WHAT IS THE REAL GOSPEL?

[Cormack]

It is not applied to a single definition of the scriptures but to the scriptures collectively.

This indirectly answers my question. Thank you.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

This indirectly answers my question. Thank you.

No problem Cormack. For me an argument from silence is not an argument when the application of scripture demonstrates meaning. I appreciate our discussions and enjoy talking with you.

God bless

 

[John Mullally]

Incredible: the very reference that justifies the brevity of the list, the fact that the law is taught every Sabbath in every city, is dismissed by you as James just pointing out that the Jewish laws are taught everywhere to Jews... Amazing.

Although the Law is taught every Sabbath in every city, Gentile believers would not be accepted - for one because they are not considered Jewish - not being circumcized. If the Apostles and Elders thought Gentile believers needed to attend synagogue on the Sabbath they would have commanded that they convert to Judaism - but they did not! Can you start seeing the problem the Apostles and Elders were addressing in Acts 5:23-29, instead of overreacting? Their solution does not include imposing many Jewish traditions on the Gentiles.

 

[martymonster]

Thanks Marty, I mostly good post. All the Word of God is indeed God's good news (gospel) to all mankind. In what you have written above what is your take on a false gospel?

Hi LoveGodsWord,

The false gospel is the letter. It's the exact same words, but with a totally different meaning.

Gal 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
Gal 1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

What Paul is saying is, another gospel is the same gospel, but is perverted. The way it is perverted is by the letter, which means it is a literal interpretation of scripture. Scripture is not to be understood literally, but spiritually. It is impossible to understand scripture if you try and understand it literally. To interpret scripture literally, is to pervert it.

Please let me know if you don't understand what I mean, and I will try and explain it better.

 

[HIM]

Since codex Sinaiticus, vaticanus and alexandrinus contain that particular reading of Mark 7:19, I’d consider those manuscripts to be less than modern.

We thought this issue was resolved sorry. Here is the Net2 which is basically translated from Alexandrian text. Below it is the text to which it is translated from. And below that is the Byzantine text. The only difference, variant was highlighted with a bold emphasis. It is the same word. The only difference is the first's gender is masculine and the second entry's gender is neuter. This does not affect the translation at all in this text.

Now please take note that The words "this means" from the Net2 are nowhere in the either text.


Mark 7:19 For it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and then goes out into the sewer.” (This means all foods are clean.)


Mark 7:19 οτι (that) ουκ (not) εισπορευεται (going) αυτου (him), εις (into) την (the) καρδιαν (heart) αλλ (but) εις (into) την (the) κοιλιαν (bowels) και (and) εις (into) τον (the) αφεδρωνα(sewer) εκπορευεται (discharged) καθαριζων (cleansing) παντα (all) τα (the) βρωματα (foods)

Mark 7:19 οτι ουκ εισπορευεται αυτου εις την καρδιαν αλλ εις την κοιλιαν και εις τον αφεδρωνα εκπορευεται καθαριζον παντα τα βρωματα

Nor is "In saying this, Jesus declared"
NIV

For it doesn't go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)

Nor is "By saying this, he declared that every kind of food is acceptable in God’s eyes."

NLT

Food doesn’t go into your heart, but only passes through the stomach and then goes into the sewer.” (By saying this, he declared that every kind of food is acceptable in God’s eyes.)

Nor is "Thus he declared"

ESV

since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.)


Sadly all translation at some point go from being a translation to paraphrasing, what they think is meant by the Original text. This can and has been quite the stumbling block for many.

A FEW QUESTION FOR ALL.

WHAT CLEANSES THE FOOD IN THESE TEXT?

IS THIS OR WAS THING THAT CLEANSES THE FOOD NEW?

IS FOOD THAT WHICH WAS OR IS MEANT TO BE EATEN OR IS IT WHAT WE EAT IN GOD'S ESTIMATION?

ARE THE ANIMALS CONSIDERED TO BE UNCLEAN BY GOD MEANT TO BE FOOD?

AND IF CHRIST WAS TALKING ABOUT UNCLEAN ANIMALS DO YOU THINK HE WOULD HAVE MENTIONED THEM SPECIFALLY?

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Although the Law is taught every Sabbath in every city, Gentile believers would not be accepted - for one because they are not considered Jewish - not being circumcized. If the Apostles and Elders thought Gentile believers needed to attend synagogue on the Sabbath they would have commanded that they convert to Judaism - but they did not! Can you start seeing the problem the Apostles and Elders were addressing in Acts 5:23-29, instead of overreacting? Their solution does not include imposing many Jewish traditions on the Gentiles.

