ECT Two Bodies of Believers in the NT

[heir]

But Jesus' gospel was so plain and simple that even I can understand it.

Why do you keep making up terms? The word of truth, is the gospel of your salvation. Why do you argue against it?

 

[Interplanner]

There is one Gospel and one people of faith in it. There is no 2P2P in the Bible.

 

[heir]

There is one Gospel and one people of faith in it. There is no 2P2P in the Bible.

2 Timothy 2:15 KJV

 

[heir]

There is one Gospel and one people of faith in it. There is no 2P2P in the Bible.

BTW, your posts are a joke. You show your ignorance every time you open your mouth.

 

[Interplanner]

Ditto.

What aspect of 2 Tim 2 are you referring to? It has been shown for a long time now that the dividing is a church-administrative word; he never meant Bible-wide doctrines. You can tell this from the verses on context. If he had said this in 2 Cor 4, it would be another matter.

 

[Right Divider]

There is one Gospel and one people of faith in it. There is no 2P2P in the Bible.

You "one gospel" people are just too much. There are many gospels in the Bible and that is plain to anyone. It also shows more than one faith.

Rom 1:17 KJV For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.​

The simple fact that the Bible LABELS the gospels shows that there is more than one.

The gospel OF the kingdom... the gospel OF the grace of God, etc. etc. etc.

Even a child can understand this.

 

[Interplanner]

Nope, and no one is suggesting that the literary title gospel (the 4 and then there's the pseudos) are in the same category as Paul or Isaiah term 'gospel.'

There is just the one gospel that our sins can be forgiven in Christ; meaning that they are a debt to be canceled or displaced by righteousness. And since we don't have righteousness it has to be someone else's.

Therefore there are not 2 peoples or 7 of them. That's not how Christ, Paul or Hebrews sounds. Peter was mixed up about it for a while, and was confronted 3 ways, so that's clear enough. Ephesians was written to all Christian groups; in 1:1, the destination in the earlierst copies was left blank, to be filled in by the courier as he traveled around. There is one Lord, faith, people, church, etc.

Be sure to do your home work on the 'gospel of the kingdom' expression, about what kind of prepositional phrase it is. It is not nominative; it is possessive. It simply meant that the announcement of the reign of God was part of that reign, which Paul emphasized in Rom 16:25 where we see that both the Gospel and the proclamation of it 'ground' or 'establish' us. It was not a gospel about a kingdom (read 'theocracy') that some amateur theologians think is awaiting Israel only. They are the ones who don't read or know Galatians.

The same grammatical mistake is made about Gal 2:7 as though there were 2 there. There is not. There are two people preaching.

 

[patrick jane]

Nope, and no one is suggesting that the literary title gospel (the 4 and then there's the pseudos) are in the same category as Paul or Isaiah term 'gospel.'

There is just the one gospel that our sins can be forgiven in Christ; meaning that they are a debt to be canceled or displaced by righteousness. And since we don't have righteousness it has to be someone else's.

Therefore there are not 2 peoples or 7 of them. That's not how Christ, Paul or Hebrews sounds. Peter was mixed up about it for a while, and was confronted 3 ways, so that's clear enough. Ephesians was written to all Christian groups; in 1:1, the destination in the earlierst copies was left blank, to be filled in by the courier as he traveled around. There is one Lord, faith, people, church, etc.

Be sure to do your home work on the 'gospel of the kingdom' expression, about what kind of prepositional phrase it is. It is not nominative; it is possessive. It simply meant that the announcement of the reign of God was part of that reign, which Paul emphasized in Rom 16:25 where we see that both the Gospel and the proclamation of it 'ground' or 'establish' us. It was not a gospel about a kingdom (read 'theocracy') that some amateur theologians think is awaiting Israel only. They are the ones who don't read or know Galatians.

The same grammatical mistake is made about Gal 2:7 as though there were 2 there. There is not. There are two people preaching.

You don't make any sense

 

[Right Divider]

Nope, and no one is suggesting that the literary title gospel (the 4 and then there's the pseudos) are in the same category as Paul or Isaiah term 'gospel.'

Were do "literary titles" come into this discussion?

There is just the one gospel that our sins can be forgiven in Christ; meaning that they are a debt to be canceled or displaced by righteousness. And since we don't have righteousness it has to be someone else's.

Indeed, THIS gospel is called the gospel of the grace of God. It is NOT the gospel of the kingdom. THAT gospel (of the kingdom) is specifically related to Israel and their leading all of the other nations.

Therefore there are not 2 peoples or 7 of them. That's not how Christ, Paul or Hebrews sounds. Peter was mixed up about it for a while, and was confronted 3 ways, so that's clear enough. Ephesians was written to all Christian groups; in 1:1, the destination in the earlierst copies was left blank, to be filled in by the courier as he traveled around. There is one Lord, faith, people, church, etc.

The "confused" Peter is always the "way out" for you guys.

I understand that you cannot understand how God works with Israel and church (the body of Christ).

