What Was Christ's Gospel?

[NHInsider]

you guys, everybody knows that, “It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.”

so the eucharist does not give life according to God’s word.

God bless you all.

The Word that proceeds from the mouth of God is Jesus (John 1).
Unless a man eats His Flesh and drinks His Blood, he has not life (John 6).

There is no conflict between these verses.

 

[Jerry_Marino]

nope

 

[Mailman]

Is this your way of saying that one who claims to be catholic is not a christian?
In your zeal to bash the church your memory failed you,which often happens to me too, and you got this thread started with the idea of proving the church does not teach the gospel…which it turns out that the church does indeed teach from the gospel of Jesus.

I’m merely stating a fact. I’m not saying Catholics are not [professing] Christians. All I’m saying is that Catholics, whenever they’re asked to state their religion, would always write down “Catholic” or “Roman Catholic,” as their religion rather than “Christian.”

Here’s a good example. Can you name any Catholic here at CAF who’s put in “Christian” as his/her religion? I don’t think you can, because there’s not one. You can try getting all the names of those having “Christian” as their stated religion and ask them which church they belong to. I’m sure it would be anything but the Catholic Church.

I’m not out to bash anyone’s church. My beliefs are different, yes. But that does not mean that when I point out those differences my intention is to attack those that do not share my beliefs. When your missionaries preach to unbelievers or to those of another faith, would they not have to do the same thing and point out where their differences lie?

 

[Mailman]

According to the Scriptures, Jesus message was this:":The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Reform your lives and believe in the good news"

My understanding of that is that Jesus was telling people that God stands ready to rule in their life and that they would be much better off if God did rule in their life rather than anyone or anything else.

When Jesus sent his disciples on mission he told them to say the same thing. "The reign of God is at hand.

Jim

Hi Jim,
We agree on what Jesus’ message was all about – the goods news that the kingdom of heaven is at hand. What we don’t agree on is what this “kingdom of heaven” is. You believe it is something that exists only in the hearts and minds of those who want God to rule their lives – the “reign of God” in one’s life. I believe it is a literal kingdom that will be set up on earth when Christ returns.

The Scriptures show that the Jews, including Christ’s disciples and all those who believed in Him, understood the kingdom to mean a literal world-ruling kingdom that God will establish on earth. This understanding comes from the Jews’ reading of the writings of their prophets [the OT Scriptures]. Note that the Jews knew about the coming of a Messiah from their Scriptures (Matt. 2:5-6). The Messiah was to be their liberator who will not only rule Israel but also the whole world. What the Jews failed to understand was that this Messiah had to suffer and die first before He becomes all that. They correctly understood that this Messiah would rule from Jerusalem (Zech. 9:9; 14:16; Mic. 4:1-2; Ps. 2:6), that was why when Jesus was about to set foot on Jerusalem, His disciples thought that the kingdom was about to be established:

“And as they [the disciples] heard these things, He [Jesus] added and spoke a parable, because he was near Jerusalem, and * because they thought the kingdom of God was about to appear immediately *” (Lk. 19:11).

Notice that Jesus spoke of the parable to give His disciples an idea on the TIMING of the establishment of the kingdom because of their mistaken belief that the kingdom would appear immediately upon His arrival in Jerusalem. The parable was about a nobleman (representing Jesus) who went to a far country (heaven) to receive a kingdom. The nobleman then began to rule upon his return. In this parable, Christ reveals that He will go to heaven first to receive the kingdom then begin to rule (establish the kingdom on earth) only when He returns.

Now, did Christ’s disciples understand the parable? Days after Christ’s death and resurrection, we find His disciples asking Him again the same question. Notice Acts 1:6: “When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel ?”

Did the apostles understand the parable? Certainly! The parable says the nobleman will receive the kingdom from a far country and will begin to rule only when He comes back. When the apostles asked Jesus again whether He will now set up the kingdom, Jesus had already gone to heaven [after His resurrection] – the far country of the parable – and had come back to earth! The disciples clearly had the parable in mind when they asked Jesus that second time in Acts 1:6. What they did not get was that His coming back to appear to them after His resurrection and ascension was not the coming back He spoke about, ie., His second coming “with power and great glory” to set up the kingdom.