Not really John you have your facts wrong here. Gentiles that were interested in learning about the Word of God were allowed to enter into the synagogues to hear the Word of God without being circumcised. This is different to the Temple that was at Jerusalem where gentiles needed to be circumcised to enter the temple or they were restricted to the "court of the gentiles" Uncircumcised gentiles (non proselytes) interested in learning about Gods Word in the synagogues were called "proselytes at the gate" or those "who feared God" (see Acts of the Apostles 10:2; Acts of the Apostles 10:22 and Acts of the Apostles 13:14-16), while proselytes were gentiles that had converted to Judaism and were circumcised. There was no restrictions placed on anyone wanting to hear the Word of God in the synagogues in the days of Jesus and the Apostles if they wanted to learn about God and His Word.

Hope this helps

 

[John Mullally]

Not really John you have your facts wrong here. Gentiles that were interested in learning about the Word of God were allowed to enter into the synagogues to hear the Word of God without being circumcised.

You have a point. It probably varied from Synagogue to Synagogue. Jesus said to his followers that they can be expected to be cast out of the Synagogue in John 16:2. How much more so Gentile believers.

No matter how you slice it, after their debate in the first part of Acts 15, the Apostles and Elders constructed a letter of instruction to the Gentiles (Acts 15:23-29): attending Synagogue or following the fourth commandment was not included. The purpose of that letter was to provide commandment to Gentile Believers associated with Jewish traditions. Although abstaining "from fornication" is not strictly a Jewish tradition - it was deemed important enough to be included in that letter. The Apostles and Elders did not deem it necessary to include abstaining from murder, theft, lying, etc. in that letter because it goes without saying. Whether or not the Gentiles were required to "Keep the Sabbath" would have to be considered in that letter because new Gentile believers were not expected to know anything about Jewish traditions.

 

[Religiot]

Hello Religiot, Christ is the Law for those who believe in His name..the letter of the law cannot provide anyone with that knowledge BUT the Spirit. Knowledge is one of spiritual gifts in which the Spirit will give to anyone according to His desire..

Some follow the letter of the law to be righteous... their works leads to death...

Some were given gifts of the Holy Spirit, their faith leads to holiness and life....

I'm not against the 10 commandments is just that it doesn't change us from our evil ways...
If you want to change ask God for His Spirit...Not only He teaches you But also leads you to holiness...

I think I follow what you're saying, yet I need more clarity before responding: please expound your response more fully to me--thanks in advance.

 

[pasifika]

I think I follow what you're saying, yet I need more clarity before responding: please expound your response more fully to me--thanks in advance.

Hello, the written code (law given through Moses ) cannot lead us to Christ..But the Spirit will..

 

[Religiot]

That’s my point. You have an argument, some presupposition, paradigmatic thought construct that you insist is within scripture, but you can’t share with me one section of scripture that explicitly argues in favour of your definition.

Paul writing Jesus died for humanity “according to Scripture” simply means that the death is something predicted within OT scripture. It’s according to OT scripture, not synonymous with OT scripture.

You have no didactic verses that argue for your viewpoint. You have leaps in logic (which you’re entitle to.)

Your allegation is an obvious projection of your own sentiments, obscured by your own ignorance: the didactic you claim to be looking for is sitting right in front of you, the scriptures, thus you're question is oxymoronic:

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine (didaskalia), for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." --2 Timothy 3:16-17

"omnis scriptura divinitus inspirata et utilis ad docendum (teaching) ad arguendum ad corrigendum ad erudiendum in iustitia ut perfectus sit homo Dei ad omne opus bonum instructus" --2 Timothy 3:16-17

Time to abandon what websites and books have to say about the scriptures, and time to start looking to what the scriptures have to say about themselves. --that first requires humility.

 

[Religiot]

Although the Law is taught every Sabbath in every city, Gentile believers would not be accepted - for one because they are not considered Jewish - not being circumcized. If the Apostles and Elders thought Gentile believers needed to attend synagogue on the Sabbath they would have commanded that they convert to Judaism - but they did not! Can you start seeing the problem the Apostles and Elders were addressing in Acts 5:23-29, instead of overreacting? Their solution does not include imposing many Jewish traditions on the Gentiles.

