If you’re a Christian and you support the modern geopolitical state of Israel, you deny that Christ is the Messiah. It's that simple.

[Garee]

You are dancing. I gave you three valid examples. Re-read them and meditate on them. You are 100% guilty of demonizing Jews.

Which kind of Jews? Two to choose of.

 

[th1bill]

If the Scriptures I quoted disturb you, then your issue is with the Word of God — not with me.

I didn’t condemn you.
I quoted the apostles.
I quoted the Messiah Himself.
If that makes you uncomfortable, good. That’s called conviction.
And if you claim to be a born-again Christian, then submit to the Word — not Scofield’s footnotes.

You say I’m “ripping verses out of context.” Then show me how.
Let’s open the Word and walk through it, line by line.
Start with:

“If you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed.” – Gal. 3:29
What’s the context?
What does “in Christ” mean?
Who is the true heir?
Answer that honestly, and your entire system crumbles.

You accuse me of bad behavior because I said Dispensationalism is a false gospel.
But Paul said the same thing — stronger:
“If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.” – Galatians 1:9

You say you're born again.
Then act like it — and stop defending a theology that declares Christ’s work unfinished, His blood insufficient, and His body divided.

Christ is the Seed. Not the Knesset. Not the flag. Not the third temple.
If your hope is in a Christ-rejecting nation, you’re not following the Gospel.
You’re following a Zionist narrative dressed up in Scripture, and it will lead you — and others — straight into delusion.

I’m not here to win popularity.
I’m here to defend the Gospel.
And that Gospel says:
“There is no distinction between Jew and Greek… for all are one in Christ Jesus.” – Galatians 3:28

If your theology makes room for a Christless covenant, it’s not Christianity — it’s heresy.

You want a discussion? Then refute the verses.
Otherwise, your anger only confirms that the truth touched a nerve.

You blow a lot of hot air, I'll give you that much. The scriptures you quote, out of their context, certainly do not disturb me. i taught the scriptures for over 30 years before my physical condition made it to difficult to do any longer. You look to be one seeking the truth but you have and are teaching half truths.

The scriptures are not divided by the man-made chapter and verse we find in modern-day printings of the translations. The Word of Yehovah was divided by men in the 14th century, I recall, and made study of the Word much more convenient. The nasty part is the then divded letters from our Creator were misused and abused and men, like yourself tried to formulate Doctrine on sentences and partial sentences. The Word of Yehovah is not divided but rather is of a single context and must not be broken the way you are doing.

 

[The Gospel of Christ]

You blow a lot of hot air, I'll give you that much. The scriptures you quote, out of their context, certainly do not disturb me. i taught the scriptures for over 30 years before my physical condition made it to difficult to do any longer. You look to be one seeking the truth but you have and are teaching half truths.

The scriptures are not divided by the man-made chapter and verse we find in modern-day printings of the translations. The Word of Yehovah was divided by men in the 14th century, I recall, and made study of the Word much more convenient. The nasty part is the then divded letters from our Creator were misused and abused and men, like yourself tried to formulate Doctrine on sentences and partial sentences. The Word of Yehovah is not divided but rather is of a single context and must not be broken the way you are doing.

You’ve spent more time attacking how I quoted Scripture than actually responding to any of it.

You claim to have taught the Bible for 30 years, yet you just dismissed direct quotations from Jesus, Paul, and the apostles as “hot air.” You didn’t refute a single passage. Not one. You didn’t engage with Galatians 3. You didn’t address Hebrews 13:4. You didn’t touch 1 Corinthians 6:18 or Acts 15:20. You just waved your hand and said, “context.”

So let’s talk context.
The context of Galatians is Paul correcting a group of believers who were being tempted to go back under the old covenant system. Sound familiar?
“You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you?” – Galatians 3:1

That’s the context. Paul rebuking those who were being convinced that there was still something spiritually significant about being a blood descendant of Abraham apart from Christ.

And how does Paul respond?

