ECT The Gospel Preached at Pentecost

[Jerry Shugart]

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.”
??Romans? ?1:16? ?ASV??
http://bible.com/12/rom.1.16.asv

Yes, paul first preached the "good news" of Christ to the Jews, that jesus is the Christ and all who believed were saved. Then he preached the "good news" of Christ to the Gentiles, that the lord Jesus died for our sins. And those who believed that "good news"of Christ were saved.

You are stuck on the fiction that only one instance of "good news" was preached that brought salvation despite the fact that I have shown you that there were two.

 

[intojoy]

That is exactly what Matthew was referring to here:

"That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses" (Mt.8:170.​

That happened when the Lord Jesus walked the earth and that is why the Baptist used the "present" tense and not the "future" tense at John 1:29.

Son, I send you to school and buy you books and all you do is to chew on them. You still have not learned the difference between the "present" tense and the "future" tense.

All I needed was my bible dad. Don't be triggered


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[intojoy]

Yes, paul first preached the "good news" of Christ to the Jews, that jesus is the Christ and all who believed were saved. Then he preached the "good news" of Christ to the Gentiles, that the lord Jesus died for our sins. And those who believed that "good news"of Christ were saved.

You are stuck on the fiction that only one instance of "good news" was preached that brought salvation despite the fact that I have shown you that there were two.

Let me give you a lesson in grammar here:

The verse has two verbs. The first verb, epaischunomai, meaning “to be ashamed,” controls the first clause. It is in the Greek present tense, emphasizing continuous action; Paul is continuously not ashamed of the gospel.

The second verb is estin, meaning “is,” also in the Greek present tense, emphasizing continuous action. The exegetical question concerns whether the verb controls only the second clause or the second and third clauses. The second clause tells us that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation, and as the Greek present tense emphasizes, this is always true. Thus far, there is no debate among the commentaries. The real question is whether the verb “is” also controls the last clause: to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. If it does, then it would also teach that the gospel is continuously to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. If it does not, then Paul is making nothing more than a historical statement that the gospel came to the Jew first and has no ongoing relevance.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Jerry Shugart]

So Paul was psychotic up at Corinth and said "Christ died for our sins, was buried and rose again, according the scriptures" when asked to say what the Gospel was.

No, he was not psychotic. Some people say that the OT Scriptures revealed that Christ "died for our sins" because Paul wrote that the Lord Jesus died for our sins "according to the Scriptures." Notice that Paul also says that He rose again the third day "according to the Scriptures." The OT Scriptures will be searched in vain for any testimony that the Messiah would be buried and then rise from the dead "the third day". What Paul is saying is that the evidence of these things can be found in the "types" of the OT but these truths were not openly revealed. It was not until the Lord Jesus said that "For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Mt.12:40) that anyone understood that the Scriptures in regard to Jonas were a "type" of the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus. It was not until after the Cross that anyone understood that the OT sacrifices were a "type" of the Lord Jesus dying for our sins.

Adam Clarke wrote: "It is not said anywhere in the Scriptures, in express terms, that Christ should rise on the third day; but it is fully implied in His types, as in the case of Jonah, who came out of the belly of the fish on the third day" (Clarke, The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, II, p.280).

 

[intojoy]

Let me give you a lesson in grammar here:

The verse has two verbs. The first verb, epaischunomai, meaning “to be ashamed,” controls the first clause. It is in the Greek present tense, emphasizing continuous action; Paul is continuously not ashamed of the gospel.

The second verb is estin, meaning “is,” also in the Greek present tense, emphasizing continuous action. The exegetical question concerns whether the verb controls only the second clause or the second and third clauses. The second clause tells us that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation, and as the Greek present tense emphasizes, this is always true. Thus far, there is no debate among the commentaries. The real question is whether the verb “is” also controls the last clause: to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. If it does, then it would also teach that the gospel is continuously to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. If it does not, then Paul is making nothing more than a historical statement that the gospel came to the Jew first and has no ongoing relevance.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

:Jerry desperately searching thru his commentaries..:


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[intojoy]

Let me give you a lesson in grammar here:

The verse has two verbs. The first verb, epaischunomai, meaning “to be ashamed,” controls the first clause. It is in the Greek present tense, emphasizing continuous action; Paul is continuously not ashamed of the gospel.

