ECT Where is the Evidence Which Supports the Idea of Only One Gospel?

[SaulToPaul 2]

Very difficult. in first century Judea, you could not go around talking about a civic corporeal kingdom in the open. Not only was there the way Herod did things about competitors, there was extensive tension between zealots and Roman admin all through the period. You would be impounded for doing so.

That's just one of the fantasies of D'ism with its almost brain-dead sense of 1st century history. It's still flannel graph characters from Sunday School rooms!

The message preached was that God reigns ANYWAY because of the sending of the Lamb of God. There is no shift later. There is the vacillation of the disciples and their suppression of the Gospel, since many were raised in fear of zealots or were zealots. But there are not two offers to Israel. There are not two gospels at two different times. The text is completely unaware of such folly.

Hopefully someday this will clear up the songs of Lk 1-2. That's real believers speaking about Israel, not zealots trying to overthrow Rome. Real believers who realize the Lamb has come to give forgiveness, 1:77, which would not have concerned Rome one piece of snot. Those songs are not about a kingdom for Israel as they thought, and he hid himself when they tried that trick. He "rode triumphant" on the most worthless animal militarily-speaking into Jerusalem.

Once again, did Israel know its Messiah would suffer from OT Scripture? From Ps 22, Is 53, Dan 9? And then did it suppress it?

:chuckle:

 

[Jerry Shugart]

WRONG:

Luk 24:45
Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

The Lord Jesus explained to them the surface reading of the Scriptures. But the following is not found there because it is hidden in the types:

"For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures" (1 Cor.15:3-4).​

Some believers 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).

The purpose of the Lord Jesus' death is described as the hidden wisdom of God:

"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 world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory" (1 Cor.2:7-8).​

If the princes of the world would have known that the Lord Jesus was going to die for sins they would never have crucified Him.

 

[Nihilo]

Where is the Evidence Which Supports the Idea of Only One Gospel?

There are many people on this forum who scream over and over that there has only been one gospel. But when asked to prove it from the Bible they come up empty-handed. The best they can do is to quote this passage:

"I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed" (Gal.1:6-8).
​

Paul does not say that there is only one gospel. He knew that there were two gospels and he also knew that those preaching the other gospel would not be preaching that gospel to the Gentiles:

"...they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter...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" (Gal.2:7,9).​

So there is nothing written at Galatians 1:6-8 that proves that only one gospel was preached during the Acts period.

These same people who deny that two different gospels say that the gospel which the Twelve preached at Luke 9:6 was the same gospel which declares the death of the Lord Jesus for sins despite the fact that at that time the Twelve did not even know that the Lord Jesus was going to die.

Not that the Lord didn't teach it. Mark 8:31 (KJV) The Resurrection is the centerpiece of the gospel. Romans 10:9 (KJV), 1st Corinthians 15:4 (KJV), 2nd Timothy 2:8 (KJV) And Paul is not the only New Testament writer who taught the Resurrection, even the four Gospels recount that historical fact, which, according to tradition, occurred rather near the tomb in which He was buried, and from which He rose from the dead on the third day, on Easter Sunday. President Trump just visited the Church of the Sepulchre, and saw himself where the Lord died, was buried, and rose from the dead (1Co15:3-4KJV). From Easter Sunday morning onward, the good news is that the Lord Jesus Christ has risen from the dead.

Sir Robert Anderson describes those people here:

"In no other sphere save that of religion do men of intelligence and culture willingly subject their minds to delusions. The historic Church once tried to compel belief that this planet was the fixed centre of the solar system; but who believes it now? Men cannot be made to believe that water runs uphill, or that five and five make anything but ten. In no other sphere can they be induced to stultify reason and common sense. But in religion there seems to be no limit to their credulity" (Anderson, The Bible or the Church? [London: Pickering & Inglis, Second Edition], 61).
​

That perfectly describes our brethren in tin foil hats!

It perfectly describes whosoever among us, is wrong in our theology and morals.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Not that the Lord didn't teach it. Mark 8:31 (KJV)

Yes, the Lord Jesus said He was going to die but the Twelve did not even know it as late as Luke 18:33-34. So it is obvious that the gospel which they preached earlier at Luke 9:6 said nothing about the Lord Jesus dying for our sins. That means that there were two gospels since the following is not the gospel which they were preaching:

"Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures" (1 Cor.15:1-4).​

Two gospels, not just one.

 

[john w]

No problem here is more scripture for you to take out of context and pervert.

Going for over 60 "out of context"'s in the last 3 days!!!

...,that exposes the lies and deceptions of MAD.

And 77 "lies!!!"

You hang all off your beliefs solely on taking one or two verses out of context and force, by taking out of context, the rest of the whole bible into the lie of MAD.

We want more "out of context"'s!!!!!!!!!!!!

There is still only one gospel as scripture teaches.

Explain how Judas preached the gospel of Christ, as outlined in 1 Cor. 15:1-4 KJV, as you "argue." Do be a dear.

You won't, as I, Jerry, others, have asked you for the last 2 months.

