Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I'm already saved but thanks for your concern.Actually, this is accounted for in the Bible. Jesus has not forgotten about His chosen people and it is somewhat about what they expected vs. what they recieved.
What about repentence? It's not too late for you Colter. Jesus loves you my man.
Let the Bible be corrupted??? Get a clue, God let Satan mislead the entire world, he doesn't write Books, imperfect holy men do. But don't get me wrong, Paul was a great man committed to Christ, but I'm a disciple of the original Gospel. Jesus is my Lord, Paul was a human messenger of Jesus.
So, Colter, where do we find this "original Gospel" manifesting in history? Any Pre-Pauline documents you'd like to cite?
[Just wondering. I know you're an intelligent guy with a good disposition, but I'm either missing something here (which I admit isn't impossible, despite my wide swath of reading), or your Urantia driven framework is giving you some details from "left-field."
2PhiloVoid
It should be noted that the gospels were written long after Paul's interpretative, post-cross gospel became the norm.
but the original gospel and the kingdom ideal has yet to be preached and realized.
Glancing over the fact, for now, that you call Paul's writings an interpretative Gospel; the synoptic Gospels were not written that long after Paul and at least one may have been written while he was still alive.
A number of commentaries that I looked at suggest that they were all written before AD 70, because Jesus had spoken about the destruction of the temple, Mark 13, and none of them mention the fulfilment of that prophecy. Mark's was written first, and some give his a date of 60-65 AD; a couple of people dated his as early as 55 AD. Paul was martyred around 63-64 AD.
Paul says he received the Gospel of Christ's death, resurrection and ascension from Jesus himself, 1 Corinthians 15:3-4. And he told the Galatians that there is only one Gospel.
There is only one Gospel; the Gospel that Paul, and ministers, evangelists and preachers have preached ever since.
The gospel writers remembered what Jesus had said years AFTER Paul's dominant preaching had established the cross and its interpretation as the central event in the rapidly evolving religion about Jesus.
Christianity is based almost exclusively on the personal religious experience of the Apostle Paul.
True, Peter began teaching the new gospel about the resurrected Christ on Pentacost. Paul, a sacrifice minded Jew and citizen of the Pagan, Roman world, expanded upon the new gospel received from Peter after Pauls conversion to the movement. . The original gospel, salvation by faith, was effectively overwritten and replaced by the theoretical gospel that Jesus was a human sacrifice to atone for sin. The religion of Jesus was replaced by a religion about Jesus as a ransom to a Satan God of this world.Peter and the apostles were preaching about Jesus and the cross from the day of Pentecost, before Saul was converted. If your date is right, it would have been about 2 1/2 years before.
Jesus spent 40 days on earth after his resurrection and before his ascension teaching them about the kingdom of God; Acts 1:3. How do you know what the disciples remembered and that they only remembered it after Paul had started preaching about the cross?
Christianity is based on, and founded by, Jesus.
Jesus became incarnate and was born to die for our sins and reconcile us to God. This was prophesied in the OT, even back in the Garden of Eden and Peter later said that Jesus was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, 1 Peter 1:19-20.
The angel told Joseph that he would save people from their sins, Matthew 1:21 and John the Baptist said that Jesus was the Lamb of God who would take away the sins of the world, John 1:29. Jesus himself said that he had come to seek and save the lost, Luke 19:1, to give his life as a ransom for many, Mark 10:45, that he was the Good Shepherd who would lay down his life for his sheep, John 10:11 and that his blood would be shed for the forgiveness of sins, Matthew 26:28. He taught that he is the Way, the Truth, the life and the only way to the Father, and that he had come to give fulness of life, John 10:10, and eternal life, John 3:16, John 3:36, John 6:40. He predicted his own betrayal, suffering, death and resurrection. The disciples saw the risen Christ and the empty tomb, and the couple on the road to Emmaus were taught, by Jesus himself, how all the OT Scriptures pointed to him. Peter gave a sermon about the OT pointing to Jesus, who was put to death and raised again, urged people to repent and said that there was no other name by which people could be saved.