But what is immediately evident from the text is that the apostles, several days after having been taught personally by Christ what the kingdom of God was all about (Acts 1:3), still was of the understanding that the kingdom is a literal kingdom to “restore again the kingdom [of David] to Israel.” If their perception of the kingdom had been wrong, Christ would have corrected them. But Christ tacitly showed His agreement of their views [about what the kingdom was all about] when He answered their question with these words: “It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father has put in his own power” (v. 7).

Clearly, Christ’s good news was that of a soon coming establishment of a literal kingdom on earth – a kingdom that is from heaven with Christ as King – to rule the nations on this earth. That is the most wonderful good news for an evil and sick world headed towards utter destruction! Don’t you think so?

 

[Jerry_Marino]

Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.

You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

 

[EdOsiecki]

you guys, everybody knows that, “It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.”

so the eucharist does not give life according to God’s word.

God bless you all.

Hi Jerry, This is ED Jesus states in Mark 16:16-15 “Go into all the world and preach the good news (gospel) to all creation. v16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved (born again), but whoever does not believe will be condemned”. (emphasis added) The question here is believe what? Answer is the good news gospel. What is the good news gospel? Paul in 1Cor 15:2-4 explains it, “By this gospel you are saved,----v3 that Christ died for your sins according to the Scriptures, v4 that He was burried, that He was raised on the third day”. THAT’S THE GOSPEL! The good news about Christ’s gospel is, He saved us just by “believing”. That’s all that is required. Jesus’ shed BLOOD at the cross atoned for ALL of our sins per Rev.1:5, “To Him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by His BLOOD”. Jesus also states to be baptized. Why? It’s our way of repentance per Mat 3:11 an outward sign of an inward reality “by (God’s) grace through faith ( in Jesus) and not by works of righteousness” (emphasis added) By baptism we also symbolically identify with Christ’s dying to our old way of life, when submerged we are buried, later,Jesus will resurrect us per Rom 6:4. That’s exactly what the jailor did in Acts 16:31 He believed in Jesus’ gospel, then v33 he got baptized. PTL Ed.

 

[davidv]

I’m merely stating a fact. I’m not saying Catholics are not [professing] Christians. All I’m saying is that Catholics, whenever they’re asked to state their religion, would always write down “Catholic” or “Roman Catholic,” as their religion rather than “Christian.”Here’s a good example. Can you name any Catholic here at CAF who’s put in “Christian” as his/her religion? I don’t think you can, because there’s not one. You can try getting all the names of those having “Christian” as their stated religion and ask them which church they belong to. I’m sure it would be anything but the Catholic Church.

Why would I, as a Catholic, use a generic term (Christian) when a specific term (Catholic) is more descriptive?

I’m not out to bash anyone’s church. My beliefs are different, yes. But that does not mean that when I point out those differences my intention is to attack those that do not share my beliefs. When your missionaries preach to unbelievers or to those of another faith, would they not have to do the same thing and point out where their differences lie?

Maybe, maybe not. Why would drawing attention to differences be an effective tool? Seems to me this would generate defensiveness rather than receptiveness.

 

[budgie2]

I’m merely stating a fact. I’m not saying Catholics are not [professing] Christians. All I’m saying is that Catholics, whenever they’re asked to state their religion, would always write down “Catholic” or “Roman Catholic,” as their religion rather than “Christian.”

Here’s a good example. Can you name any Catholic here at CAF who’s put in “Christian” as his/her religion? I don’t think you can, because there’s not one. You can try getting all the names of those having “Christian” as their stated religion and ask them which church they belong to. I’m sure it would be anything but the Catholic Church.

I’m not out to bash anyone’s church. My beliefs are different, yes. But that does not mean that when I point out those differences my intention is to attack those that do not share my beliefs. When your missionaries preach to unbelievers or to those of another faith, would they not have to do the same thing and point out where their differences lie?