“If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” – Galatians 3:29
That’s not a half-verse. That’s a full theological stake through the heart of Dispensationalism. There’s no ambiguity there. The “seed” is Christ. The heirs are those in Him. Not a geopolitical nation. Not a tribe. Not a DNA test.

You say I’m breaking the Word by quoting “partial sentences”? Tell me — when Jesus said, “It is finished,” should we disregard that because it’s a single sentence? Was He wrong to condense the entire plan of redemption into three words?

No, the problem isn’t verse divisions. The problem is that the Word is cutting through your tradition, and you’re dodging.
If you really want to walk line by line, I’m right here. Let’s open the Word and look at:

Galatians 3:16 says, “The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say ‘and to seeds,’ meaning many people, but ‘and to your seed,’ meaning Christ.”

Galatians 3:28 declares, “There is neither Jew nor Greek… for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Ephesians 2:14 proclaims, “He has made both one and has broken down the middle wall of separation.”

Hebrews 8:13 states, “By calling this covenant ‘new,’ He has made the first one obsolete.”

And Romans 9:6–8 explains, “Not all who are descended from Israel are Israel… it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise.”

If you want to debate context, fine. But that means you have to deal with every single verse — not dismiss them wholesale because they threaten your theological system.

You said I’m teaching “half-truths.” Then finish them. Show me where I’m misquoting. Correct me with Scripture — not tradition, not emotional appeals, and not vague references to paragraph structure.

You said the Word isn’t divided. I agree. But Christ divided truth from error, light from darkness, and spirit from flesh. And what He divided, I won’t mix back together just to protect someone’s comfort.

So again I say: If the Scriptures I quoted disturb you, your issue is not with me. It’s with the Word of God.

Either show me the full context that refutes what I’ve laid out…
Or admit what’s really happening here — that the truth is hitting too close to home, and it’s easier to call it “hot air” than to submit to it.

Because if you really taught the Word for 30 years, then you already know:
The Gospel has no room for two covenants, two peoples, or two salvations. There is only one body, one faith, one baptism — and one Seed.

And His name is not “Israel.”
It’s Jesus Christ.

 

[Rxlx]

You’ve spent more time attacking how I quoted Scripture than actually responding to any of it.

You claim to have taught the Bible for 30 years, yet you just dismissed direct quotations from Jesus, Paul, and the apostles as “hot air.” You didn’t refute a single passage. Not one. You didn’t engage with Galatians 3. You didn’t address Hebrews 13:4. You didn’t touch 1 Corinthians 6:18 or Acts 15:20. You just waved your hand and said, “context.”

And Romans 9:6–8 explains, “Not all who are descended from Israel are Israel… it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise.”

Don't waste time with OldBill - his mind is shackled in Catholic nonsense!

 

[KingJ]

Don't waste time with OldBill - his mind is shackled in Catholic nonsense!

Wrong Bill and I think most here have you on ignore, so quite an ironic post.

 

[Rhema]

To any lurkers looking for the truth:

If someone is saying that ethnic Israel will be saved apart from Christ, or that there's a separate covenant for the Jews outside of the Gospel, then yes — that is not just error.

That is heresy.

Indeed, BUT....

I keep running into people who claim that if you're Gentile, then Paul is your apostle and only Paul's writings count. I've seen the "label" Acts 28 Christians used on occasion. I would have thought that to "believe in Jesus" meant that one would obey his teachings.

I'm not sure if the label "Dispensation" covers this viewpoint, but it certainly dispenses with all of the Teachings of Jesus claiming they were only for Jews during his earthly ministry, then there was a "Jewish way to be saved" starting at Acts chapter 2, (cf. Acts 2:38) with all of that under the auspices of Peter until Jesus came and taught Paul the true Gospel, after which there was only the Pauline Gospel for everybody.

Were those who repented under the Baptism of John saved? Or not? Were those who repented and were baptized under Jesus and then Peter saved or not? People keep telling me that there were two ways to be saved, one of which was dispensed with after Paul.