[the LIES and DECEPTIONS of MAD.[/COLOR][/B]

More "the LIES and DECEPTIONS of MAD!!!!!!" cliches!!!! Please!!!! And in CAPS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

And in CAPS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:chuckle:

 

[Nihilo]

Yes, the Lord Jesus said He was going to die but the Twelve did not even know it as late as Luke 18:33-34. So it is obvious that the gospel which they preached earlier at Luke 9:6 said nothing about the Lord Jesus dying for our sins. That means that there were two gospels since the following is not the gospel which they were preaching:

"Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures" (1 Cor.15:1-4).​

Two gospels, not just one.

After the Resurrection, the good news is the Resurrection. The Lord even taught this, before the Resurrection occurred (Mk8:31KJV Jn2:19KJV ; cf. Jn2:21-22KJV), and each of the four Gospels teach the Resurrection, and almost every New Testament book mentions the Resurrection.

 

[john w]

:chuckle:

OUT OF CONTEXT CAPS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[john w]

Again, for the babes....As Mayor STP would say, "It's not that complicated."




1 Cor. 15:1-4 KJV "gospel"

Death
Burial
Resurrection

Survey the book...

1.The 12 did not know of the impending dbr-it was hid from them, until later in the Lord's ministry-and yet, prior to them knowing, they were preaching "the gospel of the kingdom," for almost 3 years:


"For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day. But they understood not that saying, and were afraid to ask him." Mark 9:31-32 KJV

Memorize "then"-details...

"Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished. For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on: And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again. And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken." Luke 18:31-34 KJV

"For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead." John 20:9 KJV


2. Peter tried to prevent the Lord Jesus Christ's death, and His death was a key component of 1 Cor. 15:1-4, by which he/we was/are reconciled:

"From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee" Mt. 16:21-22 KJV

John 18 KJV
10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus.


Memorize "began"...details...For 3 years prior to that, The Master, the 12, including Judas, were preaching the gospel/good news of the kingdom..

"And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. And he spake that saying openly. And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him." Mark 8:31-32 KJV

Peter’s response was to rebuke the Lord Jesus Christ. Today, in this dispensation, when someone rebukes the gospel of Christ, what do we call that someone? Lost.

3. Even after the Lord's death, burial, and resurrection, the 12 initially did not believe it:

"And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted." Mt. 28:17 KJV

"And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not. After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them. Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen." Mark 16:11 KJV

"And returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest. It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles. And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not[." Luke 24:9-11 KJV

What do we call someone who “believes not” the resurrection? You got it-lost!

" And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?" Luke 24:41 KJV

Therefore, they were not preaching the dbr, "the gospel" of 1 Cor. 15:1-4 KJV, as a basis of justification, at least prior to its occurrence, but they were preaching the gospel of the kingdom. they knew NADA about it, as it was hid from them. They initially denied the resurrection.


And why was the dbr hid, from even satan, and his minions? Part of the mystery, revealed through our apostle, Romans 11:13 KJV, Paul:

6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:

7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.



Get it? Had the tremendous "benefits" gifted to respective members of the boc, resulting from the dbr, been known, to satan, and his gang, he would not have "planned" the crucifixion, part of the "seed plot" of the book, which commenced, in Genesis....exterminate the seed...................

 

[glorydaz]

Very difficult. in first century Judea, you could not go around talking about a civic corporeal kingdom in the open. Not only was there the way Herod did things about competitors, there was extensive tension between zealots and Roman admin all through the period. You would be impounded for doing so.

I guess the "multitude" didn't know that.

Matt. 21:4-9
All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ***, and a colt the foal of an ***. And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them, And brought the ***, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon. And a very great multitude spread their garments in the way; others cut down branches from the trees, and strawed them in the way. And the multitudes that went before, and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna to the son of David: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest.​

 

[Interplanner]

I guess the "multitude" didn't know that.

Matt. 21:4-9
All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ***, and a colt the foal of an ***. And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them, And brought the ***, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon. And a very great multitude spread their garments in the way; others cut down branches from the trees, and strawed them in the way. And the multitudes that went before, and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna to the son of David: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest.​

You missed the whole point. For a zealot to say it, with his concealed dagger and criminal record while raiding isolated Roman troops is one thing. For Jesus to say it, seated on the most worthless military equipment possible (a juvenile donkey), unarmed, singing songs, "protected" by palm branches under him... was not a concern to the Antonio Fortress which occupied the bird's eye view of the temple to police it.

Your point is inept, unininformed and worthless.

There is some indication that Barnabas (as in the trial of Jesus) co-opted the moment of the overturning of temple exchange tables, yet that STILL did not trigger the usual 50 top quality Roman troops ready to hack their way through a crowd to restore order.

 

[Interplanner]

After the Resurrection, the good news is the Resurrection. The Lord even taught this, before the Resurrection occurred (Mk8:31KJV Jn2:19KJV ; cf. Jn2:21-22KJV), and each of the four Gospels teach the Resurrection, and almost every New Testament book mentions the Resurrection.

