Matthew.
The event in Luke 8:49f which took place after the time of Matthew 12 must also be included. Interestingly, this involved reviving the daughter of a ruler of the synagogue, who, along with his wife, were given a prime opportunity to “believe” before the cross.
The charge not to tell that is made in Matthew 12 was not new or unique. The explanation found in verses 18-21 as to why Jesus was doing this is. Isaiah is quoted here and I believe we are told that Jesus was to go about His Father’s business quietly and humbly, without notoriety and glory to himself, but glory only unto the Father. This course of conduct also assured that the actions of Jesus were without question to his motives.
Later in Matthew 13 Jesus began to speak to them “many things in parables”. The disciples asked in verse 10 – “Why speakest thou unto them in parables?”
Verse 11 – “Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven…” but to the others it was not. It was given to the disciples to know. Jesus further explained in verse 13 that this action fulfilled a prophecy of Isaiah as well. I conclude that if one thinks there is a “cause & effect” here between the plot to kill Jesus & His speaking in parables, it is a conclusion drawn outside of what scripture explains.
Inferences and other things...
Jerry –
Anyone’s response as to what John and Jesus preached during the time of their respective personal ministries has turned out to be quite meager, especially when you consider all that was taught. I am not certain why that is.
But on to other matters…
Let’s drag those verses out here and have a look.
John 1:12 ”But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:”
It appears that those who “receive” Him are the one to whom He give the “RIGHT” to become children of God - those that “believe on His name”. This is an expression that lends itself to the idea of recognizing & appealing to His authority. I can not find the idea in this passage of being saved “at the moment” of belief. At the “moment” of belief, only the “right” is granted to become a child of God.
13who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”
Who were born [by the will] of God - is the thought presented in this verse. It is by God’s will that will we become children of God. So what is it that God wills that we may become His children? When we learn and do what is meant in the expressions “receive Him” and “believe on His name”, then we can know we are “born of God”. I know that more information can be found in John 3:3f – not all of God’s will for becoming His child is found in John 1:12&13.
John 12:42 - ”Nevertheless even of the rulers many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess [it], lest they should be put out of the synagogue…”
I am wondering if one would think that these rulers were “born of God” at the moment they believed – or should we consider the differences between objective and subjective belief ?
John 5:24 – “…He that hears my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.”
Those who would rush headlong into obtaining everlasting life might want to heed - “He that hears my word…”. The would-be believer has something to hear first – perhaps some of the things that Jesus taught during His 3 year ministry here on earth. Perhaps something like…
Matt. 7:21 – “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven.”
And just for added emphasis…
Verse 24 – Every one therefore that heareth these words of mine, and doeth them, shall be likened unto a wise man, who built his house upon the rock…
It appears to me that Jesus wants us to do more than just acknowledge His presence and that there won’t be any lazy dummies in heaven. Just a few thoughts to think about…
It may just be me, but there seems to be some inferences made here that need to be thought out.
In Matthew 12, after healing a man’s hand, the Pharisees (with the Herodians) plot to destroy Jesus. When Jesus knew this, He withdrew (to the sea of Galilee). After many were healed by Him here, He told them to not “make him known”.
It seems to me that it is inferred above that it was at this time that Jesus had a change of mind about letting people know who he was, and also began to speak in parables at this time because of that change. That a second chance to “believe” was required due to these changes, is what I am reading here, without other opportunities to believe being afforded prior to Acts 2.
Some analysis…
Matthew 12 is not the first time Jesus told others to not reveal who he was or what He had done. Two prior events are recorded by Matthew. If you will check Matthew 8:4 when Jesus healed a leper, He charged the leper to “tell no man”. Later in Matthew 9:30 Jesus healed two blind men and He told them “See that no man knows”.
Jesus also charged His disciples & others after the occasion of Matthew 12 in Matthew 16:20, Matthew 17:9*, and in the account of Mark 7:36 which is not recorded in Matthew.
The event in Luke 8:49f which took place after the time of Matthew 12 must also be included. Interestingly, this involved reviving the daughter of a ruler of the synagogue, who, along with his wife, were given a prime opportunity to “believe” before the cross.
The charge not to tell that is made in Matthew 12 was not new or unique. The explanation found in verses 18-21 as to why Jesus was doing this is. Isaiah is quoted here and I believe we are told that Jesus was to go about His Father’s business quietly and humbly, without notoriety and glory to himself, but glory only unto the Father. This course of conduct also assured that the actions of Jesus were without question to his motives.
