The Authenticity of the Death and Resurrection of Jesus, the Christ

There have been people who question that Jesus ever lived, died and even resurrected. Some have challenged the event as even occurred as it is proclaimed to have happened. Some people have made some statements that at first glance appear to be true. Impressing many to disbelieve it possibly to be true, reducing the testimony of the Death and Resurrection of Christ as a manipulative plot to control large amounts of people and mobilize them against that which is considered evil. If we believe this then this life that so many have chosen to live is a waste of time. So today we answer concerning the authenticity of the death and Resurrection of Christ.

The accusation that I have heard is that the Bible is a book written by man and therefore it is not divine. Our answer to this is that it is true that the Bible has many human authors but it being a book is a wrong perception of what it is. The Holy Bible is a compilation of several books that share a common theme, God's love for mankind and Mankind's relationship with God. What makes the Bible unique is not only its theme but also that it human authors were born at different times and wrote as inspired by God the things and the acts of God in, through and upon men. This separates this compilation from any other library in the world. Men have died preserving its writings over the ages because it tells us, who it is left to how the world began and how human life came to this earth. Eliminate the Bible and we are all left guessing about our origin. Some would have us to believe the theory of mankind's origin was something other what God has disclosed in the Bible. The bible does not speak in probabilities concerning the origin of human life, but the theories that men conjure up speak that way, because they are guessing. The Bible has stories of cultures and countries that do not exist any more in our day, but have been discovered through archaeological finds. Proving in each way that the stories of the Bible are factual and true. So the Bible is a library, set apart because it speaks to mankind's origin, and creation it explains historical events verified by Archeology through men inspired by a Divine creator.

It is in this library we find the testimony of four men, who is bearing witness to the death and Resurrection of a man call Jesus of Nazareth. This is very important because if the death and Resurrection was a fairy tale then these four witnesses could not agree on the death and resurrection ever occurring. What is astounding about these four witnesses that they were written at four different locations at four different times in four different perspectives for four different purposes. Which four men I speak of? Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

The first Gospel composed was that of Mark. John Mark was an Evangelist and was under the observation of the Apostle Peter. Before Mark took the Gospel that now bears his name and preached to all those in Northern Africa, he composed it according to the dictation of the Apostle Peter. It is a brief Gospel so that someone could read it in a short period of time, it is full of the demonstration of the healing power of Jesus.

The next Gospel that was composed was done by Mathew, other wise known as Matthias in the Book of Acts, The Gospel that bears his name was written to answer the questions of Jesus' Jewish and kingly roots. It was written for the church at Jerusalem. The Kingdom of God theme and principles run throughout the record.

The Gospel of Luke came next, his gospel account was an research assignment for a Greek senator named Theophilus. His is the most accurate of all the Gospel records. Why? Well he had to be accurate, because that is what he was assigned to bring back to Rome. He interviewed Mary, the mother of Jesus, he compared the gospel records of Matthew and Mark and added additional testimonies of the disciples of James and John of the words and teachings of Christ. If he failed to bring an accurate report he was to be killed by the Romans, He also was in danger of his life because the unbelievers wanted to kill him for making the attempt to compile and write the gospel. Luke traveled with the Apostle Paul and wrote two reports the Gospel record that bears his name and the Book of the Acts of the Disciples, which is a historical record of the orgins of the universal church of Christ. Which all who believe in Christ are a part of.

The last Gospel was composed by John the Apostle of Christ, because there was a question of the divinity of Jesus that the other three Gospels did not address completely. All the other Gospels testified that Jesus was the Son of God, John Gospel explained why Jesus was the Son of God and why he came to us from God and why he had to die for us. He specifically wrote to promote faith in Jesus as the Son of God.

Now John, like Matthew were of the original Apostles of Christ, the other two were written by Believers who were told by the Disciples of Jesus. Now all four of the them recount the death and resurrection of Christ. All the Gospel records were written between AD 25 and AD 70 and were in full circulation in the church community. This makes the Gospel records the closest to being there when the death and resurrection of Jesus, the Christ, happened. Two of the Gospel authors seen it with their own eyes, two seen it through the testimony of those who were there when it happened. Here is the important part, they all died without regretting what they wrote and testified about. Not one of them wrote anything after they composed their Gospel accounts that they were making the whole thing up. They died for what they knew was fact.

This brings us to the actual event, which still lingers with us until this day. Why? Jesus did not want it to be forgotten. How do I know this? The communion that Jesus instituted at the Passover supper was an memorial to remember his death until he returns. To say that Jesus never died, would mean that we would not have to perform communion, because it would have been proven a fairy tale. Seeing that we have witnesses that died testifying of Jesus' death and his soon return throughout the ages that also performed the memorial act of the communion until this day, how can we say Jesus did not die on the cross and not then rise from the dead? Two direct witnesses of the four Gospel authors, who wrote about it, seen these two events with their own eyes. They seen Jesus Christ die,  they seen Christ risen from the dead and then they spent 40 days with Jesus, the Christ after his death just before he ascended into heaven. They died preaching what they knew to be fact.

Neither did Jesus not want us to forget that he died and rose again, for when at the communion table, instituting the memorial blessed the bread said to the disciples that were with him "take, eat, this is my body which is given up for you. Do this, in memory of me " after which he blessed the cup and said " take, drink, this is my blood which was shed for you. Do this in memory of me" After they had eaten the bread and drank of the cup Jesus said," I will not eat again and drink this fruit of the vine without until I come again and eat and drink anew with you in my kingdom..." He did this so that we would not forget that he indeed died and he indeed rise again from the dead, for if he did not do so, how would he return from that place which 500 saw him ascend to? No Jesus' death and resurrection is as authentic as the Bible and as real as the communion that is practiced by believers all over the world. So as many times we eat the bread and drink the fruit of the vine of communion. We proclaim the Lord's death and resurrection until he returns again.

Did the Apostle Paul introduce Paganism to Christianity?

There is some people going around claiming that the Apostle Paul not only changed the Gospel message but he also introduced Paganism to and mixed it with Christianity, thereby changing Christianity forever.  The evidence of this claim many of them point to the worship of Jesus as God and blame the Apostle Paul for bringing the idol worship of Jesus into Christianity.  It appears that what they are saying is that the Apostle Paul had people exchange their idols for another: Jesus.  Today we will address that issue by highlighting the following points:

1)Paul's education
2)Paul's view of Jesus vs. the view of the Apostles
3)Paganism in the times of the Apostles
4) Paul's Gospel presentation to Pagans

I. Paul's education:

Paul's education began very young, being a Jew of the tribe of Benjamin, he was educated at the feet of Gamiel who was at the time the most respected theologian in Israel.  He was raised in the the town of Tarsus of what is now know as the country of Turkey and was born with the name of Saul, named after one of the great Kings of Israel who was also a Benjaminite. Some time later he became know as Saul the persecutor of the Way.  He had no equal to him in Judaism being a member of one of the strictest sects: the Pharisees. He had an acute sense of Law and Punishment as demonstrated in his zeal to persecute the Church of Jesus, the Christ.  He, by his own testimony was a Pharisee of Pharisees, and kept the Law to the letter.  He initially felt uniquely qualified to root out these believers of "The Way"out of Judaism,  and pursued his purpose with vigor and determination.  Until that day when he met Jesus on the way to Damascus, to continue his persecution of the Believers of Jesus.