Be sure to do your home work on the 'gospel of the kingdom' expression, about what kind of prepositional phrase it is. It is not nominative; it is possessive.

I know what it means, the Bible clearly shows it and explains it.

Mar 1:14-15 KJV Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, (15) And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.​

The gospel of the kingdom was that the kingdom was at hand. Pure and simple.

This is the SAME kingdom that Daniel spoke of long before:

Dan 2:44 KJV And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.​

It simply meant that the announcement of the reign of God was part of that reign, which Paul emphasized in Rom 16:25 where we see that both the Gospel and the proclamation of it 'ground' or 'establish' us. It was not a gospel about a kingdom (read 'theocracy') that some amateur theologians think is awaiting Israel only. They are the ones who don't read or know Galatians.

You're just plain wrong, as usual.

Rev 21:9-14 KJV And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife. (10) And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, (11) Having the glory of God: and her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal; (12) And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel: (13) On the east three gates; on the north three gates; on the south three gates; and on the west three gates. (14) And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.​

The same grammatical mistake is made about Gal 2:7 as though there were 2 there. There is not. There are two people preaching.

Oh, the Bible correcters. What would we do without you?

 

[jamie]

Why do you keep making up terms? The word of truth, is the gospel of your salvation. Why do you argue against it?

I regard Jesus' gospel as being the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. (Mark 1:1 NKJV)​

What was the gospel of Jesus Christ?

Now after John was put in prison, Jesus came to Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God. (Mark 1:14 NKJV)​

So what is the gospel of the kingdom of God?

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." (John 14:6 NKJV)​

Only those who have access to the Father are the sons of God.

For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. (Romans 8:14 NKJV)​

 

[Right Divider]

I regard Jesus' gospel as being the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. (Mark 1:1 NKJV)​

What was the gospel of Jesus Christ?

Now after John was put in prison, Jesus came to Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God. (Mark 1:14 NKJV)​

How very inventive of you.

Did you NOT NOTICE that the BIBLE puts a COMMA where YOU put a PERIOD? That is called FALSE WITNESS.

Mark 1:14

(ASV) Now after John was delivered up, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God,

(ESV) Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God,

(KJV) Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,

(LITV) And after John was delivered up, Jesus came into Galilee proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom of God,

(MKJV) And after John was delivered up, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom of God,

(YLT) And after the delivering up of John, Jesus came to Galilee, proclaiming the good news of the reign of God,
​

And there is a reason for that. The next verse shows why.

Mar 1:14-15 KJV Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, (15) And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.​

So what is the gospel of the kingdom of God?

It tells you right there in verse 15.

"The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand"

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." (John 14:6 NKJV)​

Please show FROM THE BIBLE and IN CONTEXT that this is the meaning.

Only those who have access to the Father are the sons of God.

For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. (Romans 8:14 NKJV)​

I don't see "Father" mentioned there.

 

[jamie]

How very inventive of you.

Did you NOT NOTICE that the BIBLE puts a COMMA where YOU put a PERIOD? That is called FALSE WITNESS.
Mark 1:14

I put a period there because that statement made my point.

Did you know the punctuation was supplied by the translators?

 

[Right Divider]

I put a period there because that statement made my point.

Yes, making the Word of God say what you want by changing it.

Did you know the punctuation was supplied by the translators?

Indeed, I do. And I can also clearly see that VERSE 15 further explains VERSE 14.

Read the Word of God IN CONTEXT and it explains itself.

The gospel of the kingdom is the good news that the kingdom was AT HAND. Plain and simple.

 

[Interplanner]

Yes, making the Word of God say what you want by changing it.


Indeed, I do. And I can also clearly see that VERSE 15 further explains VERSE 14.

Read the Word of God IN CONTEXT and it explains itself.

The gospel of the kingdom is the good news that the kingdom was AT HAND. Plain and simple.

But not a theocracy as they thought in Jn 6, and 12:34. That was what the zealots thought and was "anti"Christ.

Instead the gospel of Christ was that he was to give his life a ransom for many (an expression from Is 53). He was the Christ/Anointed of Dan 9 which would be shadowed by the anti- of 8:13 etc and also 9's catastrophic ending.

Otherwise you end up with 2P2P and with a delayed kingdom that re-theocratizes an Israel kingdom, which is nowhere in the NT. Rom 11 is about come of Israel being justified from sins, in the Isaianic sense of 'sins taken away' (cp John the Baptiser's Lamb) but is not about another theocracy episode. Not at all. Paul is read that Isaiah passage as having taken place in Christ, and as being believed by a remnant of people down through time.

 

[Interplanner]

Were do "literary titles" come into this discussion?


Indeed, THIS gospel is called the gospel of the grace of God. It is NOT the gospel of the kingdom. THAT gospel (of the kingdom) is specifically related to Israel and their leading all of the other nations.


The "confused" Peter is always the "way out" for you guys.

I understand that you cannot understand how God works with Israel and church (the body of Christ).