Later in Matthew 13 Jesus began to speak to them “many things in parables”. The disciples asked in verse 10 – “Why speakest thou unto them in parables?”
Verse 11 – “Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven…” but to the others it was not. It was given to the disciples to know. Jesus further explained in verse 13 that this action fulfilled a prophecy of Isaiah as well. I conclude that if one thinks there is a “cause & effect” here between the plot to kill Jesus & His speaking in parables, it is a conclusion drawn outside of what scripture explains.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Apollos,Apollos said:
Go back and read what I wrote on this subject.Are you saying that this was "meager"?
To believe on His name was in regard to believing that He was the Christ,the Son of the Living God.Those who believed that were "born of God":
"Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God...For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?"(1Jn.5:1,4,5).
Thse who "believe" the gospel are "born again":
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever... And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you"(1Pet.1:23,25).
You overlook the words that follow--"Who were born of God."
If they believed in their heart that He is the Christ,the Son of God,then they were indeed born of God.
Just because some might deny their beliefs in front of men is not evidence that they were not born of God.Peter himself denied his belief before men,but he was born of God.
The Lord Jesus told them exactly how to do the will of the Father:
"Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent'(Jn.6:28,29).
This says nothing about obtaining eternal life by doing works.In fact,Paul makes it as plain as possible that no one's righteousness before God is dependent on "works":
"For by grace are ye saved...not of works,lest any man should boast"(Eph.2:8,9).
There are those who say that they "believe" but at the same time prove that they do not believe the "gospel of grace".Despite the Scriptual evidence that the sinner is saved by faith apart from works they just do not believe.It is those people who really have no faith at all,and the same people who the Lord speaks of in the following verse:
"Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity"(Mt.7:22,23).
There will be many who profess to be Christians but will not be saved.They never really believed the gospel of grace and so they were never "born of God"--"I never knew you"!
In regard to the man with leprosy,apparantly the Lord wanted the priest to be the first to examine him.In regard to the blind men who were healed,his words not to tell anyone was for a purpose.He knew that if this was made known then there would be multitudes coming to Him merely for the purpose of physical healing.Even though He healed many from physical diseases,His miracles were for the purpose of authenticating that He is the promised Messiah.But He came primarly for spiritual healing and not for physical healing.
In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html
Last edited:
HopeofGlory
New member
2Co 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
The Jews were bound to the law during the ministry of Jesus yet the new testament of His blood granted eternal life to all that believed.
Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Jesus revealed the "new testament" not of the law but of the spirit to the twelve and that the purpose of His death was for the remission of sins.
Jesus also revealed that the shed blood of this new testament granted eternal life and it is believing in His shed blood for remission not the letter that is the essence of conversion and it is the Spirit that indwells upon conversion that enables the believer to endure to the end of their faith.
Joh 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
Lev 7:27 Whatsoever soul it be that eateth any manner of blood, even that soul shall be cut off from his people.
Paul's gospel is the same that Jesus taught in Matt. 26:28 before His death yet you will not find this gospel revealed by the apostles at pentecost. The apostles continued to preach what John the Baptist taught.
Rom 3:25 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;
Act 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.
Craig
The Jews were bound to the law during the ministry of Jesus yet the new testament of His blood granted eternal life to all that believed.
Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Jesus revealed the "new testament" not of the law but of the spirit to the twelve and that the purpose of His death was for the remission of sins.
Jesus also revealed that the shed blood of this new testament granted eternal life and it is believing in His shed blood for remission not the letter that is the essence of conversion and it is the Spirit that indwells upon conversion that enables the believer to endure to the end of their faith.
Joh 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
Lev 7:27 Whatsoever soul it be that eateth any manner of blood, even that soul shall be cut off from his people.
Paul's gospel is the same that Jesus taught in Matt. 26:28 before His death yet you will not find this gospel revealed by the apostles at pentecost. The apostles continued to preach what John the Baptist taught.
Rom 3:25 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;
Act 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.