It is clear that up to the time of his own conversion to Christ, Paul (aka Saul) believed that the Jews that converted to "The Way", as it was called, believed in some sort of idol worship of a dead man of whom those who had converted to "the Way" proclaimed that he was still alive and has ascended to God in Heaven.  After his encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus, everything changed. He discovered that Jesus was not a idol, but the Lord God. (Acts 9:1-20)

II.Paul's view of Jesus vs. the view of the Apostles

Paul's view of Jesus is distinctively similar, but not exactly the same as the original Apostles. The reason for the difference is that the original Apostles had an opportunity to walk with and learn of  Jesus for at least 3 years. Paul only had just met Jesus on the road to Damascus and it took him some time before he began to preach the Gospel. The original Apostles were still figuring out what shape and form the church will take.  They initially only preached the Gospel to unconverted Jews, that is until the Apostle Peter was given an inspirational instruction by the Holy Spirit to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles as well.

Peter's view of Jesus was shared by all of the original Apostles and is as follows:

1) That Jesus is Lord [God] and Messiah [Christ] -Acts 2:36
2) That Jesus is God's appointed servant which was slain- Acts 3:22+23
3) That Jesus is God's resurrected Son- Acts 3:26
4) That Jesus is God's chosen Savior [Christ, Messiah]of Mankind- Acts 4:12

Paul's view of Jesus was shared by all of the Disciples in Antioch and Damascus  and is as follows:

1) That Jesus is the Christ [Messiah], the Son of God- Acts 9:20, 13:33
2) That Jesus is the promised Messiah [Christ]- Acts 13:33
3) That Jesus is the slain Messiah [Christ]-Acts 13:27-29
4) That Jesus is the resurrected Messiah [Christ]- Acts 13:30+31

As you can see that both views are very similar.  The difference is the audience that each man preached to.  Peter preached to unconverted Jews, while Paul preached to the unconverted Jews and Pagans.  They however shared these views about Jesus.


1) That Jesus was Divine

      a)Peter states that Jesus' status is elevated to that of "Lord" in Acts 2:36. The Greek word    
         that is translated to this English word "Lord", I have discovered that it also means  
        "Supreme over all" and "God". Peter therefore testifies therefore that God elevated Jesus 
         to divine status equal to His own divine status.

     b)Paul states that Jesus' status is elevated to that of being "the Son of God" by reason of 
        Jesus' relationship to God the Creator. God is the Father of Jesus, naturally born to Him and 
        thereby Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. God the creator made Jesus divine, through 
        the process of natural child birth, He made Jesus God and man -Acts 9:20, 13:33

2) That Jesus was the Messiah or the Christ

     a)Peter states that Jesus was Christ. Christ is the English translation of the Greek word which 
        is also a translation of the Hebrew word that is again translated into the English word 
       Messiah. In other words, Christ and Messiah are terms that refer to the same thing. They are  
        exchangeable in English. It is notable that Peter only uses the word "Christ" when speaking 
        in reference to Jesus when he needs to communicate to an audience that knows Greek and or 
        Hebrew.- Acts 2:36, 4:12

    b)Paul also states that Jesus was Christ [Messiah] that was prophesied about by the Holy 
       Prophets in his Gospel message.-Acts 13:23

3) That Jesus, the Christ [Messiah] was slain

    a)Peter states that Jesus, the chosen Messiah [Christ] was slain -Acts 3:22+23

    b)Paul also states that Jesus, the Messiah was slain-Acts 13:27-29

4) That God raised Jesus, the Christ [Messiah] from the dead

    a)Peter states that Jesus, God's son and appointed Messiah was resurrected from the dead by 
      God the Creator.- Acts 3:32

    b)Paul also states that Jesus was raised up from the dead by God the Creator- Acts 13:30+31

As we can see, Peter and Paul used the same views in their Gospel presentations: 1)The Divinity of Jesus, 2)The Messiah ship of Jesus, 3) The death of Jesus, the Messiah and 4) The Resurrection of Jesus, the Messiah. Seeing that they used the same views of Jesus in their Gospel presentations this proves that the worship of Jesus as God was not a Pagan  idea introduced by Paul to the Church, but rather a fulfillment of the prophetic scriptures of the  Bible. It was a popular teaching among the Jews that a Messiah King will come and restore the glorious kingdom of Israel.  They got that teaching from the prophecies of the Bible. Since those prophecies come from strictly Jewish sources and Judaism is strictly a monotheistic faith, then the idea that a child can be the son of God foretold in those scriptures is not a Pagan concept but Monotheistic one. This also proves that Paul did not introduce those ideas into Christianity, for those prophecies that Jesus fulfilled existed before the birth of  Paul and Peter.

III.Paganism in the times of the Apostles

Paganism is a general term , it blinds us to understand  what was really going on in Israel in the days of Jesus and His Apostles.  Also because of Hollywood  many people believe that the only Paganism was the ones the Romans brought with them to the Bible lands.  The truth be told there were several different brands of Pagan beliefs being practiced in the Holy Land.  The reason for this is that in order for Rome to keep the peace among their conquered lands, they had to allow the worship of what they viewed as primitive Gods, the God of Israel were considered be a primitive God int the view of Pagan Rome because they conquered them and took their lands.  The Romans believed in a Living God on earth embodied in a Man: Caesar. However, Caesar was not the only God to be believed upon, the Romans also had a Pantheon of Gods that ruled over various things upon the earth and the king of them all was Zeus. Another reason for the many forms of Pagan worship in Israel is that Israel was a port country and world trade passed through it.  Many merchants brought their Gods and goods with them to Israel and imported them throughout the world. So the Pagan Roman Empire looked at Christianity as another pagan faith because the believers of "the Way" worshiped a man named Jesus as God, just as they worshiped Caesar as a God.  The only problem with the Romans faith in their Caesar, their Caesars kept dying off while the Christians proclaim their God to be still alive after suffering a brutal death on a cross.  Proving to many that Jesus was God and causing many of the citizenry of Pagan Rome to convert to a new faith called by many as Christianity. 

