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 109 by brianbbs67]

If one just goes thru the 4 gospels alone and writes down all he commands, one would find the Torah free of man's traditions is what he teaches. After all , he was a Jew. If we truly wanted to follow his example, we would be Torah following, tradition rejecting, Hebrews.
Jesus defined a new Law and the Prophets with the following:
Matthew 22
37And He said to him, “ ‘YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.’ 38“This is the great and foremost commandment. 39“The second is like it, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.’ 40“On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.�
Matthew 7
12“In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

Jesus delivered the New Covenant in the gospel the He preached during His ministry and defined a new foundation for the Law and the Prophets as above. It isn't about "following His example". It's about "abiding in His word" and becoming one with God as He was one with God.

So, the choice with Paul is either he is a false prophet speaking contrary to God. Or he carries out Christ's command and we must dig deeper to fully understand him.
Anyone who is one with God as He was one with God would echo the underlying concepts defined by the words Jesus spoke while preaching His Gospel. Otherwise they would not be one with God as He was one with God. They would be perfected in unity with Jesus and God. The theology of Paul does not echo the underlying concepts defined by the words Jesus spoke while preaching His Gospel. The theology of Paul is antithetical to the gospel preached by Jesus during His ministry.

John 17
20“I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; 21that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.
22“The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; 23I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me.
Matthew 10
24“A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a slave above his master. 25“It is enough for the disciple that he become like his teacher, and the slave like his master.
Luke 6
40“A pupil is not above his teacher; but everyone, after he has been fully trained, will be like his teacher.

1. Summarizing the law was a Hebrew tradition. It did not negate one jot or tittle. Christ quoted the Shema, Dueteronomy 6:4. Notice he says the whole law hangs on these? Not the whole law is negated because of these. Hillel was the leader of the pharisees around christs youth. Many of Christ's quotes are very similar to Bet Hillel.

2. When you learn a subject from a teacher and have mastered it, do you then reject all you have learned?? Even Acts shows the new believers learning Moses each Sabbath. Acts 15:22 "For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath."

Heaven and earth will pass before the law does.Mathew 19:17-19 also. If you love him, you will keep the commandments.

[polonius]

"In this subforum the canon of the Bible is considered authoritative with respect to the historical consensus of the canon's content."? The Bible is accepted as having the final authority. "

QUESTION:

Matthew reports that Jesus was born during the lifetime of King Herod the Great who died about 4 BC.

Luke, one the other had, reports that Jesus was born during the 6 AD Judean census conducted by the Romans.

Are we to consider both scriptures "authoritative"? Since the dates differ by ten years does this mean that Mary had two sons born ten years apart and both named "Jesus"?

[polonius]

"In this subforum the canon of the Bible is considered authoritative with respect to the historical consensus of the canon's content."? The Bible is accepted as having the final authority. "

Does this apply to all bible texts starting with Genesis?

[WeSee]

[Replying to post 111 by brianbbs67]

Summarizing the law was a Hebrew tradition. It did not negate one jot or tittle. Christ quoted the Shema, Dueteronomy 6:4. Notice he says the whole law hangs on these? Not the whole law is negated because of these. Hillel was the leader of the pharisees around christs youth. Many of Christ's quotes are very similar to Bet Hillel.
Just because there's a new foundation doesn't mean that the "whole of the law" is negated. Nor does it mean that there isn't overlap. 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". Many continue to apply as well.

When you learn a subject from a teacher and have mastered it, do you then reject all you have learned??
Don't know how this is related to what I wrote.

Heaven and earth will pass before the law does.
This would be referring to the new Law and the Prophets as well.

Mathew 19:17-19 also.
All those would be applicable under the new Law and the Prophets as well.

If you love him, you will keep the commandments.
If you're alluding to John 14, that would be, "“If you love Me, you will keep My commandments".

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 111 by brianbbs67]

Summarizing the law was a Hebrew tradition. It did not negate one jot or tittle. Christ quoted the Shema, Dueteronomy 6:4. Notice he says the whole law hangs on these? Not the whole law is negated because of these. Hillel was the leader of the pharisees around christs youth. Many of Christ's quotes are very similar to Bet Hillel.
Just because there's a new foundation doesn't mean that the "whole of the law" is negated. Nor does it mean that there isn't overlap. 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". Many continue to apply as well.