Craig
elected4ever
New member
I can agree up to a point. When you state, " The apostles continued to preach what John the Baptist taught."You imply that the message that was preached at Pentecost was not the same as Preached by Paul. Am I correct in making this connection?HopeofGlory said:
HopeofGlory
New member
The apostles at Pentecost did not reveal the new testament of His shed blood for remission (Matt 26:28) yet Paul clearly did. Paul did not teach a baptism of repentance for remission and said Christ sent him not to baptize. Water baptism for remission as the Baptist taught is not the same as faith in His shed blood for remission as Paul taught.
1Co 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.
Mar 1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
Act 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.
Rom 3:25 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;
Craig
1Co 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.
Mar 1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
Act 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.
Rom 3:25 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;
Craig
elected4ever
New member
When you were saved did you become righteous or did you remain unrighteous?
HopeofGlory
New member
He may have never uttered the words but the scriptures tell us He was full of grace and truth and He granted free and unmerited favor to those that believed in Him. Actions speak louder than words!
He had not yet died but He saved many that believed in Him.
Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
Did Jesus not say "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature"?
Mat 9:12 But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.
Mat 9:13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Many uncircumcised were received by Jesus, he was persecuted for receiving publicans and sinners.
The gospel is faith in the shed blood of Christ for the remission of sins and it did not originate with Paul!
Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Rom 3:25 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;
Either Christ preached the gospel or He is a fraud, take your pick!
2Co 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
Christ revealed the "purpose" of His death it in Matt 26:28 to the apostles and it was before Paul.
Craig
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Craig,
Earlier I said:
Knowing the purpose of His death and preaching it are two different things.
And the Acts narrative will be searched in vain for any incident where the purpose of His death was preached to the Jews.
In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html
Earlier I said:
To which you said:
I said that before Paul was converted that no one preached the purpose of His death on the Cross.And that was not preached by anyone until Paul.HopeofGlory said:
Knowing the purpose of His death and preaching it are two different things.
And the Acts narrative will be searched in vain for any incident where the purpose of His death was preached to the Jews.
In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html
HopeofGlory
New member
Jerry Shugart said:
Preach means to give religious or moral instruction and the fact is that Christ did preach the "purpose" of His death to the apostles and it was before Paul cannot be denied.
I know the purpose of His death was not preached to the Jews at Pentecost and I have posted that fact many times over.
The apostles were given the words of reconciliation and instructed to preach His words to every creature.
Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Craig
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
The Apostles and only the Apostles were told that by the Lord Jesus.HopeofGlory said:
It was not preached to the Jews at Pentecost nor was it preached to the Jews during the Acts period.
If the Twelve Apostles were preaching the "word of reconciliation" to every creature,then why did they not preach that message to the Jews?Do not the Jews come under the category of "every creature"?
In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html
HopeofGlory
New member
Jerry Shugart said:
Christ preached the "ministry of reconciliation" to the apostles, He clearly revealed to them the "purpose" of His death when He gave them the new testament. Because the purpose of His death was not preached at Pentecost does not mean it was not intended to be. What Paul preached is the "gospel of Christ" and it is the same gospel Christ gave to the apostles and it is a message of "everlasting life".
Joh 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
2Co 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
This gospel was to be given to the Jew first and such was Stephen's and Paul's ministry but because of unbelief Paul turned to the Gentiles.
I never said the twelve were preaching the word of reconciliation, I said Christ gave that word to the apostles and it was not veiled or in parable. Christ revealed His gospel progressively based on their belief. Jews first had to believe He was the Son of God before accepting Him as their Messiah and were required to perform water baptism in His name during the dispensation of law for remission of sins. This remission was temporary and would be replaced by the ministry of the new testament for remission. The Jews could not accept a message not of the letter thus it was not give in its entirety at Pentecost. Stephen was stoned when he began to preach a message of the spirit, the others did not speak in this manner. I believe that if they had spoken as did Stephen they would have all been stoned.
Act 6:10 And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake.
2Co 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
Paul was finally able to deliver the gospel to the Gentiles because they were not of the law and received it openly.
Act 13:46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.
Act 13:47 For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.
Act 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.
Act 13:49 And the word of the Lord was published throughout all the region.
Act 13:50 But the Jews stirred up the devout and honorable women, and the chief men of the city, and raised persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them out of their coasts.
Believing the words of Christ has always been the problem. The gospel was revealed progressively (not two gospels) and those that believed before it was fulfilled were saved but as it progressed they were required to continue to believe to receive eternal life.