Rhema

(Can't argue with you about Scofield...)

 

[th1bill]

You’ve spent more time attacking how I quoted Scripture than actually responding to any of it.

You claim to have taught the Bible for 30 years, yet you just dismissed direct quotations from Jesus, Paul, and the apostles as “hot air.” You didn’t refute a single passage. Not one. You didn’t engage with Galatians 3. You didn’t address Hebrews 13:4. You didn’t touch 1 Corinthians 6:18 or Acts 15:20. You just waved your hand and said, “context.”

So let’s talk context.
The context of Galatians is Paul correcting a group of believers who were being tempted to go back under the old covenant system. Sound familiar?
“You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you?” – Galatians 3:1

That’s the context. Paul rebuking those who were being convinced that there was still something spiritually significant about being a blood descendant of Abraham apart from Christ.

And how does Paul respond?

“If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” – Galatians 3:29
That’s not a half-verse. That’s a full theological stake through the heart of Dispensationalism. There’s no ambiguity there. The “seed” is Christ. The heirs are those in Him. Not a geopolitical nation. Not a tribe. Not a DNA test.

You say I’m breaking the Word by quoting “partial sentences”? Tell me — when Jesus said, “It is finished,” should we disregard that because it’s a single sentence? Was He wrong to condense the entire plan of redemption into three words?

No, the problem isn’t verse divisions. The problem is that the Word is cutting through your tradition, and you’re dodging.
If you really want to walk line by line, I’m right here. Let’s open the Word and look at:

Galatians 3:16 says, “The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say ‘and to seeds,’ meaning many people, but ‘and to your seed,’ meaning Christ.”

Galatians 3:28 declares, “There is neither Jew nor Greek… for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Ephesians 2:14 proclaims, “He has made both one and has broken down the middle wall of separation.”

Hebrews 8:13 states, “By calling this covenant ‘new,’ He has made the first one obsolete.”

And Romans 9:6–8 explains, “Not all who are descended from Israel are Israel… it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise.”

If you want to debate context, fine. But that means you have to deal with every single verse — not dismiss them wholesale because they threaten your theological system.

You said I’m teaching “half-truths.” Then finish them. Show me where I’m misquoting. Correct me with Scripture — not tradition, not emotional appeals, and not vague references to paragraph structure.

You said the Word isn’t divided. I agree. But Christ divided truth from error, light from darkness, and spirit from flesh. And what He divided, I won’t mix back together just to protect someone’s comfort.

So again I say: If the Scriptures I quoted disturb you, your issue is not with me. It’s with the Word of God.

Either show me the full context that refutes what I’ve laid out…
Or admit what’s really happening here — that the truth is hitting too close to home, and it’s easier to call it “hot air” than to submit to it.

Because if you really taught the Word for 30 years, then you already know:
The Gospel has no room for two covenants, two peoples, or two salvations. There is only one body, one faith, one baptism — and one Seed.

And His name is not “Israel.”
It’s Jesus Christ.

FYI: A doctrine prevalent in some forms of Protestant Christianity that divides history into distinct periods, each marked by a different dispensation or relationship between God and humanity. Dispensationalism further holds that Christian believers will be transported to heaven without warning and that soon thereafter there will be a period of tribulation, followed by the Second Coming.

This is dispensationalism!

 

[Rhema]

each marked by a different dispensation or relationship between God and humanity.

For I am the LORD, I change not;​

- Malachi 3:6 KJV

 

[Curtis]

I do have to say I have read all that op has said and I can not find anything I would disagree with except the title of this thread. Most if not all born again Christian’s I know support the nation of Israel which does not mean they deny Jesus to be the Messiah. That is just not true.

 

[Rhema]

God spare us from the ignorant who think they know what they're talking about.