The point is It was and still is very clear in Old testament law that God prohibits idol worship.  So if worshiping Jesus was not idol worship what was it? The Apostles proclaimed that in Jesus, God had come in the flesh to redeem all of Mankind in the fulfillment of the Jewish prophecies.  To them Jesus was God, not a partner to God, Jesus was God manifested in the flesh. An expression of God's love for them and the whole world.  To the original Apostles and Paul they were not participating in idol worship at all. They were worshiping and preaching about the God of the Bible and His Son. Some Jews and Pagans believed the message and some did not. Just like today, some believe the Gospel and some do not.

IV. Paul's Gospel presentation to Pagans


When Paul preached the Gospel to the Pagans, he preached it from the perspective of being a second hand witness. The difference between that being a first hand witness and a second hand witness is the quality and the credibility of sources.  Now this is important to understand, the second hand witness presentation of Paul the Apostle rests upon the quality and authenticity of his sources. If there is a degree of a lesser quality and credibility of the sources the Apostle Paul used in his Gospel presentation to the Pagans, then Paul's Gospel presentation is of lesser credibility than that of the original Apostle and we can accept that Paul mixed Pagan ideas with Christian ones and introduced a Pagan type worship of Jesus into Christianity in order to win converts and take the church away from the original Apostles of Christ.  However the opposite is also true, if the quality and credibility of the sources the Apostle Paul uses in his Gospel presentation to the Pagans we must accept that Paul did not mix Pagan ideas with Christian ones and did not introduce a Pagan type of worship of Jesus into Christianity in order to win souls and take the church away from the original Apostles of Christ.  There is no middle ground, it is either one or the other. So what were the Apostle Paul's sources for his Gospel presentations? They were the same Apostles of Christ and the disciples who heard Jesus speak, seen Jesus suffer and die on the cross and seen him be raised from the dead. 

Consider the fact that Paul's Gospel presentation was not questioned by the Apostles of Christ when He and Barnabas made their missionary report to them. (Acts 15) After the fact that Peter presented the argument to not burden the Gentile believers in Christ with the keeping of the Law of Moses, which no one Jew of them could keep. The salvation of God was presented to the Jews not on the basis of keeping the Law of Moses' administration, but rather it was offered to them on the basis of faith on the death and resurrection of Jesus, the Messiah [Christ]. It appeared to them that God made the same offer to the Gentiles [many who were also Pagans], who would choose to believe in Jesus, the Christ.  Thereby they renounced the pagan Gods that they worshiped and began to worship the one God of creation through Jesus, the Christ. They decided that to make those new Pagan converts observe the law that no one could keep except for Jesus was not just or fair or right. This was also the offer of salvation in Paul's presentation of the Gospel to the Gentiles [Pagans] and Jews outside of Israel. So we see here that the quality and credibility of Paul's presentation of the Gospel is equal of that of  original Apostles for they both testified from the same sources. Even though Paul is preaching from the perspective of a second hand witness, his Gospel presentation is equal to Peter's Gospel presentation.

The only difference between the Gospel presentations of the original Apostles and Paul is that the original Apostles presentation were geared toward the Jewish audience until they were directed by God through the testimony of the Apostle Peter to make a presentation to the Gentiles [Pagans]. Therefore Paul's Gospel presentations took on the added elements of preaching against idolatry and Paganism, elements that original Apostles never had the opportunity to develop in their early  Gospel presentations. The Apostle Peter's missionary work among the Gentile church did not start until the Apostle Paul met his end. Peter's work was more about the encouragement of the believers that Paul and Barnabas was used of God to reach with the Gospel presentation. It was not about discrediting the Apostle Paul's Gospel presentation to the the Pagans. This act of Peter to support what the Apostle Paul established also does not indicate a mixing of paganism and Christianity by Paul, for Peter did not come behind Paul to change what he had  preached to them for them to believe for their salvation. Peter rather came behind Paul to confirm what the Apostle taught in those fledgling churches. When Peter preached his Gospel message to the [Pagans] the Gentiles, he emphasized the knowledge of the ministry of God through Christ to the Jews and accused the Jews of slaying Christ. Paul when he preached the Gospel  message to the [Pagans] Gentiles used the knowledge of his audience conscience of righteousness, their spiritual awareness and revelation of the mystery of the Gospel when preaching his Gospel outside of Israel.

We know as defenders of the Christian Faith that many people believe that paganism or pagan ideas got infused into modern Christianity. The verifiable evidence we provide here points other wise.  The question is  what are you going to do with the evidence?  It your choice to believe it or not believe it.  It is my greatest desire that you believe the Gospel as was preached by the original Apostles and the Apostle Paul that is summed up in the following verses:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.-John 3:16

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.-John 1:12+13

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.  He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.-John 3:17+18

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.-John 3:36

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.-John 5:24

Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.-John 5:25

While it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation.-Hebrews 3:15

For he [is] our God; and we [are] the people of his pasture, and the sheep of his hand. To day if ye will hear his voice, Harden not your heart, as in the provocation, [and] as [in] the day of temptation in the wilderness:-Psalms 95:7+8

Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.-Hebrews 4:7

(For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now [is] the accepted time; behold, now [is] the day of salvation.)-2 Corinthians 6:2

But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down [from above]:) Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.) But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, [even] in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.-Romans 10:6-10

Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.- John 3:3

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.-John 3:5-7

How does one get saved, or born again? One becomes born again or saved when he or she sincerely confesses his or her faith in Christ.  How does someone do this? All you have to do is recite the following prayer with all your heart.

Dear Heavenly Father, 

I, in Jesus' name,  come to you now as an repentant sinner. I confess all my sinfulness to You and ask You to forgive me, for Jesus' sake.  I believe that Jesus, Your only begotten Son, died for my all my sins and washed them away with His blood. I believe that You raised Jesus from the dead according to Your word, the Bible. I now invite Your Holy Spirit into my heart and make me Your child. I promise that I will strive to live Holy everyday with Your help and I thank you Lord for saving me.

If you have recited the prayer above.  Welcome to the Family of God! Your next step is finding a church that teaches the word of God and preaches the Gospel message.  Until you do, you can continue to follow the teachings I share here. 

The Sunday Sabbath

Why do some Christian observe Sunday as the day of rest and other observe saturday as the day of rest? Who is right? Who is wrong. This is what this blog is about today.

The source of the confusion is the lack of understanding of the reckoning of the time and the collusion of the two types of recknoning that is involved in the biblical record.

Which are solar and lunar.