Craig
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Craig,HopeofGlory said:
Here are your own words:
You say:
So even though the Apostles had a clear understanding as to what they were to preach and they were being led by the Spirit,they just decided not to preach what the Lord Jesus had told them to preach?
You said:
If there was only one gospel then why does Paul speak of two separate and distinct gospels?:
"But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter"(Gal.2:7).
The circumstances surrounding Paul's reception of the "gospel of the circumcision" was entirely different than the circumstances surrounding his receiving of the "gospel of the uncircumcision".
Here is what Paul says about the events which occured after he recived the gospel that he preached to the Gentiles:
"But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ...that I might preach him among the Gentiles; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus"(Gal.1:11,12,16,17).
Paul says in words that cannot be misunderstood that when he reeived the gospel that he preached unto the Gentiles that he did not confer with any other men,and he went immediately into Arabia.
That is not what happened after Paul received the gospel which he preached to the Jews:
"And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.
"And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized. And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus. And immediately he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God"(Acts9:17-20).
Here we can clearly see that upon receiving the "gospel of the circumcision" that he was with other disciples in Damascus and he immediately preached Christ to the Jews.
When Paul recived the "gospel of the uncircumcision" he said that he went "immediately" into Arabia,and he did not confer with any other men.
This demonstrates conclusively that Paul recived two different gospels from the Lord--"the gospel of the circumcision" and "the gospel of the uncircumcision"(Gal.2:7).
In His grace,--Jerry
”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
http://midacts.net/studies/shugart-dispensationalism_made_easy.html
Last edited:
HopeofGlory
New member
Jerry Shugart said:
It is clear they were given the new testament yet they did not believe or they would have preached it. Peter was saved because he believed Jesus was the Christ yet spoke against his death. He also denied Christ and refused to go to a Gentile. He was led by Christ and later by the Spirit and still required further instruction. His acceptance of the ministry of reconciliation that was given to him in the new testament for remission of sins without the law was progressive and one does not preach what they do not believe.
Because there were different circumstances surrounding a progression of reveleation doesn't infer to different gospels.
Paul never preached a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins and he was not the first to preach against the law. Stephen reflects that it was frist intended for the Jews to receive the ministry of reconciliation of the spirit and not the letter but the Jews stoned Spephen and then Paul was called. Paul receive the "gospel of Christ" progressively "not two gospels". Paul went to the Jew first and again they rejected it in favor of the law.
I understand that Peter was preaching truth but it was tainted with the law (gospel the circumcision preached) and you must understand that Christ gave Peter the ministry of reconciliation that His shed blood was for the remission of sins, this was a new testimony for remission not a water baptism for remission as the Baptist taught. God never intended two spearated gospels. He intened that it first be given to the Jews and that nation would minister it to the Gentiles.
Joh 3:30 He must increase, but I must decrease.
Joh 3:31 He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all.
Joh 5:36 But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.
I believe the gospel of Christ was revealed progressively because of man's inability to accept it and Peter displays man's progressive understanding even after it is clearly revealed to him.
When I say "God never intended two gospels", I want you to believe. You understand the words but it will take God's help for you to believe them. When Christ told Peter that His shed blood was for the remission of sins He wanted Peter to believe and preach that new testament without the law.
Craig
Confer does not mean Proclaim...
Confer does not mean Proclaim...
Jerry –
Thanks for the reply – regretz for the delay in getting back with you. Much has been said since then, but...
Jerry >> Go back and read what I wrote on this subject.Are you saying that this was "meager"?
The content was not meager, just the volume. Given all that John and Jesus had to say during the time of Jesus’ earthly ministry, I did not get much feedback. Repentance, the kingdom, HS baptism, His death/burial/and resurrection, the church, marriage, and others were all topics of His ministry. I suppose my question was too general in scope to obtain specific replies.
<<<*>>>
On the questions about when one actually is “born of God” or receives eternal life, you surprise me that you accept “easy believe-ism”. I believe your response to my question on…
John 12:42 - ”Nevertheless even of the rulers many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess [it], lest they should be put out of the synagogue…”
…indicates such may be true. But perhaps I did not give enough consideration to your phrase of if they believed “in their heart”, although I can not find that phrase in any of the passages you have been using to support your thoughts on being “born of God”, as I can not find “at the moment”. Does this phrase “in their heart” indicate sincerity, conviction, some emotion, or something else?
It also makes me rush to ask, must a man REPENT to be “born of God”?
