The Only Gospel for us today.

Joktan: Do you know that Christ died for our sins.

1Co 15:3  For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 
1Co 15:4  And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 

For you to be saved you need to believe the above gospel.

Eph 1:13  In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, 

The apostle Paul received this gospel from Christ himself.

Gal 1:11  But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 
Gal 1:12  For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. 


There is not other gospel given for us today by which we can be saved.

Gal 1:8  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. 
Gal 1:9  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. 

Consider the question; Where will you spend eternity?

Do not neglect such a great gift from God.


The consequences of disobeying this gospel is everlasting punishment.

2Th 1:8  In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: 
2Th 1:9  Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; 

God has provided for you forgiveness of all sins, having made peace through the cross of Christ, offering you a free gift the moment you believe that Christ died for our sins, was buried and rose again, according to the scriptures.

GeraldtheGnome: Grammatical errors were made. Christ never existed, God is imaginary and some anonymous authors made up some fantasy stories.

GeraldtheGnome: No one died for any of our sins, it’s pretty silly to think that thousands of years before we were born someone died for our sins, that we were born with sin and we will all die as sinners.

Joktan: Ok.

shadowline: You may go on believing as you choose, Joktan, whatever Gerald says. And, incidentally, most scholars in disciplines relevant to the subject are of the opinion that Christ did exist.

GeraldtheGnome: Mistakes were made on here. He can go on believing as he chooses, what that means is only shown from what does and what doesn't happen due to how he believes in anything. The word is not says, this is also text messages of mine on here, so I have typed, I have not said anything at all on here. It doesn't matter how many scholars are of a certain opinion about Christ existing, which is not even a word that was first used in Greek since the subject about the claimed to exist chosen one was not Christ, because what is important is about what is so instead of what is believed to be so. Don't use the word and at the front of a sentence, don't use a comma after it as well and you used too many commas anyway.

thesilverrabbit11: John 20:29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

GeraldtheGnome: Jesus told them and that was written by John ? In the past, the present and even in the future there wasn’t, isn’t and will not be an agreement by all Christians about the names or even with all of the same words as what you showed me., it is very interesting though.

shadowline: What names? I'm not aware of any disagreements about those.

GeraldtheGnome: Use a space before a question mark. Use Bible Gateway or any other site that shows past and present versions of any verse that is in any Modern English Bible. Now if you do that will you see what you are unaware of ? Of course you will. When you get away from English, even with the ‘John’ verses of most Modern English versions you will not see all of the same names and words in any Modern English version. This should be obvious to everyone, so it doesn’t matter what you are unaware of because I am aware of what is obvious to myself and to most people.

Spot the names Jesus and John in in every version of the foreign version of the standard English version referred to in Modern English as John chapter 20, verse 29. That’s a very good example of what I mean.

shadowline: I don't know why you are instructing me to use a space before a question mark. Nothing in English usage calls for that, and you don't do it yourself.

You referred to names, not words. Of course different Bible translators use different words in some instances. Translators of literature do that too. But I see no confusion about names, on Bible Gateway or anywhere else. The names have long been standardized Anglicizations.

GeraldtheGnome: I don’t ? Are you sure about that ? The other way doesn’t even look right. That was an odd way of using the word calls, I’ve never once come across anyone away from the internet that uses the word usage and Anglicizations. Just communicate like most people do away from the internet. An entire Bible verse can have a different meaning to another version of the verse if the names have been changed or due to names that were added in or because of at least one changed or added word to the verse. The verses of every Gospel, especially that of the ‘John’ Gospel is an example.

I do have one question. Why do the first chapters of certain books have a number before the name of the book. Was it done by dyslexic people or by a dyslexic person ?

mrsmargaret48: Gerald please facts not endless fantasy. Christ never existed, really when all reputable historians say he was an historical figure you say he wasn't.

I guess the Roman authors who mentioned him were wrong, the people who followed him right back to the Apostles were wrong. The historians who today say he existed are wrong and his billions of followers their also wrong.

Still waiting for that one post that is historically or scientifically accurate but its going to be a long wait.

GeraldtheGnome: A virgin never became magically pregnant.

mrsmargaret48: Still waiting.

shadowline: Obviously a virgin doesn't have to have become magically pregnant for Jesus to have been a historical person. Maintaining that Jesus existed in history is not buying into myths about him. That's why most historians of the ancient world, whatever their religious affiliation - including not having any - think he did.

mrsmargaret48: Gerald knows better than ancient historians.

GeraldtheGnome: To Shadowline. It doesn’t matter what anyone thinks is true, what matters is what is known to be true. The name Jesus is the name of anyone alive and of anyone who is now deceased. The thing is though that the name Jesus was not even used more than 1,100 years ago. Any religious claim that a virgin became magically pregnant is false. Historians of the past who are only thought of as being historians because they directly contributed to a religious book or made some sort of written or printed reference to a religious book have to be scrutinized. If a historian wrote or printed a religious book with religious bias and confirmation bias then the historian is the historian of a religious myth. Even someone who is not religious is not necessarily someone who does not use religious bias and confirmation bias. If biased is used then that historian does not have proof of what he or she claims.

