These are NOT the same gospel

[glorydaz]

It does have to be a similar level if you withhold one from a group that could benefit by it, in order to only give them the other, which you’ve just admitted is less beneficial to them.

The only ones who would benefit from the Kingdom Gospel are the ones who have been required to repent, be baptized, and keep the commandments.

All others benefit from Paul's Gospel. So where's the beef?

 

[Tambora]

So.... getting back to the OP...

Can you not tell the difference between the kingdom at hand (i.e., the gospel of the kingdom) and salvation by grace through faith (the gospel of the grace of God)?

Seriously guys, how many times do I have to say the kingdom gospel is NOT for eternal life????
I have never ever said the kingdom gospel is the same gospel as eternal life.

Now you have to decide if the earthly kingdom was appointed by God to start during the time Jesus walked the earth in flesh, but He messed up and had to change it.
Because it is sounding like some of you are saying that God had to change His appointed time because of Israel's unbelief that Jesus was the Messiah.
God's appointed time for the restored kingdom was NOT at the time Jesus walked the earth in flesh.
God didn't mess up with the appointed time and have to change it.
We already know that because scripture already prophesied two comings of Christ ---- first as a suffering servant and then as King of Kings.
It was never going to happen until His second coming.

 

[Tambora]

The gospel of the kingdom is NOT just that there is a future earthly kingdom coming to Israel.

It was that the kingdom was AT HAND.

Not the restored earthly kingdom.
And Christ knew it wouldn't happen then because He knew prophesy better than anyone that spoke of His two comings, one as the suffering servant and one as the King of Kings.

 

[Idolater]

The Lord did good when He chose Paul. In fact, in my recent study of the Greek, I found that this particular "chosen" is not like any of the others. It means "divinely chosen".

Acts 9:15
But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

Even more reason to think Acts 1:20 is fulfilled by God's "chosen vessel" in Acts 9:28 rather than by lot.

Compare Acts 1:26 " Matthias . . . was numbered with the eleven apostles," and Acts 9:26

" And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple. 27 But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. 28 And he [(Paul)] was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem."

We don't know what happened to Matthias, but we know that after that, Paul 'fell over himself' telling people that he was an "APOSTLE". We don't have any evidence that the other Apostles rejected him or censured him for such activity. Peter certainly never did, he even mentioned Paul by name in one of his epistles, and in contrast to contradicting Paul's claim to be an Apostle, says almost 'matter-of-factly' that Paul's letters are "scriptures".

 

[Idolater]

...The twelve were preaching the gospel of the kingdom for YEARS and YET they did not even know that Christ would die.

Can the gospel of the grace of God be preached without the death, burial and resurrection? NO!!
Hence, they CANNOT be the same gospels. End of story.
...

End of story only to those who actually believe the Bible. You're arguing with one who doesn't.

But the disciples were not the only ones preaching the Gospel in the Gospels----the Lord Jesus was there also, and He was preaching the death, burial and Resurrection.

And that's not the end of the story either.

 

[Clete]

He [Jesus] was preaching the death, burial and Resurrection.

Chapter and verse please.

Every time He mentioned it, His own disciples didn't believe Him.

 

[Idolater]

Every time He mentioned it, His own disciples didn't believe Him.

That cannot POSSIBLY be the measure of whether He actually preached it. Irrelevant!

 

[Idolater]

Not necessarily.

The authors of the Bible worded what they said very carefully. Paul included. The fact that he DID NOT mention fits very well with what he said about members of the Body of Christ being "neither Jew nor Greek."

The holy priesthood of Israel was, by definition, of the Jews. Therefore, "neither Jew nor Greek" excludes any form of priesthood.

In addition, every mention of priests and priesthoods (apart from instances where it's talking about pagans, and excluding the references to the Order of Melchizedek in Hebrews) has to do with Israel specifically, and that fact is made obvious by the context. In fact, aside from the several hundred mentions of priest, priests, priesthood, etc, in the Old Testament, there are 26 mentions in Matthew (with one questionable mention that is likely only referring to pagan priests in Herod's court near the beginning of Matthew) that specifically refer to Israel's priesthood, 22 mentions in Mark, 23 in Luke, 21 in John, 24 in Acts (the 25th being a priest of Zeus, and thus is one of the exceptions mentioned above), about 23 in Hebrews with a few of those questionable, but only because they could be referring to Israel's priesthood, priesthoods in general, or the priests of the Order of Melchizedek, 2 in 1 Peter, and 3 in Revelation, all of which refer to Israel in some way or another.