The second verb is estin, meaning “is,” also in the Greek present tense, emphasizing continuous action. The exegetical question concerns whether the verb controls only the second clause or the second and third clauses. The second clause tells us that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation, and as the Greek present tense emphasizes, this is always true. Thus far, there is no debate among the commentaries. The real question is whether the verb “is” also controls the last clause: to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. If it does, then it would also teach that the gospel is continuously to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. If it does not, then Paul is making nothing more than a historical statement that the gospel came to the Jew first and has no ongoing relevance.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

Important to this same discussion is Paul’s use of the phrase two more times in Romans 2:9–10: . . . tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Greek; but glory and honor and peace to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek (ASV).
The question also is, of course, Do these two verses speak of an ongoing situation or a purely historical situation? Are these two verses describing a principle that is always true? Or was it only true at one time, but no more? How one concludes the meaning of these two verses will, in turn, help to properly interpret Romans 1:16.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The second verb is estin, meaning “is,” also in the Greek present tense, emphasizing continuous action.

You fail to mention that the second verb is in the "indicative mood":

"The indicative mood is a simple statement of fact. If an action really occurs or has occurred or will occur, it will be rendered in the indicative mood" (Blue Letter Bible).​

You also fail to grasp the fact that according to the Greek experts the Greek present tense can be in regard to a continuous action beginning in the past and continuing into the present time:

"The durative (linear or progressive) in the present stem: the action is represented as durative (in progress) and either as timeless or as taking place in present time (including, of course, duration on one side or the other of the present moment" (Blass & DeBrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, p. 166.)​

"The present tense may be used to describe an action which, begun in the past, continues in the present. The emphasis is on the present time" (Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 519).​

"A Present Tense form is called durative when the context conveys an action that began in the past and continues into the present" (Young, Intermediate Greek, p.111-112).​

Important to this same discussion is Paul’s use of the phrase two more times in Romans 2:9–10: . . . tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Greek; but glory and honor and peace to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek (ASV).

The "mood" of the verb at Romans 2:9 is different from the second verb at Romans 1:16. You are comparing apples with oranges, a comparison which cannot be practically compared.

 

[intojoy]

You fail to mention that the second verb is in the "indicative mood":

"The indicative mood is a simple statement of fact. If an action really occurs or has occurred or will occur, it will be rendered in the indicative mood" (Blue Letter Bible).​

You also fail to grasp the fact that according to the Greek experts the Greek present tense can be in regard to a continuous action beginning in the past and continuing into the present time:

"The durative (linear or progressive) in the present stem: the action is represented as durative (in progress) and either as timeless or as taking place in present time (including, of course, duration on one side or the other of the present moment" (Blass & DeBrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, p. 166.)​

"The present tense may be used to describe an action which, begun in the past, continues in the present. The emphasis is on the present time" (Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 519).​

"A Present Tense form is called durative when the context conveys an action that began in the past and continues into the present" (Young, Intermediate Greek, p.111-112).​

Goodnight Jerry.



Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Interplanner]

You fail to mention that the second verb is in the "indicative mood":

"The indicative mood is a simple statement of fact. If an action really occurs or has occurred or will occur, it will be rendered in the indicative mood" (Blue Letter Bible).​

You also fail to grasp the fact that according to the Greek experts the Greek present tense can be in regard to a continuous action beginning in the past and continuing into the present time:

"The durative (linear or progressive) in the present stem: the action is represented as durative (in progress) and either as timeless or as taking place in present time (including, of course, duration on one side or the other of the present moment" (Blass & DeBrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, p. 166.)​

"The present tense may be used to describe an action which, begun in the past, continues in the present. The emphasis is on the present time" (Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 519).​

"A Present Tense form is called durative when the context conveys an action that began in the past and continues into the present" (Young, Intermediate Greek, p.111-112).​

The "mood" of the verb at Romans 2:9 is different from the second verb at Romans 1:16. You are comparing apples with oranges, a comparison which cannot be practically compared.

The Gospel is timeless, Jerry. Christ's work is one piece or act. Some of it was to perform righteousness as in Mt 3:16. Some of it was to atone for other's sins.

2P2P is a parasite that divides and sees double when things are one, unified and clear.

 

[Danoh]

Important to this same discussion is Paul’s use of the phrase two more times in Romans 2:9–10: . . . tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Greek; but glory and honor and peace to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek (ASV).
The question also is, of course, Do these two verses speak of an ongoing situation or a purely historical situation? Are these two verses describing a principle that is always true? Or was it only true at one time, but no more? How one concludes the meaning of these two verses will, in turn, help to properly interpret Romans 1:16.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

I agree the other is historical...

Romans 15:23 But now having no more place in these parts, and having a great desire these many years to come unto you; 15:24 Whensoever I take my journey into Spain, I will come to you: for I trust to see you in my journey, and to be brought on my way thitherward by you, if first I be somewhat filled with your company.

But the one on your post here is yet, future...