You also used the expression “really believed” in reference to those in Matthew 7. I do not know if this expression will be important in this discussion as to create a need to define it or not. But also in reference to Matthew 7:22-24 you said…
Jerry >> “It is those people who really have no faith at all, and the same people who the Lord speaks - I never knew you….cont
I realize the context of Matthew 7 is false teachers, but Jesus speaks within that context of those that DO, and those that DON’T do the Father’s will. In this passage Jesus said of those two groups, that those who DO the Father’s will are those that will enter the kingdom of heaven.
I will continue to stand by my position that ONE verse does not tell us everything that we need to know to be “born of God” as John 3:3 expands upon (what is required to be “born again” – water and Spirit) along with…
John 1:12 - ”But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, [even] to them that believe on his name…”
Those who “receive” Him are the ones to whom He gives the “RIGHT” to become children of God - those that “believe on His name”… an expression that lends itself to the idea of recognizing & appealing to His authority… not just a thought or feeling derived from ONE favorite expression or verse. To “believe” or “accept” is a comprehensive word indicating more than mental recognition of a fact.
We disagree on what it means to “BELIEVE”. Let’s use scripture to define the perimeters of what it means to “believe”. I reject the notion that mental acknowledgment alone of a fact is enough to appropriate salvation from God.
Perhaps your view on how REPENTANCE works into your final equation of being saved will be telling.
Jerry used >> "Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent'(Jn.6:28,29).
He later remarked…
Jerry >> In fact, Paul makes it as plain as possible that no one's righteousness before God is dependent on "works":
"For by grace are ye saved...not of works,lest any man should boast" - (Eph.2:8,9).
Some may view these two remarks as contradictory. I am certain you can clarify this for me. Perhaps you are you saying that by a WORK we can be “born of God”, yet by our work(s) we cannot stand before God righteous ???
<<<*>>>
I will wait to see if the reason(s) as to why Jesus advised some to “tell no man” will be important in this discussion rather than review those items at this time.
<<<*>>>
Jerry >> He came primarly for spiritual healing and not for physical healing.
Agreed!
<<<*>>>
Jerry remarked in an earlier post in this thread…
>>>Here (Acts 9:17-20) we can clearly see that upon receiving the "gospel of the circumcision" that he was with other disciples in Damascus and he immediately preached Christ to the Jews.
When Paul recived the "gospel of the uncircumcision" (Gal.1:11,12,16,17) he said that he went "immediately" into Arabia,and he did not confer with any other men.
This demonstrates conclusively that Paul recived two different gospels from the Lord--"the gospel of the circumcision" and "the gospel of the uncircumcision"(Gal.2:7).<<<
Hardly. I have –3- initial impressions:
1.) You read these passages with presumption and carelessly – not for what it actually says. This why items #2 and #3 below occurred…
2.) You make no distinction in your mind between the words “preached” and “conferred” – 2 - different words that convey different meanings.
3.) You have no definite order in your mind of the events that take place at the time of Acts 9 as they compare directly to Galatians 1.
First the comparative chronology:
A Comparison of Acts 9 & Galatians 1
Event Recorded
1.) Damascus
Ananias Acts 9:3f Galatians 1:12-16
“Conferred not” Gal. 1:16
2.) To Arabia Gal. 1:17
3.) Returned to Damascus Gal. 1:17
“certain days there” Acts 9:19-22 (Gal. 1:17)
Preached Christ Acts 9:23-25
(Preached Christ) (Acts 26:20)
Out thru window Acts 9:23-25 (2 Cor. 11:33,32)
4.) First trip to Jerusalem Acts 9:26 Gal. 1:18
3 years after returning to Damascus Gal. 1:18
Saw Peter & James Acts 9:27 Gal. 1:18
(Warned to leave) (Acts 22:17f)
5.) To Tarsus of Cilicia Acts 9:30 Gal. 1:2
6.) To Antioch of Syria Acts 11:26 Gal. 1:21
7.) To Jerusalem Acts 11:30
Offering Acts 12:25
Apostles not there
Herod’s persecution
First journey
8.) Conf. at Jerusalem Acts 15:1ff Gal 2:1ff
Reference Dates:
30 AD – Pentecost (Acts 2)
34 AD – Paul’s Conversion
37 AD – Escape from Damascus
40-42 AD – Paul starts work at Antioch of Syria
(44 AD – Death of Herod – “Fixed” point of reference)
45-48 AD – First journey
50 AD – Jerusalem conference
51-54 AD – Second journey
54-58 AD – Third journey
58 AD – Arrested in Jerusalem
58-60 AD – In prison in Caesarea
60 AD – Voyage to Rome (60 AD – Festus takes office)
61-63 AD – Roman prison (64 AD – Rome burned)
70 AD – Destruction of Jerusalem
Luke does not record Paul’s trip into Arabia. However, in Acts 9:19b, Luke takes up Paul’s work upon his return to Damascus – which Paul tells us about in Gal. 1:17. The chronology I present is straightforward and co-ordinated scripture to scripture. I am certain you will let me know should you have a disagreement.
