what Gospel did Jesus preach?

Hello faithfullservent,



First I want to say how nice it is to see someone putting in some time to research a subject in the Bible.



I would also like to agree with you that, the Bible does speak of the holy spirit as a “helper” and spoke of such helper as ‘teaching,’ ‘bearing witness,’ ‘giving evidence,’ ‘guiding,’ ‘speaking,’ ‘hearing,’ and ‘receiving.’ In so doing, the original Greek shows Jesus did, at times, apply the personal pronoun “he” to that “helper”. Now just because the holy spirit is personified at times does that prove that it is a person? If we are to think along those lines, then should we not, whenever an “inanimate” noun is personalized, straight away conclude that that noun is a person? I found it interesting that it is not unusual for the Bible to personalize other “inanimate” nouns in much the same way.



For example, wisdom is personified in the book of Proverbs (1:20-33; 8:1-36); and feminine pronominal forms are used of it in the original Hebrew, as also in many English translations. (KJ, RS, JP, AT) Wisdom is also personified at Matthew 11:19 wisdom is said to do “work”(WHT) or “deed” (RSV) [many English texts say children here], and, in Luke 7:35 that wisdom had children. Are we to conclude, then, that wisdom is a person?



I also found it interesting that the apostle Paul personalized sin and death and also grace (or righteousness) as reigning (as kings)



Ro 5:14, “Yet Death reigned as king” WEY; verse 17, “Death made use of the one individual to seize the sovereignty,” the same verse from RSV “death reigned through that one man,” and verse 21 grace also reigns ” so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through” 6:12 “not sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies,” RSV



Paul also speaks of sin as “finding an opportunity,” ‘working out covetousness,’ ‘deceiving,’ and ‘killing.’ (Ro 7:8-11:”8 But sin, finding opportunity in the commandment, wrought in me all kinds of covetousness. Apart from the law sin lies dead. 9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died;10 the very commandment which promised life proved to be death to me.11 For sin, finding opportunity in the commandment, deceived me and by it killed me.”) When we read those texts is it not obvious that Paul did not mean that sin, death and grace were actually a individuals even though they were personalized as doing something. So, again I ask are to conclude that death, sin and grace are individuals because they reign,. deceive or kill?



Further evidence against the idea of personality as regards the holy spirit is the way it is used in association with other impersonal things, such as fire (Mt 3:11;he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.”) Mark 1:8 Ac 1:5; 11:16 Christians are spoken of as being baptized wit holy spirit.”. Persons are urged to become “filled with spirit” instead of with wine. (Eph 5:18) So, too, persons are spoken of as being ‘filled’ with it along with such qualities as wisdom and faith (Ac 6:3, 5; 11:24) or joy (Ac 13:52); and holy spirit is inserted, or sandwiched in, with a number of such qualities at 2 Corinthians 6:6. Is it likely that such expressions would be made if the holy spirit were a divine person? Also the Holy Spirit is a free gift from God (Acts 2:38 “and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit,” RSV) so every one that is eligible can receive holly spirit (Acts 5:32 “and the Holy Spirit also, whom God gave to those obeying him.” RSV)

Since God himself is a Spirit and is holy and since all his faithful angelic sons are spirits and are holy, it is evident that if the “holy spirit” were a person, there should reasonably be given some means in the Scriptures to distinguish and identify such spirit person from all these other ‘holy spirits.’ It would be expected that, at the very least, the definite article would be used with it in all cases where it is not called “God’s holy spirit” or is not modified by some similar expression. This would at least distinguish it as THE Holy Spirit. But, on the contrary, in a large number of cases the expression “holy spirit” appears in the original Greek without the article, thus indicating its lack of personality.—Compare Ac 6:3, 5; 7:55; 8:15, 17, 19; 9:17; 11:24; 13:9, 52; 19:2; Ro 9:1; 14:17; 15:13, 16, 19; 1Co 12:3; Heb 2:4; 6:4; 2Pe 1:21; Jude 20, with an interlinear translations.

To help distinguish the “Holy Spirit” form the other spirits that are also holy why is no name mentioned for it. The Almighty God (the Father) has a name YaHWaH (In English the most recognized form is Jehovah). The Son has a name the Hebrew form is YeSHua (the English form is Joshua. In Greek I·e·sous or English Jesus). With those names we can easily distinguish who is being talked about. But the Holy Spirit is not named!



