There is only One Gospel

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Aligning with is not the same as him being God... please pay attention to the way you post... you have yet to place Jesus as being God only that he was doing the will of God and doing Gods bidding... how come no one can support their claim that Jesus was God in the flesh and stick to the Doctrine they so cherish?

The doctrine of the Trinity.... God was The Son... True God from True God.... not complicated or mysterious at all...

Since I wasn’t looking for an example that humans couldn’t follow and you are then we have nothing to discuss.

 

[Sola Scriptura]

Since I wasn’t looking for an example that humans couldn’t follow and you are then we have nothing to discuss.

What's wrong?... stumped??

 

[Danthemailman]

The word "gospel" simply means "good news." Jesus was preaching the gospel of the kingdom to Israel. John the Baptist preached the gospel of the kingdom, which was, "..Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." (Matthew 3:2)

Jesus Christ sent the twelve to preach only to Israel. Matthew 10:5 - These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. 6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7 And as you go, preach, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ The disciples were specifically told to go only to the people of Israel, and they were not preaching anything about the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.

In Matthew 16:15, Jesus Christ asked His disciples, "But who do you say that I am?" 16 Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

Now Peter had no clue that Jesus Christ would be crucified and resurrected, yet he did believe that Jesus was the Messiah. This is obvious when, only moments later, Peter rebukes Jesus Christ for saying he will be killed, and be raised again the third day." (Matthew 16:21) In verse 22, "..Peter took him and began to rebuke him, saying, "Far be it from You, Lord; this shall not happen to You!"

Before his death, Jesus told the twelve that he had to die and that he would rise on the third day. However, it is unquestionable that the disciples were ignorant of its meaning. "Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem....And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again. And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken. – Luke 18:31-34. hmm... that's strange if the content of the gospel that came through a revelation of Jesus Christ to Paul and was a mystery prior to that has the extended content at that time the gospel of the kingdom was being preached prior to the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

After his crucifixion, instead of anxiously waiting His resurrection, the apostles were still ignorant, disheartened at the death of their Messiah, and did not even at first believe the testimony of his resurrection. (Mark 16:14, Luke 24:19-24) It was not until after his resurrection that Jesus appeared to the apostles and opened their understanding. (Luke 24:44-47)

In this age, there is a distinctive element to the content of the gospel which is called "the mystery of the gospel." (see Ephesians 6:19 and Colossians 1:26-27; 4:3) This new revelation is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise. (Ephesians 3:6) Such equality, Jew and Gentile united together in one body was previously unknown. The distinctive message of the church is that Jew and Gentile alike may believe the gospel and be united together into one body, the body of Christ. (Ephesians 1:13; 1 Corinthians 12:13)

 

[Saint Steven]

The word "gospel" simply means "good news." Jesus was preaching the gospel of the kingdom to Israel. John the Baptist preached the gospel of the kingdom, which was, "..Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." (Matthew 3:2)

Jesus Christ sent the twelve to preach only to Israel. Matthew 10:5 - These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. 6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7 And as you go, preach, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ The disciples were specifically told to go only to the people of Israel, and they were not preaching anything about the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.

In Matthew 16:15, Jesus Christ asked His disciples, "But who do you say that I am?" 16 Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

Now Peter had no clue that Jesus Christ would be crucified and resurrected, yet he did believe that Jesus was the Messiah. This is obvious when, only moments later, Peter rebukes Jesus Christ for saying he will be killed, and be raised again the third day." (Matthew 16:21) In verse 22, "..Peter took him and began to rebuke him, saying, "Far be it from You, Lord; this shall not happen to You!"