In Galatians 1:16-17 Paul informs the reader that he was selected to preach the gospel to the Gentiles. Prior to this in verse 11 and 12 it is easy to note that Paul was assuring the Galatians that the gospel he received came via revelation. Then after receiving the gospel, Paul tells us that he “CONFERRED” with no man. Paul did not seek out any man for the purpose of receiving any type of advice or instruction.
Paul wants the Galatians to know –2- things:
1.)Of certain that he is a true Apostle of Christ (this is not the first time Paul defends his apostleship in his writings) and …
2.) That the gospel he preaches is the real gospel – not one that the Galatians were “removing” themselves to or that he got from man-made sources.
As Paul succinctly contains in this first chapter – I obtained the gospel by revelation of Jesus Christ (vs. 12)… I conferred with no man, not even the Apostles at Jerusalem (vs.16-17) to get it. I am a real Apostle and so is the source of the gospel I preach !
Upon Paul’s return from Arabia (Gal. 1:17), the account of Luke in Acts 9:19b shows Paul back in Damascus – now “PREACHING” Jesus (vs. 20).
You post #218 this thread shows you clearly made no distinction in these words:
Your use of the word “CONFER” twice shows the carelessness in your exegesis.
(*Accurately, this passage (Gal. 1:16) states that Paul was selected to “preach Him” to the Gentiles & that His son was revealed in Paul. Paul does not say he was given a gospel to preach to just the Gentiles – which is a presumption. These are 2 totally different thoughts and I prefer what Paul said – not the man-made insertion.!)
You attempt to create –2- different gospels out of this…
You take –2- different actions (not conferring (1:16) and proclaiming Jesus (9:20)…), which are two completely different words, which take place at –2- different times (before Paul going to Arabia and his return to Damascus…), attempt to say the actions are the same and are therefore, mutually exclusive.
This idea of two gospels is, therefore, based on erroneous assumptions !
Once you clearly see WHAT Paul did – that he did not CONFER with anyone before going to Arabia – and when he returned he proclaimed Jesus AS THE SON OF GOD (not the Messiah as you say in your quote above) in Damascus -and-
once you see clearly WHEN Paul did what he did, you should see that there is no reality of a second gospel being introduced.
You have assumed –2- gospels, and–2- occasions of revelation from of 2 different actions that took place at –2- different times. The former action and occasion does not preclude anything of the latter.
Now if you can prove that Paul had –2- occasions of revelation, someone might give heed to some of the things you assume. But Paul only speaks of ONE occasion of revelation (Gal. 1:12) and Paul speaks of only ONE gospel (Gal. 1:11) – the one he proclaimed at Damascus (Acts 9:20).
Confer does not mean Proclaim...
Jerry –
Thanks for the reply – regretz for the delay in getting back with you. Much has been said since then, but...
Jerry >> Go back and read what I wrote on this subject.Are you saying that this was "meager"?
The content was not meager, just the volume. Given all that John and Jesus had to say during the time of Jesus’ earthly ministry, I did not get much feedback. Repentance, the kingdom, HS baptism, His death/burial/and resurrection, the church, marriage, and others were all topics of His ministry. I suppose my question was too general in scope to obtain specific replies.
<<<*>>>
On the questions about when one actually is “born of God” or receives eternal life, you surprise me that you accept “easy believe-ism”. I believe your response to my question on…
John 12:42 - ”Nevertheless even of the rulers many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess [it], lest they should be put out of the synagogue…”
…indicates such may be true. But perhaps I did not give enough consideration to your phrase of if they believed “in their heart”, although I can not find that phrase in any of the passages you have been using to support your thoughts on being “born of God”, as I can not find “at the moment”. Does this phrase “in their heart” indicate sincerity, conviction, some emotion, or something else?