Just because the Holly spirit is personalized in some text prove that it is a person? No it does not as shown above.

There are two opposing questions to be answered

1) If the Holy Spirit” is a “person” how do the texts relating to it being poured out, shared around filing up people , baptized with and all the other texts that do not show it to be a person, be reconciled with those that appear to support personality (remembering personality texts do not prove a person).

2) Or can the fact that, the Holly Spirit is spoken of in a personal way fit in with it not being a person”? Can those texts you mention be explained if the Holly Spirit is not a person?

To come to the correct conclusion we should examine the meaning of the word spirit as used in the Hebrew scriptures as well as the Greek scriptures. There is some homework for you.



Ben
 
Hello Ben :)
Ben57 said:
First I want to say how nice it is to see someone putting in some time to research a subject in the Bible.
-Thanks same goes with you :)

Now just because the holy spirit is personified at times does that prove that it is a person? If we are to think along those lines, then should we not, whenever an “inanimate” noun is personalized, straight away conclude that that noun is a person? I found it interesting that it is not unusual for the Bible to personalize other “inanimate” nouns in much the same way.
For example, wisdom is personified in the book of Proverbs (1:20-33; 8:1-36); and feminine pronominal forms are used of it in the original Hebrew, as also in many English translations. (KJ, RS, JP, AT) Wisdom is also personified at Matthew 11:19 wisdom is said to do “work”(WHT) or “deed” (RSV) [many English texts say children here], and, in Luke 7:35 that wisdom had children. Are we to conclude, then, that wisdom is a person?

-This wisdom is the eternal word of God. Regard this address as the language of the Son of God under the name of Wisdom. Or try to think that wisdom, as the divine attribute specially employed in acts of counsel and admonition, is here personified, and represents God. In either case the address is a most solemn and divine admonition, whose matter and spirit are eminently evangelical and impressive Wisdom--literally, "Wisdoms," the plural used either because of the unusual sense, or as indicative of the great excellency of wisdom

I also found it interesting that the apostle Paul personalized sin and death and also grace (or righteousness) as reigning (as kings)Ro 5:14, “Yet Death reigned as king” WEY; verse 17, “Death made use of the one individual to seize the sovereignty,” the same verse from RSV “death reigned through that one man,” and verse 21 grace also reigns ” so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through” 6:12 “not sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies,” RSV Paul also speaks of sin as “finding an opportunity,” ‘working out covetousness,’ ‘deceiving,’ and ‘killing.’ (Ro 7:8-11:”8 But sin, finding opportunity in the commandment, wrought in me all kinds of covetousness. Apart from the law sin lies dead. 9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died;10 the very commandment which promised life proved to be death to me.11 For sin, finding opportunity in the commandment, deceived me and by it killed me.”) When we read those texts is it not obvious that Paul did not mean that sin, death and grace were actually a individuals even though they were personalized as doing something. So, again I ask are to conclude that death, sin and grace are individuals because they reign,. deceive or kill?

-Yes I believe we are to personify death sin and grace as manifestions of the power of God or the power of the other one. We are not to take lightly death sin or grace. Are they people? No and neither are they Gods. If it was so then he would have told us.

Further evidence against the idea of personality as regards the holy spirit is the way it is used in association with other impersonal things, such as fire (Mt 3:11;he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.”)

-it is but the fiery character of the Spirit's operations upon the soul-searching, consuming, refining, sublimating--as nearly all good interpreters understand the words. The two most familiar emblems--water and fire--are employed to set forth the same purifying operations of the Holy Ghost upon the soul.


Mark 1:8 Ac 1:5; 11:16 Christians are spoken of as being baptized wit holy spirit.”

-In order to know what is meant we must refer to the fulfillment. On the day of Pentecost occurred such a baptism, the first so recognized in the New Testament. Then the spirits of the apostles were overwhelmed by the Divine Spirit, so that they spoke as he gave them utterance. It was Christ who "shed forth" the baptism of that occasion. The great promise Christ makes in his gospel to those who have repented, and have had their sins forgiven them, is, they shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost; shall be purified by his graces, and refreshed by his comforts.