Before his death, Jesus told the twelve that he had to die and that he would rise on the third day. However, it is unquestionable that the disciples were ignorant of its meaning. "Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem....And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again. And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken. – Luke 18:31-34. hmm... that's strange if the content of the gospel that came through a revelation of Jesus Christ to Paul and was a mystery prior to that has the extended content at that time the gospel of the kingdom was being preached prior to the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

After his crucifixion, instead of anxiously waiting His resurrection, the apostles were still ignorant, disheartened at the death of their Messiah, and did not even at first believe the testimony of his resurrection. (Mark 16:14, Luke 24:19-24) It was not until after his resurrection that Jesus appeared to the apostles and opened their understanding. (Luke 24:44-47)

In this age, there is a distinctive element to the content of the gospel which is called "the mystery of the gospel." (see Ephesians 6:19 and Colossians 1:26-27; 4:3) This new revelation is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise. (Ephesians 3:6) Such equality, Jew and Gentile united together in one body was previously unknown. The distinctive message of the church is that Jew and Gentile alike may believe the gospel and be united together into one body, the body of Christ. (Ephesians 1:13; 1 Corinthians 12:13)

Your post reminded me of this scripture.

Ephesians 2:14-16 NIV
For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15 by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, 16 and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The not God... got it.. TY for your help

Two wills, divine and human.

"And we proclaim equally two natural volitions or wills in him and two natural principles of action which undergo no division, no change, no partition, no confusion, in accordance with the teaching of the holy fathers. And the two natural wills not in opposition, as the impious heretics said, far from it, but his human will following, and not resisting or struggling, rather in fact subject to his divine and all powerful will. For the will of the flesh had to be moved, and yet to be subjected to the divine will, according to the most wise Athanasius. For just as his flesh is said to be and is flesh of the Word of God, so too the natural will of his flesh is said to and does belong to the Word of God, just as he says himself: I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of the Father who sent me, calling his own will that of his flesh, since his flesh too became his own." - Third Council of Constantinople, 680 AD

There is one Jesus Christ, fully God and fully man, without confusion or separation; having all that which is divine and all that which is human.

If you do not accept the Nicene Creed, which confesses Christ to be fully God and one with the Father in His Divine Substance, and also human conceived and born of the Virgin Mary, then this isn't the place to be debating these things.

With the Debate Other Religions board closed, I am unsure where debate on this subject is allowed on this site. But the rules of the forum are such that by posting here one is agreeing that they believe the Nicene Creed.

For what it's worth I have no problem debating the subject, but it's not up to me. I'm merely presenting the historic Christian position as subscribed to by all Chalcedonian Christians. With the Oriental Orthodox/non-Chalcedonian position being semantically different, but with a generally same intention. Christ, as God, has a will that is divine; likewise Christ, as man, has a will that is human. Because He is both God and man, without any confusion or separation, all that is properly Divine is true of Him, just as all that is properly human is true of Him.

Thus any confession of His very real and true humanity is hardly a denial of His Deity; just as confession of His Deity is not a denial of His humanity.

Thus He who is begotten of the Father before all ages, and is true and very God of true and very God has, by the union with humanity in His one undivided Person, all that which is human. Indeed, like us in every way except without sin. Thus He is confessed as true man: soul, body, mind, and volition.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Sola Scriptura]

Two wills, divine and human.

"And we proclaim equally two natural volitions or wills in him and two natural principles of action which undergo no division, no change, no partition, no confusion, in accordance with the teaching of the holy fathers. And the two natural wills not in opposition, as the impious heretics said, far from it, but his human will following, and not resisting or struggling, rather in fact subject to his divine and all powerful will. For the will of the flesh had to be moved, and yet to be subjected to the divine will, according to the most wise Athanasius. For just as his flesh is said to be and is flesh of the Word of God, so too the natural will of his flesh is said to and does belong to the Word of God, just as he says himself: I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of the Father who sent me, calling his own will that of his flesh, since his flesh too became his own." - Third Council of Constantinople, 680 AD

There is one Jesus Christ, fully God and fully man, without confusion or separation; having all that which is divine and all that which is human.

If you do not accept the Nicene Creed, which confesses Christ to be fully God and one with the Father in His Divine Substance, and also human conceived and born of the Virgin Mary, then this isn't the place to be debating these things.