Here again, you don't know what you are talking about, yet your conjectures are articulated as observations--you need to step back to reckon the facts, otherwise, you will continue to reference your imagination as the source for inspiration--this will inevitably result in a blindness that cannot be enlightened, because it will be from God.

I strongly recommend that you start asking questions instead of making assertions, otherwise, this conversation will continue to devolve into more of the same.

 

[Religiot]

Mark 7:19 οτι (that) ουκ (not) εισπορευεται (going) αυτου (him), εις (into) την (the) καρδιαν (heart) αλλ (but) εις (into) την (the) κοιλιαν (bowels) και (and) εις (into) τον (the) αφεδρωνα(sewer) εκπορευεται (discharged) καθαριζων (cleansing) παντα (all) τα (the) βρωματα (foods)

Just some more clarity for your post:
katharizo, means to purge, to expel, to discharge, and by extension, to cleanse: the word is catharsis, which means simply to discharge.

The misuse of this word is at the heart of the confusion associated with this passage.

The passage simply states that what goes in comes out, period.

Nothing entering me can defile me, yet if I eat what is clean imagining that it is against God, then indeed, I will be defiled, not by the clean food, but by my conscience.

Therefore, those believers who eat swine, or anything, in ignorance, are not reckoned sinners, but, if the knowledge of the truth is provided them, and they continue to eat swine presumptuously, then they have rejected God's will by breaking His command, and have rejected Christ as their Master, and supplanted His doctrine with the traditions of man.

--Sunday, Swine, and Sodomy: they persist, and will remain, markers on all who refuse God's commands, on all who refuse to repent to change.

The truth must always be obvious to those who can see, otherwise, it cannot be considered light.

 

[John Mullally]

Here again, you don't know what you are talking about, yet your conjectures are articulated as observations--you need to step back to reckon the facts, otherwise, you will continue to reference your imagination as the source for inspiration--this will inevitably result in a blindness that cannot be enlightened, because it will be from God.

I strongly recommend that you start asking questions instead of making assertions, otherwise, this conversation will continue to devolve into more of the same.

I would not ask questions of someone of your disposition.

To summarize, Acts 15 demonstrates that the Gentile believers (not raised under Jewish traditions) were not commanded to "Keep the Sabbath". If that was important, it would have been stated in the letter to the Gentiles, termed the Jerusalem Decree, in Acts 15:23-29.

 

[Religiot]

I would not ask questions of someone of your disposition.

To summarize, Acts 15 demonstrates that the Gentile believers were not commanded to "Keep the Sabbath". If that was important, it would have been stated in the letter to the Gentiles, termed the Jerusalem Decree, in Acts 15:23-29.

ad hominem is the only recourse your kind has--they did the same to my Master, yet He did everything perfectly; even when He flipped their tables and drove by whip their animals from out of His house, He sinned not; but they counted Him a sinner, and despised His disposition.

How much more should my kind be despised? much more, indeed.

My disposition is to contend for the faith once delivered to the saints, for since the founders now sleep, the wolves have crept in, and have wreaked a havoc never before seen since the world began.

It will be as the times of Noah, and indeed, it now is; for Noah, a preacher of righteousness, did preach to the world that once was, but by the time of the flood, there were none who feared God, but Noah and his sons.

The number of those who profess the faith must increase, but the number of those who keep it must decrease.

The doctrine you reject is not mine.

 

[Religiot]

Hello, the written code (law given through Moses ) cannot lead us to Christ..But the Spirit will..

Well, yes, of course... ...truly, this is not an expansion of what you said before, but a contraction: I cannot, therefore, respond to it more than to agree with it; tho I perceive that we don't agree, hence I asked for you to expound to me more fully what you meant by what you formerly said.

 

[John Mullally]

My disposition is to contend for the faith once delivered to the saints, for since the founders now sleep, the wolves have crept in, and have wreaked a havoc never before seen since the world began.

Your version of contending for the faith includes adding OT commandments to Gentile believers not included in the "Jerusalem Decree" of Acts 15:23-29.

Later edit: Asserting that Gentile believers need to keep Jewish traditions like not eating OT unclean foods, keeping the Sabbath, much less keeping the Law is effectively adding commandments to the Jerusalem Decree and laying on a greater burden.

Acts 15:23 They wrote this letter by them: The apostles, the elders, and the brethren,To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia: Greetings. 24 Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, “You must be circumcised and keep the law”—to whom we gave no such commandment— 25 it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.
​

 

[Religiot]

Your version of contending for the faith includes adding OT commandments to Gentile believers not included in the "Jerusalem Decree" of Acts 15:23-29.