 

[The Gospel of Christ]

FYI: A doctrine prevalent in some forms of Protestant Christianity that divides history into distinct periods, each marked by a different dispensation or relationship between God and humanity. Dispensationalism further holds that Christian believers will be transported to heaven without warning and that soon thereafter there will be a period of tribulation, followed by the Second Coming.

This is dispensationalism!

Thanks for the definition. I’m well aware of what Dispensationalism claims — I just don’t find it in Scripture.
It’s one thing to recite the party line about “distinct periods” and “God’s plan for Israel.”
It’s another thing entirely to open the Bible and prove, from the New Testament, that God maintains two separate peoples, two gospels, or two covenants.

So let’s ask the real question:
Can you show me anywhere in the New Testament where it says that Israel and the Church are two separate groups with two separate destinies?
Because Paul didn’t teach that.
Jesus didn’t teach that.
And none of the apostles ever taught that.

They taught that:

There is one body (Ephesians 4:4–6)

There is one olive tree, and Gentiles are grafted in (Romans 11)

There is no longer Jew or Gentile, but all are one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28)

The first covenant is obsolete (Hebrews 8:13)

And the true children of Abraham are those who belong to Christ (Galatians 3:29)

That’s not “replacement theology.” That’s fulfillment theology — where the shadow gives way to the substance, and the promises find their “Yes and Amen” in Christ, not in a geopolitical nation.

If you want to hold to Dispensationalism, fine. But let’s stop pretending it came from the apostles. It came from John Nelson Darby in the 1800s — and was later popularized by the Scofield Bible, not the Holy Spirit.

So again I ask:
Are you standing on the Word of God?
Or are you standing on a theological system designed to divide what God has made one?

Because at the end of the day, this isn’t about eschatology.
It’s about the Gospel — and whether Jesus Christ is enough.

 

[The Gospel of Christ]

Indeed, BUT....

I keep running into people who claim that if you're Gentile, then Paul is your apostle and only Paul's writings count. I've seen the "label" Acts 28 Christians used on occasion. I would have thought that to "believe in Jesus" meant that one would obey his teachings.

I'm not sure if the label "Dispensation" covers this viewpoint, but it certainly dispenses with all of the Teachings of Jesus claiming they were only for Jews during his earthly ministry, then there was a "Jewish way to be saved" starting at Acts chapter 2, (cf. Acts 2:38) with all of that under the auspices of Peter until Jesus came and taught Paul the true Gospel, after which there was only the Pauline Gospel for everybody.

Were those who repented under the Baptism of John saved? Or not? Were those who repented and were baptized under Jesus and then Peter saved or not? People keep telling me that there were two ways to be saved, one of which was dispensed with after Paul.

Rhema

(Can't argue with you about Scofield...)

You're absolutely right to bring this up, because what you're describing is known as hyper-dispensationalism—especially Acts 28 theology—and it's completely out of line with the teachings of Jesus, Paul, and the apostles.

This idea that Jesus’ words “don’t apply to the Church” because they were supposedly “for Jews only” is not just bad theology—it’s a dangerous distortion of the Gospel. The claim that Paul had a different gospel than Christ, and that his letters are the only ones that apply to Gentiles, directly contradicts the very unity Paul fought to uphold.

Jesus didn’t preach a different gospel. He is the gospel. From the beginning, the Kingdom of God was preached as the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets—Luke 16:16. He said that the gospel of the Kingdom would be preached to all nations in Matthew 24:14. That includes Gentiles. That includes the Church.

Paul and Peter preached the same gospel. Paul says in Galatians 1 that if anyone—even an angel from heaven—preaches another gospel, let him be accursed. There weren’t two ways to be saved. There wasn’t a gospel for Jews and a separate one for Gentiles. There was, and is, one gospel: salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

Paul didn't rebuke Peter in Galatians 2 for preaching the wrong gospel—he rebuked him for hypocrisy because Peter knew the truth: that there was one body and one faith. Ephesians 2 says plainly that Christ has broken down the dividing wall, making both one and reconciling them in one body to God through the cross.

