The myth of the "early church"

[Right Divider]

And it doesn't really help your point either.

Yes, it does.

So we can let it be now.

Of course you would say that.

But we were talking about what the Ephesians were joined to, with the middle wall of partition broken down.

Indeed, they were not "joined to fallen Israel".

Here are all the verses where Paul uses that language, including a couple where he possibly talks about it in slightly different language. Which of these speaks of the body of Christ as a new creature/new creation?

Clearly... ALL OF THEM.

If these don't work (and they don't),

Yes, they DO!

please point out the ones you use to say that the body of Christ was a new creature with Paul as its first member.

That is here (as you've been shown 3.8374 million times):

1Tim 1:16 (AKJV/PCE)​

(1:16) Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting. ​

​

1Cor 4:16 (AKJV/PCE)​

(4:16) Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.​

​

1Cor 11:1 (AKJV/PCE)​

(11:1) Be ye followers of me, even as I also [am] of Christ.​

Rather Paul confirms that he once persecuted the faith that he now preaches:
Galatians 1:23 KJV - But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.

Perhaps you should learn what HEARSAY means (and why it is notoriously unreliable and therefore not accepted as evidence in court).

 

[Derf]

I "liked" your post because you are presenting your arguments (mostly) without the insults. Thanks for your patience.

Yes, it does.

Of course you would say that.

Indeed, they were not "joined to fallen Israel".

No, of course not. But is fallen Israel still joined to Israel? No, they have been cut off. And if they have been cut off of the true Israel, and others have been grafted in (that could also be cut off, Paul says), then we have something that is consistent.

Clearly... ALL OF THEM.

No, they all speak of a man becoming a new creation in Christ, not that Christ has made a new creation for a man to be a member of.

Yes, they DO!

That is here (as you've been shown 3.8374 million times):

1Tim 1:16 (AKJV/PCE)​

(1:16) Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting. ​

This does not exclude others that believed before from being in the same body of Christ, but it shows that Paul's example was to be a pattern for all who hear the gospel through him.

​

1Cor 4:16 (AKJV/PCE)​

(4:16) Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.​

​

1Cor 11:1 (AKJV/PCE)​

(11:1) Be ye followers of me, even as I also [am] of Christ.​

This only says that following Christ would be just as effective as following Paul. It certainly doesn't suggest that Christ's body was a new creation with Paul. That would be absurd.

Perhaps you should learn what HEARSAY means (and why it is notoriously unreliable and therefore not accepted as evidence in court).

Huh? How is this relevant to the discussion? You are complaining about my use of this:

Galatians 1:23 KJV - ... That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.
To say, "Rather Paul confirms that he once persecuted the faith that he now preaches."
The elipsis removes the distraction for you. If it were inaccurate hearsay, as you suggest, then Paul would have cleared up the matter.
Paul confirms what you called hearsay, so now there is no reason to call it hearsay, if there ever was one. The believers in Jerusalem were of the understanding that Paul was preaching the faith he once persecuted. That tells us that the faith was not new. It was not a new message or a new gospel.

 

[Right Divider]

I "liked" your post because you are presenting your arguments (mostly) without the insults. Thanks for your patience.

You're welcome.

No, of course not. But is fallen Israel still joined to Israel?

That is a nonsensical statement.

No, they have been cut off.

From what?

And if they have been cut off of the true Israel, and others have been grafted in (that could also be cut off, Paul says), then we have something that is consistent.

That is not talking about what is going on at the time that Paul said it. Paul is essentially giving a history lesson.

No, they all speak of a man becoming a new creation in Christ, not that Christ has made a new creation for a man to be a member of.

The "new creature in Christ" is the one new man, where there is neither Jew NOR Greek.

This does not exclude others that believed before from being in the same body of Christ, but it shows that Paul's example was to be a pattern for all who hear the gospel through him.

Silly nonsense and that is NOT what the TEXT says. It does NOT SAY "those that hear the gospel through me". It says "to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting".

Stop blaspheming God by perverting His Word.

This only says that following Christ would be just as effective as following Paul.

Still making stuff up by forcing your ideas on the scripture instead of letting scripture speak.

It certainly doesn't suggest that Christ's body was a new creation with Paul. That would be absurd.

No, what you're suggesting is absurd.

Huh? How is this relevant to the discussion?

Because the scripture, AGAIN, does NOT say what you're saying that it says.
You said "Rather Paul confirms that he once persecuted the faith that he now preaches" and it says NO SUCH THING.

What it DOES SAY is that other were saying that and that does NOT make it true.

You are complaining about my use of this:

Galatians 1:23 KJV - ... That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.
To say, "Rather Paul confirms that he once persecuted the faith that he now preaches."

Absolutely I am... PAUL said NO SUCH THING.

The elipsis removes the distraction for you. If it were inaccurate hearsay, as you suggest, then Paul would have cleared up the matter.

Paul said nothing about it's accuracy or inaccuracy. Again you PREFER it to mean what you want it to means. You're making a claim that you cannot support.

Paul confirms what you called hearsay,

No, he does NOT. Again, you're inventing things that are not there.

The believers in Jerusalem were of the understanding that Paul was preaching the faith he once persecuted. That tells us that the faith was not new. It was not a new message or a new gospel.

