The Gospel was changed by God:

[Davy]

My responses are inserted above in the text in bold text. Click to expand

The scripture says there are different gospels in Galatians 2:7

No, that Gal.2 Scripture does not say that. What you're saying is a leaven addition interpretation by men.

Gal 2:7-8
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;
8 (For He That wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
KJV

Verse 8 goes with that context of what Paul was speaking about. You left that out, which is often a ploy men's leaven doctrines use.

The context of "gospel" there is defined in verse 8 by that word "apostleship", which in the Greek means 'commission' (apostole-Strong's no.651). Both Paul and Peter were Apostles chosen by Christ to preach The Gospel, not two different gospels. But the idea of a 'commission' can mean different callings or purposes, and that is Paul's meaning there, not two different gospels, but two different 'commissions' in the same Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Yes but he still sent them preaching the gospel of the kingdom on earth for Israel and the Gentile nations. The gospel of grace was still hid.

That still doesn't mean what Jesus and His disciples preached prior to His crucifixion was some totally different gospel. The Gospel of Jesus Christ involved the idea of a kingdom prior to Christ's crucifixion, and also after His crucifixion, even as Apostle Paul preached. If there is no Kingdom for Christ's Church for the future then it would mean Jesus is not really our King of kings, and Lord of lords. The contradictions with God's written Word become numerous with such an idea, and that is how such thinking becomes exposed as to whom it is coming from, i.e., the devil. Treating The Gospel as if it itself changed between Jesus' 1st coming and after His crucifixion is simply ludicrous and shows deceived thinking of the flesh as influenced by leaven doctrines.

The gospel preached to Abraham was verbatim "In thee shall all nations be blessed" Galatians 3:8
Yes another gospel which God gave during different dispensations.

Not another gospel, but the SAME Gospel. If you had actually read and understood Galatians 3 and Romans 4 what Paul said there, you would have understood this...

Gal 3:6-9
6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
KJV

Gal 3:14
14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
KJV

If you are not a child (spiritual) of Abraham per the example of his faith, then you do not belong to Christ Jesus.

The Promise by Faith is what God gave to Abraham, and Abraham believed, and thus it was accounted to him as righteousness. At the end of John 8 Jesus showed that Abraham saw His day, and rejoiced and was glad. Paul made that certain there in Gal.3 when he said Gal.3:14 above about "the blessing of Abraham" having come upon the Gentiles through Jesus Christ. Paul also made it plain in that chapter that the Promise by Faith was given first, 430 years prior to the giving of the law. So no one can treat that Promise to Abraham as if it were about the law. But the people you listen to... that is exactly what they are trying to do, and that in order to deceive those like yourself who listens to them.

 

[Davy]

Responses in bold type....click expand
Peter did not say it was an example
Acts 2:16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;

Peter was speaking of the last days because Christ was offering the kingdom to Israel

Well yes, Peter WAS showing in Acts 2 what he quoted from Joel 2 was an example... of the cloven tongue prophesied of there...for the end. That is what the timing given in Joel 2 is about. If you understood the Book of Joel then you would have understood this. But see what following men's leaven doctrines do for you instead? They keep you in Biblical ignorance.

Joel 2:28-32
28 And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out My spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:
29 And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out My spirit.
30 And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke.
31 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come.
32 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call.
KJV

Those events highlighted in red above are about the very end of this world, still in our near future (i.e., the tribulation Jesus warned His Church about in Mark 13). In Mark 13 Jesus also warned of some of His elect being delivered up to give a Testimony for Him, and to not premeditate what they will say in that hour, because it will not be them speaking, but The Holy Spirit. That's the main purpose for the cloven tongue of Pentecost for the very end of this world, and that's the timing that Joel 2 Scripture is about. And when Peter said "this is that", he was simply referring back to what was written in Joel 2, not declaring that Joel 2 was then fulfilled, which false idea is another leaven addition by men's doctrines.

And what is especially telling about men's leaven doctrines, and is how the devil has duped many brethren that claim to speak the cloven tongue with thinking Jesus is coming early before the tribulation to rapture them away! when our Lord Jesus show some brethren will instead be delivered up during the coming great tribulation to give a Testimony for Him by The Holy Spirit!

Mark 13:9-11
9 But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for My sake, for a testimony against them.
10 And the gospel must first be published among all nations.
11 But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost.
KJV

That's the future Joel 2 event Peter was pointing to in Acts 2. It's real purpose is for the very end of this world in giving a Testimony against the beast during the great trib. But the devil and his children have many brethren duped into wanting to fly away instead of standing in that "evil day" with The Gospel armor on.

Paul was not sent to baptize but preach the gospel (1 Corinthians 1:17) so baptism could not be part of the gospel.