As for John’s baptism—it was preparatory. Those who received it were preparing for the coming of the Messiah. But when Paul met believers in Acts 19 who had only received John’s baptism, he baptized them again in the name of Jesus—because Christ is the line of separation between old and new, between shadow and fulfillment.

The bottom line is this: the entire New Testament testifies to one gospel, one people of God, and one new man in Christ. Not two plans. Not two tracks. Not two churches. Anyone teaching otherwise isn’t defending truth—they’re dividing the body of Christ.

And you’re right to say this stuff needs to be exposed. Because the idea that Paul preached something different from Jesus isn’t just incorrect—it’s a foundational error that undermines the unity of the gospel itself.

 

[The Gospel of Christ]

And aside from everything we've been talking about.. Think about who the dispensationalists are propping up here in the first place! Its crazy.

What happened was the weaponization of religious identity — where a group of largely secular, post-Enlightenment, Eastern European-descended people claimed a mythic ethnic identity, and used it to justify permanent political control over a land they were never indigenous to in any meaningful biblical or genetic sense. It’s absolutely absurd. Today, someone from Upstate New York with a fully European genome and zero ancestral ties to the Levant can be declared an “ethnic Jew” — while a family that’s lived in Bethlehem for 2,000 years (both Christian & Muslim) gets bombed into rubble. This isn’t just unjust — it’s fraudulent theology and counterfeit identity, and it’s been destabilizing the world for 77 years straight.

And if anyone seriously believes that Rob “Meathead” Reiner from All in the Family is some kind of "ancient Hebrew descendant" — they’re living in absolute fantasyland.

What makes all of this even more absurd is that according to the Gospel of Jesus Christ — Christians are the true Israel. Not only do these secular Polish carpetbaggers have zero claim to the land in any legitimate genetic, historical, or biblical sense — but spiritually, they’re not even in the covenant. They reject the Messiah, spit on His name, and mock His Gospel — yet still claim to be “the chosen people”? Chosen by who— Baal? The New Testament couldn’t be clearer: “If you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise” (Galatians 3:29). These Christ-rejecting Zionists have no part in the inheritance. None. They are not the Israel of God — and according to Jesus, their house was left to them desolate 2,000 years ago (Matthew 23:38).

You either submit to the King, or you’re outside the Kingdom.
There is no third option, no ethnic exception, and no theological loophole. Period.

And no — “blindness” and “a hardened heart” are not valid excuses.
Jesus Himself said, “You refuse to come to Me that you may have life.”
Paul said they were cut off because of unbelief — not because they didn’t understand, but because they wouldn’t believe.

Hardness of heart explains the rebellion — but it doesn’t absolve it.
They are without excuse, just like the rest of us were — until we repented.
And unless they turn to Christ, the veil remains.

So let’s get this straight: not only do they not belong in the land — they have no right whatsoever to claim the identity of being "God’s people". That honor belongs to those washed in the blood of the Lamb — the Body of Christ. The Church, not the Knesset, is the temple of the Holy Spirit. The true Jerusalem isn’t flying an IDF flag — it’s the Bride of Christ, waiting in faith for the return of her King. And these frauds have the gall to steal a divine identity, turn Gaza into a graveyard, and then dare to call it “fulfillment of prophecy”? That’s not prophecy — that’s blasphemy.

The problem isn’t that Muslims are furious about this hell-born calamity — it’s that modern Christians aren’t. The Church should be flipping tables, not waving flags. Christ isn’t coming back to endorse a Zionist war machine that never belonged in the region — He’s coming to judge it. And when He does, it won’t be with political favors and military aid — it’ll be with a sword and a reckoning.

This isn’t just about religion. It’s not just about prophecy. It’s about a group of people who, by every biblical, historical, and genetic standard, do not belong in that land, using a weaponized identity to justify permanent occupation, ethnic cleansing, and global destabilization.

