Paul's Gospel is The Gospel

@sonship said
@ThinkOfOne

Every verse in the Bible may not explicitly mention the blood of Christ. Because it is not mentioned in the Old Testament Isaiah in this particular passage proves little.

The Gospel speaks of "justification in His blood" .

Romans 5:8 (my bolding)

[quote] "Much more then, having been JUSTIFIED IN HIS BLOOD, we will be ...[text shortened]... n. But we are saved from the wrath of God's eternal judgment being justified in Christ's shed blood.

Every verse in the Bible may not explicitly mention the blood of Christ. Because it is not mentioned in the Old Testament Isaiah in this particular passage proves little.

The point that you've disingenuously side-stepped is not that Isaiah 1:16,18 does not not explicitly mention the blood of Christ, it's that God explicitly states that they are to "make themselves clean" by "remov[ing] the evil of your deeds from [His] sight" and "ceas[ing] to do evil". This concept is entirely consistent with the gospel preached by Jesus while He walked the Earth. However, it flies in the face of the gospel in which you believe.

@sonship said
Its called discussion.

No it isn’t.

What I suspect you are doing is taking something you’ve heard someone else make a sermon of (probably in your church or online blog) and turning into a “sonship” monologue.

“Gospel” just means “good news”.

@sonship said
@ThinkOfOne

The gospel preached by Jesus while He walked the Earth is consistent with the verses I cited earlier from Isaiah 1.

I don't like to dignify your posts with a copy and reply.

When Paul says the believers are "justified in His blood" (Rom. 5:8) he is faithfully speaking of that aspect of the total Gospel Jesus preached. This teachin ...[text shortened]... ote]

Paul was faithful to teach what Jesus taught while He walked the earth. YOU ARE NOT.

When Paul says the believers are "justified in His blood" (Rom. 5:8) he is faithfully speaking of that aspect of the total Gospel Jesus preached. This teaching certainly included His shed blood being the basis of the New Covenant.

It's a perversion of what Jesus was saying in Matthew 26:28. In that passage Jesus refers to eating His body and drinking His blood. In John 6 Jesus also refers to this and later explains that the "flesh" and "blood" are "the words He has spoken" which, of course, is the gospel He preached and which is the new covenant.

@divegeester

Yea? Well you're regurgitating something you heard someone else preach.

"Awck! Polly Wanna A Cracker? Gospel means good news"

@sonship said
@divegeester

Yea? Well you're regurgitating something you heard someone else preach.

"Awck! Polly Wanna A Cracker? Gospel means good news"

Well it does!

So folks ThinkOfOne would have you believe that believers, including Paul, misunderstand Jesus referring to His shed blood for the forgiveness of sins.

By reaching for John 6 on another teaching about eating Jesus he thinks he can obfuscate things just enough to cause some doubt.

And we have been through this before.

Interesting though, when two different passages are related by Christians to underscore a major tenet of the Gospel ThinkOfOne complains about taking out of context and failure in reading comprehension.

Now, however it is FINE for him to join together John 6 and Matthew 26 to serve us up his stew of Atheistic / Humanist Self Improvement Do Gooding.

"When Jesus walked the earth" essentially is code for "I can do no miracles when I walk the earth so Jesus did no miracles when He did EITHER."

ToO's "When Jesus Walked the Earth" mantra is his anti-supernatural Naturalism filter to try to strain out the miraculous from the New Testament.

Let's look at some similarities and some differences between the two sections of the New Testament - John 6 and Matthew 26.

Without reference to proof texts let me talk about John 6 and Matthew 26.

John 6 contains things Jesus said to those who were unbelieving that He purposely made to sound outlandish.
"You have to eat my flesh and drink My blood."

This was a kind of weeding out of those who He knew did not intend to be His disciples. Their lack of absolute surrender to Him He exposed on purpose.

Then to those who did not withdraw in astonishment at the radicalness of His sayings He clarifies. The Holy Spirit is in the words that He speaks. And this Holy Spirit conveys the spiritual life of God into those who receive Him and His words. This receiving is eating Him as food.

Matthew 26 is different. The discussion at the table meeting just before His death is not for the skeptical hangers on He is trying to dismiss as wasting both His and their time. This talk is to His disciples who are serious.

He explains that His coming death will include the blood shedding that will atone for the sins of those who believe Him. He is allowing His body to be broken in this sacrifice. And He is allowing His blood to be shed in this sacrifice.

This act of giving Himself absolutely for the will of His Father is the establishing of the promised new covenant that they were expecting. "This is the covenant in My blood." That blood of the sinless Son of God which is being poured out an atoning propitiatory offering for the forgiveness of their sins.

They are to commemorate this act throughout the church age UNTIL the Lord comes again.

Thus above a brief comparison between John 6 and Matthew 26.

Be careful not to allow ThinkOfOne to push His Anti-Redemption, Anti-Justification, Anti-Atoning, anti-Christ Humanism on you to stealthily further his Atheism on you with Bible words.