You don't know what you're talking about, yet you persist in making assertions and allegations that are contrary to observation.

I'm not interested in a dialog with you--I find it a waste of time now, as I did the first time, that's why I said goodbye.

--I will however continue to expose your fallacies whenever I think someone else may benefit, but as far as a dialog, no, not unless you commence with intelligent questions.

Goodbye.

 

[chad kincham]

..

 

[chad kincham]

I know what the ten commandments are, but how are they the old covenant? Can you really explain your claim?

Again, are you able to explain how the ten commandments are the ministry of death? Also, can you explain your claim that Peter refers to the ten commandments as a yoke that they couldn't bear? and can you please include why Peter would say that about the ten commandments?

Can you explain how the "love commands" tell me what to do?

There is no anything in the two, as far as I can tell, without the law; wherefore, I've asked for you to explain what the two tell me to do, thanks.

From what I remember, the Lord's body was resting on the Sabbath, and He 'got up' on the first day of the week ('Sunday')... --How do those facts equate to the Sabbath no longer being the prescribed day of rest?

The scripture you cited doesn't say that: why are you saying that the scriptures say that the church gathered every week on the first day of the week?

How, in your reasoning, was it possible for them to keep the Sabbath by offering a burnt offering, seeing that they were forbidden, according to you, from having fires on the Sabbath?

Imagine not contradicting yourself when espousing your own beliefs.

Who told you that the seventh day is a ceremonial day of rest?

Who are you to tell others what to tell you? --here you are telling others what you believe.

Perhaps it's time to reevaluate your reasoning about what you believe others believe.

Had you looked at 2 Corinthians 3 that I cited, Paul says the ten commands given to Moses on the mountain, are the ministry of death, the ministry of condemnation, and the letter that kills, and had you paid closer attention, i said we know the Decalogue is called in scripture THE COVENANT ON TWO TABLES OF STONE. What was put on two tables of stone? The Ten Commandments - so obviously the Decalogue was the old covenant. We now have a better covenant with better promises, and we are told the old covenant was faulty - deliberately so. Also the ark was called the ark of the COVENANT because it contained the ten commands in it, which ARE the covenant. They are the ministry of death and the letter that kills, because the penalty under the law given to Moses for breaking the commands was being stoned to death.
Also, it’s no contradiction re. the command to have no fire in their HABITATION, meaning in their home, and still having fire AT THE ALTAR for burnt offerings, as those are different places entirely. The sacrificial altar was not in anyone’s HABITATION/HOME.
I said the church gathered on the first day because that’s what scripture says.
Clearly the sabbath day was ceremonial because it was but a fore-SHADOW of Jesus being our rest 24/7 Matthew 11:28-29, says Colossians 2, who is the SUBSTANCE that cast the shadow, ergo He is our rest daily, not just once per week - and the word translated SABBATHS in that passage, according to Strongs exhaustive Greek dictionary, includes every type of sabbath there is, especially the weekly one - which precludes the oft cited bogus SDA claim that the passage doesn’t mean or include the seventh day sabbath.
When His body rested is completely irrelevant - they put His body in the tomb on the sabbath because they were still observing the sabbath at that time - that the old covenant was ended when Jesus died and the church is free to assemble any day they want, was not known by them at that time.
It should be obvious how the two love commands tell us what to do - if you love your neighbor as yourself, you won’t steal from him, kill him, covet his goods, lie against him, etc, and if you love God with all your heart you won’t worship idols, or take His name in vain, etc. And the way you treat your neighbor when you love him as yourself, far exceeds the good you will do for him that the Decalogue commands you to.

 

[chad kincham]

Often, partial citations of simple passages like this cause me to doubt about the motivations of the poster, viz:

Following is how the passage actually reads:

"Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned: from which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling; desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm. But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust." --1 Timothy 1:5-11

We used to have scripture wars on Friday nights in the AOL chat room, coincidentally called Christian Forum, because many sabbath keepers would come into the room and tell us we were going to Hell for not keeping the sabbath.
They would post all the scripture showing the law had not ended, we would post all the scriptures proving we are no longer under the law.
Per the passage you cited, both are true. The law was meant for the ungodly, not for the righteous.
Christians are righteous by faith,which explains why Paul clearly states that we have died to the law.
The law is still in effect for the ungodly, to show them what sin is defined as, but as believers we are not under the law of Moses.