I do not know your own religious background. I have always considered myself a Christian or follower of Christ and the Catholic Church is the biggest Christian denomination in the world. However, sometimes protestant Christians say that Catholics are not Christians and I have had that accused of me. Also societies at university under the name Christian here in Britain tend to refer to protestant denominations. I personally felt offended that other people did not view Catholicism as a Christian religion. I think Roman Catholic is a bit out of date. Catholic means universal and it might be better if we were called Catholic Christians or Universal Christians which is a better explanation. Preferably the latter.

 

[davidv]

I do not know your own religious background. I have always considered myself a Christian or follower of Christ and the Catholic Church is the biggest Christian denomination in the world. However, sometimes protestant Christians say that Catholics are not Christians and I have had that accused of me. Also societies at university under the name Christian here in Britain tend to refer to protestant denominations. I personally felt offended that other people did not view Catholicism as a Christian religion. I think Roman Catholic is a bit out of date. Catholic means universal and it might be better if we were called Catholic Christians or Universal Christians which is a better explanation. Preferably the latter.

How does the truth go out-of-date? If Christ present the gospel (Truth) nearly 2000 years ago, how could it possible be out-of-date?

 

[budgie2]

How does the truth go out-of-date? If Christ present the gospel (Truth) nearly 2000 years ago, how could it possible be out-of-date?

The term Roman Catholic is a bit of a contradiction in terms and God would like to change it. Roman Catholic surely goes back to the Roman Empire. I’m not saying the whole Catholic Church is out of date but the name is. Roman Catholic means Roman Universal. How can something be national and universal? It’s a bit like calling myself an Anglican. Universal Christian has no national or geographic slant. I don’t call myself Roman Catholic I just call myself Catholic Christian.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Why would I, as a Catholic, use a generic term (Christian) when a specific term (Catholic) is more descriptive?

Maybe, maybe not. Why would drawing attention to differences be an effective tool? Seems to me this would generate defensiveness rather than receptiveness.

Hi davidv this is Ed, Acts 11:26 states, It was at Antioch the born again believers were called “Christians”. To be identified with Christ one should be called a “Christian” To be identified with Roman Catholisim’s teachings it’s proper to be called a “Catholic” . To be identified with Protestant “Baptist” teachings, it’s proper to be called a “Baptist” etc. etc. However; it’s the born again believing Christians who will inherit eternal life. The Bible does not mention any denominations. PTL Ed.

 

[davidv]

The term Roman Catholic is a bit of a contradiction in terms and God would like to change it. Roman Catholic surely goes back to the Roman Empire. I’m not saying the whole Catholic Church is out of date but the name is. Roman Catholic means Roman Universal. How can something be national and universal? It’s a bit like calling myself an Anglican. Universal Christian has no national or geographic slant. I don’t call myself Roman Catholic I just call myself Catholic Christian.

Based on this, I say you are very confused as to what the Catholic Church is, and its name is.

 

[davidv]

Hi davidv this is Ed, Acts 11:26 states, It was at Antioch the born again believers were called “Christians”. To be identified with Christ one should be called a “Christian” To be identified with Roman Catholisim’s teachings it’s proper to be called a “Catholic” . To be identified with Protestant “Baptist” teachings, it’s proper to be called a “Baptist” etc. etc. However; it’s the born again believing Christians who will inherit eternal life. The Bible does not mention any denominations. PTL Ed.

And these Christians were later came to been known as members of the Catholic Church.

I’ll have you know, in the most forceful way possible, that Catholics are most certainly “born again believing Christians”, and any claim by you to the contrary can safely be labeled as “bearing false witness”. I strongly suggest that you refrain form doing any more of this.

 

[Mailman]

Based on this, I say you are very confused as to what the Catholic Church is, and its name is.

May I comment?

What do we see in the name “Roman Catholic Church”? There is nothing there that says it is God’s Church, or even remotely suggests that God has anything to do with it. What the name tells us is that its owner is Rome and that the church is universal. That’s all. God is left out of the picture. That is the problem with that name.

God’s true church, on the other hand, carry His name because He owns that Church. Jesus prayed that His Father (God the Father) would keep the Church in His (the Father’s) name (John 17:11). But Christ is the Head of the Church (Col. 1:18). And Christ is God. The Church is actually an extension of the Family of God. Paul wrote: “For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the whole family in heaven and earth IS NAMED” (Eph. 3:14-15). The true Church is named by the Family name of God.