And while misled, brainwashed Western Christians cheer it on — thinking it’s some kind of "divine fulfillment" — the rest of the world sees the truth: This powder keg is dragging the planet toward nuclear war.

Why?

Because when you plant a secular, Christ-rejecting ethnostate in the middle of a region that’s been continuously inhabited by Arabs (many of them Christians also) for thousands of years, prop it up with billions in military aid, and falsely claim "God is behind it"… you’re not fulfilling prophecy — you’re mocking it.

And the fallout won’t just be regional.
This could ignite World War III. Not because Muslims hate freedom. But because the West let a counterfeit kingdom take the place of God’s people — and called it holy.

If the brainwashed, dispensationalist Church keeps blessing what God has cursed, the bloodshed won’t stop in Gaza — it’ll end in global nuclear war.

 

[th1bill]

Thanks for the definition. I’m well aware of what Dispensationalism claims — I just don’t find it in Scripture.
It’s one thing to recite the party line about “distinct periods” and “God’s plan for Israel.”
It’s another thing entirely to open the Bible and prove, from the New Testament, that God maintains two separate peoples, two gospels, or two covenants.

So let’s ask the real question:
Can you show me anywhere in the New Testament where it says that Israel and the Church are two separate groups with two separate destinies?
Because Paul didn’t teach that.
Jesus didn’t teach that.
And none of the apostles ever taught that.

They taught that:

There is one body (Ephesians 4:4–6)

There is one olive tree, and Gentiles are grafted in (Romans 11)

There is no longer Jew or Gentile, but all are one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28)

The first covenant is obsolete (Hebrews 8:13)

And the true children of Abraham are those who belong to Christ (Galatians 3:29)

That’s not “replacement theology.” That’s fulfillment theology — where the shadow gives way to the substance, and the promises find their “Yes and Amen” in Christ, not in a geopolitical nation.

If you want to hold to Dispensationalism, fine. But let’s stop pretending it came from the apostles. It came from John Nelson Darby in the 1800s — and was later popularized by the Scofield Bible, not the Holy Spirit.

So again I ask:
Are you standing on the Word of God?
Or are you standing on a theological system designed to divide what God has made one?

Because at the end of the day, this isn’t about eschatology.
It’s about the Gospel — and whether Jesus Christ is enough.

Now you teach what any good Baptist, Pentecostal, and many others teach while calling us fools? Screw your head on correctly.

 

[Rhema]

This idea that Jesus’ words “don’t apply to the Church” because they were supposedly “for Jews only” is not just bad theology—it’s a dangerous distortion of the Gospel.

I completely agree, but... one does run into that claim (even here on TalkJesus) using these verses:

These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.​

(Matthew 10:5-6 KJV)

But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.​

(Matthew 15:24 KJV)

And one member here even says these "lost sheep" are the 10 lost tribes.

The claim that Paul had a different gospel than Christ, and that his letters are the only ones that apply to Gentiles, directly contradicts the very unity Paul fought to uphold.

But, Paul did preach a different gospel than Christ had. There is nothing in the direct Teachings of Jesus where he himself even implies that he is the Passover Lamb. And there is a fundamental difference between the Forgiveness OF Sin and the Payment FOR Sin.

As I see things (and my sight isn't all that bad) Jesus taught that the Father can, does, and desires to Forgive sin without animal blood sacrifices involved at all. (I'm sure you know these verses; Jer. 7:22 et. al.) And indeed, during the first part of Paul's ministry, even he, Paul, said this:

Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.​

(Acts 13:38-39 KJV)

So if my Messiah is Jesus, then I ought to find out what he says / preaches / teaches about the forgiveness of sins that cannot be found in Moses.

No doubt we will not be in agreement here without further discussion, but there are some things in the Teaching of Jesus that cannot be found in Paul, and there are some things in the teaching of Paul that cannot be found in the Teaching of Jesus (i.e. the LOGOS).

Paul and Peter preached the same gospel.