The only historians worth taking seriously are those who have not used any bias. If things are looked at properly then everyone will notice that even the vague claims that there was a Christ we’re not even from the same century as when Christ was supposed to have been crucified. The vague claims are that of what any Roman recorded and so on. There are people that believe that it’s based on some guy or on more than one guy or that there is an original story about Christ that was written in the first century. That is all possible, but it’s still only guessed to be true. You work off what is known, you never go off what you guess is true. Here’s the other thing, anything written in Greek from the second century onwards from outside of Israel and The Palestinian Territories is not proof of that he or at least one person based on him ever existed.

Admittedly, off this alone, it does not show for certain what is true.

shadowline: "The name Jesus is the name of anyone alive and of anyone who is now deceased." Do you mind my asking what this is supposed to mean? The name Jesus, pronounced "hay-SOOS" is actually quite common today in the Spanish speaking world. In Jesus' time it was fairly common among his people, pronounced "YESH-oo-ah".

The "religious claim", as you call it, that a virgin became pregnant and bore Jesus of Nazareth, is simply a matter of belief. Whether a person believes that or not has nothing to do with whether or not Jesus existed in history.

The most famous (for what that's worth) New Testament scholar in America, Bart Ehrman, who is not a Christian, informs us that 99.99% of scholars in disciplines relevant to the subject (like ancient history) in America are of the considered opinion that Jesus, whatever you make of him, must have existed historically. And as Prof. Ehrman says, that doesn't happen for no reason. If you are curious to know WHY scholars think that, read Ehrman's book "Did Jesus Exist?" It is a very good summary of the reasons for taking that position.

mrsmargaret48: Gerald is the 00.01%, sorry I forgot and others.

GeraldtheGnome: We made a number of errors with our last responses on here.I stuffed up on a sentence which by the way should not have been repeated by anyone else. I didn’t notice that I didn’t finish the sentence properly. Because I didn’t finish it what I put ended up being a false claim, anyone named Jesus who is alive now and every who has ever existed by that name were all born naturally, not by any god at all. That is what I really meant. The number one religion in the world is Christianity, most Christians do not use the name Jesus and even in the past most people never did use the name Jesus. Shadowline, you have made the same mistake that I made for a while about Spanish, read any verse in Spanish and afterwards tell me if the letters J, e, s, u and s are there. Something similar is not the same, look at it properly from now on. Most Christians do not use the name God and most people worldwide never use the name God,

Most people who aren’t Christians make up most of the population of Earth and of Earth’s orbit. They are the ‘others’, it’s just a reference to everyone who goes against Christianity and sometimes I just let it be about everyone who is not a Creationists and so on. The majority of people who are not Christians are religious. The argument from popularity is a silly one.

America is not a country, The United States of America is a country. The claim the name Jesus was even used before 1,500 years ago is a false one. Christ and every name that is similar to it are titles,. You have to prove is that a Christ does exist and that he was born at the time that you think he was if he does exist at all. Good luck on that one. Even the claim by some that the dreamt up Christ is based on at least one exaggerated about Christ is just rumour based. There is no proof of the existence of Christ and that of any god. I do however find it interesting seeing how the verses highlighted on this site have changed.

mrsmargaret48: What, after GeraldtheGnome it made no sense.

GeraldtheGnome: You have been told things in a certain way, because of what you have been taught you think that what I have told you is not possible. So of course it does not make sense to you.

GeraldtheGnome: Look at the earliest known verses of each bit of your favourite book, they are not the same as they are now. Even if you translate them they still do not match the modern English Bible versions.

shadowline: Gerald, I don't know why you are so imperceptive but you are talking sheer nonsense. I don't know what you mean by "verses" in Spanish, but, if you simply keep your ears open you can hear that Jesus, pronounced "Hay-SOOS" is common in the Spanish speaking world. It doesn't take a PhD, for heaven's sake.

I have explained to you many times that the fact that the Anglicization "Jesus" is not in use by speakers of other languages is not proof that the name is somehow false. There are simply differing adaptations of the Hebrew name in different languages.

The Bible alone is plenty of evidence that the name, in its original Hebrew form, was common in the culture out of which the Bible came, much longer ago than 1500 years. If it wasn't it wouldn't be in the book. It was not unique to Jesus of Nazareth. In modern English Bible translations it is often made "Joshua" for others who bore the name. But there is no question at all that the name was in use in ancient Hebrew culture.

If you don't want to take the time to read Bart Ehrman's book on the historical existence of Jesus then have the goodness to look at this, a handy summary for lazy people:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/did-jesus-exist_b_1349544

mrsmargaret48: Gerald and nonsense is like evolution and pseudo science.