Persons are urged to become “filled with spirit” instead of with wine. (Eph 5:18) So, too, persons are spoken of as being ‘filled’ with it along with such qualities as wisdom and faith (Ac 6:3, 5; 11:24) or joy (Ac 13:52); and holy spirit is inserted, or sandwiched in, with a number of such qualities at 2 Corinthians 6:6. Is it likely that such expressions would be made if the holy spirit were a divine person? Also the Holy Spirit is a free gift from God (Acts 2:38 “and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit,” RSV) so every one that is eligible can receive holly spirit (Acts 5:32 “and the Holy Spirit also, whom God gave to those obeying him.” RSV)

The effects of being filled with the Holy Spirit (person) have effects these effects are in contrast to drunkeness.. the fruits of being filled with the Holy Spirit are such as wisdom and faith and joy. Yes the filling of the Holy Spirit is a free gift with the acceptance of Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit is the power of God. His Spirit and our spirit are the communication link. He is an aspect of God.. Just like Jesus is God in the flesh.

Romans 8:5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.

Romans 8:16 The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God

Romans 9:1 I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit

1 John 5:6-9 And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth:the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one. If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater; for this is the witness of God which He has testified of His Son.

Since God himself is a Spirit and is holy and since all his faithful angelic sons are spirits and are holy, it is evident that if the “holy spirit” were a person, there should reasonably be given some means in the Scriptures to distinguish and identify such spirit person from all these other ‘holy spirits.’ It would be expected that, at the very least, the definite article would be used with it in all cases where it is not called “God’s holy spirit” or is not modified by some similar expression. This would at least distinguish it as THE Holy Spirit. But, on the contrary, in a large number of cases the expression “holy spirit” appears in the original Greek without the article, thus indicating its lack of personality.—Compare Ac 6:3, 5; 7:55; 8:15, 17, 19; 9:17; 11:24; 13:9, 52; 19:2; Ro 9:1; 14:17; 15:13, 16, 19; 1Co 12:3; Heb 2:4; 6:4; 2Pe 1:21; Jude 20, with an interlinear translations.

-ahhh I see where your having a problem with this. You think God is a spirit being. He is in the aspect of the Holy Spirit . You think angels are spirits also? They walked on the earth as men. God spirit aspect IS the Holy Spirit.

GOD- Father,Son and Holy Spirit.

The Spirit emerges in the NT to dominate the theology and experience of the major NT witnesses. The term "Holy Spirit" (pneuma [pneu'ma] hagion [a&gion]) becomes common, although the absolute use remains frequent and "Spirit of God/the Lord" and even "Spirit of Christ" appear too. A distinct personality emerges and, ultimately, explicit trinitarian teaching.

Matthew 28:19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit

-thats Christ himself telling of the trinity

2 Corinthians 3:17 Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

To help distinguish the “Holy Spirit” form the other spirits that are also holy why is no name mentioned for it. The Almighty God (the Father) has a name YaHWaH (In English the most recognized form is Jehovah). The Son has a name the Hebrew form is YeSHua (the English form is Joshua. In Greek I·e·sous or English Jesus). With those names we can easily distinguish who is being talked about. But the Holy Spirit is not named!

en pneumati baptisqhsesqe agiwi is Greek for "Holy Ghost"
pneumatoß agiou= greek for Holy Spirit
to pneuma thß alhqeiaß= greek for the Spirit of Truth

Just because the Holly spirit is personalized in some text prove that it is a person? No it does not as shown above.

-I think it does
Click to expand...
Faithful Servant
 
Hello Ben,

While examining the word "spirit" as used in Hebrew and Greek, let us also examine the following:

What is a person? One dictionary defines person as: A living, self-conscious being, as distinct from an animal
or a thing; a moral agent; a human being; a man, woman, or
child.

Surely even an idiot is still considered a person, though mental faculties may be slow. We don't call them animals.

A moral agent. That would definately fit the description of the Holy Spirit.


Can the Holy Spirit Think for Itself and Make its Own Decisions?​


--The Holy Spirit has a mind (see Romans 8:27).
--The Holy Spirit helped to settle questions during the Church Council at Jerusalem (see Acts 15:28).
--The Holy Spirit dispenses gifts to different individuals according as He wills (see 1 Corinthians 12:8-11).
--The Holy Spirit forbade some from going to preach in certain places (see Acts 16:6-7).