With the Debate Other Religions board closed, I am unsure where debate on this subject is allowed on this site. But the rules of the forum are such that by posting here one is agreeing that they believe the Nicene Creed.

For what it's worth I have no problem debating the subject, but it's not up to me. I'm merely presenting the historic Christian position as subscribed to by all Chalcedonian Christians. With the Oriental Orthodox/non-Chalcedonian position being semantically different, but with a generally same intention. Christ, as God, has a will that is divine; likewise Christ, as man, has a will that is human. Because He is both God and man, without any confusion or separation, all that is properly Divine is true of Him, just as all that is properly human is true of Him.

Thus any confession of His very real and true humanity is hardly a denial of His Deity; just as confession of His Deity is not a denial of His humanity.

Thus He who is begotten of the Father before all ages, and is true and very God of true and very God has, by the union with humanity in His one undivided Person, all that which is human. Indeed, like us in every way except without sin. Thus He is confessed as true man: soul, body, mind, and volition.

-CryptoLutheran

Yes we all have 2 will... since Jesus was Human and not God then He had his Human will... we are human and not God therefore we have 1 will... when we do the will of God we have 2 will... The Angels are called the Son's of God does that make them God because they are divine beings and Have only the Will of God?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Yes we all have 2 will

No, we have a single will, our human will.

Again, this isn't the place to have this debate. Doing so will simply involve the moderators deleting our conversation.

The subject of this thread is the Gospel. I merely wanted to present a faithful Christian confession of Christology.

But to bring this around back to the subject of the Gospel. Without the Incarnation there is no Gospel. So to present Christ as anything other than both fully God and fully human is a rejection of the Gospel.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Sola Scriptura]

No, we have a single will, our human will.

Again, this isn't the place to have this debate. Doing so will simply involve the moderators deleting our conversation.

The subject of this thread is the Gospel. I merely wanted to present a faithful Christian confession of Christology.

But to bring this around back to the subject of the Gospel. Without the Incarnation there is no Gospel. So to present Christ as anything other than both fully God and fully human is a rejection of the Gospel.

-CryptoLutheran

My bad I am new and completely forgot. since the Gospel is in question. there is nothing in the Gospel that makes Jesus both Fully God and Fully Human.

 

[ViaCrucis]

My bad I am new and completely forgot. since the Gospel is in question. there is nothing in the Gospel that makes Jesus both Fully God and Fully Human.

Except that if Jesus isn't fully God and man then there is no good news. The Gospel that God has come down, met us in our sin, met us in our weakness, in humility and lowliness, in order to redeem, rescue, and heal the world. As St. Paul says of Christ: "who being in form God did not regard equality with God something to exploit, but emptied Himself". He by whom and for whom all things were made, and apart from Him nothing was made; He who is preeminent over all things, foremost over all of creation, who fills all things--is He who was conceived in Mary's womb.

One can have a false gospel without the Incarnation, but the saving Gospel of God which the Apostles preached is the Gospel of Christ-God.

Any other gospel, any other Jesus is foreign to Christ's Church, and as the Apostle himself says, is anathema.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[The Liturgist]

My bad I am new and completely forgot. since the Gospel is in question. there is nothing in the Gospel that makes Jesus both Fully God and Fully Human.

Actually there in all three Synoptics and most especially in John. Reread them, paying particular attention to the first chapter in Luke and John, the last chapter in Matthew, and the middle parts of Mark.

 

[Sola Scriptura]

Actually there in all three Synoptics and most especially in John. Reread them, paying particular attention to the first chapter in Luke and John, the last chapter in Matthew, and the middle parts of Mark.

Know them quite well and none of them claim that Jesus was both God and Human..