It also makes me rush to ask, must a man REPENT to be “born of God”?
You also used the expression “really believed” in reference to those in Matthew 7. I do not know if this expression will be important in this discussion as to create a need to define it or not. But also in reference to Matthew 7:22-24 you said…
Jerry >> “It is those people who really have no faith at all, and the same people who the Lord speaks - I never knew you….cont
I realize the context of Matthew 7 is false teachers, but Jesus speaks within that context of those that DO, and those that DON’T do the Father’s will. In this passage Jesus said of those two groups, that those who DO the Father’s will are those that will enter the kingdom of heaven.
I will continue to stand by my position that ONE verse does not tell us everything that we need to know to be “born of God” as John 3:3 expands upon (what is required to be “born again” – water and Spirit) along with…
John 1:12 - ”But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, [even] to them that believe on his name…”
Those who “receive” Him are the ones to whom He gives the “RIGHT” to become children of God - those that “believe on His name”… an expression that lends itself to the idea of recognizing & appealing to His authority… not just a thought or feeling derived from ONE favorite expression or verse. To “believe” or “accept” is a comprehensive word indicating more than mental recognition of a fact.
We disagree on what it means to “BELIEVE”. Let’s use scripture to define the perimeters of what it means to “believe”. I reject the notion that mental acknowledgment alone of a fact is enough to appropriate salvation from God.
Perhaps your view on how REPENTANCE works into your final equation of being saved will be telling.
Jerry used >> "Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent'(Jn.6:28,29).
He later remarked…
Jerry >> In fact, Paul makes it as plain as possible that no one's righteousness before God is dependent on "works":
"For by grace are ye saved...not of works,lest any man should boast" - (Eph.2:8,9).
Some may view these two remarks as contradictory. I am certain you can clarify this for me. Perhaps you are you saying that by a WORK we can be “born of God”, yet by our work(s) we cannot stand before God righteous ???
<<<*>>>
I will wait to see if the reason(s) as to why Jesus advised some to “tell no man” will be important in this discussion rather than review those items at this time.
<<<*>>>
Jerry >> He came primarly for spiritual healing and not for physical healing.
Agreed!
<<<*>>>
Jerry remarked in an earlier post in this thread…
>>>Here (Acts 9:17-20) we can clearly see that upon receiving the "gospel of the circumcision" that he was with other disciples in Damascus and he immediately preached Christ to the Jews.
When Paul recived the "gospel of the uncircumcision" (Gal.1:11,12,16,17) he said that he went "immediately" into Arabia,and he did not confer with any other men.
This demonstrates conclusively that Paul recived two different gospels from the Lord--"the gospel of the circumcision" and "the gospel of the uncircumcision"(Gal.2:7).<<<
Hardly. I have –3- initial impressions:
1.) You read these passages with presumption and carelessly – not for what it actually says. This why items #2 and #3 below occurred…
2.) You make no distinction in your mind between the words “preached” and “conferred” – 2 - different words that convey different meanings.
3.) You have no definite order in your mind of the events that take place at the time of Acts 9 as they compare directly to Galatians 1.
First the comparative chronology:
A Comparison of Acts 9 & Galatians 1
Event Recorded
1.) Damascus
Ananias Acts 9:3f Galatians 1:12-16
“Conferred not” Gal. 1:16
2.) To Arabia Gal. 1:17
3.) Returned to Damascus Gal. 1:17
“certain days there” Acts 9:19-22 (Gal. 1:17)
Preached Christ Acts 9:23-25
(Preached Christ) (Acts 26:20)
Out thru window Acts 9:23-25 (2 Cor. 11:33,32)
4.) First trip to Jerusalem Acts 9:26 Gal. 1:18
3 years after returning to Damascus Gal. 1:18
Saw Peter & James Acts 9:27 Gal. 1:18
(Warned to leave) (Acts 22:17f)
5.) To Tarsus of Cilicia Acts 9:30 Gal. 1:2
6.) To Antioch of Syria Acts 11:26 Gal. 1:21
7.) To Jerusalem Acts 11:30
Offering Acts 12:25
Apostles not there
Herod’s persecution
First journey
8.) Conf. at Jerusalem Acts 15:1ff Gal 2:1ff
Reference Dates:
30 AD – Pentecost (Acts 2)
34 AD – Paul’s Conversion
37 AD – Escape from Damascus
40-42 AD – Paul starts work at Antioch of Syria
(44 AD – Death of Herod – “Fixed” point of reference)
45-48 AD – First journey
50 AD – Jerusalem conference
51-54 AD – Second journey
54-58 AD – Third journey
58 AD – Arrested in Jerusalem
58-60 AD – In prison in Caesarea
60 AD – Voyage to Rome (60 AD – Festus takes office)
61-63 AD – Roman prison (64 AD – Rome burned)
70 AD – Destruction of Jerusalem
Luke does not record Paul’s trip into Arabia. However, in Acts 9:19b, Luke takes up Paul’s work upon his return to Damascus – which Paul tells us about in Gal. 1:17. The chronology I present is straightforward and co-ordinated scripture to scripture. I am certain you will let me know should you have a disagreement.