But nihilo, what matters is the declarations from the launch to the Confession/Transfiguration. There is plenty. jerry is very ignorant and doctrinaire.

 

[glorydaz]

Your point is inept, unininformed and worthless.

Well, remind me to not ever respond to your posts again.:Christine

 

[Nick M]

As soon as somebody posts the 12 preaching 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 prior to Paul in the four gospels, then I will say one gospel.

 

[Interplanner]

Well, remind me to not ever respond to your posts again.:Christine

Why not do some background reading on the zealots? They are "in the Bible" Acts 5:37.

I don't know anyone anywhere who thinks that the symbolic entry of Jesus into Jerusalem was a military move! Do you think it was a zealot move incognito?

 

[Interplanner]

As soon as somebody posts the 12 preaching 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 prior to Paul in the four gospels, then I will say one gospel.

This is getting out of hand.
1, he's the Lamb of God, bringing forgiveness and all its blessings (nativity accounts).

2, in his first reading of scripture in Luke he is here to preach the Gospel to the poor. It has to do with forgiveness, not money (!), and his first miracle with the intention of proving it was about his authority to forgive. Now that has a time-lapse built into it. He is doing it because he will be the sacrifice.

3, the best other declaration of his purpose is the 'sign of Jonah' which in Matt sits half way from the Sermon on the MOunt to the Confession. Unless of course you think he would die for some other reason.

4, he tells them flat out, at the Confession scene, but Peter blows up. I say he blows up on behalf of most of them, because it was definitely not their plan. They are so stuck in zealotism that they can't see, and are scared. It is also divinely hidden. God does not want them to understand at that point until afterward. Most likely because of what Peter did--trying to do something to prevent it.

4A, you can't deny unless you already know. they were suppressing, not coldly ignorant. Not innocently ignorant. I think this is the most interesting of developments in their characters because he deliberately chose to live in Galilee and work with them. That's were most zealots located, because they were not wanted in Jerusalem. In Jerusalem the upper classes wanted to belong to Rome. To get along. To just pay the taxes and enjoy the ability to worship. That very practice was considered corrupt by zealots.

5, in the Resurrection, the 40 days, and Pentecost, they realize what they were blocking.

There is no other Gospel, but there are varying degrees of denial of it, and obviously Peter was the most vocal and his outburst at the Confession was illuminating to all.

 

[Nihilo]

But nihilo, what matters is the declarations from the launch to the Confession/Transfiguration. There is plenty. jerry is very ignorant and doctrinaire.

But the Resurrection matters so much that Paul said to just believe in the Resurrection, and you'll be saved. :idunno:

 

[Danoh]

Why not do some background reading on the zealots? They are "in the Bible" Acts 5:37.

I don't know anyone anywhere who thinks that the symbolic entry of Jesus into Jerusalem was a military move! Do you think it was a zealot move incognito?

And the Brits still rule India :chuckle:

 

[Interplanner]

But the Resurrection matters so much that Paul said to just believe in the Resurrection, and you'll be saved. :idunno:

Which is why the sign of Jonah was explained. The interesting thing is that he shows he has authority to forgive sins by the proof of a healing, and then finally his own resurrection is proof of the same thing--that there can be a just forgiveness since he has paid all. Does a person have to know each aspect up front, to know that the Lamb of God has arrived to take away sins? I don't think so.

I don't know where you get the idea of 'just believe in the resurrection' because the resurrection was the proof of justification and was also his enthronement. So do you realize how much is involved or do you think he just meant his popping up 3 days later?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

This is getting out of hand.
1, he's the Lamb of God, bringing forgiveness and all its blessings (nativity accounts).

2, in his first reading of scripture in Luke he is here to preach the Gospel to the poor. It has to do with forgiveness, not money (!), and his first miracle with the intention of proving it was about his authority to forgive. Now that has a time-lapse built into it. He is doing it because he will be the sacrifice.

3, the best other declaration of his purpose is the 'sign of Jonah' which in Matt sits half way from the Sermon on the MOunt to the Confession. Unless of course you think he would die for some other reason.

4, he tells them flat out, at the Confession scene, but Peter blows up. I say he blows up on behalf of most of them, because it was definitely not their plan. They are so stuck in zealotism that they can't see, and are scared. It is also divinely hidden. God does not want them to understand at that point until afterward. Most likely because of what Peter did--trying to do something to prevent it.

4A, you can't deny unless you already know. they were suppressing, not coldly ignorant. Not innocently ignorant. I think this is the most interesting of developments in their characters because he deliberately chose to live in Galilee and work with them. That's were most zealots located, because they were not wanted in Jerusalem. In Jerusalem the upper classes wanted to belong to Rome. To get along. To just pay the taxes and enjoy the ability to worship. That very practice was considered corrupt by zealots.

5, in the Resurrection, the 40 days, and Pentecost, they realize what they were blocking.

There is no other Gospel, but there are varying degrees of denial of it, and obviously Peter was the most vocal and his outburst at the Confession was illuminating to all.

:chuckle: