TWO GOSPELS PREACHED

[ScottA]

Hello
My responses are inserted...click to expand

None of your two-gospel claims can be reconciled with:

Mark 3:25 [Full Chapter]
"And if a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand."

 

[Doug]

No. Peter is not preaching another Gospel (one of baptism). By the time Peter preached the words in Acts 2:38, he had ALREADY preached the Cross of Jesus Christ to them in Acts 2:23-24. Peter was preaching the same Gospel Jesus Christ and Paul preached.... Faith in the Death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

And the Kingdom Jesus Christ preached was a Kingdom of those Born of God and raised from the Dead.... of which He is the First. Jesus' Gospel was that of His own death, burial, and resurrection, which is the One and only Gospel.

Hello
In Acts 2:23-24 Peter is not preaching the glory of the cross for salvation as Paul (Galatians 6:14). Peter was convicting the Jews of being guilty in crucifying Jesus and rejecting their King and Messiah. Peter was preaching the resurrection in verse 24 which would assure them of his coming again to establish the kingdom.

 

[Doug]

None of your two-gospel claims can be reconciled with:

Mark 3:25 [Full Chapter]
"And if a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand."

Hello
The gospels are not in opposition .....please show me scripture for this

 

[Phoneman777]

Hello @Phoneman777,

Regardless of the similarity in comparison: where God has distinguished something by giving it a name, 'The Everlasting Gospel', as distinct from 'The Gospel of the Kingdom' & 'The Gospel of the Grace of God', for example; and announcing it with specific wording, at a specific time, then it should be allowed to stand alone, and not be merged together simply because there are similarities in each. To do so in injurous to the Word of God , and hides the differences that God intends should be noted between each one, which are important in regard to His plan and purpose for all who believe.

In Christ Jesus
Chris

God is called by many names in Scripture - which in no way detracts from "I am the first and I am the last and beside Me there is no god". Names are many times a description of character and these names of God are a revelation of the many wonderful attributes of our Lord.

So too, the "Gospel of the Kingdom", the "Everlasting Gospel", the "Gospel of the Grace of God" are different descriptions of the same blessed Gospel which is perfectly defined by John 3:16.

 

[ScottA]

Someone once said H2O exists as solid (ice), liquid (water), and vapor (steam) - 3 distinct natures, one H2O.

Although there is no hope for the finite mind of a human being to accurately illustrate the Godhead, this one satisfies mine - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are 3 separate, distinct Persons comprising one God.

Yes, even men can be a son, a father, and

Hello
The gospels are not in opposition .....please show me scripture for this

I had not gone so far as to say they were in "opposition." It just seems to me that "two" coupled with "gospels" is simply not a good choice of words to describe things that are not actually in opposition.

If you had said "two folds" (as do the scriptures), or even "two dispensations", or "two ministries", "times, "first", "last", "flesh" as opposed to "spirit", "natural" as opposed to "spiritual", etc., then perhaps there would be no confusion.

Then...perhaps we could talk about why they are indeed different, or even in opposition in a sort of way.

 

[Phoneman777]

natural example are really not Good ones, but sometimes they help. but let me ask you this, scripture, Isaiah 63:5 "And I looked, and [there was] none to help; and I wondered that [there was] none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me.

question is your own arm a seperate and distinct person from you? yes or no.


PICJAG

No, but "there are THREE that bare record in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these Three are One."

 

[Doug]

Yes, even men can be a son, a father, and

I had not gone so far as to say they were in "opposition." It just seems to me that "two" coupled with "gospels" is simply not a good choice of words to describe things that are not actually in opposition.

If you had said "two folds" (as do the scriptures), or even "two dispensations", or "two ministries", "times, "first", "last", "flesh" as opposed to "spirit", "natural" as opposed to "spiritual", etc., then perhaps there would be no confusion.

Then...perhaps we could talk about why they are indeed different, or even in opposition in a sort of way.

The text in Hebrews refers to a gospel being preached to Israel now and in the past

 

[ScottA]

The text in Hebrews refers to a gospel being preached to Israel now and in the past

Okay...but now you have this discussion on two different threads also :) Let's pick it up there.

 

[101G]

No, but "there are THREE that bare record in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these Three are One."

first thanks for the reply. second, Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost are 3 titles of the same ONE PERSON. how do we know that these are titles? the verse itself tells us, " these Three are One". see it now, "these" not "they" are one. they indicate persons. but the scriptures are clear "these" are one, meaning titles.

sorry about that.

