ECT Two Gospels Preached During The Acts Period

[Jerry Shugart]

1Mind1Soirit,

I asked you:

What do you think is the reason why these scattered disciples of the Lord Jesus did not preach a gospel to the Gentiles? After all, this would have been an ideal situation to spread the gospel of Christ to them.

Why didn't they?​

Here is your answer:

The fact is that they did.

It does not surprise me at all that you deny what is plainly said here:

"Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only" (Acts 11:19).​

To you "preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only" means that they preached to both the Jews and the Gentiles.

You remain in a state of confusion!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Thanks for your ponderings Jerry, but there never was a kingdom Gospel.

I though that you believe that this has already happened:

"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come" (Mt.24:14)​

.
Did you really pay money to get a higher education in theology?

I would suggest that you try to get your money back because you do not even know the most basic facts revealed in the Bible.

 

[Right Divider]

I though that you believe that this has already happened:

"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come" (Mt.24:14)​

.
Did you really pay money to get a higher education in theology?

I would suggest that you try to get your money back because you do not even know the most basic facts revealed in the Bible.

:BRAVO::thumb::cigar:

 

[Interplanner]

:BRAVO::thumb::cigar:

But you don't know Greek grammar. it does not mean a gospel about a kingdom. It means the gospel that belongs to the kingdom, therefore, Col 1's Christ's kingdom (which you and I are transfered into by faith) is the one he was talking about.

Gal 2 is always the prooftext here but it is also a poof-text. The preaching was the same; the audience was different. That is how the grammatical cases diagram, which is what matters, because then you don't need to know whether it is English or Greek; you just need it diagrammed correctly. Some Greek commentaries do this.

 

[Right Divider]

But you don't know Greek grammar. it does not mean a gospel about a kingdom. It means the gospel that belongs to the kingdom, therefore, Col 1's Christ's kingdom (which you and I are transfered into by faith) is the one he was talking about.

Gal 2 is always the prooftext here but it is also a poof-text. The preaching was the same; the audience was different. That is how the grammatical cases diagram, which is what matters, because then you don't need to know whether it is English or Greek; you just need it diagrammed correctly. Some Greek commentaries do this.

:french:

 

[Interplanner]

:french:

It's called genetive vs accusative case. Greek 101. But in English you have to just find the sense; there are no spellings as in Greek that tell you which case.

The whole doctrine is stupidly based on poor grammar, on the kind of question which should have started with Greek commentary before it said it meant a certain thing in English.

 

[Right Divider]

It's called genetive vs accusative case. Greek 101. But in English you have to just find the sense; there are no spellings as in Greek that tell you which case.

The whole doctrine is stupidly based on poor grammar, on the kind of question which should have started with Greek commentary before it said it meant a certain thing in English.

You are just so super smart. What would the world do without you?

Don't forget to also tell us what an incredible Hebrew scholar you are as well!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

But you don't know Greek grammar. it does not mean a gospel about a kingdom. It means the gospel that belongs to the kingdom, therefore, Col 1's Christ's kingdom (which you and I are transfered into by faith) is the one he was talking about.

What about the "gospel of the grace of God" (Acts 20:24)?

Is that also a gospel which belongs to "the grace of God" or does it mean a gospel about the grace of God?

Of course it is a gospel about the grace of God, as witnessed Paul's words here:

"The word of the truth of the gospel; Which is come unto you, as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth" (Col 1:5,6).​

Why would the "gospel of the kingdom" be any different?

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

1Mind1Soirit,

I asked you:

What do you think is the reason why these scattered disciples of the Lord Jesus did not preach a gospel to the Gentiles? After all, this would have been an ideal situation to spread the gospel of Christ to them.

Why didn't they?​

Here is your answer:



It does not surprise me at all that you deny what is plainly said here:

"Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only" (Acts 11:19).​

To you "preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only" means that they preached to both the Jews and the Gentiles.

You remain in a state of confusion!

:yawn:

 

[Jerry Shugart]

:yawn:

This is the first time that you have opened your mouth and not said something dumb!

Congratulations!

 

[northwye]

In his book, Dispensationalism (1966), Charles Ryrie says "The
essence of Dispensationalism, then, is the distinction between Israel
and the church." (page 3, "Dispensationalism")

J. Dwight Pentecost is another dispensationalist theologian who in his
book Things To Come ( 1965) says "The church
and Israel are two distinct groups with whom God has a divine plan.
The church is a mystery, unrevealed in the Old Testament. (page 193,
J. Dwight Pentecost, Things To Come, Zondervan, 1965).

