heir
TOL Subscriber
You are out of order and you have the wrong gospel!
Which gospel?
- Thread starter heir
- Start date
Nope, you are.
Many years later, Paul preached the gospel of the kingdom throughout the world, just like Jesus said in Matt 24:14
(Acts 28:31) Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.
This is error though I do not expect you to understand it or the seriousness of it.
Christ imparts to us His DIVINE life [but you do not believe He is God[ and He takes our human life up to the cross with Him to die, to be buried and to be raised in newness of life.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
:chuckle:
Are you still laughing at heir's claim that Paul took the Romans out of the Olive Tree and into the Body of Christ?
I have to admit, that is one of the funniest things I have ever heard. Just when I think you and heir can't come up with anything more ridiculous than before, you guys outdo yourselves.
heir
TOL Subscriber
It is laughable!
Sonnet
New member
Still trying to get my head round it.
Yes, what you are claiming is laughable.
You are actually claiming that Paul took the Romans from the Olive Tree and put them into the Body of Christ.
It doesn't get more laughable than that.
There is a reason why heir is making such a ridiculous/laughable claim.
heir is a Hyper-Dispensationalist who believes the Apostle Paul was the very first person in the Body of Christ. (another false claim of heir's)
The Roman Epistle causes all kinds of problems for heir's claim.
heir can't have the Romans being in the BOC before Paul (despite the verse where Paul says there were), so heir has to twist passages found in Romans into a pretzel in a desperate attempt to make her Hyper-Dispensationalism work out.
Thus, we have one of her latest ridiculous claims.
She is claiming the Romans were grafted into the Olive Tree before Paul imparted a spiritual gift onto them. heir then claims that Paul removed the Romans from the Olive Tree and into the Body of Christ.
Not only is it ridiculous, it is easily proven wrong with scripture
(Rom 11:21) For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.
First, as we see, only God could remove someone from the Olive Tree.
Secondly, those in the Olive Tree, are members of the Body of Christ, as are members of the Body of Christ branches in the Olive Tree.
Be careful with heir. What she teaches is a very, very dangerous doctrine that is contrary to the Word of God.
Jesus said, "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up." (John 3:14)
You are looking at a first century Jewish gospel through a twenty-first century Gentile filter.
The Bible is about Israel and her King.
Why do you call him "Christ"?
The word "Christ" is the Greek equivalent of "Messiah".
You claim the New Covenant isn't for you because it is for Israel. The Messiah was for Israel.
Why do you accept Israel's Messiah for yourself, but deny Israel's New Covenant for yourself?
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
:chuckle:
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Yes, there are different gospel presentations.....
Yes, there are different gospel presentations.....
Hi heir,
Correct in recognizing that different 'gospels' exist in the Bible, and relate to different time-periods, situational-contexts and dispensational formats
- Some like to synthesize, mix, blend or coordinate all the various dispensations together sort of, for some kind of 'holistic' message, 'interpreting' passages a parts of a greater whole.
While a MAD view is noted, we need to recognize that there were some Jewish followers of Jesus that rejected Paul's gospel and held to the more traditional Jewish customs with some innovations brought by Jesus, such as the Ebionites and others. Paul's gospel was different in certain respects from the original apostles of Jesus (the pillars of the church in Jerusalem), and Paul as you know openly claims his 'revelation' as 'his gospel'....claiming unique 'ownership' of it, that it was given to him in a special way. But do note, this is his claim only - but all that asides....you're perfectly free to hold to Paul's gospel as the 'gospel of your salvation', according to his terms (and that's the catch). - the gospel of the kingdom taught by Jesus original 12 apostles is indeed different in emphasis, as contained in the 4 gospels...yet some are content to keep the standards of that gospel-message while incorporating some of Paul's teachings into it too,...but this 'synthesis' is a problem to some modern day evangelicals who do note a difference between the gospel that Jesus and the original apostles taugh and Paul's gospel. The question or issue......is how to coordinate, differentiate or resolve the tensions between the two. MAD (middle acts dispensationalism) attempts to resolve this issue.
Paul himself is the subject of much controversy, as there are some that stick to Jesus words only as a matter of pertinence or value, and I've shared many posts/resource sites that are against Paul, exploring some of the problems as perceived by some. I approach it in more of a liberal scholarly manner, besides purely philosophic. In general however I take a universal view and all-inclusive approach seeing the historical/doctrinal development underlying various movements and look at the value and meaning of every school of thought, and how it fits into the greater collective. I lean more towards a more gnostic Paul, seeing the allegorical aspect of his teaching and where they are in accord with universal truths, although I question the whole vicarious blood atonement concept, or may interpret that in different ways.
As to what gospel I preach or have a disposition towards, we'll leave this open for now, since my theology extends beyond a narrow biblical context, as universal truth or inspiration is contained in certain measures in all dispensations. If we take the NT as a whole,...I find the gospel of the kingdom most foundational, based on the Fatherhood of God and brotherhood of man, which Paul does teach in his own terms concerning our 'adoption' of 'sonship' with God. The core values of religious ethic and principle still hold (love for God and fellow man) no matter what innovations of theology are built around this base or what philosophical system is used to communicate such.
