The Conspiracy of the 'other' Gospel

Legalism is 'evil'ism.

Very Simply,

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
John 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
John 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.



John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."


No need to really comment here but it doesnt say anything good is due for the unbeliever now does it? Sure He came to save it, but he came to save those that accept what He did.


And one more that is VERY important,

John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.


[edit on 14-9-2005 by edsinger]

[edit on 14-9-2005 by edsinger]

I'm curious how you reconcile Revelation 21:8 with your beliefs.

But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

And also Revelation 20:12-15

And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is [the book] of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Is the lake of fire somehow a cleansing of corruption that allows these wayward souls to accept the glory of God through Jesus Christ? I had always thought if you weren't in the book or you were one of the bad characters, into the lake you went for the second death, and poof! that was it.

[edit on 14-9-2005 by Icarus Rising]

Queen is simply following what she wants to believe and taking bits and pieces out of context, thereby creating her own "religion." Christ is up front about the judgment that belongs to sinners and those who don't adhere to his teachings. If you believe the "positive" verses of eternal life, freedom, etc. present in the gospel or NT as a whole, you should believe the phrases pertaining to Hell with the same equality.

Originally posted by Son of the lost maji
Queen is simply following what she wants to believe and taking bits and pieces out of context, thereby creating her own "religion."

...and this differs from you are doing how?

Originally posted by Son of the lost maji
Queen is simply following what she wants to believe and taking bits and pieces out of context, thereby creating her own "religion." Christ is up front about the judgment that belongs to sinners and those who don't adhere to his teachings. If you believe the "positive" verses of eternal life, freedom, etc. present in the gospel or NT as a whole, you should believe the phrases pertaining to Hell with the same equality.

No, I read the whole bible. And believe all of it. I do not, however, trust that the english words we are given are able to convey the most accurate meaning. The bible was written mainly in ancient Hebrew and Greek. A lexicon is an indispensible study aid. Commentaries, however, are fluff.

Look up the word hell in the hebrew and greek. The idea of 'hell' that the world currently holds is one based in christian theology and is not in agreement with how it was used when the scriptures were written. Do some more thorough studying of the text itself before you make judgments on what you think is true. Don't stagnate in man's false ideas.

Originally posted by edsinger
No need to really comment here but it doesnt say anything good is due for the unbeliever now does it? Sure He came to save it, but he came to save those that accept what He did.

At the time of the crucifixion, how many believers were there? None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

Yet what was done was still done for the end effect would be accomplished.
Can not the LORD do as He wills--regardless of what we, ourselves, believe He can and will do?


Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else. I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. Surely, shall one say, in the LORD have I righteousness and strength: even to him shall men come; and all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed.
--Isaiah 45:21-24 KJV

Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
--Romans 3:22-23 KJV

For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
--1 Timothy 2:3-6 KJV

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
I'm curious how you reconcile Revelation 21:8 with your beliefs.

Please read post #1606491 on this page for the answer to that.


The 'nations' will be healed:

In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
--Revelation 22:2 KJV


To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
--1 Corinthians 5:5 KJV

Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
--1 Corinthians 3:13-15 KJV

Originally posted by Son of the lost maji
Christ is up front about the judgment that belongs to sinners and those who don't adhere to his teachings.

No, judgment belongs to everyone--first for the believers, then comes that for 'sinners':

For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear? Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls to him in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator.
--1 Peter 4:17-19 KJV

It's so easy for those who feel they are in the right--based on something they themselves 'believed' (believed what? that Christ died for some but not all?)--to preach a 'gospel' which is not good news for everyone, just for them.

His teachings are:

'For God so loved the world...'
'Love one another, as I have loved you...'

Then what?

'Look the other way as I torment those I commanded you to love'

?????

Is it truly love--and is it just and merciful--to condemn one and justify the other? Is God a respector of persons?

No and No.

Open up your heart to all men--you'll see the light that shines upon the way.


[edit on 9/15/2005 by queenannie38]

I hear, understand, and agree with what you are saying. Don't get me wrong and lump me in with those attacking you because I asked for clarification, ok? Not that you are doing it, just I don't want you to.

You must admit there has been, and will be a lot more human suffering and misery, and physical and emotional pain on the way to eternal life. Nobody ever said salvation was easy on the body and spirit, but its good for the soul, right? A God of Love, Peace, and Healing doesn't prevent suffering of the flesh, he uses it to bring salvation.