Romans 2:16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

Again, beyond the Greek; overall narrative sheds light on the intended sense of what is said within said overall narrative.

The Greek alone...ends up...a blind spot.

 

[intojoy]

I agree the other is historical...

Romans 15:23 But now having no more place in these parts, and having a great desire these many years to come unto you; 15:24 Whensoever I take my journey into Spain, I will come to you: for I trust to see you in my journey, and to be brought on my way thitherward by you, if first I be somewhat filled with your company.

But the one on your post here is yet, future...

Romans 2:16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

Again, beyond the Greek; overall narrative sheds light on the intended sense of what is said within said overall narrative.

The Greek alone...ends up...a blind spot.

A lesson in grammar for you my son:

The gospel is the power of God, and the proper procedure is for it to go to the Jew first. The governing verb, is, is in the present tense, which emphasizes continuous action and controls both clauses: the gospel is the power of God and the gospel is to the Jew first. To interpret this verse historically to mean that the gospel was to the Jew first in the sense that it came to them first and that this is no longer the case, or that it was only true during the apostolic period, is also to say that the gospel was the power of God, but it is no longer that. Consistent exegesis would demand that if the gospel is always the power of God to save, then it is always to the Jew first.

The Greek word that Paul used for the English word first is proton, the neuter form of protos. Among the lexicons, Thayer notes that the Septuagint uses protos for both the Hebrew meaning “first,” as well as for (echad ), meaning “one.” He then gives protos three categories of meaning.
The primary category is “first either in time or place, in any succession of things or of persons.”
The secondary meaning is “first in rank, influence, honor; chief; principal.”




Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The Gospel is timeless, Jerry. Christ's work is one piece or act.

Your ideas are so ridiculous that they are laughable. According to your ideas there is just one instance of "good news" (gospel) of the Lord Jesus which results in salvation to those who believe that good news.

One instance of the "good news" of the Lord Jesus that is declared is the fact that Jesus is the Christ, the promised Messiah. And belief in the gospel brings salvation to all who believe it (1 Jn.5:1;Jn.20:30-31).

Another instance of the good news of Christ that is declared is that He died for our sins and belief in that good news brings salvation to all who believe it (1 Cor.15:1-4).

You deny this truth because you put more faith in what some men say about the Scriptures than you do in what the Scriptures actually say.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The second verb is estin, meaning “is,” also in the Greek present tense, emphasizing continuous action.

You fail to mention that the second verb is in the "indicative mood":

"The indicative mood is a simple statement of fact. If an action really occurs or has occurred or will occur, it will be rendered in the indicative mood" (Blue Letter Bible).​

You also fail to grasp the fact that according to the Greek experts the Greek present tense can be in regard to a continuous action beginning in the past and continuing into the present time:

"The durative (linear or progressive) in the present stem: the action is represented as durative (in progress) and either as timeless or as taking place in present time (including, of course, duration on one side or the other of the present moment" (Blass & DeBrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, p. 166.)​

"The present tense may be used to describe an action which, begun in the past, continues in the present. The emphasis is on the present time" (Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 519).​

"A Present Tense form is called durative when the context conveys an action that began in the past and continues into the present" (Young, Intermediate Greek, p.111-112).​

Important to this same discussion is Paul’s use of the phrase two more times in Romans 2:9–10: . . . tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Greek; but glory and honor and peace to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek (ASV).

The "mood" of the verb at Romans 2:9 is different from the second verb at Romans 1:16. You are comparing apples with oranges, a comparison which cannot be practically compared.

 

[Interplanner]

Your ideas are so ridiculous that they are laughable. According to your ideas there is just one instance of "good news" (gospel) of the Lord Jesus which results in salvation to those who believe that good news.

One instance of the "good news" of the Lord Jesus that is declared is the fact that Jesus is the Christ, the promised Messiah. And belief in the gospel brings salvation to all who believe it (1 Jn.5:1;Jn.20:30-31).

Another instance of the good news of Christ that is declared is that He died for our sins and belief in that good news brings salvation to all who believe it (1 Cor.15:1-4).

You deny this truth because you put more faith in what some men say about the Scriptures than you do in what the Scriptures actually say.

You have not answered any questions about Jn 6 or the lamb, so yours are ridiculous. You are infected with a virus called 2P2P which looks like it is there, until you have a mature understanding of the NT, which you don't about several things. You don't know what 'in christ' means. You don't understand the denial problem among the disciples--that very early on they drifted from the 'death' of Christ and thought there was another gospel about his ID or being Messiah etc that was death-less. ETc ETc etc

The outburst of Peter at the confession did not come out of no where. They knew for the whole time that his death was involved; their emotion caught up to them and created that outburst. 'destroy this temple and I will rebuild it in 3 days' he said at nearly the first exchange with Judaism's leaders. You know so little of what you speak about.