So we can see that the Holy Spirit has a mind, can think for Itself and can make Its own decisions. But can the Holy Spirit act for Itself?



​
Can the Holy Spirit Act for Itself?​


--The Holy Spirit anointed Jesus and sent Him out to preach the gospel (see Luke 4:18-19); In fact, both
the Father and the Holy Spirit sent Jesus (see Isaiah 48:16).
--The Holy Spirit testifies or witnesses of Jesus (see John 15:26).
--The Holy Spirit leads God’s people (see Romans 8:14).
--The Holy Spirit teaches and causes us to remember the truth (John 14:26).
--The Holy Spirit comforts us as does Christ (John 14:16).
--The Holy Spirit strives with us (see Genesis 6:3).
--The Holy Spirit reproves us of sin, righteousness, and judgment (see John 16:8-11).
--The Holy Spirit instructs us (see Nehemiah 9:20).


So we can see that the Holy Spirit can act for Itself, and can bear Its own witness. But can the Holy Spirit speak for Itself?



​
Can the Holy Spirit Speak for Itself?​


--The Holy Spirit speaks, guides, hears and shows (John 16:13-15).
--The Holy Spirit speaks, chooses, calls and sends forth (see Acts 13:1-4).
--The Holy Spirit gives messages to prophets and they declare: “Thus saith the Holy Ghost” (see Acts
21:11).


So we can see that the Holy Spirit can indeed speak for Itself. Besides this, He can hear, He can guide, show, choose, calls and sends forth others. Now what other characteristics does the Bible reveal about the Holy Spirit which shows it to be a Person and Being other than God–the Father and God–the Son?
--The Holy Spirit has knowledge, and searches all things (see 1 Corinthians 2:10-11).
--The Holy Spirit sanctifies us (see Romans 15:16).
--The Holy Spirit holds communion with us (see 2 Corinthians 13:14); and so does Christ (see 1
Corinthians 1:9).
--The Holy Spirit is the source of regeneration and renewal for salvation (see John 3:5-8; Titus 3:5).
--The Holy Spirit resurrects the faithful from the dead (see Romans 8:11; 1 Peter 3:18).
--The Holy Spirit is the author of the Bible and moved upon the prophets to speak (see 2 Peter 1:21).
--The Holy Spirit is another Comforter other than Christ (see John 14:16).
--The Holy Spirit helps our infirmities (see Romans 8:26).
--The Holy Spirit can be tempted and lied to (see Acts 5:3, 9).
–The Holy Spirit can be blasphemed and sinned against (see Mark 3:28-29; Luke 12:10; Matthew 12:31).
--The Holy Spirit is another Intercessor other than Christ (see Romans 8:26); The Spirit intercedes for us
through prayer, while Christ intercedes for us through His precious blood, merits and righteousness.


According to the Bible (which is all we have to go on, unless we have had personal experiences with this "character", all of these things show conclusively that the Holy Spirit is indeed a Person and Being, and that He has His own work to perform in the plan of Redemption, other than the Father and the Son.

In fact, the Holy Spirit seems more of a man than some people I've met (including me).

When I was a teen, and testing my mother, I asked her if the Holy Spirit saw everything, was everywhere, knew all, all at the same time. She said yes. Being a little snit, I asked "even when we're in the bathroom, or when people make love?" I expected an embarrassed fluster from my prim and proper mother. To my astonishment (and mortification), she smiled, winked and said quietly, "I should certainly hope so. I'd want Him to make sure everything came out, and went in right..."

And I thought I cornered the market on innuendos...:rolleyes:

v/r

Q
 
i think that it is reasonably obvious the falsehood of the gospel of barnabas by simply looking at it. it obviously does not follow the usual thought pattern of Jesus, nor anything near the same message. perhaps if it was more linear and believable then yes, you would have more arguments for that.

i do agree that there are several gospels out there that are not included in the bible that are very good reading. the protestand and catholic church doesnt questions the authenticity of those gospels, they simply maintain that they arent inspired. althought the catholics do still use the apocrypha.

regardless trying to discredit the gospels, or nearly any of the books of the next testament would be futile, seeing as how they have more documents proving them as true documents than any other written history
 
WHY DID LUKE WRITE HIS GOSPEL ?