"For it is in being uncertain and not in control that we find true faith, in knowing the limits of mind and body that we find wholeness of spirit, and in passing through death that we find life that lasts forever."

I can live with that. Thanks for the response and the insightful posts.

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
I hear, understand, and agree with what you are saying. Don't get me wrong and lump me in with those attacking you because I asked for clarification, ok? Not that you are doing it, just I don't want you to.

Don't worry, I won't. I was just answering your questions succintly, since it did seem as if you were still witholding from judgment (read: discernment)

You must admit there has been, and will be a lot more human suffering and misery, and physical and emotional pain on the way to eternal life. Nobody ever said salvation was easy on the body and spirit, but its good for the soul, right? A God of Love, Peace, and Healing doesn't prevent suffering of the flesh, he uses it to bring salvation.

No doubt. We must be tried by fire--something which I didn't realize until it happened to me.
It all depends on how we face the hardships and troubles of our lives--if we remain steadfast in optimism, not blaming an eternal Creator for temporal tribulation, then the truth will come to light and the hope will be seen as a fruitful investment, rather than a vain delusion than pessimism would have it to be.

"For it is in being uncertain and not in control that we find true faith, in knowing the limits of mind and body that we find wholeness of spirit, and in passing through death that we find life that lasts forever."

I can live with that. Thanks for the response and the insightful posts.

And thank you for considering my words with an open mind. I do not say the things I do for any other reason to do my part to shed some light on the darkness. It is not the end result that brings us comfort now, rather it is the hope of that end--something not possible without knowledge that the hope is warranted and true. Everyone has been gifted with that hope--but not all allow it to be. The false gospel is the rumor of a selective promise of hope.

Hi QueenAnnie:

What makes you think that the "Gospel" (Gk: euaggelion "good news" of the Kingdom) that was preached by "Peter" (i.e. Shimeon bar Yonah, haKefah, "the Rock") who knew and lived with "Jesus" personally (and according to the Acts' vision on the rooftop "never in his whole life ate food that was not kosher") was anything like the same as the "gospel" preached by Saul of Tarsus (aka Paul), who never met "Jesus" in his whole life (only in dreams and trances, like my cook !) who self-styled himself an "Apostle" anyway?

This is especially problematic when we see evidence of bad blood between the two groups (i.e. betwen the Pauline churches who allowed uncircumcised gentiles into the congregation and did not obey the Torah, and the so-called Petrine churches, aka Nazoreans, who believed in the Torah even after the execution of "Jesus" and demanded circumcision and keeping kashrut of their members, a group which was headed up by the blood relatives of "Jesus" e.g. first the brother of "Jesus" known as "James the Just" (i.e. R. Yakkov bar Yosef, haTsaddiq) and later the uncle Kleophah and others of his immediate family ?

In other words, how do you explain away the vitriol in "Paul"'s own Greek writings against "Peter" and his expression of the gospel of "Jesus" illustrated by the violent language in the Pauline Greek of Galatians chapter 2 (exemplifying the rift between the two camps is echoed in Acts chapter 15)?

See Galatians Chapter 2:9 to 2:14 QUOTE:

"And when James, Kephah (=Peter), and John, those socalled Pillars, perceived the Grace was bestowed upon me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should walk among the goyim (Gentile-Christians) whereas they would preach among those of the circumcision (i.e. Jewish-Christians).

10. But they urged that we should remember the ebionim (i.e. the poor) which I agreed I would do.

11 But when Kephah came to Antioch, I myself upbraided him to his face-- because he was blameworthy---since earlier, some men had come from James while he (Peter) was eating with Gentiles: but when they (i.e. the Jewish friends of James) appeared, (Peter) at once he withdrew and separated himself from them--out of fear of reprisals from those "of the Circumcision" (i.e.the Jews)

13 And the other Jews likewise copied him---to the extent that even Barnabas was carried away with this same attitude

14 But when I saw that they did not act according to the Truth of the Gospel, I said unto [Peter] in front of every one of them:

If you, a Jew, live like a gentile [and not as a Jew] how dare you compel Gentiles to act like Jews? " &tc.

I see two opposing "Gospel Messages" here, not one--which when you examine them closelyare almost mutually exclusive--i.e. in terms of being a "Christian" and still obeying the Torah, and "being a Christian" and NOT obeying the Torah and an overall opposing Weltanschauung.