And yet in the epistles of Paul (written after Acts 13) we find something rather different than what Peter taught, which can be easily found in Acts 2. I've encountered many who claim to be Acts 28 Christians, but when pressed they deny Acts 2:38 as sufficient. (Again to be transparent, I am an Acts 2:38 Christian.)

Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.​

(Acts 2:37-38 KJV)

What more needs to be taught?

Jesus didn’t preach a different gospel. He is the gospel.

But we can agree that there were different gospels being preached, or else Paul's curse wouldn't have been necessary. There would have been no need to address this, let alone with such anger:

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.​

(Galatians 1:6-9 KJV)

Where I need to start, though, is here:

Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.​

(Mark 1:14-15 KJV)

If Jesus came preaching the Gospel, then the Gospel is what Jesus preached. I just cannot believe the number of Christian who truly believe that the Teaching of Jesus is insufficient to lead one unto salvation, or that Jesus had to teach Paul by "visions" because Jesus was too incompetent to ensure that the Twelve could adequately evangelize (even the Gentiles; cf. Acts 10).

But is there any passage where Jesus states that HE is the Gospel? He certainly preached the Gospel and he is the LOGOS (Teaching) of God, but I don't think there is any scripture where Jesus overtly says that he IS the Gospel. (Unless one equates Gospel with "The Way"....)

There wasn’t a gospel for Jews and a separate one for Gentiles. There was, and is, one gospel: salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

I agree that there is only one Gospel - those things which Jesus taught.

But if one Repents and has his sins forgiven by the Father, isn't he saved?

Not two plans. Not two tracks. Not two churches. Anyone teaching otherwise isn’t defending truth—they’re dividing the body o

We do not disagree here.

The bottom line is this: the entire New Testament testifies to one gospel, one people of God, and one new man in Christ.

We do not agree here. There are some teachings found in the New Testament that are not in harmony with the Teachings of Jesus. Jesus never said that his blood would pay for your sins. YES... I know you may be outraged by my words here (many are), but Please, I Would Beg You... just post to the verse (from those things that Jesus said) and I shall be ever so grateful.

Because the idea that Paul preached something different from Jesus isn’t just incorrect—

How can one forgive a debt that's been paid?
And how can one pay a debt that's been forgiven?

I think it's rather clear that Paul did preach something different from Jesus.

it’s a foundational error that undermines the unity of the gospel itself.

Indeed, there is a foundational error in the New Testament texts. (You and I just haven't yet clearly discussed what that might be.)

Blessings,
Rhema

 

[The Gospel of Christ]

Now you teach what any good Baptist, Pentecostal, and many others teach while calling us fools? Screw your head on correctly.

Anyone who believes that wiring cash and weapons to a Christ-rejecting regime will somehow usher in the return of Jesus Christ isn’t just deceived — they’re a fool of eternal proportions. You’re not “hastening the Lord” — you’re funding rebellion. You’re not standing with God’s people — you’re standing with the very ones who crucified the Son, reject His resurrection, and still spit on His name to this day.

Jesus is not returning to reward unbelief. He is not coming back to exalt a bloodline that denied the Cornerstone. He’s coming to destroy the harlot system, to dismantle the false priesthood, and to avenge every drop of blood spilled by those who use His Father’s name as a political weapon.

You think you’re helping fulfill prophecy? You are.
But not the part you think.

“I know the blasphemy of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.” – Revelation 2:9

Jesus doesn’t need your weapons.
He comes with a sword out of His mouth — and He will use it on both His enemies and the liars who claim His name while serving another kingdom.

 

[The Gospel of Christ]

I completely agree, but... one does run into that claim (even here on TalkJesus) using these verses:

These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.​

(Matthew 10:5-6 KJV)

But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.​

(Matthew 15:24 KJV)

And one member here even says these "lost sheep" are the 10 lost tribes.