So what, Paul did baptize some. Can't make a whole doctrine out of his not being sent to baptize, for it proves nothing about there being two gospels. What you've repeated from those men you heed is just a making up of fodder for their false doctrine, and you've failed to recognize their doing that, but just jump on board hook-line-and sinker.

Here is the gospel
1 Corinthians

15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

There is nothing about water baptism....that was for Israel.

By saying Paul didn't preach water baptism shows how devilish those doctrines are of the men you listen to.

Rom 6:3-4
3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death?
4 Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
KJV

The baptism Paul was speaking of there was water baptism. That was the baptism Jesus commanded His disciples to go preach TO ALL NATIONS along with The Gospel (Matthew 28:19).

Thus, those leaven doctrines of men you follow are blaspheming Christ Jesus by treating His command to all nations to get baptized as nothing. Even as our Lord Jesus, and even Apostle Paul, were baptized of water, setting the example, we Gentiles are to do so too. No excuse if one is able.

 

[FollowHim]

Jesus is God, come in the flesh. Your personal philosophy has you confused, and nor does it follow God's Holy Writ. God's plan of Salvation is ONLY through His Son Jesus Christ Who died on the cross for the remission of sins of those who believe. There is no other way of Salvation. This was the purpose of God being born in the flesh and called Immanuel (means 'God with us'), for to defeat death and the devil for us on His cross. And that is The Gospel, there is not another gospel.

I am confused? What I wrote was quite simple and true.
Only John the Baptist before the coming of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles.
Before this the Spirit occasionally fell upon prophets, but otherwise did not dwell in men.

Walking in the Spirit is a term Paul used, which simply is not part of Israel or following God before Jesus.
One cannot be confused about realities clearly stated in scripture. For me, I change how I look at faith so it reflects that which God reveal through His word whenever it seems to contradict how I look at Jesus.

Jesus declares that we are to listen and follow Him, putting into effect His commands. Paul declares that in being a pharisee he found it impossible to obey, but rather was a slave to sin, but in the Spirit he became a slave to righteousness, to the glorious gospel of grace and love, which freed and refreshed him. Praise the Lord we have this promise today, Amen and Halleluyah.

 

[Doug]

The baptism Paul was spee.[/QUOTE]


I had said : The scripture says there are different gospels in Galatians 2:7

You replied: The context of "gospel" there is defined in verse 8 by that word "apostleship", which in the Greek means 'commission' (apostole-Strong's no.651). Both Paul and Peter were Apostles chosen by Christ to preach The Gospel, not two different gospels. But the idea of a 'commission' can mean different callings or purposes, and that is Paul's meaning there, not two different gospels, but two different 'commissions' in the same Gospel of Jesus Christ.

My response is: Peter and Paul were indeed both chosen to be apostles; in Galatians 2:8 Paul is merely stating their separate distinct apostleships. Your opinion that they were both preaching the same gospel is not upheld in Galatians 2:7 where there is a distinction made in the gospels between circumcision and uncircumcision. In comparing their preaching throughout scripture that distinction in gospel content is seen:

Gospel of the uncircumcision

1) Covenant was made with Abraham that through Israel the nations would be blessed -Genesis 22:17-18

2) Peter preached the gospel for Israel to bless the nations - Acts 3:25-26

Gospel of circumcision

1) This gospel was sent to Gentiles – Galatians 2:9 Romans 15:16

2) Gentiles can now be justified by faith apart from Israel and the covenants – Romans 4:5 Romans 4:16, Romans 4:24-25


I had said about the great commission :Yes but he still sent them preaching the gospel of the kingdom on earth for Israel and the Gentile nations. The gospel of grace was still hid.

You replied:

That still doesn't mean what Jesus and His disciples preached prior to His crucifixion was some totally different gospel. The Gospel of Jesus Christ involved the idea of a kingdom prior to Christ's crucifixion, and also after His crucifixion, even as Apostle Paul preached. If there is no Kingdom for Christ's Church for the future then it would mean Jesus is not really our King of kings, and Lord of lords. The contradictions with God's written Word become numerous with such an idea, and that is how such thinking becomes exposed as to whom it is coming from, i.e., the devil. Treating The Gospel as if it itself changed between Jesus' 1st coming and after His crucifixion is simply ludicrous and shows deceived thinking of the flesh as influenced by leaven doctrines.

My response is: In the gospel of the kingdom there was no mention of the cross. The gospel of Paul includes the death and resurrection for our justification unto eternal life. The twelve could not be preaching the same gospel as Paul because it was first revealed to Paul (Romans 16:25 1 Corinthians 9:17).

Paul did preach the kingdom as well but the heavenly kingdom (2 Timothy 4:18).

I had said:The gospel preached to Abraham was verbatim "In thee shall all nations be blessed" Galatians 3:8
Yes another gospel which God gave during different dispensations.