PICJAG.

 

[Davy]

'Whereby, when ye read,
ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men,
as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets
by the Spirit ... ... '
(Ephesians 3:4-5)

Hello @Davy,

Your criticism of Doug, and of Hyper-dispensationalism (so called) is unjustified, and totally unnecessary. For by heaping all of the Gospel of God concerning His Son under one heading, 'The gospel of Jesus Christ', you fail to acknowledge the variations and distictions which the Holy Spirit wishes to highlight by the use of other wording, such as, 'The Gospel of the Kingdom', 'The Gospel of God', 'The Gospel of the Grace of God', and 'The Everlasting Gospel', all good news, but with discernable differences.

Nah, those are just fake distinctions men make, not The Holy Spirit. The Gospel of Jesus Christ was ordained prior to the beginning of our present world, and has been the same throughout to this day. It is men that want to try and change it and create divisions doing it, especially those like John Darby and E.W. Bullinger who pushed theories of Dispensationalism. This is why The Gospel of the Kingdom is actually the same Gospel of God, Gospel of the Grace of God, The Everlasting Gospel, all are about the same Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Biblical differences are simply about God's revealing that one Gospel to different folks at different times, and giving His servants different missions in carrying it forth. It, The Gospel, never changed even from the foundation of the world.

1 Peter 1:19-20
19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
KJV


Eph 2:19-21
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone;
21 In Whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
KJV

Even the OT prophets are included in that "holy temple in the Lord" Paul says there.

But what those men YOU follow say, is that Christ's Church is separate from those OT prophets of Israel, and that they have their own gospel which does not apply to Gentile Christians!, that is, IF... you hold to the theories of Dispensationalism.

 

[Davy]

Hello
I have inserted my responses above....click to expand

Your responses are not labeled, but only inserted in-between my statements so no one coming here to read can tell who said what.

That's just another example of the confusion you are on. You can't even separate in quotes when quoting someone. I suggest you go back to school and learn how to do a research paper, and properly learn how to properly document and use quotations.

 

[Phoneman777]

first thanks for the reply. second, Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost are 3 titles of the same ONE PERSON. how do we know that these are titles? the verse itself tells us, " these Three are One". see it now, "these" not "they" are one. they indicate persons. but the scriptures are clear "these" are one, meaning titles.

sorry about that.

PICJAG.

You're welcome :)
These three "separate and distinct Persons" are "one God".

 

[Phoneman777]

first thanks for the reply. second, Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost are 3 titles of the same ONE PERSON. how do we know that these are titles? the verse itself tells us, " these Three are One". see it now, "these" not "they" are one. they indicate persons. but the scriptures are clear "these" are one, meaning titles.

sorry about that.

PICJAG.

Remember when the Father was in heaven looking down at His Son coming up out of the Jordan and expressing His approval in thunder tones while the Holy Ghost descended between heaven and Earth like a dove? "...and these Three are One (God)".

 

[101G]

You're welcome :)
These three "separate and distinct Persons" are "one God".

did you not hear your ownself? ........ "these" not "they" are one. are you really understanding what you are reading? if the scriptures would have said, "they" are one, yes then, pack our bags and go home, the case would have been closed. no, the scriptures are clear, "These" three are one. these are "TITLES" of the one Person Jesus.

ok Phoneman777 let's make it clear as to who is who with titles. in the book of revelation chapter 2 and 3 it is the Lord Jesus who addresses the 7 churches ... right. good so far, now follow me. at the close of each letter who is closing each letter? the addresser, right, Jesus. let's see. "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches". hold it ..... was it not the Lord Jesus who is speaking to the churches? yes, but why say "hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches". in all 7 letters it's the Lord Jesus who is speaking to the churches, but the bible plainly states "hear what the Spirit say to the churches". and Spirit here is capitalized, indicating the Holy Spirit. see Phoneman777, Jesus is the Spirit, the addresser to the 7 churches. he is diversified in glorified flesh, as the word or son of God. same person, with two titles clearly shown, and the third is God, which he wears, for God is "a" Spirit. see the titles now?