 

[davidv]

May I comment?

Certainly

What do we see in the name “Roman Catholic Church”? There is nothing there that says it is God’s Church, or even remotely suggests that God has anything to do with it. What the name tells us is that its owner is Rome and that the church is universal. That’s all. God is left out of the picture. That is the problem with that name.

Who is this “we”? You may also learn that the official name of the Church is “The Catholic Church”.

The Vatican is an independent city-state. It not run by Rome or any other secular government. I find kind of comment seriously offensive and highly uncharitable.

God’s true church, on the other hand, carry His name because He owns that Church. Jesus prayed that His Father (God the Father) would keep the Church in His (the Father’s) name (John 17:11). But Christ is the Head of the Church (Col. 1:18). And Christ is God. The Church is actually an extension of the Family of God. Paul wrote: “For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the whole family in heaven and earth IS NAMED” (Eph. 3:14-15). The true Church is named by the Family name of God.

Consider yourself reported for a highly disrespectful post.

 

[EMCEE_EXORCIST]

Does he mean the message or proclamation of the heralds of God or Christ in the NT?

 

[Mailman]

Who is this “we”? You may also learn that the official name of the Church is “The Catholic Church”.

The Vatican is an independent city-state. It not run by Rome or any other secular government. I find kind of comment seriously offensive and highly uncharitable.
Consider yourself reported for a highly disrespectful post.

Sorry, David. It wasn’t meant to offend. I was only giving my view on the problems inherent with the name “Roman Catholic Church” and gave my position as to how God’s Church should be properly named citing texts from Scripture.

 

[Mailman]

Does he mean the message or proclamation of the heralds of God or Christ in the NT?

I mean the message of Jesus Christ. Jesus came as the Messenger of the New Covenant. Notice Malachi’s prophecy: “Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me [and that messenger was John the Baptist, preparing the way before Jesus Christ, as explained in Mark 1:2]: and the Lord, whom ye shall seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, EVEN THE MESSENGER OF THE COVENANT [this “Messenger” now refers to Jesus Christ] whom ye shall delight in” (Mal. 3:1).

Jesus was bringing some message – some good news, or Gospel – that He was to proclaim to His New Covenant Church. What was His message?

 

[EMCEE_EXORCIST]

I mean the message of Jesus Christ. Jesus came as the Messenger of the New Covenant. Notice Malachi’s prophecy: “Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me [and that messenger was John the Baptist, preparing the way before Jesus Christ, as explained in Mark 1:2]: and the Lord, whom ye shall seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, EVEN THE MESSENGER OF THE COVENANT [this “Messenger” now refers to Jesus Christ] whom ye shall delight in” (Mal. 3:1).

Jesus was bringing some message – some good news, or Gospel – that He was to proclaim to His New Covenant Church. What was His message?

It is written:“This is the time of fulfillment. The kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel.”

The Prophets spoke ; then Jesus manifest their word which was God’s WORD Incarnate.
Is not the GOOD news the fulfillment of prophecy? Is not the Good news the Kingdom of God at hand?

ee

Enjoy peace where ever you find it.

 

[budgie2]

May I comment?

What do we see in the name “Roman Catholic Church”? There is nothing there that says it is God’s Church, or even remotely suggests that God has anything to do with it. What the name tells us is that its owner is Rome and that the church is universal. That’s all. God is left out of the picture. That is the problem with that name.

God’s true church, on the other hand, carry His name because He owns that Church. Jesus prayed that His Father (God the Father) would keep the Church in His (the Father’s) name (John 17:11). But Christ is the Head of the Church (Col. 1:18). And Christ is God. The Church is actually an extension of the Family of God. Paul wrote: “For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the whole family in heaven and earth IS NAMED” (Eph. 3:14-15). The true Church is named by the Family name of God.

I agree with you that the Church should bear the name of Christ. Roman Catholic does not bear the name of Christ and some people do not know what Catholics believe and some people do not even think that we are Christians.