But, Paul did preach a different gospel than Christ had. There is nothing in the direct Teachings of Jesus where he himself even implies that he is the Passover Lamb. And there is a fundamental difference between the Forgiveness OF Sin and the Payment FOR Sin.

As I see things (and my sight isn't all that bad) Jesus taught that the Father can, does, and desires to Forgive sin without animal blood sacrifices involved at all. (I'm sure you know these verses; Jer. 7:22 et. al.) And indeed, during the first part of Paul's ministry, even he, Paul, said this:

Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.​

(Acts 13:38-39 KJV)

So if my Messiah is Jesus, then I ought to find out what he says / preaches / teaches about the forgiveness of sins that cannot be found in Moses.

No doubt we will not be in agreement here without further discussion, but there are some things in the Teaching of Jesus that cannot be found in Paul, and there are some things in the teaching of Paul that cannot be found in the Teaching of Jesus (i.e. the LOGOS).


And yet in the epistles of Paul (written after Acts 13) we find something rather different than what Peter taught, which can be easily found in Acts 2. I've encountered many who claim to be Acts 28 Christians, but when pressed they deny Acts 2:38 as sufficient. (Again to be transparent, I am an Acts 2:38 Christian.)

Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.​

(Acts 2:37-38 KJV)

What more needs to be taught?


But we can agree that there were different gospels being preached, or else Paul's curse wouldn't have been necessary. There would have been no need to address this, let alone with such anger:

​

You keep speaking as if Jesus and Paul preached two gospels — one of repentance and forgiveness, and the other of atonement through His blood.

But this is a false dichotomy.

Jesus didn’t merely preach the gospel — He embodied it.

“I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” – John 14:6
“This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” – Matthew 26:28
He said it. Clearly. His blood was for the forgiveness of sins. You asked for a direct quote — there it is. Are you willing to accept it?

The gospel Jesus preached was not merely “be nice and repent.” He foretold His own death as the sacrifice:

“The Son of Man came… to give His life as a ransom for many.” – Mark 10:45
“Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.” – John 6:53

Paul didn’t preach a “new gospel” — he explained what Jesus accomplished.
“Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures… was buried… and was raised.” – 1 Corinthians 15:3–4
This is the same gospel Jesus pointed to throughout His ministry, the same gospel the prophets foretold, the same gospel Peter preached in Acts 2, and the same gospel Paul carried to the nations.

To say, “Jesus never said He would pay for our sins,” is to ignore every time He spoke of being betrayed, delivered, slain, and raised — all in fulfillment of the Scriptures.

“The Son of Man must suffer many things… be killed, and after three days rise again.” – Mark 8:31
“This is My body given for you.” – Luke 22:19
“For this purpose I came to this hour… Father, glorify Your name.” – John 12:27–28

He came to die. Not just as a gesture — but as a substitutionary Lamb.

You claim that Jesus didn’t say His blood was necessary. But Scripture does:

“Without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins.” – Hebrews 9:22
“Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.” – John 1:29

To separate Jesus’ teachings from Paul’s gospel is to split Christ in half — to sever the Head from the Body.

There is no contradiction between Jesus and Paul — only between truth and false gospels.
There is one gospel, one Messiah, one cross, one covenant.
And either you believe it, or you don’t.

“Anyone who denies the Son does not have the Father either. But anyone who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.” – 1 John 2:23

You say, “There is a foundational error in the New Testament.”
But I would gently challenge you with this: if we reject the full testimony of Christ — not just His words, but His purpose, His death, and His resurrection — then we’re not honoring Him as Lord, we’re reducing Him to a moral teacher. And that’s not the Jesus of the Gospel.

 

[Rhema]

Anyone who believes that wiring cash and weapons to a Christ-rejecting regime will somehow usher in the return of Jesus Christ isn’t just deceived — they’re a fool of eternal proportions.

Exactly.

I highly recommend this book:

Racing Toward Armageddon: The Three Great Religions and…

s/t: The Three Great Religions and the Plot to End the …

www.goodreads.com