This understanding will clarify many of the references in regard to the ressurection of the Lord Jesus Christ. Let us, look at the first one in Mathew 28:1, which in the KJV of the Bible seems very confusing because many readers assume that the sabbath mentioned in the text seem to occur on the first day of the week. Every bible student knows that the sabbath day which is the seventh day, the last of the week (see Genesis chapters 1&2) and no way can a seventh biblical day be the first biblical day. If we believe that then 6 hours of a day are colluded between the two days, if we accept that rational. However that is how the passage reads, if we look at it ignoring the obvious. Which is, that Mathew was trying to convey to his readers that two distinct reckonings of time converged at the greatest event in human history. Those two reckonings of time are solar and lunar. You see, the biblical week is Lunar, meaning, that night fall begins a new day and the following daylight period concludes the 24 hour lunar day period. This explains Mathews discription of the time of occurance of the ressurection was in the end of the sabbath day. Now wait, He also says that was dawning toward the first day of the week. A few things was going on here. Either the sabath mentioned in the passage is not the seventh day sabbath or He converged a solar period of the first day of the week which is Sunday with lunar period of the seventh day of the end of a biblical week. I believe it was the former. Here is an bit of biblical proof that is overlooked. That is the feast of unleavened Bread is itself a sabbath period. It is eight sabbath days long. Each day of it is a sabbath day. Where is the biblical proof you say? Read Exodus 12:1-16; Levitcus 23:1-8 and Mathew 26:2,17-19. So any of those days would have been a sabbath day. Jesus died and rose on one of those sabbath days. It just happened at the end of the Sabbath day which ended the feast of unleavened bread. That sabbath day which Jesus rose from the dead converged with the Roman first day of a Solar week which caused a meeting of the lunar sabbath day and Sunday which is a solar day. So, Jesus did rise on a sabbath day this is true, but he did not rise on the seventh solar day as so manny believe that he did.

What proof I have of this? Jesus was crucified on the day of the passover which was also sabbath day. He was buried on that day because the day of Preparation of the seventh day Sabbath followed after. (John 19:31, 42; Mark 15:42) The day of preparation was also a sabbath day. On the seventh day Sabbath day the Chief Priests met with the Roman authority and soldiers to conspire to defend the tomb of Jesus from his own disciples, because of Jesus' claim of rising from the dead on the THIRD day, they thought that some of Jesus'disciples, in order to make Jesus' ressurection from the dead  come true, would take this opportunity to steal the body of Jesus.(Matthew 27:62-64) Since they did this on the SEVENTH DAY Sabbath Jesus did not rise on the Seventh day but on the next lunar day which concluded the feast of unleavened Bread which was also a sabbath day. So let's count the Days by the lunar reckoning of time that is illustrated by the events in the Bible: 1) The Passover day sabbath=the day Jesus died and was buried; 2) (Mark 15:42) The day of preparation of the seventh day sabbath (which was also itself a sabbath day); 3)(Matthew 27:62) The Seventh day Sabbath=the day the Priests and the Roman authority conspire to thwart any rescue of the body of Jesus on the third day, by this time Jesus was buried for two full days; 4) (Matthew 28:1) In the end of the Sabbath day period of the feast of the unleavened bread, On the THIRD DAY Jesus arose from the dead. So Matthew 28:1 makes all the sense in the world. Because Jesus did not rise on the seventh day Sabbath, but on the first day of a biblical week which was also the last sabbath day of the feast of unleavened Bread. When we read that is was on the Sabbath day we assume that it was the seventh day of a solar week when it was not.

Now for a refreasher, a lunar day begings at sundown followed by a daylight period. This first day of a Biblical week coincided with the first daylight period of a Solar week. Which is undoubtedly Sunday morning. But is it a Sabbath? Yes it was on a Sunday Passover Sabbath that Jesus rose from the dead. To commemorate the event, so that we never forget the day Jesus rose from the dead the church has congregated on the first day of the week. On the Sunday Sabbath.

It seems to me, that some believe that I am teaching Christians to break the Law of God.  This due do some believers think that their relationship to the Law of God is still in effect.  The Apostle Paul and the first church clearly did not teach this.  Yes Jesus came to fulfill the Law of God and stated that whosoever teaches men to not adhere to the Law is least in the kingdom of Heaven,  but He said that while the Law still had legal effect.  Jesus did not go to the cross at the time he made that statement.  Furthermore, all had to be fulfilled  or satisfied, so the question is did Jesus satisfy all of the requirements of the Law of God as revealed to Moses? The answer is yes He did.  
Now how am I teaching the breaking of the Law of Moses if Jesus satisfied and fulfilled all of it?  Because I teach that the Bible says Christians do not have to observe the Law of Moses for their salvation? Here read the rest of the revelation in another blog series titled:Christians and the Holy Law. It is where I deal with the issue of the Christians relationship with the Law of God as administered by Moses.

New Testament Corrupted?

It has been claimed by many people that the New Testament has been corrupted. The opponents of the authenticity and reliability of the New Testament as it currently stands cite that the many translations and versions as the grounds for the belief of the corruption of the New Testament. These same people also charge that the original New Testament is lost. Therefore, the modern translations of the New Testament can not be exact copies of the original New Testament, since the original in their minds do not exist. So these people believe that the modern New Testament versions and translations are nothing more than further corruptions of a fraudulent text.
As proof of such corruption, one of the many examples they present is the fact that some modern English translations and versions have removed the word “begotten” from John 3:16. Opponents of the New Testament point to this removal as proof that the word “begotten” was previously added and was now correctly removed. This “proof” is an mistaken understanding of the intent of the translators of the New Testament and why they deemed it necessary to remove the word “begotten” from John 3:16. The reason why some modern translators removed the word “begotten” from John 3:16 was not because it did not previously exist and was added, it was removed because the translators assumed that the reader of the scripture would assume that if God had a son, he would have to be of natural birth in order for him to exist in the natural world, which what the word “begotten” means. So this removal did not change the concept of God having a Son, naturally born, as many of the opponents of the New Testament would have people to believe.

It is true that the original New Testament texts were lost to decay, but what many opponents of the New Testament fail to recognize that many copies of the original New Testament were made before the originals were lost, about 24 thousand copies or more to be exact and more are being found every few years. No other religious or classical writings even come close to the number of copies made of its texts in comparison to the number of copies made of original New Testament texts. Secondly, the process by which the copies were made: If an error was found during the copying process, the proposed copy was destroyed. Another copy was made to replace the copy that was destroyed. This process was preserving the continuity and consistency of the original New Testament documents over time. This process was adopted from the Jewish community, remember the first Christians were originally Jews, so it not surprising that Jewish Christians kept the document preservation traditions of their Jewish only neighbors when making copies of their documents.  Thirdly, many of the written works of the 2nd century church fathers were also preserved in very much the same manner. From these church fathers are about 800 or more direct quotes from the original Apostles of Jesus, the Christ. Through these quotes alone can the New Testament be completely reassembled, and that without the use of the 24 thousand plus copies of the New Testament. A theologian named, Sir David Dalrymple some time ago took up the challenge of the reassembly of the New Testament and successfully did exactly that. He reassembled the New Testament as we have it today without deviations or alteration. He proved the charge of corruption of the New Testament false. He also proved that the New Testament remained consistently unchanged, even after the original New Testament was lost to decay.