The separation between Old Covenant Israel and the Church is a basic doctrine in dispenationalism. Yet Romans 10: 12, Galatians 3: 28 are clear NT scriptures which say that there is no distinction between Jews and non-Jews who are of the elect of God.
"For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.' Romans 10: 12

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3: 28

Dispensationalists will say that Old Covenant Israel rejected Christ. Yet mostly they will acknowledge that Romans 11: 5 does say that a remnant of Old Covenant Israel was elected to salvation.

So, dispensationalism can be called Separation Theology because it defies scripture and claims that the multitude of Old Covenant Israel remain the chosen people because of their blood line from Abraham. And all of them living at some point in time or some living at some point in time will be saved, they say, because of the blood line. Those of the blood line are in dispensationalism a separate people of God from the Church for the dispensationalists.

If they are to be saved because of their blood line, then they are still a chosen people of God.

The theology has serious differences with Galatians 3: 3, 16-17 and 26-29 and a number of other NT scriptures.

Here is one problem in the starting doctrries of the theology:

Oikonomia, Disopensation: Strong's Exhaustive Concordance Number 3622,
"from 3623, administration of a household or estate, specifically a religious economy, dispensation, stewardship."

I Corinthians 9: 17: "For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me."

Ephesians 1: 10: "That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:"

Ephesians 3: 2: " If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to youward:."

Colossians 1: 25: "Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;"

But dispensationalism defines dispensations as definite and separated time periods in which God deals with mankind in different ways. Dispensationalism separates Old Covenant Israel from what they call the Church by saying Old Covenant Israel is under a dispensation of law while the Church is under a dispensation of grace. This is their main basis for separating Old Covenant Israel from the Church.

1 Corinthians 9:17 does not say that a period of time of God's dealing with man in some specific way has been given to Paul. It says that the stewardship of the gospel has been given to Paul.

Ephesians 1:10 does not refer to a specific way that God deals with mankind, but instead is about Christ gathering all which are in heaven and earth unto Him under His stewardship.

Ephesians 3: 2:is not talking of the time period of God's grace which is given to Paul to administer to others. It is the stewardship of the of the house of God which was given to Paul.

And likewise Colossians 1:25 does not say that Paul was made a minister over a time period in which God deals with mankind in some way, but instead is about Paul being made a minister according to the administration of God to fulfill the word of God. Paul was made a steward of the Gospel.

The idea that God sets up periods of time in which he deals with mankind in different ways - in different dispensations - and that the dispensation of law will come back into effect when the dispensation of grace ends is not from Scripture, but is made up by John Darby, C.I Scofield and Lewis S. Chafer. This is why they are making an argument against scripture.

Their theology starts from an argument against the absolute truth of scripture, which makes the argument a form of the Marxist dialectic.

"In the eyes of the dialectical philosophy, nothing is established for
all time, nothing is absolute or sacred." Karl Marx

Dispensationalists are arguing against that which was established by God and is absolute. They are arguing for an anti-thesis against the thesis which is in place.

 

[turbosixx]

Here we see a reference to two different 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.1:7).​

If you look at he Greek transcript, the "good news" is only listed once like this:
I have been entrusted with the well message of the uncircumcision according as Peter of the circumcision.

Same gospel to two different audiences. Here's a better translation.
7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised ESV

What was preached to the Jews during the Acts period? Here is what Paul preached to them:

"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).​

Peter preached that Jesus was the Christ.
Acts 2:36 Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified."


In fact Peter and Paul preached basically the same message, which there is only one of, Christ. Acts 2 &13
Addressing Israel
Peter: 22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words;
Paul: 16 Then Paul stood up, and beckoning with his hand said, Men of Israel,

Christ descended from David
Peter: 30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
Paul: 23 Of this man's seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Savior, Jesus:

Christ died
Peter: 23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
Paul: 28 And though they found no cause of death in him, yet desired they Pilate that he should be slain.

David saw decay
Peter: 29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.
Paul: 36 For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption:

Christ did not see decay
Peter: 31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
Paul: 37 But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption.

Jesus resurrected
Peter: 32 This Jesus hath God raised up,
Paul: 30 But God raised him from the dead:

People witnessed the resurrection
Peter: 32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
Paul: 31 And he was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses unto the people.

Forgiveness of sins through Jesus
Peter: 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.
Paul: 38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:

Jesus is Israel’s savior
Peter: 36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
Paul: 23 Of this man's seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Savior, Jesus:

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Thanks for your ponderings Jerry, but there never was a kingdom Gospel. Or it is realized in Christ, Col.1 as intended.

You think the Bible has 2P2P, which is a disease. It does not.

It was "known for ages" that the gospel event would finally happen and draw all men unto God, raising David's fallen tent, Acts 15 on Amos 9.

I'm not Jerry, try again.