How can you say they are the same Gospel at all ?





[edit on 15-9-2005 by NEOAMADEUS]

Originally posted by NEOAMADEUS
What makes you think that the "Gospel" (Gk: euaggelion "good news" of the kingdom) that was preached by "Peter" (Shimeon bar Yonah, haKefah, "the Rock") who knew and lived with "Jesus" personally (and according to the Acts' vision on the rooftop "never in his whole life ate food that was not kosher") was anything like the same as the "gospel" preached by Saul of Tarsus (aka Paul), who never met "Jesus" only in dreams and trances, like my cook, who self-styled himself an "Apostle" anyway?

I've been at the place where it appears there are two gospels, and bad blood, all the things you mentioned. But I didn't stay there, I continued to learn and grow and after a time my understanding was expanded to reconcile this seemingly impossible difference--which isn't a difference at all, just not a complete understanding of the whole picture.

How can you say they are the same?

Because I know they are the same--and truly, there is only one gospel--the account of which begins in the same holy scriptures that Peter and Paul both grew up learning.

There was no 'bad blood'--if Peter had not been a humble servant or Paul had been wrong, there could have been. But Peter, himself, writes words that show that any animosity between the two is in our own modern imaginations.

And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
--2 Peter 3:15-16 KJV

Hi QueenAnnie:

Has it ever occured to you that the non-Petrine Greek in the Epistel of 2 Peter in your bible could have been a 2nd century forgery?

Do you think the early church was above that sort of thing?

If so, I would advise you to check out a book by a former Rabinnic scholar if you get a chance ("Mythmaker, Paul and the Invention of Christianity" by Hyam Maccoby, 1986). You can get used copies of this book fairly cheaply on Amazon

It will lay bare for you some of the background issues I am talking about...and is written in fairly layman's terms.

Then we can talk !

Originally posted by NEOAMADEUS
Hi QueenAnnie:

Has it ever occured to you that the non-Petrine Greek in the Epistel of 2 Peter in your bible could have been a 2nd century forgery?

Do you think the early church was above that sort of thing?

If so, I would advise you to check out a book by a former Rabinnic scholar if you get a chance ("Mythmaker, Paul and the Invention of Christianity" by Hyam Maccoby, 1986). You can get used copies of this book fairly cheaply on Amazon

It will lay bare for you some of the background issues I am talking about...and is written in fairly layman's terms.

Then we can talk !

I have to admit, even 'fairly cheaply' is beyond my means at this point in time. There's a lot of things I have to think about before I can think about buying a book. I'm not sure if I'm 'poor in spirit' but I know I am definitely 'poor in pocket.'

However, that doesn't mean I'm not interested--you'd have to fill me in, though.

As far as Peter's epistles being forged, I wouldn't put it past the early church--although what is written in there is not inharmonious, in the least, with what has been revealed to me--the same of which I know the early church was unaware of, since it shows in the history of the church's theology--the very things which Peter says that many wrest with, to their destruction.

It's hard to imagine the church added that endorsement of Paul with the warning that accompanies it--and then proceeded to be a living demonstration of exactly what Peter was saying. Also, if they were going to forge and alter Peter's epistles, I think they surely would have added some kind of comment which would amount to concrete authorization of the church--to back up the twisted interpretation they claim for the 18th verse in Matthew chapter 16.

There in a congruency throughout both the OT and NT that is elusive for many--but it is there, and it doesn't require alternative solutions outside of itself.

I hope this doesn't come off too trite queenie, but if you live near a big city, the main library may have the book, or the ability to get hold of it at no cost to you.

In the age of internet, we tend to forget about this free and valuable service.

[edit on 15-9-2005 by spamandham]

Hi QueenieAnne:

Some internal evidence that the Epistle of 2 Peter in the NT is a 2nd century AD Greek forgery placed into the mouth (or pen !) of Kephah (=Peter) includes the reference in 2 Pet 3:15 to "our beloved brother Paul," and to Paul's writings as "Scriptures." Scholars who look at the language being used in Galatians for example (and the whitewash in Acts, especially in chapter 15) have noted that the relations were very tense to say the least between the Paulinists (who threw away the Torah to worship "Jesus" as semi-divine and the Petrine churches in Jerusalem, Damascus and Antioch (who were still Jewish Messianists who kept kashrut dietary laws and followed the Torah precepts even though they considered "Jesus" the promised Messiah/Christ) : in fact it seems both groups anathemetised (damned) each other as heretical e.g. Galatians 2:11 etc

Thus when we read 2 Peter, it would seem impossible that Simon Peter (Shimeon bar Yonah ha Kepha) considered his torah-hating gentile loving self-styled- apostle- opponent's letters to be "holy Scripture." This kind of thing is called "internal evidence" which casts doubt on the whole letter of 2 Peter as coming from the disciple Peter's immediate millieu.