Here are some statements by other theologians about the corruption of the New Testament:
From Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas (Mohammed’s cousin and one of his companions) ... Islam's premiere commentator:
(a) “They corrupt the word” means “they alter or change its meaning”,yet no one is able to change even a single word from any Book of God. The meaning is that they interpret the word wrongly.”From: Kitaab (the book of) Al-Tawheed, Baab (chapter) Qawlu AllahTa'ala, Bal Huwa Qur'aanun Majeed, fi lawhin Mahfooth
(b) “The word “Tahrif” [corruption] signifies to change a thing from its original nature; and there is no man who could corrupt a single word of what proceeds from God, so that the Jews and Christians could corrupt only by misrepresenting the meanings of the word of God.'' From: Imam Muhammad Isma'il al-Bukhari in Dictionary of Islam, T.P.Hughes, Kazi Publications, Inc, 3023-27 West BelmontAvenue, Chicago Il. 60618, 1994, p.62Al-Razi (Egyptian, 7thc.)

One of the most famous Muslim scholars, called "the Eman of Muslim Emams"”How could there be any alteration in the Book whose words' sharpness has reached a great level of circulation in the East and in the West? ... For no change can occur in a book that is well circulated among men. Every wise man can see that the alteration of the Bible was impossible for it was well circulated among men of different faith and backgrounds."From: p.327 of his Third Volume Ali Tabari (Arabian, 7thc.)

Tabari wrote a semi-official defence of Islam against the Jews and Christians while he was at Baghdad during the reign of the Abbasid Caliph Mutawakkil (AD 847-861). At no time did he charge them with corrupting their Scriptures. Instead he says concerning the first religious book in history: ”... the first one which came into existence, is the Torah, which is in the hands of the People of the Book.” He goes on to say, “As to the Gospel which is in the hands of the Christians, the greater part of it is the history of the Christ, His birth and His life.” From: Tabari, The Book of Religion and Empire, p.51He thus openly acknowledged that the authentic Torah and Gospel remained in the hands of the Jews and the Christians, and when speaking of them, he outlined the contents of the Old and New Testaments. His only charge against the Jews and Christians was that they did not always understand or accept the true meaning of their teachings, and he often quoted the Old and New Testaments to make his point.
Fakhruddin Razi (Persian, 1149-1209) -- Sunni theologian Razi ... on the authority of Ibn Abbas, a nephew of Muhammed:"The Jews and early Christians were suspected of altering the text of the Taurat and Injil; but in the opinion of eminent doctors and theologians it was not practicable thus to corrupt the text, because those Scriptures were generally known and widely circulated, having been handed down from generation to generation."

Muhammad Abduh Sayyid Ahmad Khan (Indian, 1817-1898) Prominent Muslim modernist whose influence on Islamic thought and policy shaped/defined Muslim responses to modernism in the latter half of the 19thc ”As far as the text of the Bible is concerned, it has not been altered. No attempt was made to present a diverging text as the authentic one.”From: M.H.Ananikian, “The Reforms and Religious Ideas of Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan”, The Moslem World 14 (1934) p.61

Muhammad â€کAbduh (Egyptian, 1849-1905) Reformer and pioneer of Islamic modernism and nationalism”... the charge of corruption of the Biblical texts makes no sense at all. It would not have been possible for Jews and Christians every where to agree on changing the text. Even if those in Arabia had done it, the difference between their book and those of their brothers, let us say in Syria and Europe, would have been obvious.”From: Jacques Jomier, “Jesus, The Life of the Messiah”, C.L.S., Madras, 1974, p.216

Ibn Muniyah”Ibn Mazar and Ibn Hatim state, in the commentary known as the Tafsir Durr-I-Mansur, that they have it on the authority of Ibn Muniyah, that the Taurat (i.e. the books of Moses), and the Injil (i.e. the Gospels), are in the same state of purity in which they were sent down from heaven, and that no alterations had been made in them, but that the Jews were wont to deceive the people by unsound arguments, and by wresting the sense of Scripture ... Shah Waliyu ‘Illah (in his commentary, the Fauzul â€کl-Kabir), and also Ibn ‘Abbas, support the same view.” From: T.P.Hughes, Dictionary of Islam, Kazi Publications, Inc, 3023-27 West Belmont Avenue, Chicago Il. 60618, 1994, p.62

Dr. Mahmoud Mustafa Ayoub (Lebanese, 1938-present) Professor of Islamic Studies and Comparative Religion at Temple Univ. (USA)(a) “Contrary to the general Islamic view, the Qur'an does not accuse Jews and Christians of altering the text of their scriptures, but rather of altering the truth which those scriptures contain. The people do this by concealing some of the sacred texts, by misapplying their precepts, or by altering words from their right position.”From: “Uzayr in the Qur'an and Muslim Tradition” in “Studies in Islamic and Judaic Traditions”,ed.

W.M.Brenner and S.D.Ricks, The University of Denver, 1986, p.5 (b) “... both the Hebrew Bible and the N.T. took their final form long before the rise of Islam. The Qur'an speaks of both the Torah and the Gospel as in them is guidance and light. It calls on the two faith-communities to judge by what God had revealed in their Scriptures. It also speaks that both Jews and Christians altered words from their right places and had forgotten some of what God had revealed for them. This does not mean distorting, adding, and deleting of the Scriptures. Therefore, Qur'anic references to tahrif, or alteration, are more to interpretation rather than changing the texts.”

From: May 15, 2008 e-mail to author. The Egyptian scholar, Muhammad 'Abduh, acknowledges that the charge of corruption of the Biblical texts makes no sense at all. “It would not have been possible for Jews and Christians everywhere to agree on changing the text. Even if those in Arabia had done it, the difference between their book and those of their brothers, let us say in Syria and Europe, would have been obvious.”In regard to the four Gospel accounts of the New Testament, he adds:"We believe that these Gospel accounts are the true Gospel."

Mawlawi Muhammad Sa'id, a former inspector of schools in Punjab, writes: ”... as God says in the beginning of the Qur'an: “And who believe in that which is revealed unto thee (Muhammad) and that which was revealed before thee, and are certain of the Hereafter. These depend on guidance from their Lord. These are the successful.” (2:4, 5) ”Some Muslims imagine that the Injil is corrupted. But as far as corruption is concerned, not even one among all the verses of the Qur'an mentions that the Injil or the Tawrat is corrupted. In the concerned passages it is written that the Jews - yes the Jews, not the Christians - alter the meaning of the passages from the Tawrat while they are explaining them. At least the Christians are completely exonerated from this charge. Hence the Injil is not corrupted and the Tawrat is not corrupted. For it does not necessarily follow that these Scriptures are corrupt because of the wrong opinion of some uninformed persons.”