None of those examples, even including the ones that aren't specifically about Israel, mention anything that would be at all relevant to the Body of Christ, which Paul describes as a creature, an organism with many members, and not a nation of priests.

It kind of hinges on what Paul means in Romans 15:16 " That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable"

I don't think that he means that the Gentiles are the offering, I think he means that the offering is being made by them. I don't think that there's a third option, but I'm open to one (or more) existing, I just can't think of any other option besides that the offering is either the Gentiles themselves, or that it is the offering made by the Gentiles.

If the Gentiles are offering sacrifices, then surely there's priests involved, that's priest work.

 

[Clete]

That cannot POSSIBLY be the measure of whether He actually preached it. Irrelevant!

What? How could that possibly be irrelevant?

You are suggesting then that Jesus' own disciples didn't believe the gospel that He Himself was preaching!

Also, I wasn't kidding when I asked for the chapter and verse where Jesus ever preached a word about His death, burial and resurrection. Surely the scripture itself would count in your mind as being the measure of whether He actually preached it.

Of course, you won't give me a chapter and verse because there is no such chapter and verse. The disciples not only didn't believe Him any time His death was brought up but they were "strictly warned and commanded" not to tell anyone that He was the Christ!

Sure sounds like a different gospel to me!

Clete

 

[Right Divider]

Seriously guys, how many times do I have to say the kingdom gospel is NOT for eternal life????
I have never ever said the kingdom gospel is the same gospel as eternal life.

That's great!

Now the OP was not even about the gospel of the kingdom and the gospel of the grace of God. It was about the BEGINNING of two gospels: the gospel of Jesus Christ (per Mark) and Paul's gospel (per Paul).

Those gospels BEGAN years apart from each other.

Now you have to decide if the earthly kingdom was appointed by God to start during the time Jesus walked the earth in flesh, but He messed up and had to change it.

No, His death and resurrection was always required before the kingdom could be established.

Because it is sounding like some of you are saying that God had to change His appointed time because of Israel's unbelief that Jesus was the Messiah.
God's appointed time for the restored kingdom was NOT at the time Jesus walked the earth in flesh.

Nobody that I know of said such a thing (and again, that was not what the OP was about).

God didn't mess up with the appointed time and have to change it.

God does NOT ever "mess up".

We already know that because scripture already prophesied two comings of Christ ---- first as a suffering servant and then as King of Kings.

Amen!

It was never going to happen until His second coming.

Amen!

 

[Derf]

You are suggesting then that Jesus' own disciples didn't believe the gospel that He Himself was preaching!

It’s not that they didn’t believe, rather that they didn’t understand. This should be comforting for those on at least one side of this debate, as they were (and we can be, too) still “in Christ” without fully understanding it.

 

[Idolater]

What? How could that possibly be irrelevant?

Because whether or not someone believes you when you preach the Gospel to them has no bearing on whether you actually preached it to them!

Why are you even asking this question?!

You are suggesting then that Jesus' own disciples didn't believe the gospel that He Himself was preaching!

SCRIPTURE SAYS they didn't.

Also, I wasn't kidding when I asked for the chapter and verse where Jesus ever preached a word about His death, burial and resurrection.

I didn't think you were kidding. I just noticed in the next sentence out of your mouth you said and I quote: " . . . He mentioned it [(the death, burial and Resurrection)]"

Unless you're trying to split hairs over the difference between "preach" and "mention".

I sure hope you're not doing that.

Surely the scripture itself would count in your mind as being the measure of whether He actually preached it.

It, does.

Of course, you won't give me a chapter and verse because there is no such chapter and verse.

There are multiple 'chapter and verse'es in the Gospels of the Lord Jesus preaching the 'DBR'.

The disciples not only didn't believe Him any time His death was brought up

Irrelevant to whether Christ preached the 'DBR'.

but they were "strictly warned and commanded" not to tell anyone that He was the Christ!