In Galatians 1:16-17 Paul informs the reader that he was selected to preach the gospel to the Gentiles. Prior to this in verse 11 and 12 it is easy to note that Paul was assuring the Galatians that the gospel he received came via revelation. Then after receiving the gospel, Paul tells us that he “CONFERRED” with no man. Paul did not seek out any man for the purpose of receiving any type of advice or instruction.
Paul wants the Galatians to know –2- things:
1.)Of certain that he is a true Apostle of Christ (this is not the first time Paul defends his apostleship in his writings) and …
2.) That the gospel he preaches is the real gospel – not one that the Galatians were “removing” themselves to or that he got from man-made sources.
As Paul succinctly contains in this first chapter – I obtained the gospel by revelation of Jesus Christ (vs. 12)… I conferred with no man, not even the Apostles at Jerusalem (vs.16-17) to get it. I am a real Apostle and so is the source of the gospel I preach !
Upon Paul’s return from Arabia (Gal. 1:17), the account of Luke in Acts 9:19b shows Paul back in Damascus – now “PREACHING” Jesus (vs. 20).
You post #218 this thread shows you clearly made no distinction in these words:
(Scripture references included by me for clarity – A.)
Your use of the word “CONFER” twice shows the carelessness in your exegesis.
(*Accurately, this passage (Gal. 1:16) states that Paul was selected to “preach Him” to the Gentiles & that His son was revealed in Paul. Paul does not say he was given a gospel to preach to just the Gentiles – which is a presumption. These are 2 totally different thoughts and I prefer what Paul said – not the man-made insertion.!)
You attempt to create –2- different gospels out of this…
You take –2- different actions (not conferring (1:16) and proclaiming Jesus (9:20)…), which are two completely different words, which take place at –2- different times (before Paul going to Arabia and his return to Damascus…), attempt to say the actions are the same and are therefore, mutually exclusive.
This idea of two gospels is, therefore, based on erroneous assumptions !
Once you clearly see WHAT Paul did – that he did not CONFER with anyone before going to Arabia – and when he returned he proclaimed Jesus AS THE SON OF GOD (not the Messiah as you say in your quote above) in Damascus -and-
once you see clearly WHEN Paul did what he did, you should see that there is no reality of a second gospel being introduced.
You have assumed –2- gospels, and–2- occasions of revelation from of 2 different actions that took place at –2- different times. The former action and occasion does not preclude anything of the latter.
Now if you can prove that Paul had –2- occasions of revelation, someone might give heed to some of the things you assume. But Paul only speaks of ONE occasion of revelation (Gal. 1:12) and Paul speaks of only ONE gospel (Gal. 1:11) – the one he proclaimed at Damascus (Acts 9:20).
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Craig,
You said:
”And Paul,as his manner was,went into them,and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures,Opening and alleging that Christ needs have suffered,and risen again from the dead,and this Jesus,Whom I preach unto you,is Christ”(Acts17:2-4).
In His grace,--Jerry
You said:
Paul knew and believed the “word of reconciliation”.But yet when he preached a gospel to the Jews he never once mentioned the purpose of the death of the Lord Jesus.He preached the same thing that the Twelve preached to them:
”And Paul,as his manner was,went into them,and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures,Opening and alleging that Christ needs have suffered,and risen again from the dead,and this Jesus,Whom I preach unto you,is Christ”(Acts17:2-4).
In His grace,--Jerry