You replied:

Not another gospel, but the SAME Gospel. If you had actually read and understood Galatians 3 and Romans 4 what Paul said there, you would have understood this...
Gal 3:6-9
6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
KJV
Gal 3:14
14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
KJV
If you are not a child (spiritual) of Abraham per the example of his faith, then you do not belong to Christ Jesus.

The Promise by Faith is what God gave to Abraham, and Abraham believed, and thus it was accounted to him as righteousness. At the end of John 8 Jesus showed that Abraham saw His day, and rejoiced and was glad. Paul made that certain there in Gal.3 when he said Gal.3:14 above about "the blessing of Abraham" having come upon the Gentiles through Jesus Christ. Paul also made it plain in that chapter that the Promise by Faith was given first, 430 years prior to the giving of the law. So no one can treat that Promise to Abraham as if it were about the law. But the people you listen to... that is exactly what they are trying to do, and that in order to deceive those like yourself who listens to them.


My response is: Here is the blessing below

Galatians 3:9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.


We are blessed because we follow by faith in the footsteps of Abraham (Romans 4:12).


I had said: Peter did not say it was an example
Acts 2:16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
Peter was speaking of the last days because Christ was offering the kingdom to Israel

You replied:


Joel 2:30 And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke.
2:31 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and terrible day of the LORD come.

Those events highlighted in red above are about the very end of this world, still in our near future (i.e., the tribulation Jesus warned His Church about in Mark 13). In Mark 13 Jesus also warned of some of His elect being delivered up to give a Testimony for Him, and to not premeditate what they will say in that hour, because it will not be them speaking, but The Holy Spirit. That's the main purpose for the cloven tongue of Pentecost for the very end of this world, and that's the timing that Joel 2 Scripture is about. And when Peter said "this is that", he was simply referring back to what was written in Joel 2, not declaring that Joel 2 was then fulfilled, which false idea is another leaven addition by men's doctrines.


My response is: Joel 2:30-31 would have been fulfilled if Israel had received Christ but the kingdom was postponed.

I had said:Paul was not sent to baptize but preach the gospel (1 Corinthians 1:17) so baptism could not be part of the gospel.


You replied:

So what, Paul did baptize some. Can't make a whole doctrine out of his not being sent to baptize, for it proves nothing about there being two gospels.
Rom 6:3-4
3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death?
4 Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
KJV

The baptism Paul was speaking of there was water baptism. That was the baptism Jesus commanded His disciples to go preach TO ALL NATIONS along with The Gospel (Matthew 28:19).

Thus, those leaven doctrines of men you follow are blaspheming Christ Jesus by treating His command to all nations to get baptized as nothing. Even as our Lord Jesus, and even Apostle Paul, were baptized of water, setting the example, we Gentiles are to do so too. No excuse if one is able.


My response is: The fact that Paul baptized some does not negate 1 Corinthians 1:17.

Paul's gospel says noting of water baptism. Paul is our example (Phillipians 3:17) and he does not command baptism for any reason.

We are baptized not with water but by the Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:13).

Matthew 28:19 was commanded to the twelve to preach the gospel of the kingdom in preparation of the Davidic kingdom on earth.

 

[Davy]

I am confused? What I wrote was quite simple and true.

You are mistaken. There is nothing culturally appealing about a double gospel of Jesus Christ. The idea actually detracts from the one Gospel of Jesus Christ. Have you ever looked into what the early Gnostics were preaching, having joined pagan Greek ideas with Christian doctrine? Irenaeus wrote a whole work against their beliefs because they represent an attack upon true Christian doctrine per God's Word (see Against Heresies).

Only John the Baptist before the coming of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles.
Before this the Spirit occasionally fell upon prophets, but otherwise did not dwell in men.

It's obvious those on the dual-gospel idea don't actually understand what the Gospel of Jesus Christ really is, because they act like it didn't exist until Jesus' crucifixion. Did you not know that someone who is literate in all of God's Word is able to preach The Gospel of Jesus Christ from just about every Book of The Bible? You can begin with the hint in Genesis 3 about Christ's heel being bruised which is an allusion to the cross. The pure Gospel of Jesus Christ is about Christ as God born in the flesh to die on the cross for the remission of sins of those who believe. That was prophesied early on in God's Word, and the prophets looked for it.

Zech 9:9
9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.
KJV

Try reading all of Galatians 3 where Apostle Paul showed that those in Christ are the "children of Abraham", and why that is, especially involving the Promise by Faith. It's the same Promise we have believed. It's that Faith which was revealed after Christ's death and resurrection to us; that is what the prophets didn't understand in their day, even though Jesus said Abraham saw His day, and rejoiced (John 8). The Gospel Message itself early on has always been that Salvation would come through the King above in OT Scripture like that above Zechariah 9:9 verse. That didn't involve the law, as the Promise by Faith was first given through Abraham 430 years prior to the law given through Moses (Gal.3; Rom.4).