The Gospel was being preached before Saul was converted and the church was tiny, but established. Had it not been so, he would have had no one to persecute.
Saul's conversion to Paul was in 0036. Let me say the same thing in a different way. The gospel writers remembered what Jesus had said years AFTER Paul's dominant preaching had established the cross and its interpretation as the central event in the rapidly evolving religion about Jesus. The Christian New Testament is for the most part Jesus according to Paul. The Gospel of the kingdom was based on the personal religious experience of the Jesus of Galilee; Christianity is based almost exclusively on the personal religious experience of the Apostle Paul.
Apparently it's so simple people miss it. Jesus didn't spend 3+ years preaching "Christ and him crucified" his message hadn't been rejected yet, he hadn't allowed them to kill his body yet! Sacrifice wasn't his message in the synagogues, atoning sacrifice wasn't his "good news", the cross couldn't possibly be his religion! It wasn't the gospel of the cross, it was the gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven; salvation by faith and the responsibility that comes with it. God was already forgiving, he never conceived of the crass injustice of requiring his Divine Son to be rejected and killed as a condition for forgiveness, HOWEVER, the Pagan world ALREADY had such a primitive religious philosophy. People cherry pick some things that he did say in justification for the new post-cross theory of atonement.So, Colter, if we don't actually have the "original Gospel" as something by which we can identify and compare, then how can we compare Paul's views about Jesus with an "original Gospel" that we don't have? How can we know that Paul's teaching was in deed different than what Jesus taught?
Please help me out here; I'm afraid I'm missing something. From where do we get the missing data? From the Void? Where? Did someone along the way have an "extra revelation" that filled in the missing data?
2PhiloVoid
Apparently it's so simple people miss it. Jesus didn't spend 3+ years preaching "Christ and him crucified" his message hadn't been rejected yet, he hadn't allowed them to kill his body yet! Sacrifice wasn't his message in the synagogues, atoning sacrifice wasn't his "good news", the cross couldn't possibly be his religion! It wasn't the gospel of the cross, it was the gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven
At least we are making progress in that you acknowledge that there were (2) gospels. People usually just bluff when this issue comes up which I'm sympathetic to, we were born into a ready made religion brought to us by Rome.Both were what he preached. Your understanding of what Christ and Paul taught is confusion no doubt the false gospel you believe in is in part blame.
Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Mat 26:29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.
Mat 26:30 And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives.
Mat 26:31 Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.
Mat 26:32 But after I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee.
So, just stating that there was some "original Gospel" makes it true?Apparently it's so simple people miss it. Jesus didn't spend 3+ years preaching "Christ and him crucified" his message hadn't been rejected yet, he hadn't allowed them to kill his body yet! Sacrifice wasn't his message in the synagogues, atoning sacrifice wasn't his "good news", the cross couldn't possibly be his religion! It wasn't the gospel of the cross, it was the gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven; salvation by faith and the responsibility that comes with it. God was already forgiving, he never conceived of the crass injustice of requiring his Divine Son to be rejected and killed as a condition for forgiveness, HOWEVER, the Pagan world ALREADY had such a primitive religious philosophy. People cherry pick some things that he did say in justification for the new post-cross theory of atonement
Well, no. That is, if we can take the four Gospels as truthful, we find that Jesus said He came to die but He told His disciples to be "hush, hush" about it.Did you think Jesus and the apostles went from town to town teaching people to kill Jesus as a sacrifice so that they could have salvation??? Nonsense!!! Is that what you think Jesus was teaching in the synagogues?
This isn't what I asked previously. I asked what other pre-Pauline documents are out there out of which we can compare. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are definitely not pre-Pauline. Yet, you go to Matthew to prove something for which Skeptics will shoot down. I mean, this isn't simply Q we're talking about here as opposite of Paul. Is it?Before the cross people who believed in Jesus put their faith in a diffent gospel than "atoning sacrifice".
