Gospel Message of Jesus' Immediate Disciples?

[dodari]

Hi, I'm new here.

I have always wondered what Jesus' disciples gospel message was, before Paul goes out on his mission journeys. For instance there existed believers in Damascus and Antioch prior to Paul, according to the Acts account. The Jews, of course, should have known Torah, as it is called, thereby knowing God's definition of right or wrong or obedience or sin, but what did the disciples say to the gentiles? How would the gentiles know what sin, insofar as God is concerned, was unless they were taught the Commandments? We have the examples of Peter's sermon in Acts 2, 3 and Stephen in Acts 7, these apparently are mostly to Jews. So that is all fine, but as they went out to, say, Damascus or Antioch what did they preach to the gentiles, not that there weren't Jews there also? Prior to Paul I am wondering.

 

[Phileoeklogos]

Act 10:34 So Peter opened his mouth and said: "Truly I understand that God shows no partiality,
Act 10:35 but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.
Act 10:36 As for the word that he sent to Israel, preaching good news of peace through Jesus Christ (he is Lord of all),
Act 10:37 you yourselves know what happened throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee after the baptism that John proclaimed:
Act 10:38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power. He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him.
Act 10:39 And we are witnesses of all that he did both in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They put him to death by hanging him on a tree,
Act 10:40 but God raised him on the third day and made him to appear,
Act 10:41 not to all the people but to us who had been chosen by God as witnesses, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead.
Act 10:42 And he commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one appointed by God to be judge of the living and the dead.
Act 10:43 To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name."
Act 10:44 While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word.




They preached the same Gospel Paul preached, it's the Gospel that is the power of God unto salvation, it still saves people today like it did then, people without a knowledge of the OT, or much else, salvation is of the Lord and He gives ears to hear to whom He chooses.

 

[heymikey80]

Romans had a sense of sin and good, and lawkeeping as well.

They also had a sense of anointedness and kingship, of salvation (at least from Caesar's point of view) and indeed the connection between the king's destiny and theirs.

A number of theologians have looked at the common roots of Christianity and Judaism and in the past 35 years there's been a lot of progress understanding it. I think Paul's point in Athens is essentially the same as Peter's point: the rightful King of the World has demonstrated His entitlement and the fact of impending Judgment by His Resurrection. That event also vindicates the Judaic claim to world Messiahship and that salvation comes from Israel -- but goes out to all the world.

 

[dodari]

Yes Phileoeklogos, Peter says this to Cornelius and those in his(Cornelius') house. It is probable that Cornelius, at least, and his household probably, are aware of what God defines as obedience and what defines as sin, from the preceding verses in Acts 10. It says they were devout and feared God, on God's terms, one might suppose. Interesting fact there, I will have to consider if their location and exposure to God's Word has significance and if so what they knew already. Hmmm. I had not really noted that before. Caesarea of course was in the more Hellenized area of Israel. Hmm, another head-scratcher for me.

Anyway, I would agree that Paul(formerly Saul) would agree with his predecessors as disciples, except when he(Paul) had to correct Peter, rightfully. Just a chronological constraint. And of course Paul correctly inveighs against Judah-izing, (I tried every way but loose to spell J-izing but the spell checker keeps complaining, oh well!), meaning no one is supposed to undergo rabbinical ritual and religious conversion to J-ism, particularly physical circumcision(YIPES!!), so that they can then become a Christian, horrible notion that.

I will have to get back to this later. This morning I am scheduled to share The Word with "the Saturday people" and tomorrow(Sunday) to share The Word with people who possibly were placed here(North American Continent) in Gen. 10:25. Neither is an easy task, as much unfortunate and ungodly history must be swatted down so that they do not blame God for the arrogant and/or misinformed error of mere men. Cliche` religion does not sell with these folks.

One bunch of folks say they have "fire insurance"(their term, occasionally) because they are the "chosen people". Maybe they are "chosen", but maybe they should have fear of chosen for what??!!!!

The other bunch given to me, for the time, are my merry little band of First Nations people(to whom I am half related by genetic roll of the dice, or, God's choice, I believe). They pose, always, "OK, what is sin?" and other legitimate questions. They do not respond, favorably, to cliche sound-bite rip-snitch proof text snippets robotically delivered. The only way I get on there is that I have 2 girl relatives(girls because they're not 70 yet, the jokes on me) from a rez in the north country married to 2 Pueblo boys and the fact that I have my numbers, on paper, permits my passage into their homes, at their invitation, with the blessing(?) of the tribal powers that be. Sticky-wicket.

Anyway, I need to run to the S-gogue to share with our J-ish friends and kindly reiterate that they no longer have an effecatious blood atonement for sin. Dismantling the "Walls" and removing the scales as well as the earplugs takes time and a lot of self-restraint. Much use of the OT required. Why do we do it? We love 'em and no one else goes to try, none.