Sayyid Ahmad Husayn Shawkat Mirthi has written: ”The ordinary Muslim people acknowledge that the Injil is the Word of God. Yet they also believe through hearsay (taqlidi 'aqida) that the Injil is corrupted, even though they cannot indicate what passage was corrupted, when it was corrupted, and who corrupted it. Is there any religious community in this world whose lot is so miserable that they would shred their heavenly Book with their own hands, and then, after restlessly patching it with sackcloth, they must throw dust in the eyes of the people? True, some religious communities change the meaning (tahrif-i ma'nawi) of their Scriptures. To say that God has taken the Injil and the Tawrat into heaven and has abrogated them is to defame and slander God. It is to pour ridicule not only upon the Qur'an but upon all the Books. Abrogation always arises because of error. Laws of earthly kingdoms are abrogated because experience has proved that they are harmful. But God makes no mistake, nor does He lack experience.”

Writes Mawlawi Chirag ud-Din: "The Qur'an commands us to believe and to honour the previous Scriptures and Apostles. According to Surah (Nisa): “O ye who believe! Believe in Allah and His messenger and the Scripture which He hath revealed unto His messenger, and the Scripture which He revealed aforetime.” (4:136) ”When, therefore, it is commanded to believe in these Holy Scriptures, why consider the study of these Scriptures reprehensible? For when the order to believe the Qur'an and the Holy Scriptures is one and the same, how can one conclude that reading the Qur'an is a meritorious act, but that reading the Holy Scriptures is a punishable offence? ”

More recently, the Muslim scholar Mahmoud Ayoub, while discussing various Muslim commentaries on the Quranic claim that Jews call Ezra "the son of God", of tahrif which concurs with the opinion of Abduh and others noted above: ”Contrary to the general Islamic view, the Qur'an does not accuse Jews and Christians of altering the text of their scriptures, but rather of altering the truth which those scriptures contain. The people do this by concealing some of the sacred texts, by misapplying their precepts, or by "altering words from their right position" (4:26; 5:13, 41; see also 2:75). However, this refers more to interpretation than to actual addition or deletion of words from the sacred books.”

Fr. Jacques Jomier graphically portrays the issue which provoked the thoughts of Mahmoud Ayoub and Adil Ozdemir: ”The problem of the authenticity of our scriptures is a difficult one, but it is one of the most important points on which light needs to be shed. No serious discussion with Muslims is possible as long as we do not agree on the authenticity of the text of the Bible and the Gospels.
At a meeting between Muslims and Christians in Tripoli, Libya, in 1976, Fr. Landry of the White Fathers solemnly made two requests in the course of a masterly conference. First of all, in the name of Christians, he asked forgiveness for all our unjust treatment of Muslims in the past; he then asked firmly for Muslims to take the text of our scriptures seriously. The first request prompted indescribable emotion and much embracing; the second met with total indifference and fell on deaf ears”

Prof. Abdullah Saeed, PhDA significant point of tension between today’s Muslims and the ‘People of the Book’ (Jews and Christians) is the common Muslim belief that the Jewish and Christian scriptures that exist today are corrupted and cannot be relied upon in any matters of faith, religion or law. Although this is a popular view, most classical scholars of the Qur’an were far more cautious in their understanding of Qur’anic texts on this issue. This article explores the Qur’an’s references to distortion of scriptural meaning and text, and the views of scholars, particularly Tabari, Qurtubi, Razi, Ibn Taymiyya and Qutb. Qur’anic words such as tahrif are popularly accepted today as referring to deliberate distortion of scripture; however, classical scholars have interpreted the Qur’an’s references in a number of different ways. Almost all suggested that distortion occurred mainly through interpretation and not in the text itself. Although the Qur’an refers to tahrif (distortion), it also exhibits the utmost respect for previous scriptures. Early Muslims adopted a narrow view of scripture, partly because of the nature of the Qur’an, and also in response to the more established religions of Judaism and Christianity, to assert the ‘purity’ of the Qur’an and Islam. Saeed notes that the Jewish and Christian scriptures that exist today are, according to most scholars, largely unchanged since the time of Muhammad and should be respected now as they were then. From: his article "The Charge of Distortion of Jewish and Christian Scriptures", in the 2002 Publication: The Muslim World. Vol. 92http://www.abdullahsaeed.org/article/charge-distortion-jewish-and-christian-scriptures

Source for all quotes: www.netmuslims.com, posted by the Asif on the thread titled Muslim scholars say "no tanrif" of the Bible.

Now many of these quotes are from Muslim scholars who do not agree with the popular idea that Christians and Jews altered the Law and the Gospel. But what was revealed here today is such corruption of the New Testament did not exist in the early church. From which all modern translations that are worth their salt is taken from. In fact some of these notable Muslim scholars state that it was impossible to do because if some did attempt to change the Gospel the error would have been discovered and corrections would have been made. Why? Because of the widespread use and copying of the original New Testament corruption of the New Testament was impossible.

Get any religious book you want!
http://gan.doubleclick.net/gan_click?lid=41000000024409189&pubid=21000000000552518

Peter Vs. Paul: Did Paul Change the Gospel Message?

I. The Charge against Paul, the Apostle

One of the many objections to modern day Christianity, none has excited the masses as much as the idea that the Apostle Paul changed the Gospel message. For this reason,  many accuse modern Christianity of being the church of Paul than the Church of Christ and his original Apostles. Seeing that it was Peter that was to originally head the Church (Matthew 16:13-20; John 21:16+17), appointed by Jesus himself, they supposed that Paul was clever and smart man (not saying that he wasn't a smart man) who knew he could not stop the movement which he persecuted, at that time called "the way" decided to later join it. After awhile he took the movement away from the original Apostles and firmly planted it in the Gentile world. They who make such an accusation of the Apostle Paul neglect the fact that the Apostle Paul was also made an apostle by Christ himself after a confrontation between Saul (now known as Paul, the Apostle) of Tarsus and Jesus, the Christ on the road to Damascus.(Acts 9:1-16, 22:1-15). What gets lost in the debate is also the fact that Peter was to be the first preacher and spokesman of the Church, which was a position appointed by Jesus himself before his ascension, while the Apostle Paul was to be the great missionary Apostle to the Gentiles or the nations,(Galatians 2:1-10  ) Peter's missionary ministry was to be toward the Jews. Peter's ministry to the non Jewish nations or the Gentiles occurred after Paul's death. So Peter's initially ministry was to the Jews in and about Jerusalem. Let see how that all came about.