 ---[Luke 1:1]

 MOST EXCELLENT THE-OPH'-I-LUS, (the church tried to know : who is that The-oph'-i-lus, Luke's close friend. However, there are some Christians today claim that this is not a name of a person, but a Greek word which means "People".
* I do not understand why the whole Bible was translated into English except for this word!
 * And if such: what is the value of keeping it ?
 * And they start this "so called" Greek word with a capital letter ?
 * And who was "most excellent" to Luke ? The people or his friend: The-oph'-i-lus ?

**he was a person, not a group of people. he was more than likely an official in the roman army, thus justifying the "most high" terminology used to greet officials

This is how they defend the error by making another error, it is in fact another trick, by this they attempt to avoid the difficulties which this paragraph creates. The fact that this introduction of Luke's Gospel makes hisGospel no more than a personal letter.)


that you MIGHT KNOW THE CERTAINTY of those things wherein you have been instructed.
(This paragraph indicates three essential points:
 * Luke was not an eyewitness to Jesus peace upon him.
 * He did not claim that he was inspired, but it seemed good idea to him to write his book.
 * His book was only a message to his friend, not to the world.)

i'm not an eyewitness of Jesus, but i know he's real.
he didnt have to claim the book to be inspired, God did
as far as it being a letter to a friend, maybe you should read some of pauls letters. because their just that. letters. he wrote them to churches, friends, everybody. does this mean that pauls wisdom is not applicable to us? of course not. letters like this were put in the bible not because they were intended for one person, but because they helped to set a good basic guideline of Jesus. nobody back then thought to write a letter to the churches that would be here 2000 years later. for the same reason we dont do it for the churches that will be here in another 2000 years. we dont think about. but i'm willing to be that even then people will use letters written to each other to collect historical fact.

hope that works for you
 
onemoreyouth said:
WHY DID LUKE WRITE HIS GOSPEL ?

---[Luke 1:1]

MOST EXCELLENT THE-OPH'-I-LUS, (the church tried to know : who is that The-oph'-i-lus, Luke's close friend. However, there are some Christians today claim that this is not a name of a person, but a Greek word which means "People".


* I do not understand why the whole Bible was translated into English except for this word!
* And if such: what is the value of keeping it ?
* And they start this "so called" Greek word with a capital letter ?
* And who was "most excellent" to Luke ? The people or his friend: The-oph'-i-lus ?

**he was a person, not a group of people. he was more than likely an official in the roman army, thus justifying the "most high" terminology used to greet officials


This is how they defend the error by making another error, it is in fact another trick, by this they attempt to avoid the difficulties which this paragraph creates. The fact that this introduction of Luke's Gospel makes hisGospel no more than a personal letter.)...
Click to expand...
Theophilus



Bishop of Antioch. Eusebius in his "Chronicle" places the name of Theophilus against that of Pope Soter (169-77), and that of Maximinus, Theophilus's successor, against the name of Eleutherus (177-93). This does not mean that Maximinus succeeded Theophilus in 177, but only that Theophilus and Maximinus flourished respectively in the times of Soter and Eleutherus. Lightfoot and Hort showed that Eusebius, having no such precise chronological data for the bishops of Antioch as he had for those of Rome and Alexandria, placed the names of the Antiochene bishops against those of contemporary Roman bishops (Lightfoot, "St. Ignatius", etc., II, 468 sq., and St. Clement", etc., I, 224 sqq.). When therefore we find in the third book of Theophilus, "Ad Autolychum", that the writer was alive after the death (180) of Marcus Aurelius, it does not follow, as even writers like Harnack and Bardenhewer suppose, that Eusebius made a chronological blunder. The "Ad Autolychum", the only extant writing of Theophilus, is an apology for Christianity. It consists of three books, really separate works written at different times, and corresponds exactly to the description given of it by Eusebius as "three elementary works" (Hist. eccl., IV, xxiv). The author speaks of himself as a convert from heathenism. He treats of such subjects as the Christian idea of God, the Scripture accounts of the origin of man and the world as compared with pagan myths. On several occasions he refers (in connection with the early chapters of Genesis) to an historical work composed by himself. Eusebius (op. cit.) speaks of refutations of Marcion and Hermogenes, and "catechetical books". To these St. Jerome (De vir. illust., xxv) adds commentaries on Proverbs and the Gospels. He speaks of the latter in the prologue to his own commentary on the Gospels, and also in his epistle "Ad Algasiam", where we learn that Theophilus commented upon a Diatessaron or Gospel Harmony composed by himself ("Theophilus . . . quattuor Evangelistarum in unum opus compingens"). A long quotation in the same epistle is all that survives of this commentary, for Zahn's attempt to identify it with a Latin commentary ascribed in some manuscripts to Theophilus has found no supporters.