 

[Sola Scriptura]

Except that if Jesus isn't fully God and man then there is no good news. The Gospel that God has come down, met us in our sin, met us in our weakness, in humility and lowliness, in order to redeem, rescue, and heal the world. As St. Paul says of Christ: "who being in form God did not regard equality with God something to exploit, but emptied Himself". He by whom and for whom all things were made, and apart from Him nothing was made; He who is preeminent over all things, foremost over all of creation, who fills all things--is He who was conceived in Mary's womb.

One can have a false gospel without the Incarnation, but the saving Gospel of God which the Apostles preached is the Gospel of Christ-God.

Any other gospel, any other Jesus is foreign to Christ's Church, and as the Apostle himself says, is anathema.

-CryptoLutheran

You show me where Jesus himself claims to be God and I will stay quiet... there isn't any scripture where he does.. no where...

 

[The Liturgist]

Know them quite well and none of them claim that Jesus was both God and Human..

That’s why I say you should reread them. Or else you’re reading a heterodox Bible like the New World “translation” published by the J/Ws, whixh has been tampered with so as to suppress verses that are of an incarnational nature.

 

[Sola Scriptura]

That’s why I say you should reread them. Or else you’re reading a heterodox Bible like the New World “translation” published by the J/Ws, whixh has been tampered with so as to suppress verses that are of an incarnational nature.

nope I read the KJV... and to be incarnate means to actually be...

 

[Sola Scriptura]

That’s why I say you should reread them. Or else you’re reading a heterodox Bible like the New World “translation” published by the J/Ws, whixh has been tampered with so as to suppress verses that are of an incarnational nature.

I could list all the Bibles I have in my possession including Greek and Hebrew versions as well.... I compare them all... so which should I be reading then?

 

[ViaCrucis]

You show me where Jesus himself claims to be God and I will stay quiet... there isn't any scripture where he does.. no where...

Except for all the times He does.

No, at no point does Jesus use the precise words, "I am God". But at no point either does He say, "I am the Son of God", neither does He ever say, "I am the Messiah". But He very much does say that He is the Son of God, and that He is the Messiah, and that He is God. And when others proclaim His divinity (either by way of hostile accusation or faithful confession) He never says, "Well now, hold your horses, I'm not claiming to be God". When a group of angry Pharisees accuse Him of claiming equality with God, He says absolutely nothing to assuage them of this. When St. Thomas confesses to Him, "My Lord and my God!" He affirms Thomas' confession saying he is blessed for believing and having seen, and how much more blessed are those who believe without having seen.

I am confident you are already well aware of any proof texts I could provide, such as all His sayings from the Gospel of John, e.g. "I and the Father are one", "before Abraham was I am" etc.

You know those already, but reject them as proofs of His Deity. So the inevitable outcome here is that I cite a number of biblical proof texts which affirm the historic Christian position. You will counter with what you believe to be counter-proofs, and this devolves to us arguing over the meaning of these passages until the mods shut this thread down, delete our posts, or one of us gets bored and moves on.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Sola Scriptura]

Except for all the times He does.

No, at no point does Jesus use the precise words, "I am God". But at no point either does He say, "I am the Son of God", neither does He ever say, "I am the Messiah". But He very much does say that He is the Son of God, and that He is the Messiah, and that He is God. And when others proclaim His divinity (either by way of hostile accusation or faithful confession) He never says, "Well now, hold your horses, I'm not claiming to be God". When a group of angry Pharisees accuse Him of claiming equality with God, He says absolutely nothing to assuage them of this. When St. Thomas confesses to Him, "My Lord and my God!" He affirms Thomas' confession saying he is blessed for believing and having seen, and how much more blessed are those who believe without having seen.

-CryptoLutheran

Let's focus on the first non truth I have pointed out.... Then we will get into the Thomas misunderstanding....
Jesus did in fact Say John 10:36 "Because I said I am the Son of God"... interesting but you did say he never actually said it...as for the Thomas statement... there is very little context for that to even be used.... we will get into the rest of your statement here in a bit because there is a ton of scripture that explains the I and My Father are one... as for your "before abraham was I am" statement that is explained when Jesus says that what he hears he speaks... it pays to actually read scripture rather than just shoot from the hip with what you are taught.

