The Gospel Preached By Jesus

[WeSee]

When Jesus began His ministry he quoted from the Book of Isaiah: 
Luke 4 
16And He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up; and as was His custom, He entered the synagogue on the Sabbath, and stood up to read. 17And the book of the prophet Isaiah was handed to Him. And He opened the book and found the place where it was written, 
18“THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD IS UPON ME, 
BECAUSE HE ANOINTED ME TO PREACH THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR. 
HE HAS SENT ME TO PROCLAIM RELEASE TO THE CAPTIVES, 
AND RECOVERY OF SIGHT TO THE BLIND, 
TO SET FREE THOSE WHO ARE OPPRESSED, 
19TO PROCLAIM THE FAVORABLE YEAR OF THE LORD.� 
20And He closed the book, gave it back to the attendant and sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on Him. 21And He began to say to them, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.�

Jesus clearly stated His purpose. The purpose for which He was anointed. The purpose for which He is the Christ (Christ means "anointed one" for those who are unaware): 
1) To preach His gospel - These are the words He spoke while preaching His gospel during His ministry. 
2) To give sight to the blind - To open the eyes of those blind to the will of God which is contained in His gospel. 
3) To set free the captives - To FREE those who abide in His word from the slavery of committing sin. To FREE those who abide in His gospel (See John 8). 

That's it in a nutshell. During His ministry, Jesus did exactly what He said He was going to do. This is the gospel preached by Jesus. 

There is no "total depravity of man" in the gospel preached by Jesus during His ministry. 
There is no "vicarious atonement for the forgiveness of sins" in the gospel preached by Jesus during His ministry. 
There is no "if you believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Christ you will receive eternal life and live in the Kingdom" in the gospel preached by Jesus during His ministry. 
There is no "imputed righteousness" in the gospel preached by Jesus during His ministry.

Christianity has a different gospel based on the theology of Paul and others as its foundation.
Shouldn't Christianity have the gospel preached by Jesus during His ministry as its foundation?

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 119 by brianbbs67]

Mark 7:19 is a spurious verse added later. Its actually a marginal note by a copyist . "thus purifying all foods" was not there originally. What this part of Mark was about is the ritual hand washing that was equated with God's law. The ritual was tradition, not law. This was Jesus' point. So the context of this was not about dietary law but hand washing rituals as thus purifying all foods was added later, like Mark 16:9 to the end.
I didn't have Mark 7:19 in mind. What I had in mind was the following:
Mark 7
14After He called the crowd to Him again, He began saying to them, “Listen to Me, all of you, and understand: 15there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man.
He even repeats it in 7:18 as a point of emphasis. With that the case, the dietary restrictions were effectively negated by Jesus. That commentary was added later is incidental.

As such, the following still stands:

With the new foundation many things in the OT law were negated. For example, "an eye for an eye" (See Matthew 5), dietary restrictions (See Mark 7), God condoning slavery (See Leviticus 25). Such laws do not "hang on" or are contrary to "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF" and "In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you".

If Jesus did not establish a new foundation for the Law and the Prophets, how is it that He negated many things in the OT law?

As to your last question, Jesus negated none of the law or prophets. He pointed out that their traditions had a "fine way of negating the law of God". Corbin comes to mind among others.
That some of "their traditions had a 'fine way of negating the law of God'" is beside the point I am making. The other THREE examples I cited clearly show that Jesus in fact did.

We can eat all things. We just shouldn't if we follow God or Jesus. A point made about what we say, should not apply to what we eat. It seems clear that what we say(what come out of us) defiles us more than what we eat. What were the other 2 points? Be careful, as a prophet of God can not contradict or teach against God's law. If they do, we are told to reject them. (duet. 13)

[WeSee]

[Replying to brianbbs67]

We can eat all things. We just shouldn't if we follow God or Jesus.
No idea what point you're trying to make here. It's akin to saying, "We can murder others. We just shouldn't if we follow God or Jesus.

A point made about what we say, should not apply to what we eat.
1) Actually if you read it in context, the primary point Jesus was making is about what we eat.
2) Actually the secondary point is about BOTH deeds and words.

It seems clear that what we say(what come out of us) defiles us more than what we eat.
The primary point was that NOTHING we eat defiles us.
As I pointed out earlier, Jesus not only makes that point, but repeats it as a point of emphasis. Not only that, Jesus explains exactly "WHY" it CANNOT defile us.

Mark 7
14After He called the crowd to Him again, He began saying to them, “Listen to Me, all of you, and understand: 15there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man. 16[“If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.�]
17When he had left the crowd and entered the house, His disciples questioned Him about the parable. 18And He said to them, “Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, 19because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?�

[onewithhim]

[Replying to 2timothy316]

I read the links. There didn't seem to be anything there that says or even necessarily implies that everything Paul wrote is to be taken necessarily as "true". Many don't believe that everything Paul wrote is true, the following for example:
Ephesians 5
22Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

If everything in the Bible is to be taken as true without any parts taking precedence over others, it doesn't exactly leave room for debate.

It's incredulous that when people don't agree with something in the Bible they say that what is written is false. How convenient. Paul wrote that wives should be in submission to their husbands. Whoa! Any "feminists" or "women's libbers" are outraged by this! OH WELL. Just because people don't want to accept that doesn't make it false.