Remember when the Father was in heaven looking down at His Son coming up out of the Jordan and expressing His approval in thunder tones while the Holy Ghost descended between heaven and Earth like a dove? "...and these Three are One (God)".

we disagree, one person diversified. and here's why we say this. first the scriptures, Matthew 3:16 "And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
Matthew 3:17 "And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased".

now where do it say that the voice from heave is the "Father's" voice? never assume nothing, and don't add to the word of God. we have many instances where a voice from heaven spoke and it was not the Father's voice, but spoke for him. so please post book chapter and verse that prove the voice recorded here in Matthews 3:17 is the Father's voice.

PICJAG.

 

[ScottA]

The two differences, whether you call them two different gospels or something else, they are indeed different. But not different in every respect, certainly not so different as to be considered two and separate. If one makes a journey, is his going out separate from his return or two journeys, for all the detailed differences that could be noted? No, because both are part of the one journey. So then, what is different? In the case of one going out and returning, the difference is in direction and experience. And that is our answer here also, except that it is the journey of One, Jesus Christ. History, is His story. Wherein He goes out in the natural coming as a man in whom is every man beginning with Adam (the First), and then returns in the spirit with the dead and the living in the Last Adam.

As such, your observance of what would appear to be two different gospels, which are, and yet are not, simply marks the apex dividing the before-and-after of all that is in Christ, the only begotten of the Father. He is One...or should I say "They are One?"

 

[Doug]

The two differences, whether you call them two different gospels or something else, they are indeed different. But not different in every respect, certainly not so different as to be considered two and separate. If one makes a journey, is his going out separate from his return or two journeys, for all the detailed differences that could be noted? No, because both are part of the one journey. So then, what is different? In the case of one going out and returning, the difference is in direction and experience. And that is our answer here also, except that it is the journey of One, Jesus Christ. History, is His story. Wherein He goes out in the natural coming as a man in whom is every man beginning with Adam (the First), and then returns in the spirit with the dead and the living in the Last Adam.

As such, your observance of what would appear to be two different gospels, which are, and yet are not, simply marks the apex dividing the before-and-after of all that is in Christ, the only begotten of the Father. He is One...or should I say "They are One?"

Hello
I would have to contemplate on this

 

[ScottA]

Hello
I would have to contemplate on this

Certainly.

 

[Phoneman777]

did you not hear your ownself? ........ "these" not "they" are one

I think "these" and "they" would mean the same thing.

"He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches". hold it ..... was it not the Lord Jesus who is speaking to the churches? yes, but why say "hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches".

Yes, the Holy Spirit is the means by which the church "hears" what God's will is for us, is He not? It isn't necessary to rigidly interpret the passage to prove Jesus is the Holy Spirit speaking to the church.

now where do it say that the voice from heave is the "Father's" voice? never assume nothing, and don't add to the word of God.

I'm pretty sure when it says, "This is MY beloved Son..." the One to whom the Son is beloved is the Son's FATHER, right? Who is in heaven, according to Jesus, right? So, then, the voice must have come from heaven...where the Father is.

 

[101G]

I think "these" and "they" would mean the same thing.
Yes, the Holy Spirit is the means by which the church "hears" what God's will is for us, is He not? It isn't necessary to rigidly interpret the passage to prove Jesus is the Holy Spirit speaking to the church.
I'm pretty sure when it says, "This is MY beloved Son..." the One to whom the Son is beloved is the Son's FATHER, right? Who is in heaven, according to Jesus, right? So, then, the voice must have come from heaven...where the Father is.

First thanks for the reply, second, Your thinking is on you, I have nothing aganist that, but consider this. Matthew 28:19 "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost".

did you notice those prepositions ... "OF" here in the verse. oh well... but Father is not the personal name of God, nor Son, or Holy Ghost. these, these, these, are titles of God. if I said "101G a "Christian", is Christian 101G's personal name? no, it's a title "of" 101G. same as he is a father, a son, and a dad, "these", these, these, are 101G's titles, not his personal name. understand now?

you said, "I'm pretty sure when it says, "This is MY beloved Son..." the One to whom the Son is beloved is the Son's FATHER, right?", no, not nesseary. never assume nothing, listen, "And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only [son]". question, was this the "Father" speaking from heaven? notice, it said, the LORD SAID. so Phoneman777 is this God voice from heaven? yes or no.

PICJAG.

 

[H. Richard]

There is only one Gospel which has been preached to Abraham, to the Israelites, and to the world.

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. So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. (Gal 3:8,9)

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. (Jn 3:14,15)

In your opinion, just what is the gospel? Define it as you see and understand it.