An outburst like that is not a theological problem; it is a behavioral or honesty or emotion problem, so you have to consult with people who know those things to 'get' it.

You have a totally theoretical and doctrinaire and hair-splitting way of reading the text, most of the time.

Part of the psychosis of this was shown in your stuff in my post about how his death was mentioned all the time, but you think 'death for sin' is a TOTALLY different topic, making I Cor 15 psychotic to say it was for sins--because those other texts just say it was his death or just say he was the Christ (you may have noticed that I cor 15 reads 'Messiah/Christ died for our sins...'. You see double and do so to keep 2P2P intact, which is a rape of the Bible.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You have not answered any questions about Jn 6 or the lamb, so yours are ridiculous.

When you have no answer to what I say you change the subject in the hope that no one will notice that you have no answer to what I said. Again, according to your ideas there is just one instance of "good news" (gospel) of the Lord Jesus which results in salvation to those who believe that good news.

One instance of the "good news" of the Lord Jesus that is declared is the fact that Jesus is the Christ, the promised Messiah. And belief in the gospel brings salvation to all who believe it (1 Jn.5:1;Jn.20:30-31).

Another instance of the good news of Christ that is declared is that He died for our sins and belief in that good news brings salvation to all who believe it (1 Cor.15:1-4).

You deny this truth because you put more faith in what some men say about the Scriptures than you do in what the Scriptures actually say.

 

[intojoy]

You fail to mention that the second verb is in the "indicative mood":

"The indicative mood is a simple statement of fact. If an action really occurs or has occurred or will occur, it will be rendered in the indicative mood" (Blue Letter Bible).​

You also fail to grasp the fact that according to the Greek experts the Greek present tense can be in regard to a continuous action beginning in the past and continuing into the present time:

"The durative (linear or progressive) in the present stem: the action is represented as durative (in progress) and either as timeless or as taking place in present time (including, of course, duration on one side or the other of the present moment" (Blass & DeBrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, p. 166.)​

"The present tense may be used to describe an action which, begun in the past, continues in the present. The emphasis is on the present time" (Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 519).​

"A Present Tense form is called durative when the context conveys an action that began in the past and continues into the present" (Young, Intermediate Greek, p.111-112).​

The "mood" of the verb at Romans 2:9 is different from the second verb at Romans 1:16. You are comparing apples with oranges, a comparison which cannot be practically compared.

If the gospel is not to the Jew first anymore then it is no longer the power to save anymore either. Surely that is not what you believe?


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[intojoy]

Paul visited the synagogues preaching the word of salvation. Nowhere does the Bible say that Jesus told Paul to teach another gospel to the Jews. Jesus told the disciples that when they were to go to none but the house of Israel because He was offering to set up the Messianic kingdom right then right there. After the national rejection of that offer in recorded in Mt 12 Jesus' message changed. You've missed that.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[intojoy]

Yes, paul first preached the "good news" of Christ to the Jews, that jesus is the Christ and all who believed were saved. Then he preached the "good news" of Christ to the Gentiles, that the lord Jesus died for our sins. And those who believed that "good news"of Christ were saved.

You are stuck on the fiction that only one instance of "good news" was preached that brought salvation despite the fact that I have shown you that there were two.

So you think that Jews today are able to be saved without accepting the gospel?


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[intojoy]

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ for it is the power of God unto salvation to the Gentiles first and then unto the Jews"
JSV - Jerry Shugfail Translation


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Jerry Shugart]

If the gospel is not to the Jew first anymore then it is no longer the power to save anymore either.

Of course you make that assertion without any evidence to support that assertion.

Paul visited the synagogues preaching the word of salvation. Nowhere does the Bible say that Jesus told Paul to teach another gospel to the Jews.

The Scriptures will be searched in vain for anything which even hints that Paul was told to preach the same "good news" to the Gentiles which he preached to the Jews. Not long after Paul was converted on the Damascus road he preached the following message to the Jews:

"And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.....proving that this is the very Christ" (Acts 9:20,22).

At that time Paul had not yet received the gospel which he was to preach among the Gentiles. He wrote the following:

"But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus" (Gal.1:15-17).​

When Paul received a gospel from the Lord Jesus on the Damascus road he immediately went to Damascus (Acts 9:6-8). But when he received the gospel which he preached among the Gentiles he went immediately into Arabia. That can only mean that two different gospels were preached during the Acts period.

You have been shown this truth previously and you just IGNORED it even though it completely destroys your position that only one gospel was preached.