If you're going to believe Paul's gospel and its terms alone as the one and only saving gospel...then you're trusting his own claims, since his so called 'apostleship' is not attested to by the the original 12.
See: Was Paul a true apostle of Jesus Christ?
Yes, there are different gospel presentations.....
Hi heir,
Correct in recognizing that different 'gospels' exist in the Bible, and relate to different time-periods, situational-contexts and dispensational formats
- Some like to synthesize, mix, blend or coordinate all the various dispensations together sort of, for some kind of 'holistic' message, 'interpreting' passages a parts of a greater whole. While a MAD view is noted, we need to recognize that there were some Jewish followers of Jesus that rejected Paul's gospel and held to the more traditional Jewish customs with some innovations brought by Jesus, such as the Ebionites and others. Paul's gospel was different in certain respects from the original apostles of Jesus (the pillars of the church in Jerusalem), and Paul as you know openly claims his 'revelation' as 'his gospel'....claiming unique 'ownership' of it, that it was given to him in a special way. But do note, this is his claim only
- but all that asides....you're perfectly free to hold to Paul's gospel as the 'gospel of your salvation', according to his terms (and that's the catch). - the gospel of the kingdom taught by Jesus original 12 apostles is indeed different in emphasis, as contained in the 4 gospels...yet some are content to keep the standards of that gospel-message while incorporating some of Paul's teachings into it too,...but this 'synthesis' is a problem to some modern day evangelicals who do note a difference between the gospel that Jesus and the original apostles taugh and Paul's gospel. The question or issue......is how to coordinate, differentiate or resolve the tensions between the two. MAD (middle acts dispensationalism) attempts to resolve this issue.Paul himself is the subject of much controversy, as there are some that stick to Jesus words only as a matter of pertinence or value, and I've shared many posts/resource sites that are against Paul, exploring some of the problems as perceived by some. I approach it in more of a liberal scholarly manner, besides purely philosophic. In general however I take a universal view and all-inclusive approach seeing the historical/doctrinal development underlying various movements and look at the value and meaning of every school of thought, and how it fits into the greater collective. I lean more towards a more gnostic Paul, seeing the allegorical aspect of his teaching and where they are in accord with universal truths, although I question the whole vicarious blood atonement concept, or may interpret that in different ways.
As to what gospel I preach or have a disposition towards, we'll leave this open for now, since my theology extends beyond a narrow biblical context, as universal truth or inspiration is contained in certain measures in all dispensations. If we take the NT as a whole,...I find the gospel of the kingdom most foundational, based on the Fatherhood of God and brotherhood of man, which Paul does teach in his own terms concerning our 'adoption' of 'sonship' with God. The core values of religious ethic and principle still hold (love for God and fellow man) no matter what innovations of theology are built around this base or what philosophical system is used to communicate such.
If you're going to believe Paul's gospel and its terms alone as the one and only saving gospel...then you're trusting his own claims, since his so called 'apostleship' is not attested to by the the original 12.
See: Was Paul a true apostle of Jesus Christ?
Last edited:
Made up. You were shown the verses-the dbr was hid from the 12, prior to its occurrence.
Sonnet
New member
I just assume that Gentiles have been given the baton (so to speak) whilst Israel has been hardened for a time - till the fullness.
Please give us another "Darby," Russell-ite, Josephus-ite," Gentry-ite, Hanegraaf-ite!!!! Please?
Get a job,loser, infidel.
You preach the gospel of your "spiritual" brother, Judas, don't you greasy Craigie? Luke 9:6 KJV.
The New Covenant wasn't preached before the cross.
The 12 Disciples did not preach the New Covenant.
After Christ Jesus implemented the New Covenant with His shed blood, the New Covenant was preached.
The Apostle Paul was a minister of the New Covenant.
(2 Cor 3:6) He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant-....
Neither Judas, nor any of the other Disciples preached the New Covenant before the cross.
So, quoting Luke 9:6 and claiming the Disciples preached a different gospel is true because the New Covenant hadn't been put in place yet.
You should really learn the difference between the two covenants. That way you wouldn't be so confused about gospels.
What a mess.
Peter tried to prevent the Lord's death,in Mt.-John, prior to the dbr, part of the "lynch pin" of the gospel of Christ, the good news of 1 Cor. 15:1-4 KJV, sweetie.
Why, while he was preaching "the gospel of the kingdom?"
Why are you afraid to answer? You cannot answer. Don't you believe the bible/"Jesus"/Paul?
You taught us that.
What Peter did was before the New Covenant
Because the New Covenant hadn't been put in place yet, and the Holy Spirit hadn't been given on Pentecost yet.
I answered.
I believe Christ Jesus and the Apostle Paul. Both spoke of the New Covenant that you deny.