One would imagine that even for ardent followers of "Paul", (the "torah-haters") the elevation of the Pauline epistles to "holy scriptural status" would have been far more gradual and slow and probably was not done until the time of Marcion (who actually did it!) c. 155 AD--much later than the time of "Peter" who couldn't speak Greek anyway, and needed translators like "John-Mark" etal. to preach to Jews in the Diaspora (i.e. the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel scattered among the Gentiles) who mainly spoke Greek as their native tongue (e.g. in places like Ephesos or Antioch etc.).

But the larger question here is whether there was ONE gospel or TWO being preached by these two opposing "Christian" groups in the earliest churches (e.g. between the years AD 40 and AD 70 when Jerusalem and its 2nd Herodian temple was ground to powder by Rome in the 1st failed Jewish Revolt and when Peter's Nazorean, torah-abiding Jewish-Messianic church--called "Ebionites" and sometimes "Nazoreans", headed up by the immediate family of "Jesus" and based on blood lineage to the Daviddic family, was basically annhialiated by Rome, and all that was left standing were the various Pauline and Gnostic Torah Hating Churches scattered away from Palestine (e.g. in Corinth, Rome, Galatia, Thessalonike, Ephesos, Phillipi etc.) in the larger Roman Empire who were basically untouched by the Jewish War.

Se if you can get someone close to you to get you a copy of that book I mentioned (Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Chrstianity): if worse comes to worse, you can U2U me, and I will send you a used copy for your own keeping, as long as you promise to read it at least twice !

Originally posted by NEOAMADEUS
But the larger question here is whether there was ONE gospel or TWO being preached by these two opposing "Christian" groups in the earliest churches

Actually, the point of this thread is not the question of Peter vs. Paul (as I do not see a difference in their gospels as they relate to each other or to the rest of the bible--it's not about 'jews' vs. 'gentiles' at all--it's about Israel, which is neither nor). It's about the true message of the gospel--the Revelation of Jesus Christ, or Messiah. It's not about political differences and the torah laws, even in the torah, the message was 'love God and love your neighbor' and that is the gist of the 'good news.' To stir up strife and contention, at any time in any age, is against God's fundamental law of love. This is something I have certainty of in the deepest parts of my being. I know it works and I know its the 'Way,' because of my own experiences.

Se if you can get someone close to you to get you a copy of that book I mentioned (Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Chrstianity): if worse comes to worse, you can U2U me, and I will send you a used copy for your own keeping, as long as you promise to read it at least twice !

I appreciate your offer, but I must make it clear I am not prone to choosing man's ideas over God's, especially in the pursuit of creating discord among people or in my own heart.

Hi QueenieAnne:

I'm a little confused, which "god" did you say was connected in some way with "love"?

Are you thinking perhaps of the vicious Old Testament clan god of Israel (YHWH) in the Torah who wants to genocide the Amalekites and exerminate all the Girgi#es simply because they worship other gods? (see Deuteronomy chapter 13 and read also the vomit placed into the mouth of the god in Deut. chapter 20) including killing all of the children and their animals too?

What did their ANIMALS do wrong? sacrifice the wrong goat?

Even Adolph Hitler, monster that he was, didn't go so far as to exterminate the village animals and burn their bones upon his altar as a "perpetual holocaust"...

Where's the "love" there? Are you actually closely reading what the text says?

I'm not understanding your logic, it seems, or even your feelings... (or maybe you just need some help in understanding unpointed paleo-Hebrew...because the "bible" you're reading doesn't seem to match all the versions of the texts I have read very closely !)



[edit on 16-9-2005 by NEOAMADEUS]

Queenie, when I gave up searching the truth in the 'endless writings of man' and read the gosples in the hebrew and greek (having all my life prayed to understand the truth of God) I found the same same "good news" you are shareing with us. Thank You for this thread.