Do you also reject what Paul wrote about homosexuality? I see his writings as exactly corresponding to what the Old Testament teaches AND what Jesus taught. Also, do you not recall that Jesus hand-picked Paul to spread the Gospel for Him? I think that gave Paul the authority to write down things that he was inspired by God to write.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 39 by WeSee]

Cause us to stumble? Absolutely not. Jehovah's Witnesses also believe what you have posted there. "Eating" his flesh and "drinking" his blood is definitely figurative.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 40 by WeSee]

Yes, we have all read your posts in their entirety. Your arguments are not reasonable, taking into consideration all of the teachings of the Bible. Points have been made here that you cannot dismantle with thoughtful discussion. You merely repeat what you've already said.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 73 by WeSee]

The thread is not way off track. Your OP is just as confusing now that I reread it as it was when I first read it. Everyone here has asked you legitimate questions so you could make clear your position, but you refrain from answering them. Then you say, "feel free to ask me questions." This is the kind of conversation that would drive someone batty. I see no reason to continue. The questions that have been asked of you are not considered by you anything to bother to answer.

[onewithhim]

Paul did not teach anything different that what Jesus taught. If you want to talk about those points you assume are so, it would be a good idea to open a post about that, so we can see if they are really different, or if it is just that you don't have enought information about the matters and are arriving to a wrong conclusion. .

For starters, Paul went around preaching the blood of Christ, "Christ and him crucified". Jesus didn't go around preaching "Christ and me crucified". Rather, Jesus preached that God favored the oppressed and the excluded ( That was Good News to the downtrodden. Ref.the passage from Luke cited in the OP, and the Beattitudes) repentance, the mercy of the Father, and the Kingdom of God. (Ref the Beattitudes, the Lord's prayer, the Parables, the Sermon on the Mount, etc.)

Also, Paul also preached, "if you confess Jesus with your mouth, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved".

Jesus never preached this. Paul added a condition for salvation. Jesus never preached the necessity of believing in his resurrection as a condition for salvation.

Ironic, Paul is the one who preached "a different Gospel". The very thing he condemned others for.

It seems to me that Jesus DID preach himself crucified, and that belief in this (and acting upon that belief) would eventually save a person.

"For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, so that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life. For God did not send his Son into the world for him to judge the world, but for the world to be saved through him." (John 3:16,17)

What does this faith include?

"Just as the Son of man came, not to be ministered to, but to give his life as a ransom in exchange for many." (Matthew 20:28)

That's Jesus talking. If we can just be free of guilt by listening to his words, then why did he deem it necessary to die as a ransom for many?

[WeSee]

[Replying to 2timothy316]

I read the links. There didn't seem to be anything there that says or even necessarily implies that everything Paul wrote is to be taken necessarily as "true". Many don't believe that everything Paul wrote is true, the following for example:
Ephesians 5
22Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

If everything in the Bible is to be taken as true without any parts taking precedence over others, it doesn't exactly leave room for debate.

It's incredulous that when people don't agree with something in the Bible they say that what is written is false. How convenient. Paul wrote that wives should be in submission to their husbands. Whoa! Any "feminists" or "women's libbers" are outraged by this! OH WELL. Just because people don't want to accept that doesn't make it false.

Do you also reject what Paul wrote about homosexuality? I see his writings as exactly corresponding to what the Old Testament teaches AND what Jesus taught. Also, do you not recall that Jesus hand-picked Paul to spread the Gospel for Him? I think that gave Paul the authority to write down things that he was inspired by God to write.

Paul wrote that wives should be in submission to their husbands. Whoa! Any "feminists" or "women's libbers" are outraged by this! OH WELL. Just because people don't want to accept that doesn't make it false.
Just because Paul said it doesn't make it true. Such a concept is alien to the gospel preached by Jesus during His ministry.


Do you also reject what Paul wrote about homosexuality? I see his writings as exactly corresponding to what the Old Testament teaches AND what Jesus taught.
Just because Paul said it doesn't make it true. Such a concept is alien to the gospel preached by Jesus during His ministry.

Also, do you not recall that Jesus hand-picked Paul to spread the Gospel for Him? I think that gave Paul the authority to write down things that he was inspired by God to write.
That's what Paul claimed. Such a concept is alien to the gospel preached by Jesus during His ministry.

Jesus was anointed to preach the gospel. Which Jesus did. The gospel is contained in the words He spoke during His ministry.

[WeSee]

[Replying to post 40 by WeSee]

Yes, we have all read your posts in their entirety. Your arguments are not reasonable, taking into consideration all of the teachings of the Bible. Points have been made here that you cannot dismantle with thoughtful discussion. You merely repeat what you've already said.

Your arguments are not reasonable, taking into consideration all of the teachings of the Bible.
Actually my arguments are quite reasonable.

How is it reasonable to expect that my arguments would take into consideration all of the teachings of the Bible, when the following is the topic that's being debated?:

There is no "total depravity of man" in the gospel preached by Jesus during His ministry.
There is no "vicarious atonement for the forgiveness of sins" in the gospel preached by Jesus during His ministry.
There is no "if you believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Christ you will receive eternal life and live in the Kingdom" in the gospel preached by Jesus during His ministry.
There is no "imputed righteousness" in the gospel preached by Jesus during His ministry.

Christianity has a different gospel based on the theology of Paul and others as its foundation.
Shouldn't Christianity have the gospel preached by Jesus during His ministry as its foundation?

[WeSee]

[Replying to post 126 by onewithhim]

Everyone here has asked you legitimate questions so you could make clear your position, but you refrain from answering them.
Actually many of the questions being asked have not been on topic.

Then you say, "feel free to ask me questions."
You took this out of context to twist it into saying something it doesn't say.

What I wrote was: "If you need clarification on what the first post is saying, feel free to ask."

Clearly the context is "feel free to ask" for "clarification on what the first post is saying". NOT " "feel free to ask" any off-topic question that occurs to you.