II. The Initial History of the Gospel Message

In the early days of the Church, the Christian community in Jerusalem were primarily made up of Jews that had converted to "the way" and felt that it was to the Jewish population that the Gospel of Christ must be preached to. Not one of them conceived of the notion to share the Gospel with a Gentile, forgetting the great commission that Christ gave them to preach the Gospel and make disciples of all nations. One day all that changed, for Peter was instructed by the Spirit of God to not discriminate when sharing the Gospel to the Gentiles. (Acts 10). During sharing the Gospel with the Gentiles in Ceasarea, Peter came to the revelation that ".... Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." (Acts 10:34+35) Peter was called to the church council in Jerusalem to explain his actions (Acts 11:1-18) for He being a Jew went in among the ceremonial unclean Gentiles and preached to them the Gospel. When Peter stood in front of the Jewish church council, he rehearsed to all how God allowed him to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles in Ceasarea. After hearing his explanation all the Jewish Christian believers of the church council said, " Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life." (Acts 11:18) This shows that the Jewish Christians thought the Gospel was to be shared with only the Jews that did not yet believe. Right after that, the Gospel spread to Cyprus and the first Christian community was formed in Antioch when Greek and Jewish believers in the Gospel came to Israel from Cyprus to learn more of "the way" which was the name of the movement before the name Christian was assigned to it. To whom the Church council in Jerusalem sent Jewish Christian teachers of "the Way" to ground them in the faith, Barnabas was one of those teachers that traveled to Antioch from Jerusalem to carry out this assignment. It was there people started to call them Christians, (Acts 11:26) from that point on, in order to differentiate themselves from the Jews who did not convert and the Pagans who still did not believe in "the way" . Peter started preaching to the Gentiles, under the direction of God before Paul began to preach to them.

Another reason that we went through these early Church events is to point out the fact that if the Apostle Paul changed the Gospel message and founded the modern Church, where was he when all this foundational stuff was happening not by Paul's direction but rather by the direction of God? The Apostle Paul was being discipled in Damascus (Acts 9:17-20), and preached the Gospel to the Jews during his discipleship in Damascus. When he heard of the Christians gathering in Antioch, he left Damascus and went there. Barnabas met Paul in Antioch, after which the Holy Spirit set them apart for the preaching of the Gospel outside of Israel. (Acts 13:1-3) The question here is, if Paul changed the Gospel Message, why did the Holy Spirit send him and Barnabas out to preach it without correcting his theology? It is because it was not changed as we will see later in this article.

Now after Peter was being hunted down to be martyred by unbelieving men (Acts 12:1-19) like the Apostle James the son of Alpheaus, Paul and Barnabas took up the call to continue the work of preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles. (Acts 13:1-3) Their directives was to approach the Jews first with the message, if rejected by the Jews, preach then to anyone else willing to hear. This is clearly displayed in the book of Acts, where the first place they entered was a Jewish place of worship, when the Jews rejected the Gospel message that they presented, both Barnabas and Paul began preaching to the Gentiles.

The Church grew under the Apostle Paul's ministry, now his first companion Barnabas is important to look at here, because this was the same man who was sent of the Apostles of Jerusalem to ground the young Gentile and Jewish church at Antioch. Barnabas was a teacher, Paul was a preacher, by these two men God founded Churches throughout Asia, Macedonia and Greece. What is so important about Barnabas? Teachers of the faith have a strong challenge and a charge. That is. they are to watch over what is preached and correct any errors or deviation from what supposed to be preached. Such was the role of Barnabas in the ministry with the Apostle Paul. Barnabas was a teacher of "the way", the teacher of the Christian life. So any deviation from what Paul was discipled to preach about Jesus, would have been detected by Barnabas. Barnabas would have departed from Paul and reported to the Church in Jerusalem that the Apostle had gone astray from the fundamental preaching of the Gospel of Christ. Paul would have been ostracized and excommunicated from the fellowship of the Apostleship of the Church. We know that Paul did not go astray from the fundamental elements of the Gospel of Christ, because when Barnabas did disagreed sharply with Paul it was not about his doctrine, or preaching. It was because Barnabas wanted to take again with them John Mark, the author of the Gospel of Mark and Paul did not want to take him, because Mark deserted them on their first missionary trip. Not because of any deviation to the Gospel message.

Now while Paul and Barnabas was out and about preaching the Gospel, certain Jewish believers in Christ which viewed Christianity as an extension of Judaism's customs and traditions came from Jerusalem teaching the people in Antioch that they had to be circumcised according to the Law of Moses in order to be saved. This caused a great rift in the church, so much so that the Apostles in Jerusalem, now headed by James, the Lord's brother had to call a together the Church council to determine whether or not to require the Gentle believers in Christ to keep the Law of Moses. (Acts 15) To this Peter stands up and reminds the council how God allowed him to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles to be accepted by them by faith only. The same way they, as all Jews was offered salvation in Christ without any requirement to observe any Law of Moses. What a surprise! It is Peter, a Jewish believer and an Apostle of Jesus that advises the Church council in Jerusalem to not burden the Gentile believers with keeping the Law of Moses, not Paul the Apostle. The reason? Because they came to the understanding that since they and their forefathers could not observe the Law of Moses, how could they expect the Gentiles to live according to the Law of Moses?  Paul and Barnabas, who were also attending the council meeting, then gave a full report of their ministry abroad among the Gentiles and how God worked mighty through them to the saving of many souls. Hearing this argument presented by Peter and the Missionary report of Paul and Barnabas, James ruled that a few simple rules needed to be observed so that the Gentile believers would not be and offense to the Jewish believers in Christ, furthermore James declared that those persons who informed them that they had to keep the Law of Moses in order to be saved did not get that instruction or order from the Apostles of Christ. So the Gentiles believers was not required to keep the Law of Moses. Thereby confirming the Apostle Paul's Ministry to the Gentiles and to the Jews of those other nations. This again indicates that the Apostle Paul did not deviate from the elements of the Gospel, that he was discipled to preach. For if he did, Barnabas, Peter and the rest of the Apostles would have corrected Paul. No such correction of Paul's Gospel presentation is noted in the Book of acts by the Church council in Jerusalem

III. The Gospel presentation of Peter Vs. the Gospel presentation of Paul
.
This now brings us to the issue of what was the original Gospel message and what was the Gospel message that the Apostle Paul preached. Is there any difference? If so why, and was it necessary? Does it prove the argument that Paul changed the Gospel message? In order to determine the answers to these questions we need to see the elements of the preaching of Peter in comparison with that of the Preaching of Paul. The way we must investigate this issue is comparing the Gospel elements in Peter's Preaching to the Gospel elements in Paul's preaching.

Peter's elements of the Gospel are as follows:

1) That Jesus is Lord [God] and Messiah [Christ] -Acts 2:36
2) That Jesus is God's appointed servant which was slain- Acts 3:22+23
3) That Jesus is God's resurrected Son- Acts 3:26
4) That Jesus is God's chosen Savior [Christ, Messiah]of Mankind- Acts 4:12

These listed above were the elements that made up Peter's Gospel message. So what is Paul's elements of the Gospel?