Matthew 4:23
Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness among the people. News about Him spread all over Syria, and people brought to Him all who were ill with various diseases, those suffering acute pain, the demon-possessed, those having seizures, and the paralyzed—and He healed them.…
I don't take you for an idiot either, I think you are avoiding the obvious, there are (2)different gospels merged together in a sincere attempt to create a coherent theology. I'm useing parts of what's still there to show what was there before the atonement theory appeared. The facts of the spectacular death and resurrection overwhelmed the original message of Jesus.So, just stating that there was some "original Gospel" makes it true?
Well, no. That is, if we can take the four Gospels as truthful, we find that Jesus said He came to die but He told His disciples to be "hush, hush" about it.
This isn't what I asked previously. I asked what other pre-Pauline documents are out there out of which we can compare. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are definitely not pre-Pauline. Yet, you go to Matthew to prove something for which Skeptics will shoot down. I mean, this isn't simply Q we're talking about here as opposite of Paul. Is it?
And if you're willing to dig into the Gospels for what you qualify as legi'timate data, then to be consistent, you need to all take the book of Acts as legitimate data, since it was written by one of the Gospel writers. Thus far, you're going in circles, Colter. Somehow, I think you're smarter than that, but you like your Urantia book too much...I guess.
2PhiloVoid
I don't take you for an idiot either, I think you are avoiding the obvious, there are (2)different gospels merged together in a sincere attempt to create a coherent theology. I'm useing parts of what's still there to show what was there before the atonement theory appeared. The facts of the spectacular death and resurrection overwhelmed the original message of Jesus.
Btw, I agree, Jesus did in fact tell the apostles to keep his true identity a secret until he left (which is even further evidence that his original teachings were different that Paul's focus on Jesus as the Christ) but the fact remains the apostles didn't even realize he was leaving in the days before the arrest.
At least we are making progress in that you acknowledge that there were (2) gospels. People usually just bluff when this issue comes up which I'm sympathetic to, we were born into a ready made religion brought to us by Rome.
Jesus is forced into some of the murky Old Testament prophecies. The Jews didn't have a "Son of God" or Trinity or sacrifice the Messiah as part of their religious worldview. Jews who converted to the Jesus movement attempted to justify their new faith by using the OT scriptures.You don't think Jesus came to fulfill the OT as the dying and sacrificial Messiah? If not, then shouldn't you toss away the Gospels, because that's what they state that Jesus knew He came to do. Paul came to realize this too...
Jesus is forced into some of the murky Old Testament prophecies. The Jews didn't have a "Son of God" or Trinity or sacrifice the Messiah as part of their religious worldview. Jews who converted to the Jesus movement attempted to justify their new faith by using the OT scriptures.
Good question. The original "good news" gospel was that which Jesus preached and lived, it was the Gospel of The Kingdom of Heaven that he tried to reach the Jews with, the gospel that they would be preaching today from Jerusalem if they had accepted it. Some of the original foundations and traces of that gospel can be found in the 4 gospels in the Bible. It should be noted that the gospels were written long after Paul's interpretative, post-cross gospel became the norm. To be fair much of it is missing, some of what's left lead to speculations. Jesus has fostered the Christian church as the best exponent of his life's work but the original gospel and the kingdom ideal has yet to be preached and realized.
At least we are making progress in that you acknowledge that there were (2) gospels. People usually just bluff when this issue comes up which I'm sympathetic to, we were born into a ready made religion brought to us by Rome.
Saul's conversion to Paul was in 0036. Let me say the same thing in a different way. The gospel writers remembered what Jesus had said years AFTER Paul's dominant preaching had established the cross and its interpretation as the central event in the rapidly evolving religion about Jesus. The Christian New Testament is for the most part Jesus according to Paul. The Gospel of the kingdom was based on the personal religious experience of the Jesus of Galilee; Christianity is based almost exclusively on the personal religious experience of the Apostle Paul.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?