Til later, God bless y'all.

 

[Phileoeklogos]

Hello dodari

I believe Acts and the examples of Apostolic preaching along with Hebrews would be a worthwhile study for you, just keep in mind that God has a people, our job is just to testify of Christ and His Gospel, it's a message the whole world must hear, but it's not a message for the whole world. God bless you in the labor....

 

[dodari]

Whew, the sons of Abraham can really test me, from time to time. Hopefully the 4 today that were led to question the rabbinical add-ons(takanot), will re-read the scriptures prohibiting adding and subtracting to/from the Word and ponder the requirement God makes for blood of atonement for their sins(ours too of course) per Lev. 17:11, among other iterations of the same. Of course there is no Jerusalem Temple standing, no effective Levitical nor Aaronic functioning therefore they're out of luck regardless of 1940 years of rabbinical inventions. Except there is Jesus. Softly, softly, catchee monkey. Boy that dates me.

HeyMikey80, I was writing my earlier response as my wife drove us to the city where the S-gogue is and having finally gotten there, several Jewish folks met us at the car and a long discussion ensued. I was to be their "blue plate special" or who's for lunch item, but by God's provision we were able to calm them with challengs to get a Tanakh(Hebrew OT, ArtScroll the Publisher, Stone Edition ONLY(It's Orthodox, so they say)(For what it is, it's pretty good). Anyway we went for "the blood" right away and they are now, hopefully, researching the hideous discrepancy between what the rabbis taught them and The Holy Word says, in their end of the Bible yet. The rabbi is somewhat irked at me. Ain't the first time. And, for reasons of my birth, he really can't through me out, as long as I don't show overt disrespect, which, sadly, many Christians have since say Ignatius of Antioch(35AD to 110+or-AD) and Clement I(same era pretty much) who both took great departures from Sola Scriptura, apparently. Be that as it may, I did not send my response until a few minutes after you sent yours, so it may have seemed a bit not acknowledging to your response.

I note with interest your mentioning the fact that some theologians in recent time have been looking at the roots Christianity has in Biblical Historic J-ism. Seems reasonable. After all, no Jews, no Jesus. It will be interesting to see where these scholars finally come down on such. Seems to me that anyone that seriously denies the value of the OT is probably a closet Marcionite(Marcion, a heretic, ex-communicated and anathematized about 144AD, IIRC). I have read Stendahl(thanks to my Lutheran Pastor friend, the conservative bunch, not the liberal ELCA), some of Sanders and NT Wright some. Interesting. But I also read The Word. Always the Word.

And Phileoeklogos, I'm not being rude and ignoring you. I am so tired tonight I must retire soon, I'm just plain pooped, fried, out of gas. I have my merry band of Native American relatives(as the term goes) tomorrow and it's 130 mile drive each way. I guess I'll make it. Anyway, if the Jews are sticklers about history, the NAs are even worse, but not without historical documented cause, it is a fact! They are not unaware of the documented history of such as Pequot War in Massachusetts Colony, and other niceaties in the 1600s. You know, surely, who the opposing side was. Very naughty. Surely God is not the god of genocide! I will attempt, sometime, not tonight, to rephrase my question. Somehow you seem to be forwarding thoughts that dismiss or seek to go around my question. For what it's worth, if it's worth anything, Jesus shed His Holy Blood to atone for my sins, not Paul, though I value Paul highly, but Paul's authority shall never supercede nor validly contravene that of my Everlasting Lord Jesus Christ!!!! After all, John 1 says He is The Word.

Paul, in his own defense before Festus in Caesarea, Festus being a Roman governor, says in Acts 25:8, Paul says "Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar have I offended in anything at all". Now, Paul is either lying or he is telling the truth. I am persuaded that he is telling the truth. Therefore my question to you is this: If he is telling the truth, does this necessarily impose constraints on what and how he taught? Sola Scriptura based answer only, please. Also, and necessarily, what Biblical resource(s) might he have had, at the time, to back up his message to whomever he spoke to? Sola Scriptura based answer only, please. Also, Acts 28:30,31 summarizes what Paul did in Rome, in fact what it says that Paul taught in the entire chapter is all rather defining, isn't it?

I'm an old engineer, it required attention to detail and precision and honesty, lest the US Gov't Accounting Office come and go over the books(Federal Funding involved). Never got a Summons for anything. Honesty is the best policy, a value based on the Commandments or more properly Instructions(Torah). Also, as an engineer I do calculus, my spelling and grammar not so good.

God bless y'all,
I'm pooped,
Laila Tov(Good night)

He alone is worthy of praise, glory and worship. Please come soon, Jesus, please.

P.S. So tired I didn't proof read this. I apologize for errors unintended. Sorry I get cranky when this tired.