 

[Right Divider]

If you look at he Greek transcript, the "good news" is only listed once like this:
I have been entrusted with the well message of the uncircumcision according as Peter of the circumcision.

Same gospel to two different audiences. Here's a better translation.
7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised ESV

Ha Ha Ha .... ESV better translation..... that's a hoot! :rotfl:

Peter preached that Jesus was the Christ.
Acts 2:36 Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified."

Yes, he did. But he did NOT preach the gospel of the grace of God. He could not because it was not given to him and he did not know it.

In fact Peter and Paul preached basically the same message, which there is only one of, Christ. Acts 2 &13
Addressing Israel
Peter: 22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words;
Paul: 16 Then Paul stood up, and beckoning with his hand said, Men of Israel,

Christ descended from David
Peter: 30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
Paul: 23 Of this man's seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Savior, Jesus:

Christ died
Peter: 23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
Paul: 28 And though they found no cause of death in him, yet desired they Pilate that he should be slain.

David saw decay
Peter: 29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.
Paul: 36 For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption:

Christ did not see decay
Peter: 31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
Paul: 37 But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption.

Jesus resurrected
Peter: 32 This Jesus hath God raised up,
Paul: 30 But God raised him from the dead:

People witnessed the resurrection
Peter: 32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
Paul: 31 And he was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses unto the people.

Forgiveness of sins through Jesus
Peter: 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.
Paul: 38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:

Jesus is Israel’s savior
Peter: 36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
Paul: 23 Of this man's seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Savior, Jesus:

If I've said it once, I've said it a MILLION times..... we do NOT claim that EVERYTHING that Paul taught was brand spanking NEW.

Paul CONFIRMED ALL that came before in regards to God's revelations. But PAUL was given ADDITIONAL revelation that the other DID NOT HAVE.

This is why Paul can say that the apostles in Jerusalem ADDED NOTHING to him, but CONTRARIWISE he ADD SOMETHING to THEM.

Gal 2:6-9 (AKJV/PCE)​

(2:6) But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person for they who seemed [to be somewhat] in conference added nothing to me: (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; (2:8) (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles (2:9) And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we [should go] unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

​

You just insist on remaining willfully ignorant.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

In fact Peter and Paul preached basically the same message, which there is only one of, Christ. Acts 2

Yes, when preaching to the Jews Peter and Paul preached the same message. 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.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Paul CONFIRMED ALL that came before in regards to God's revelations. But PAUL was given ADDITIONAL revelation that the other DID NOT HAVE.

That is exactly right!

Paul was imprisoned for being a "mover of sedition among all Jews throughtout the world" (Ro.24:5) so anything which he said in defense of his ministry was based on what he taught among the Jews and nothing more. In his defense before king Agrippa he said:

"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" (Acts 26:22-23).​

Indeed, the gospel which Paul preached unto the Jews was based on nothing except the things previously revealed in the OT Scriptures. On the other hand, the gospel which he preached to the Gentiles was based on a "mystery" truth--something which had been kept secret and therefore was not revealed in the OT:

"Now to him who is able to establish you in accordance with my gospel, the message I proclaim about Jesus Christ, in keeping with the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all the Gentiles might come to the obedience that comes from faith" (Ro.16:25-26).​

This proves that there were two different gospels, one based on things revealed in the OT and another one based on things which were kept secret.

Things that differ are not the same.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

If they are to be saved because of their blood line, then they are still a chosen people of God.

Please quote just one dispensationalist who teaches that!

Dispensationalists do not teach that anyone will be saved because of their blood lines. And they do not teach that the Jews are still a chosen people.

Of course you always misrepresent the teaching within the dispensational community and when you are shown to be wrong you never defend your mistaken views.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

Please quote just one dispensationalist who teaches that!

Dispensationalists do not teach that anyone will be saved because of their blood lines. And they do not teach that the Jews are still a chosen people.

Of course you always misrepresent the teaching within the dispensational community and when you are shown to be wrong you never defend your mistaken views.

Dispys do teach that the Jews are Gods chosen people.

Just let those on this board who deny that come forth and say.

LA

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Dispys do teach that the Jews are Gods chosen people.

They teach that they WERE God's chosen people. And they teach that in the future they will once again be the Lord's chosen people:

"And I will bring them (Israel), and they shall dwell in the midst of Jerusalem: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God, in truth and in righteousness...And it shall come to pass, that as ye were a curse among the heathen, O house of Judah, and house of Israel; so will I save you, and ye shall be a blessing...In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you" (Zech.8:8,13,23).​

Of course you have no place for the fulfillment of this prophecy so you are forced to put a meaning on it which is foreign to what is actually said.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

This is the first time that you have opened your mouth and not said something dumb!

Congratulations!

Yore outta yer ever livin' lovin' mind.