I hope this answers at least part of your question as to whom Theophilus was.

By the way, we get our Capitalizing proper nouns from the Greeks, not the Romans. Hence the Capitalization of the word Theophilus, leads the learned to presume immediately that the word is either describing an individual, or a specific body of people with a particular title of meaning. If we look at the original Greek text (particularly the second and third person descriptors refering to Theophilus, our next strongest clue is that the descriptors are in singular, as opposed to plural. Hence one can logically conclude that Theophilus describes a single person, or more specifically, his name. This also points out that Luke refers to a historically validated person (in secular studies).

v/r

Q
 
Dear Friend,

The gospel that Jesus preached-- and preaches-- has been explained very well several times by several people in this thread, namely Faithfulservant and Quahom 1. So I'm not going to address this question per se.

Instead, I would like to direct your attention to one book that should have been included in this discussion long ago, but (interestingly enough) has been avoided: The Revelation of Jesus Christ.

I don't know whether or not you are familiar with this book, but for now I will assume that you are, and if you are not I will clarify later.

In your first post you pointed out the fact that Jesus himself never wrote a gospel. In actual fact he did; the Spirit of Jesus is the Spirit of prophecy, and thus any work (in the Bible or out of it) inspired by the Holy Spirit was technically written by Jesus. This phenomenon culminates with the Revelation; while Jesus inspired other books indirectly, he inspired this one directly, sending the message directly to John.

This book makes Jesus' gospel (good news) very clear, and it's the same gospel that Jesus preached in all of the 4 gospels that Christians trust in today: Repent, because the kingdom of God is near (coming). And this implies that the current kingdom of the world-- which is of Satan-- is coming to an end.

Love God, and love your neighbours. Why? Because this is the Kingdom of God; that is to say, the citizens of this kingdom will love God, and will love their neighbours. Jesus explains this in the 4 synoptic gospels, and hammers the details home in Revelation.

Just one more detail, and it's kind of an aside, but anyways:

From Revelation 14:6

"And I saw another angel flying between heaven and earth. With him was the everlasting gospel which was to be preached to all of the inhabitants of the earth; to every nation, and kindred, and language, and people."

Perhaps you are right, at least to a degree, when you speak of there being corruption in the texts we Christians believe in. But this doesn't necessarily mean that the texts you believe in are not corrupt. Perhaps none of us knows the fullness of Jesus' gospel; after all, it's pretty hard to put the word of God into human terms.

God spoke to the prophet Malachi and said that in the last days he would send Elijah to set everything straight. Perhaps the true gospel-- the eternal gospel-- is still to come. But until that time, I am content with what I know, knowing that I still don't understand all of what's been given to me. Love God and love your neighbour seem simple enough concepts, but in real life they are much harder to apply than one might think.
 
I am seeing the gospel as being the good news of the death burial and resurrection of Jesus.

Death - repentance
Burial - water baptism
Ressurection- indwelling of the spirit of God

I see these 3 basic keys taught many times by Jesus and many times later by the Apostles. Starting with Peter, whom Jesus gave the keys to the Kingdom.
 
Thanks to all for these informative information



oao51.gif
 
quote Marsh post #47:............ The gospel that Jesus preached-- and preaches-- has been explained very well several times by several people in this thread, namely Faithfulservant and Quahom 1. So I'm not going to address this question per se.

Instead, I would like to direct your attention to one book that should have been included in this discussion long ago, but (interestingly enough) has been avoided: The Revelation of Jesus Christ...........
Click to expand...
One of the most fascinating books in the NT, but it is only addressed to those that "follow the Lamb" wherever he goes along with the mention of the type/shadows of the good thing to come.

