"The Gospel" in Mark 1:15

Dispensationalists teach that "the gospel" in Mark 1:15 is a different gospel than "the gospel" in Mark 16:15. They say "the gospel" in Mark 16:15 refers to "the gospel" found in John 3:14-15, but that "the gospel" in Mark 1:15 is another gospel.

But when you harmonize Mark and John's accounts of Jesus' life, it appears that Jesus said John 3:14-15...

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

BEFORE He said Mark 1:15...

The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

John 3:14-15 records something Jesus said before John was put in prison while Mark 1:15 records something Jesus said after John was put in prison. So it would seem that "the gospel" in Mark 1:15 is the one and only gospel, "that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures".

John 3:14-24
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. 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. ... After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized. And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized. For John was not yet cast into prison.

Mark 1:14-15
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.

...

Add a Bite to our Barking!

I sent the following email to the host of the "Christian Worldview Today" talk radio show, but got no response. Perhaps this message was meant for YOU instead!

Tony,

Perhaps the reason that the Washington officials are not heeding our barking about the government takeover of healthcare is because they know that we do not have a bite.

Socialism is being forced on America, but it did not start with our soon-to-be nationalized healthcare. In fact, our healthcare system is not as socialized as it could be.

We are currently forced to buy healthcare, but we do not yet have single-payer healthcare (where the government pays for all the healthcare), and we do not yet have a single-owner healthcare system (where the government owns all the hospitals). And the hospitals do not indoctrinate us.

If we are really opposed to our slide into socialism, rather than pouring some tea into a few rivers over our concern about socialized healthcare, we should stop using the socialized public school system!

Like the healthcare system, we are required to send our children to the public school system (so most people seem to think), which already has a single-payer, and already has a single-owner, and already is an indoctrination chamber.

For the healthcare system to be as socialist as the public school system, all the hospitals would have to be owned by the government with the services paid by our taxes, and when you went in to a doctor's office they would indoctrinate you about the values of homosexuality, abortion, etc. So as you can see, our healthcare system is not near as socialized as our public school system.

So, if we are truly against socialism, our first action should be to stop using the public school system. After we have done that, we can throw some tea in the river and it may mean something.

I am amazed that with all the barking on your show about socialism, I have yet to hear anyone mention the public school system and just how socialized that institution is.

I am challenging you to be the first. Just as that one man seems to have started all the tea parties with his rant about government payouts, you could be the one to start the movement to TAKE OUR CHILDREN OUT OF SOCIALIST PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN THE FALL!

You could be the spark!

God bless you.

...

Did Jesus Have An Origin?

We have been debating with some Jehovah's Witnesses about the nature of Jesus. We believe the Bible teaches that Jesus had no beginning (that He has always existed), whereas the Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus had a beginning (an origin).

The Jehovah's Witnesses official website says... Jesus’ life course might be divided into three stages. The first began long before his human birth. His origin was "from early times, from the days of time indefinite," says Micah 5:2.

The Jehovah's Witnesses Translation says... And you, O Beth´le·hem Eph´ra·thah, the one too little to get to be among the thousands of Judah, from you there will come out to me the one who is to become ruler in Israel, whose origin is from early times, from the days of time indefinite.

If that is what Micah 5:2 actually said, maybe Jesus did have an origin. But that has not been the standard English interpretation of that verse in the past.

The King James Version says... But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, [though] thou be little among the thousands of Judah, [yet] out of thee shall he come forth unto me [that is] to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth [have been] from of old, from everlasting.

The King James Version makes it clear that Jesus had no beginning, no origin, and that He is everlasting. Jesus has always been "going forth".

But I am troubled by some of the newer translations. For example, the English Standard Version seems to side with the Jehovah's Witnesses Translation on this verse.

The English Standard Version says... But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days.

Are you disturbed by the English Standard Version rendering of Micah 5:2?

What motive did the translators of the English Standard Version have to render Micah 5:2 that way?

...