When you learn a subject from a teacher and have mastered it, do you then reject all you have learned??
Don't know how this is related to what I wrote.

Because the law was our tutor. Now learned, do we then reject it? "Shall we then sin so that grace may abound?"

Heaven and earth will pass before the law does.
This would be referring to the new Law and the Prophets as well.

No, Christ announced no new law.

Mathew 19:17-19 also.
All those would be applicable under the new Law and the Prophets as well.

There is no new law from Christ.

If you love him, you will keep the commandments.
If you're alluding to John 14, that would be, "“If you love Me, you will keep My commandments".

Yes, that's the reference. And Christ commands the law throughout the 4 gospels. Nothing new was expected. This was a Hebrew revival. Christ made no christians. He called Israel back to covenant. His death allowed this.

[WeSee]

[Replying to post 115 by brianbbs67]

On one hand you wrote, "Yes, that's the reference" which seems to indicate agreement with what I wrote. Yet on the other hand you wrote "Nothing new was expected. This was a Hebrew revival. Christ made no christians. He called Israel back to covenant" which seems to be contrary to what I wrote.

What did I miss here?


His death allowed this.
I disagree. This is part and parcel of the different gospel based on the theology of Paul and others . It is through the words Jesus spoke while preaching His gospel during His ministry that Jesus conveyed the new covenant. His death had nothing to do with this.

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 115 by brianbbs67]

On one hand you wrote, "Yes, that's the reference" which seems to indicate agreement with what I wrote. Yet on the other hand you wrote "Nothing new was expected. This was a Hebrew revival. Christ made no christians. He called Israel back to covenant" which seems to be contrary to what I wrote.

What did I miss here?


His death allowed this.
I disagree. This is part and parcel of the different gospel based on the theology of Paul and others . It is through the words Jesus spoke while preaching His gospel during His ministry that Jesus conveyed the new covenant. His death had nothing to do with this.

Biblically, a marriage covenant was forever. God divorced Israel. All the sages and prophets and sagusees and pharisees couldn't figure out how God could call Israel back to covenant without breaking the law. God never breaks His law. Its a biblical truth and through it we gain faith, as God never changes.

Marriage ends when one of the parties dies. Then a new marriage can happen, legally.

So, if Yeshua/Ieous/Jesus/Joshua, was fully possessed by God, He died and the marriage was voided, then Israel could come back to the covenant. As they were free to marry again. Thus, symbolically and physically , God died to end the marriage.

[WeSee]

[Replying to post 117 by brianbbs67]

Biblically, a marriage covenant was forever. God divorced Israel. All the sages and prophets and sagusees and pharisees couldn't figure out how God could call Israel back to covenant without breaking the law.

If you are referring to Jeremiah here, then you seem to be ignoring the fact that God repeatedly exhorted Israel to return despite her transgressions:
Jeremiah 3
22“Return, you backsliding children,
And I will heal your backslidings.�

With that the case, what in your mind needs to be figured out?
The rest of your post seems to be wild speculation based on that premise.

Also I think I figured out what happened with your previous response. It look like you edited the "WeSee wrote:" quote and started entering comments there. I hadn't noticed because I usually ignore that box seeing as I had written it. This is the first time I notice that. Is it just you or do others do that as well on this site?

Can you address the following from my previous post?:

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?

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 117 by brianbbs67]

Biblically, a marriage covenant was forever. God divorced Israel. All the sages and prophets and sagusees and pharisees couldn't figure out how God could call Israel back to covenant without breaking the law.

If you are referring to Jeremiah here, then you seem to be ignoring the fact that God repeatedly exhorted Israel to return despite her transgressions:
Jeremiah 3
22“Return, you backsliding children,
And I will heal your backslidings.�

With that the case, what in your mind needs to be figured out?
The rest of your post seems to be wild speculation based on that premise.

Also I think I figured out what happened with your previous response. It look like you edited the "WeSee wrote:" quote and started entering comments there. I hadn't noticed because I usually ignore that box seeing as I had written it. This is the first time I notice that. Is it just you or do others do that as well on this site?

Can you address the following from my previous post?:

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?

I didn't edit anything. If I deleted something, I did not mean too. 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.

You are right that God calls them all back to Him if they will just ask for forgiveness and follow Him. Following Him requires obeying Him in His commands.

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.

[WeSee]

[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.