Right Divider
Body part
The TWO beginnings are different... they are YEARS apart. So your question is irrelevant.
P.S. There was a church in the wilderness long, long ago. Acts 7:38
Last edited:
These are NOT the same gospel
- Thread starter Right Divider
- Start date
P.S. There was a church in the wilderness long, long ago. Acts 7:38
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
So the church in the wilderness is what Paul is talking about in Philippians 4:15 when he says that, "no church communicated with me as concerning giving and receiving, but ye only"?
And actually, even the Philippian church had already existed "in the beginning of the gospel"? Who 'planted' that church?
Right Divider
Body part
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
If "in the beginning of the gospel", the Philippian church was already there, then it must have gotten there somehow.
musterion
Well-known member
Paul.
Arial
Active member
Mark 1:1 Does not say it is the gospel but the beginning of it. John preparing the way for the One who brings the gospel.
Philip 4:5 This cannot possibly meant that at Phillippia is where Paul began preaching the gospel or a different gospel. In Acts 9:10- 16:11 see how many churches and synagogues before he reached Phillipia. The beginning of the gospel in that sentence simply means the beginning of Paul's preaching at Phillippia.
Also note Acts 9:15 So the Lord said to him "Go for he (Paul) is a chosen vessel of mine to bear my name beforeGentiles, kings, and the children of Israel." No mention of giving a different gospel to Jew and one to Gentile.
Right Divider
Body part
Either way, it's completely irrelevant to the point at hand.
Right Divider
Body part
Duh.
Jesus preached the gospel OF THE KINGDOM.
Paul said that "the beginning of the gospel" was at least FOUR YEARS later.
Paul preached the gospel OF THE GRACE OF GOD.
Multiple gospels... ALL gospels are "good news".
Arial
Active member
Right. But what in your opinion does that mean?
No he didn't. Don't pull out a portion of a sentence out of one sentence and make an entire doctrine out of it. Acts shows us he could not have possibly meant what you say he meant with those five words.
Jesus brought the gospel of salvation by grace through faith---to the whole world. That IS the good news.
That is the meaning of the word, but when we speak of the gospel (one) not gospels, it is the good news that God comes with saving grace through the work of Jesus to all who believe.
Right Divider
Body part
The gospel of the kingdom is the "good news" about the kingdom that God had promised to Israel.
Yes, he did.
I didn't.
The book of Acts is about the fall of Israel.
That is certainly good news and that good news was given to the through the apostle Paul.
If Jesus brought that good news, why is there not even one instance of the Lord using the word "grace" during His entire earthly ministry to Israel? The word "grace" is barely used at all in the "gospels" (i.e., Matthew, Mark, Luke and John).
As a matter of fact, the word is entirely missing from Matthew and Mark.
In Luke and John there is no connection between grace and gospel at all.
But when we get to Paul, his epistles are saturated with grace. Paul uses the term 85 times!
There are many gospels in the Bible. Why does this bother you so?
The only person in the Bible who uses the term "the gospel of the grace of God" is Paul.
Last edited:
glorydaz
Well-known member
LOL That something is Jesus Christ. Which is the whole point.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
So then you agree that once you believe Paul's Gospel you no longer have a choice to not believe it?
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
So is the Gospel of the Kingdom, Kingdom Gospel, Old Covenant, or New Covenant?
Right Divider
Body part
Both.
The new covenant is with the same two parties as the old covenant. God and Israel.
The gospel of the kingdom was said to be about the kingdom at hand. The kingdom that God had promised to Israel (in the land on the earth).
glorydaz
Well-known member
You do not see the faith of Jesus Christ and our faith in Him?
Romans 3:22
Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
Colossians 1:4
Since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and of the love which ye have to all the saints,
I'm just trying to show you what scripture is actually saying.....not what you think it's saying.
Why does Paul say "From faith to faith" if there is only one faith?
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
OK but even if exclusively true, and that is an open question, that doesn't support you saying "both".
So that supports it being Old Covenant (which would support Dispensationalism), but how is it 'also' New Covenant then?
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Why does Paul say "One faith" (Eph4:5) if there is more than one faith?
Right Divider
Body part
The new covenant will apply when Israel is saved in their land into their kingdom.
The reason that I said "both" is because the promises were made prior to the arrival of the new covenant.
Right Divider
Body part
Paul is talking about in the body of Christ there... not for all time.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
But the Lord Jesus is our high priest. That's how 1st Corinthians 15:3 works, " ...Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures...," His death was a sacrificial offering (upon the 'altar' of the cross) to the Father on behalf of His Body, the Church. It was 'priestly' what He did.