Sure sounds like a different gospel to me!

You all are the ones saying the 'DBR' constitute Paul's "different" Gospel. Christ preached the 'DBR'.

 

[Derf]

they were "strictly warned and commanded" not to tell anyone that He was the Christ!

But the Christ is inherently part of the kingdom restoration. As such, if he left himself out of the gospel of the kingdom, it’s as bad as leaving the death and resurrection out of the gospel of grace, in my mind.

 

[Right Divider]

But the disciples were not the only ones preaching the Gospel in the Gospels----the Lord Jesus was there also, and He was preaching the death, burial and Resurrection.

Jesus mentioned His death, but that was YEARS AFTER He sent the twelve to preach the gospel of the kingdom. ALL the time that the twelve were preaching the gospel of the kingdom, they knew NOTHING of His death nor resurrection.

When Jesus did tell them that He would die, they sis not understand and were afraid to ask Him about it.

Mark 9:30-32 (AKJV/PCE)
(9:30) ¶ And they departed thence, and passed through Galilee; and he would not that any man should know [it]. (9:31) For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day. (9:32) But they understood not that saying, and were afraid to ask him.

So the twelve were NOT preaching the SAME gospel as Paul, since Paul's gospel was all about the death, burial and resurrection.

1Cor 15:1-4 (AKJV/PCE)
(15:1) Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; (15:2) By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. (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; (15:4) And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

And that's not the end of the story either.

Do tell.

Please if you will, explain how the gospel of the kingdom can be the SAME gospel as the gospel of the grace of God if the gospel of the kingdom was preached WITHOUT THE DEATH OF CHRIST AND HIS RESURRECTION.

 

[Idolater]

But the Christ is inherently part of the kingdom restoration. As such, if he left himself out of the gospel of the kingdom, it’s as bad as leaving the death and resurrection out of the gospel of grace, in my mind.

That's an interesting point.

What part of the Gospel of the Kingdom or the Kingdom Gospel has Him as NOT its KING?

Maybe there's even ANOTHER Gospel that not even the DISPIES have dreamed up.

 

[Right Divider]

Not the restored earthly kingdom.

The kingdom AT HAND was NOT the promised kingdom to Israel?

Please expound.

And Christ knew it wouldn't happen then because He knew prophesy better than anyone that spoke of His two comings, one as the suffering servant and one as the King of Kings.

Again, nobody has been arguing that you are arguing against.

 

[Right Divider]

How could it be end of story before they realized Christ had to die?

How can the "gospel" be preached without the death of Christ for sin or His resurrection?

Listen, I’m not sure about whether one might call what they preached prior to Jesus’ death a different gospel

It's certainly NOT the gospel that Paul preached, where the death of Christ and His resurrection are CENTRAL!

—I might be able to go along with that. But once they understood the death and resurrection was part of the plan, it was incorporated into the gospel they were preaching.

And YET (for the deaf and blind), they were preaching the GOSPEL of the KINGDOM for YEARS without the DEATH, BURIAL and RESURRECTION of Christ as part of it. Therefore, it cannot be the SAME as the gospel that Paul preached.

Thus you can’t say that Paul and Peter were preaching different gospels at the same time, but only if you compare Peter’s old gospel to Paul’s new gospel.

 

[Derf]

How can the "gospel" be preached without the death of Christ for sin or His resurrection?

Why was His birth “good tidings”?

 

[Right Divider]

Chapter and verse please.

Every time He mentioned it, His own disciples didn't believe Him.

And they were afraid to ask Him about it.

And it was hid from them.

Luke 18:31-34 (AKJV/PCE)
(18:31) ¶ Then he took [unto him] the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished. (18:32) For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on: (18:33) And they shall scourge [him], and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again. (18:34) And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken.

Verse 34 explains, in THREE different ways, that they did NOT know what He was talking about.

1. they understood NONE of these things.
2. this saying was HID from them
3. neither KNEW they the things which were spoken.

That's about as clear as it gets.

 

[Right Divider]

Why was His birth “good tidings”?

As I've told you already (way too many times) there are MANY "good tidings" in the Bible.