Walking in the Spirit is a term Paul used, which simply is not part of Israel or following God before Jesus.
One cannot be confused about realities clearly stated in scripture. For me, I change how I look at faith so it reflects that which God reveal through His word whenever it seems to contradict how I look at Jesus.

Walking in The Spirit certainly is for Israel too, and for all nations that believe on Jesus Christ. Who told you different? (see Galatians 3 again). The receiving of The Holy Spirit is a RESULT... of believing The Gospel of Jesus Christ. Receiving The Spirit is not the actual Gospel itself, it's a result of Faith in The Gospel; Jesus coming to die on the cross for the remission of sins for those who believe, offering eternal life through His Blood shed on the cross is the actual Gospel Message. It was detailed in Psalms 22 through David.

There's also an assumption that none understood about Christ's death on the cross back in Old Testament times. Yet God revealed it through David and through Isaiah. They didn't know who it would be, nor what all it would signify, but the prophesy was given them first. And because of what Jesus said about Abraham at the end of John 8 showed that Abraham probably did... know what Jesus was to come and do...

John 8:56-58
56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day: and he saw it, and was glad.
57 Then said the Jews unto Him, 'Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?'
58 Jesus said unto them, 'Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.'
KJV

In Genesis 14, Melchizedek met Abraham and offered him "bread and wine" and blessed Abraham. In Hebrews 7 Paul taught that was our Lord Jesus in the Old Testament that was Melchizedek (which means 'king of righteousness'). So who's to say Abraham didn't understand The Gospel we have believed today? I declare that Abraham did know, as Jesus hints to in the above, and as Apostle Paul pretty much linked us to that same Promise by Faith in Galatians 3 and thus he called us "the children of Abraham" because of Abraham's belief on that Promise. The fact that the giving of The Holy Spirit as a result didn't come until later does not detract from the Promise being given first through Abraham.

As a matter of fact, if brethren would study their Old Testament more like we're supposed to, they'd discover how the Promise first given Abraham not only is about The Gospel of Jesus Christ, but it is also involving God's promises to Israel that were transferred through Isaac, then Jacob, then Joseph, and then to Joseph's two sons Ephraim and Manasseh. And for this reason Paul preached that believing Gentiles have become part of the "commonwealth of Israel" via The Gospel, and have come nigh to the promises and covenants God first gave Israel (Ephesians 2).

Thus really, those pushing the dual gospel idea actually show their Biblical illiteracy while following a leaven tradition devised by men that is not written in God's Word at all.

 

[Davy]

The baptism Paul was spee.


I had said : The scripture says there are different gospels in Galatians 2:7

You replied: The context of "gospel" there is defined in verse 8 by that word "apostleship", which in the Greek means 'commission' (apostole-Strong's no.651). Both Paul and Peter were Apostles chosen by Christ to preach The Gospel, not two different gospels. But the idea of a 'commission' can mean different callings or purposes, and that is Paul's meaning there, not two different gospels, but two different 'commissions' in the same Gospel of Jesus Christ.

My response is: Peter and Paul were indeed both chosen to be apostles; in Galatians 2:8 Paul is merely stating their separate distinct apostleships. Your opinion that they were both preaching the same gospel is not upheld in Galatians 2:7 where there is a distinction made in the gospels between circumcision and uncircumcision. In comparing their preaching throughout scripture that distinction in gospel content is seen:

None of what you offered is proof of two separate gospels. They are only imaginations from men's leaven.

In Galatians 3 (a Scripture you guys apparently hate), Paul made it plain that the Promise by Faith which Abraham believed is the same Faith those in Christ have believed, thus calling us "the children of Abraham", and even inheriting with Abraham. Those Scripture links to what Abraham believed you guys on the double gospel leaven reject, thus rejecting a part of God's Holy Writ in order to keep your tradition instead, a work just like the Pharisees of Jesus' day.

 

[Doug]

None of what you offered is proof of two separate gospels. They are only imaginations from men's leaven.

In Galatians 3 (a Scripture you guys apparently hate), Paul made it plain that the Promise by Faith which Abraham believed is the same Faith those in Christ have believed, thus calling us "the children of Abraham", and even inheriting with Abraham. Those Scripture links to what Abraham believed you guys on the double gospel leaven reject, thus rejecting a part of God's Holy Writ in order to keep your tradition instead, a work just like the Pharisees of Jesus' day.

I would need scripture to be persuaded of your assertions

 

[Davy]

I would need scripture to be persuaded of your assertions

I'm not going to spoon feed you. All you need do is read and heed Romans 4 and Galatians 3.

Gal 3:14
14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
KJV