I know what it means, the Bible clearly shows it and explains it.

Mar 1:14-15 KJV Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, (15) And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.​

The gospel of the kingdom was that the kingdom was at hand. Pure and simple.

This is the SAME kingdom that Daniel spoke of long before:

Dan 2:44 KJV And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.​

You're just plain wrong, as usual.

Rev 21:9-14 KJV And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife. (10) And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, (11) Having the glory of God: and her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal; (12) And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel: (13) On the east three gates; on the north three gates; on the south three gates; and on the west three gates. (14) And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.​

Oh, the Bible correcters. What would we do without you?

Never generate a doctrine out of the Rev when there are perfectly clear statements elsewhere. For one thing, Paul already talked clearly about another Israel, temple, Lamb, passover, etc.

 

[Right Divider]

But not a theocracy as they thought in Jn 6, and 12:34. That was what the zealots thought and was "anti"Christ.

Of course it was going to be a theocracy with the Lord Jesus Christ as KING!

Mat 2:6 KJV And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.

Mic 5:2 KJV 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.
​

Instead the gospel of Christ was that he was to give his life a ransom for many (an expression from Is 53). He was the Christ/Anointed of Dan 9 which would be shadowed by the anti- of 8:13 etc and also 9's catastrophic ending.

2Ti 2:7-9 KJV Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things. (8) Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel: (9) Wherein I suffer trouble, as an evil doer, even unto bonds; but the word of God is not bound.​

Otherwise you end up with 2P2P and with a delayed kingdom that re-theocratizes an Israel kingdom, which is nowhere in the NT.

Actually, it's all through it. You just ignore or twist it.

Rom 11 is about come of Israel being justified from sins, in the Isaianic sense of 'sins taken away' (cp John the Baptiser's Lamb) but is not about another theocracy episode. Not at all. Paul is read that Isaiah passage as having taken place in Christ, and as being believed by a remnant of people down through time.

In Acts 1, the Lord Jesus Christ makes it clear that the kingdom of Israel would be restored. You don't believe it; I do.

 

[heir]

Ditto.

What aspect of 2 Tim 2 are you referring to? It has been shown for a long time now that the dividing is a church-administrative word; he never meant Bible-wide doctrines. You can tell this from the verses on context. If he had said this in 2 Cor 4, it would be another matter.

The word of truth (which is the gospel of your salvation) must be rightly divided in order for your study to be approved unto God. Your "one gospel"ism falls flat on it's face with 2 Timothy 2:15 KJV. If there was only ever one as you believe, there's nothing to rightly divide! Get it?

 

[Danoh]

Ditto.

What aspect of 2 Tim 2 are you referring to? It has been shown for a long time now that the dividing is a church-administrative word; he never meant Bible-wide doctrines. You can tell this from the verses on context. If he had said this in 2 Cor 4, it would be another matter.

Oh really, now?

In that same chapter - 2 Tim. 2; he touches on the "eternal glory" that "according to" Paul's "my gospel" the resurrection of Jesus Christ has made possible - the certaintly of the Believer's being resurrected one day unto his being able to reign with Christ in glory, in that day.

He has just based his words of encouragement to Timothy that he "be strong in the grace in Christ Jesus" on that.

And he relates how that he wants all who know he: Paul, is in bonds for this truth, to also focus on it in his example - on how that their own "sufferring with" Christ now, is tied to the reward of this "eternal glory" they will each see in the day of their resurrection...

Then, he goes from that to dealing with the issue of the "vain and profane babbling" of some, who are asserting "that the resurrection is past already..." that the Believer's resurrection unto that eternal glory with the Lord is past already - that they have missed it.

If that is not Paul's "rightly dividing" between his "my gospel" and "their word" against it, well...

I guess I'll have to take up your Historian "school..." with its' endless conjecture and guessing at...

"Did Josephus actually plot his surviving that throat cutting he suggested to his own, or was it that this, that, the other..."

"Did Hannibal plot crossing the Alps, or did Rome force that route on him..."

"Did the "Indians" know Custer was in way over his head, or did they just happen in on him and his men and got down to the business at hand..."

"Did this, did that, did the other..."

"Historian..."

You mean "endless books reader..."

Have at it, Inter...

 

[Interplanner]

Working back, which is how context forms, it is about those who quarrel about words,
about how people can deny Him and what happens when they do,
about how the Gospel is that Christ's resurrection proves there is justification (not the bare fact that he is raised) and that same person is the descendant of David that was coming.

You are right about it not pertaining to church organization.

If the quarreling links to the gangrene and chatter of the next verse forward, it is about the residue of Judaism that Paul tried to excise.

 

[Interplanner]

It has nothing to do with imagining several gospels, because the one gospel is mentioned right there in v8: that his resurrection for our justification is what fulfills the Davidic descendancy. See Acts 13's sermon for details on that. Nothing has fallen flat in the least.

(Sorry I'm not used to the new format and missed the quote link; this is in response to two opposting posts back).