These are NOT the same gospel

[Idolater]

And they were afraid to ask Him about it.

And it was hid from them.

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.

It's certainly clear that His disciples didn't understand, believe, 'get it', but that doesn't mean 'different Gospel' which is what you're attempting to demonstrate.

 

[Right Divider]

It's certainly clear that His disciples didn't understand, believe, 'get it', but that doesn't mean 'different Gospel' which is what you're attempting to demonstrate.

I've clearly demonstrated that the gospel of the kingdom is MISSING something that is CRITICAL to the gospel of the grace of God. Therefore they CANNOT be the SAME gospel.

That you cannot see that is your problem.

 

[Clete]

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?!

Look, you can pretend like I'm an idiot or you can have a substantive discussion about an important topic.

YOU CHOOSE!

We aren't talking about random, anonymous people that Jesus might have been preaching this gospel too, we are talking about HIS OWN DISCIPLES! The very same disciples that He sent out to preach the gospel that He had taught them to preach!

SCRIPTURE SAYS they didn't.

So Jesus' own disciples were unbelievers.

Is that seriously what you want us to believe?

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)]"

Liar.

You ignored it because there is no record of Jesus telling anyone AT ALL about His death burial and resurrection apart from His own disciples who were then told to keep their mouths shut about it, which wasn't going to be a problem anyway because none of them believed it!

How is it that these people where sent out to preach a gospel that they didn't believe?!

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

SPLIT HAIRS!!!!

Are you serious?

Preaching implies a message that is be proclaimed to a wide audience, not private conversations about topics discussed within an inner circle who were all told to keep it quiet!

It, does.

THEN WHY WON'T YOU QUOTE ME THE VERSE!

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

Liar!

Irrelevant to whether Christ preached the 'DBR'.

Liar!

You know that it is entirely relevant.

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

You are a liar. There is simply no two ways about it. I cannot comprehend what your motive could possibly be but you know as well as anyone here that Jesus preached no such thing. He preached Faith in God, repentance of sins and obedience to the law and kept anything about His ultimate purpose a closely guarded secret between Him and His closest disciples who not only didn't preach it, they didn't even understand or believe it!

Clete

 

[musterion]

Friendly reminder: if you're arguing with someone who believes in one of the several ways "salvation" can supposedly be lost, remember that they cannot afford to be wrong nor change their minds [repent], as that would mean doctrinal apostasy ["falling away"] and THAT would send them to the Lake.

So they don't really care what you say. They can't afford to. They are not listening to you beyond blathering on to change YOUR mind.

 

[Tambora]

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.


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

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

God does NOT ever "mess up".

Amen!

Amen!

Looks like we are in agreement of much.
So since we both agree the appointed time for the earthly restoration of the kingdom of Israel wasn't appointed to be until the 2nd coming, then what possible kingdom could be "at hand" since it obviously wasn't the earthly one?
It's either a different kingdom or "at hand" doesn't mean pretty soon.

 

[Tambora]

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

How could it be since we both agree the appointed time for the earthly restored kingdom wouldn't occur till the 2nd coming?

 

[Right Divider]

Looks like we are in agreement of much.
So since we both agree the appointed time for the earthly restoration of the kingdom of Israel wasn't appointed to be until the 2nd coming, then what possible kingdom could be "at hand" since it obviously wasn't the earthly one?
It's either a different kingdom or "at hand" doesn't mean pretty soon.

So you think that the Lord was talking about a different kingdom? What kingdom is that?

AT HAND does not need to mean any moment, as in within the next hour or day.

 

[Right Divider]

How could it be since we both agree the appointed time for the earthly restored kingdom wouldn't occur till the 2nd coming?

So are you disagreeing with Jesus when He said that the kingdom of heaven was at hand?

Matt 4:17 (AKJV/PCE)
(4:17) ¶ From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Did Jesus have another kingdom in mind? If so, what?

 

[Tambora]

So you think that the Lord was talking about a different kingdom? What kingdom is that?

AT HAND does not need to mean any moment, as in within the next hour or day.

So what would "at hand" mean in your estimation since we know the earthly kingdom couldn't possibly happen until the appointed time which has been waited upon for over 2000 years now?

 

[Tambora]

So are you disagreeing with Jesus when He said that the kingdom of heaven was at hand?

How are we disagreeing since we both agree it wasn't the earthly kingdom?

Did Jesus have another kingdom in mind? If so, what?

Kingdom of heaven would denote the heavenly realm, not the earthly realm, would it not?

 

[Right Divider]

So what would "at hand" mean in your estimation since we know the earthly kingdom couldn't possibly happen until the appointed time which has been waited upon for over 2000 years now?

Jesus said that the kingdom was AT HAND. What do YOU think that He meant?

Remember that, had Israel repented, the Lord would have returned BEFORE the twelve had gone to all of the cities of Israel. How long do you think that would be?

Matt 10:23 (AKJV/PCE)
(10:23) But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.

Was Jesus wrong about that too?

It's like JR has mentioned many times, when things changed... these things were also changed.

 

[Right Divider]

How are we disagreeing since we both agree it wasn't the earthly kingdom?

You seem to think that "AT HAND" was wrong. Please clarify.

Kingdom of heaven would denote the heavenly realm, not the earthly realm, would it not?

The kingdom of heaven will be on the earth.

Matt 8:11 (AKJV/PCE)
(8:11) And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.

Matt 5:3-5 (AKJV/PCE)
(5:3) Blessed [are] the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (5:4) Blessed [are] they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. (5:5) Blessed [are] the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

 

[Poly]

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?!

SCRIPTURE SAYS they didn't.

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.

It, does.

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

Irrelevant to whether Christ preached the 'DBR'.

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

I’ve read this thread and it seems like a fair and simple request. Please show the verses of Christ preaching about his death, burial and resurrection. I think once you do this, it will clear a lot of this up.

 

[JudgeRightly]

that was YEARS AFTER He sent the twelve

Just checking, you know Jesus' earthly ministry was only 3 years long, right?

 

[Right Divider]

Just checking, you know Jesus' earthly ministry was only 3 years long, right?

Yes, and about another year after that was when God called Paul.

 

[glorydaz]

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".

You make some really good points, but I can't see Paul fitting in with the twelve.
Plus he hadn't been witness to Jesus' life or to the resurrection.

Our Risen Lord chose Paul for a completely different message than what the twelve were given..

 

[Derf]

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

But you didn’t answer my question. Why was His birth “good tidings”?

Here’s another, from your other post:

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.

Just because a new person starts proclaiming good news doesn’t mean it’s new good news.

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

Then the different gospels are all tied together around this same point—Jesus’s death and resurrection—including the good tidings of his birth.

It’s all about the resurrection.

 

[glorydaz]

But you didn’t answer my question. Why was His birth “good tidings”?

This wasn't about the resurrection.

Matt. 2:1-2 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, 2 Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.

 

[glorydaz]

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.

So, let me get this straight. You don't think Jesus preached how to obtain eternal life in His Kingdom gospel?

 

[musterion]

Those who oppose Pauline mid-Acts dispensationalism need to answer just one question:

What did God need Paul for?