Paul's elements of the Gospel are as follows:

1) That Jesus is the Christ [Messiah], the Son of God- Acts 9:20, 13:33
2) That Jesus is the promised Messiah [Christ]- Acts 13:33
3) That Jesus is the slain Messiah [Christ]-Acts 13:27-29
4) That Jesus is the resurrected Messiah [Christ]- Acts 13:30+31

These listed above were the elements that made up Paul's Gospel message. We must note here that the Apostle Paul spend some time being discipled by the believers in Damascus before he began to make his Gospel presentation after he converted to faith in Jesus as the Messiah. The question is, is the same Gospel as the one Peter preached? When we closely compare the Gospel presentations of Peter and Paul, we find the following points between the respective elements of their Gospel messages to be similar.

1) The Divinity of Jesus

a)Peter states that Jesus' status is elevated to that of "Lord" in Acts 2:36. The Greek word that is translated to this English word "Lord", I have discovered that it also means "Supreme over all" and "God". Peter therefore testifies therefore that God elevated Jesus to divine status equal to His own divine status.

b)Paul states that Jesus' status is elevated to that of being "the Son of God" by reason of Jesus' relationship to God the Creator. God is the Father of Jesus, naturally born to Him and thereby Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. God the creator made Jesus divine, through the process of natural child birth He made him God and man -Acts 9:20, 13:33

2) The Messiah ship of Jesus

a)Peter states that Jesus was Christ. Christ is the English translation of the Greek word which is also a translation of the Hebrew word that is again translated into the English word Messiah. In other words, Christ and Messiah are terms that refer to the same thing. They are exchangeable in English. It is notable that Peter only uses the word "Christ" when speaking in reference to Jesus when he needs to communicate to an audience that knows Greek and or Hebrew.- Acts 2:36, 4:12

b)Paul also states that Jesus was Christ [Messiah] that was prophesied about by the Holy Prophets in his Gospel message.-Acts 13:23

3) The Death of Jesus, the Messiah [Christ]

a)Peter states that Jesus, the chosen Messiah [Christ] was slain -Acts 3:22+23

b)Paul also states that Jesus, the Messiah was slain-Acts 13:27-29

4) The Resurrection of Jesus the Messiah [Christ], God's Son

a)Peter states that Jesus, God's son and appointed Messiah was resurrected from the dead by God the
Creator.- Acts 3:32

b)Paul also states that Jesus was raised up from the dead by God the Creator- Acts 13:30+31

As we can see, Peter and Paul used the same four elements in their Gospel presentations: 1)The Divinity of Jesus, 2)The Messiah ship of Jesus, 3) The death of Jesus, the Messiah and 4) The Resurrection of Jesus, the Messiah. Seeing that they used the same elements in their Gospel presentations, this proves again that the Apostle Paul did not change the Gospel Message in any elementary way. However, there is a noticeable difference between their Gospel presentations. The difference is seen in the perspectives they each preached from as well as the audience they preached to.

IV. The Differences Between the Gospel Presentations

When Peter preached the Gospel, he preached it from the perspective of being an eye witness. When Paul preached the Gospel, he preached it from the perspective of being a second hand witness. The difference between that being a first hand witness and a second hand witness is the quality and the credibility of sources. Peter quality of sources were the other Apostles who walked with Jesus, heard Jesus teach, seen Jesus suffer and seen Jesus be crucified. He and the Apostles also seen Jesus alive after his passion and fellowshiped with Jesus for 40 days (Acts 1, John 21). So Peter's sources for his Gospel presentation are of the highest quality and authenticity. Now this is important to understand, the second hand witness presentation of Paul rests upon the quality and authenticity of his sources. If there is a degree of a lesser quality of credibility, then Paul's Gospel presentation is of lesser credibility than that of Peters. So what are the Apostle Paul's sources for his Gospel presentations? They are the same Apostles of Christ and the disciples who heard Jesus speak, seen Jesus suffer and die on the cross and seen him be raised from the dead. Paul's Gospel presentation was not questioned by the Apostles of Christ when He and Barnabas made their missionary report to them. (Acts 15) After Peter presented the argument to not burden the Gentile believers in Christ with the keeping of the Law of Moses, which no one Jew of them could keep. The salvation of God was presented to the Jews not on the basis of keeping the Law of Moses' administration, but rather it was offered to them on the basis of faith on the death and resurrection of Jesus, the Messiah [Christ]. It appeared to them that God made the same offer to the Gentiles who would choose to believe in Jesus, the Christ and to make them observe the law that no one could keep except for Jesus was not just or fair or right. This was also the offer of salvation in Paul's presentation of the Gospel to the Gentiles and Jews outside of Israel. So we see here that the quality and credibility of Paul's presentation of the Gospel is equal of that of Peter's for they both testified from the same sources. Even though Paul is preaching from the perspective of a second hand witness, his Gospel presentation is equal to Peter's Gospel presentation.

Another difference between the Gospel presentations of Peter and Paul is that Peter's presentations were geared toward the Jewish audience until he was directed to make a presentation to the Gentiles in Ceasarea. Paul's Gospel presentations took on the added elements of preaching against idolatry and Paganism, elements that Peter never had the opportunity to develop in his early  Gospel presentation. Peter's missionary work did not start until Paul met his end. Peter's work was more about the encouragement of the believers that Paul and Barnabas was used of God to reach with the Gospel presentation. This however. does not indicate a change in the Gospel message by Paul, for Peter did not come behind Paul to change what he had preached to them for them to believe for their salvation. Peter rather came behind Paul to confirm what he taught in those fledgling churches. When Peter preached his Gospel message, he emphasized the knowledge of the ministry of God through Christ to the Jews and accused the Jews of slaying Christ. Paul used the knowledge of his audience conscience of righteousness, their spiritual awareness and revelation of the mystery of the Gospel when preaching his Gospel to the Jews and Gentiles outside of Israel.

V. The Verdict

So the question is, was this enough of a change to make Paul guilty of changing the Gospel message? The answer is no. Why? Because when Peter had to make a Gospel presentation to the Gentiles in Ceasarea under the direction of God, he adjusted his message and did not accuse the Gentiles of slaying Jesus. He left that accusation squarely up his Jewish brethren that did not believe in Christ. He rather told the Gentiles what the Jews did to Jesus, the Messiah. They heard, and believed and thereby received Christ. Paul preached and those who heard him also believed the Gospel of Jesus, the Christ, the Son of God. Since then the Gospel message has been presented in various ways but always remaining true to the fundamental elements of the Gospel of Jesus the Christ which always contains the four elements first proclaimed by Apostles Peter and Paul. To them and the rest of the Apostles the Church of Christ owes its growth and founding beliefs that has lasted for over 2000 years without change.