What Jesus did while He walked the earth ThinkOfOne has dedicated himself to destroy.

Now let's look at what Paul said about Jesus Christ being the very "PLACE" at which man is Justified.

@sonship
Is there any secular (non-religious) evidence that Paul even existed. For such an important man there should be a lot.

@ThinkOfOne

The gospel preached by Jesus while He walked the Earth is a very different gospel. In short, the gospel preached by Jesus is about salvation through righteousness: One must become truly righteous - cease to sin - for salvation / for eternal life / to live in the kingdom. When Jesus sent the disciples to preach the gospel, it was to preach HIS gospel. Paul's gospel had yet to be invented.

ToO is not completely wrong here. Where he is wrong is in TWO areas:

1.) He is wrong that the Apostle Paul did not teach the same thing as Jesus.

2.) He is wrong in that there are [not] two aspects to salvation -

a. A POSITIONAL righteousness.

b. A DISPOSITIONAL righteousness.

Now here's what is going on. ThinkOfOne denies a a. POSITIONAL side of righteousness before God.

Not only he denies this, he also secretly denies GOD ... period, as far as I am able to detect after some years.

Not only so, the DISPOSITIONAL side of righteousness has NOTHING to do with Jesus living in men and women. ThinkOfOne's righteousness in disposition is not of the Grace of God. It is self righteousness.

To this Humanist teacher of heresy there is:

No need for incarnation.
No need for redemption.
No need for Christ's resurrection
No need for Christ's indwelling
No need for New Testament sanctification, conformation, transformation.
No need for transfiguration of the body and resurrection or rapture.

And certainly no need for ToO for corporately building up in oneness as the Body of Christ.

Are you bored reader? This is exciting stuff. Look one more thing -

ThinkOfOne THINKS he deeply understands the epistles of Paul. He doesn't. Some of his complaints about degraded Christianity have some legitimate ground. The FAULT is NOT PAUL'S .

THinkOFOne, who thinks he's real familiar with Paul's epistles, has a book of Romans which ends around chapter 3 or 4. He thinks he knows all about Paul's writing because he knows a little bit about Paul teaching on Justification by Faith.

There are 16 mighty chapters in Paul's basic book of Christian doctrine - Romans. His letter does not conclude with Justification by Faith in chapters 3 and 4. .

Righteous LIVING in the present kingdom of God is ALL OVER Paul's epistles. That is daily practical living through the power of the indwelling life of the resurrected Christ and the GRACE of God operating spontaneously in the believers abiding in the Holy Spirit.

@caissad4

Is there any secular (non-religious) evidence that Paul even existed. For such an important man there should be a lot.

There is a historian named Dr. Gary Habermos. He has over the years collected a database in which he enumerates THOUSANDS of New Testament scholars - liberal, conservative, spanning the entire scope of textural criticism of the document of the NT.

Habermos has kept tabs on what scholars of ALL persuasions running the full scope of academically qualified experts' historical views of Paul's letters as to his and their authenticity.

If you are really interested I would recommend that you hear some of the videos of Gary Habermos. He will tell you what is the scholarly consensus from all quarters of academia on the historicity of Paul.

You probably have YouTube. Do some snooping around on titles and educate yourself.

Maybe you could start here.


Atheist Scholars Accept Paul's Epistles as Historical
Its under five minutes.

YouTube

@caissad4

Is there any secular (non-religious) evidence that Paul even existed. For such an important man there should be a lot.

Let's look into if Jesus ever existed.
Well, a forum dedicated to questions on that objection. - "Jesus was a myth. Jesus was re-hash of Mithra, or some other older mythology."

Did Jesus Exist? A Conversation with J.P. Holding

Here, Christian apologist J.P. Holding (Tektonics Apologetics Ministries) speaks to the Apologetics Academy about the historical case for the existence of Jesus and responds to the Jesus mythicists.

YouTube

@sonship said
@caissad4

Is there any secular (non-religious) evidence that Paul even existed. For such an important man there should be a lot.

There is a historian named Dr. Gary Habermos. He has over the years collected a database in which he enumerates THOUSANDS of New Testament scholars - liberal, conservative, spanning the entire scope of textural criticism of the ...[text shortened]... Epistles as Historical [/b]
Its under five minutes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_RxbKnSCjY

What did you make of the analysis by James S. Valliant and Warren Fahy?

@sonship said
Are you bored reader? This is exciting stuff. Look one more thing -

ThinkOfOne THINKS he deeply understands the epistles of Paul. He doesn't. Some of his complaints about degraded Christianity have some legitimate ground. The FAULT is NOT PAUL'S .

THinkOFOne, who thinks he's real familiar with Paul's epistles, has a book of Romans which ends around [ ...[text shortened]... ted Christ and the GRACE of God operating spontaneously in the believers abiding in the Holy Spirit.

2 Peter 3:14-16 English Standard Version (ESV)
Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

It isn't difficult to grasp what is going on with some and scripture.