 

[Sola Scriptura]

Except for all the times He does.

No, at no point does Jesus use the precise words, "I am God". But at no point either does He say, "I am the Son of God", neither does He ever say, "I am the Messiah". But He very much does say that He is the Son of God, and that He is the Messiah, and that He is God. And when others proclaim His divinity (either by way of hostile accusation or faithful confession) He never says, "Well now, hold your horses, I'm not claiming to be God". When a group of angry Pharisees accuse Him of claiming equality with God, He says absolutely nothing to assuage them of this. When St. Thomas confesses to Him, "My Lord and my God!" He affirms Thomas' confession saying he is blessed for believing and having seen, and how much more blessed are those who believe without having seen.

I am confident you are already well aware of any proof texts I could provide, such as all His sayings from the Gospel of John, e.g. "I and the Father are one", "before Abraham was I am" etc.

You know those already, but reject them as proofs of His Deity. So the inevitable outcome here is that I cite a number of biblical proof texts which affirm the historic Christian position. You will counter with what you believe to be counter-proofs, and this devolves to us arguing over the meaning of these passages until the mods shut this thread down, delete our posts, or one of us gets bored and moves on.

-CryptoLutheran

God called out from the Heavens and called him His son.
the Angel of God said Jesus was the Son of God
Jesus said he was the Son of God.
Satan referred to his as the Son of God.
John called him the Son of God.
Peter said Jesus was the Son of God.
Need I go on???

 

[ViaCrucis]

God called out from the Heavens and called him His son.
the Angel of God said Jesus was the Son of God
Jesus said he was the Son of God.
Satan referred to his as the Son of God.
John called him the Son of God.
Peter said Jesus was the Son of God.
Need I go on???

If you want we can stricken that from my point. It doesn't change the point I was making.

Again, however, what is the point here? I have explained several times that this debate isn't allowed here, and I am fully expecting that my posts will be removed from this thread. And also in my previous post I don't see how quoting proof texts that I am sure you are already aware of is going to be very fruitful.

If you really want this debate, if you really want to go about a lengthy process of exegetical wrangling then it should be in the appropriate place. However, I am not sure where, at this time, that would be. The forum rules stipulate that such conversations happen in the Outreach section of the forum, but I am unclear which part of that area would be best suited for it.

While debate is not permissible, the Exploring Christianity board in the Outreach section is available for asking questions. And thus questions concerning the Trinity and Christological matters can be posed there to be answered--but, again, debate over those subjects isn't allowed there.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Sola Scriptura]

If you want we can stricken that from my point. It doesn't change the point I was making.

Again, however, what is the point here? I have explained several times that this debate isn't allowed here, and I am fully expecting that my posts will be removed from this thread. And also in my previous post I don't see how quoting proof texts that I am sure you are already aware of is going to be very fruitful.

If you really want this debate, if you really want to go about a lengthy process of exegetical wrangling then it should be in the appropriate place. However, I am not sure where, at this time, that would be. The forum rules stipulate that such conversations happen in the Outreach section of the forum, but I am unclear which part of that area would be best suited for it.

While debate is not permissible, the Exploring Christianity board in the Outreach section is available for asking questions. And thus questions concerning the Trinity and Christological matters can be posed there to be answered--but, again, debate over those subjects isn't allowed there.

-CryptoLutheran

Lol.. so you dismiss what I said and immediately go to "debate" lol.. all discussion is a debate.. now if you want an actual debate follow me and when I am able to post one I will point you to it.
when two people have a difference of opinion they discuss it or debate it.... debate is just a formal name for discussion.. I know Because I have been in actual debates...lol... but hey if you wanna do this in the proper place lets find one where we can discuss, I mean debate the topic...