The Camp--The Court--The Tabernacle--The Brazen Altar--The Laver-- The Table--The Lampstand--The Golden Altar--The Mercy Seat and Ark--The Gate--The First Veil--The Second Veil--The Significance of These and Their Antitypes.

At the very outset the book is addressed to a peculiar class of people: "The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto Him, to show unto His servants things which must shortly come to pass" (Rev. 1:1).

Reve 14:4 These are the ones who were not defiled with women, for they are virgins. These are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever He goes. These were redeemed from [among] men, [being] firstfruits to God and to the Lamb.

I did a lenghthy article here on it for those interested:

http://newjerusalemministriesboards.com/showthread.php?t=180
 
Friend said:
Why there are many changes of verses in the Gospels
_______________________________________________________________

for example
LUKE 22:70
---------------------------------------
K.J.V Then they said, "Are you the son of God? He said unto them, "You said that I am."
N.I.V They all asked, "Are you the son of God? He said, "You are right in saying I am."
L.B.V They all shouted "Then you claim you are the son of God. And He replied YES I AM."

DUET. 23:2
-----------------------------------------
K.J.V A BASTARD shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord.
N.I.V No one born of a forbidden marriage may enter the assembly of the Lord.
G.N.B No one born out of wedlock may be included among the Lord's people

HEBREW 12:8
-----------------------------------------
K.J.V Then you are BASTARDS, and not sons.
R.S.V Then you are illegitimate children and not sons.
G.N.B It means you are not real sons, but BASTARDS.
L.B.V It means that you are not God's son at all.
JOB 13:15
-------------------------------------------
K.J.V Though he slay me yet I trust him.
R.S.V He will slay me, I have no hope.
G.N.B I've lost all hope so what if God kills me.
L.B.V God may kill me for saying this-in fact, I expect him to.

PSALMS 2:7
-------------------------------------------
K.J.V David said, "God said to me: You are my son, this day I have begotten you.
N.I.V David said, "God said to me: You are my son today I have become your father.(The N.I.V revisers analyzed that the word begotten should not be attributed toboth David, and Jesus, while Jesus should be the only begotten son of God asJohn 3:16 proclaims.

Yet by this modification of this verse -as well as others-they attract the attention of the people how the false pen of the SCRIBES change the word of God as Jeremiah 8:8 proclaimed.)

LEVITICUS 15:20
-------------------------------------------
K.J.V And everything that she lies upon in her separation shall be unclean.
R.S.V And everything upon which she lies in her impurity shall be unclean.
L.B.V Anything she lies on sits on during that time shall be defiled.

BETWEEN ACTS 9:3 AND ACTS 22:9
----------------------------------------------
K.J.V They saw the light, but they heard not the voice.
N.I.V They saw the light, but they did not understand the voice.(The reason behind the change in this verse is because of the contradictionbetween Act. 9:3 and Act. 22:9 which they attempted to cover. you find thatmodification in the N.I.V.)

ANOTHER ADDITION IN G.N.B.
--------------------------------------------
G.N.B The women went to Peter and his friends, and gave a brief account of all they had been told.
R.S.V Does not exist
N.I.V Does not exist
K.J.V Does not exist .
Click to expand...

At this they all said: "Are you, therefore, the Son of God?" He said to them: "YOU yourselves are saying that I am. luke 22;70 NWT

No illegitimate son may come into the congregation of Jehovah. DEUT 23;2 NWT

But if YOU are without the discipline of which all have become partakers, YOU are really illegitimate children, and not sons. HEBREWS 12;8 NWT

Even if he would slay me, would I not wait

Or, "I would not wait," M; MmarginTSyVg, "for him I would wait." ,,JOB 13;15



Let me refer to the decree of Jehovah;


He has said to me: "You are my son;

​


I, today, I have become your father PSALM 2;7 NWT

And anything upon which she may lie down in her menstrual impurity will be unclean LEVITICUS 15;20 NWT

Now as he was traveling he approached Damascus, when suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him ACTS 9;3 NWT

Now the men that were with me beheld, indeed, the light but did not hear

(Or, "hear understandingly," as Paul did in vs 7)

the voice of the one speaking to me ACTS 22;9 NWT I MUST HAVE NOTHING BETTER TO DO I DONT KNOW WHY I HAVE QUOTED THESE VERSES ..SILLY ME .:)

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top