That is, AGAIN, nonsense. There is a reason that Paul calls his gospel MY GOSPEL. If it was not new he has no grounds on which to say such a thing (MY GOSPEL).

No doubt that you also believe that the gospel of the CIRCUMCISION is the same as the gospel of the UNCIRCUMCISION (which is a complete contradiction in terms and explicitly denied by Galatians 2).

 

[Idolater]

Make yourself familiar withe books of Moses. Specifically the first 5 books of the Bible.

This is pretty non-responsive. What's wrong with all the New Testament passages I quoted, which quote from the Old Testament? You're being too subtle, if you're trying to make a point.

 

[Derf]

You're welcome.

That is a nonsensical statement.

No more so than Paul's.

From what?

That is not talking about what is going on at the time that Paul said it. Paul is essentially giving a history lesson.

Of course. Any event in the past is history. But the point is that Paul was preaching the faith that he had previously persecuted. Here's who Christ said Paul was persecuting:
Acts 9:2 KJV - And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.
Acts 9:4 KJV - And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
Acts 9:5 KJV - And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: [it is] hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

And Christ had a job for him, to bear His name before Gentiles, kings and children of Israel.
Acts 9:15 KJV - 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:

Now we've already talked about the Jewish believers in Jerusalem that considered Paul to be preaching the faith that he had persecuted, but what about the term "this way" whereby Paul referred to the believers? Did he use the term later to describe what he was preaching? Luke, Paul's companion, did so here:
Acts 19:9 KJV - But when divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus.

Paul referred to "this way" here, in a retelling of his conversion and how he persecuted the believers:
Acts 22:4 KJV - And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women.
The second is where he explains that it is how he considers himself:
Later Paul associates what he believes with "the way":
Acts 24:14 KJV - But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets

So even if you don't agree Paul was confirming that he persecuted the same faith that he later preached, he tells us in Acts (through Luke) that it is the same. These are stronger evidence, because Paul might have at first been preaching the same as the 12, then later learned more about "his" gospel.

The "new creature in Christ" is the one new man, where there is neither Jew NOR Greek.

Ok, so you are, I think, referring to this verse:
Galatians 6:15 KJV - For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
But that verse is referring not to a body of believers, but a single person, who, believing in Christ, is a new creature, whether circumcised or not. Furthermore, the next verse helps us understand what he meant about Israel:
Galatians 6:16 KJV - And as many as walk according to this rule, peace [be] on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.
"the Israel of God" is obviously not unbelieving Israel (because they are not walking according to "this rule"), so he must be speaking of believing Israel, meaning that they are "in Christ", and he had just asserted that there is no difference between the believers of Israel (circumcised) and the Gentiles. So if there is no difference between the two, then they are saved by the same gospel.

The same concept is stated in Romans 10:
Romans 10:8 KJV - But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, [even] in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
Romans 10:9 KJV - That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Romans 10:10 KJV - For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Romans 10:11 KJV - For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
Romans 10:12 KJV - For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
Romans 10:13 KJV - For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Note he's not saying there's no difference for someone in Christ, but that there is no difference in how you get saved, whether Jew or Greek, because it is the same Lord. If you say it is different for Jews, then essentially you are saying there is a different Lord for the two groups.

Silly nonsense and that is NOT what the TEXT says. It does NOT SAY "those that hear the gospel through me". It says "to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting".

Of course, because he would be bringing the gospel to a whole new group of people. So those who Paul would tell about the gospel would be assured their case was at least no worse than of the one who persecuted Christ and His body before being saved. If you make this merely about a chronology of those who come to faith, you weaken it to almost worthlessness.

Stop blaspheming God by perverting His Word.

It is interesting you suggest this, because it should make you even more careful how you divide divide the word, seeing that you think anyone who is wrong is blaspheming God.

Still making stuff up by forcing your ideas on the scripture instead of letting scripture speak.

No, what you're suggesting is absurd.

Because the scripture, AGAIN, does NOT say what you're saying that it says.
You said "Rather Paul confirms that he once persecuted the faith that he now preaches" and it says NO SUCH THING.

What it DOES SAY is that other were saying that and that does NOT make it true.

But Paul tells us what they were saying, and does not tell us they were wrong, leaving it unclear, if there is a difference in message rather than a difference in audience. And the other scripture I cited shows that Paul was persecuting the "way" he later was part of.

Absolutely I am... PAUL said NO SUCH THING.

Paul said nothing about it's accuracy or inaccuracy. Again you PREFER it to mean what you want it to means. You're making a claim that you cannot support.

No, he does NOT. Again, you're inventing things that are not there.

Not inventing, just reporting what Paul (and Luke) recorded.

That is, AGAIN, nonsense. There is a reason that Paul calls his gospel MY GOSPEL. If it was not new he has no grounds on which to say such a thing (MY GOSPEL).

Good, let's talk about Paul's gospel. He uses that phrase only 3 times, 5 when you include "our gospel". Other times he calls it by other monikers, including earlier in the 1Timothy chapter you started us on:
1 Timothy 1:11 KJV — According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.

He called it "the gospel of Christ" 11 times, "Christ's gospel" once, " the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ" once, "The gospel of His Son" once, "the gospel of God" 8 times, "the gospel of peace" twice, "the gospel of your salvation" once. I assume you would agree that all of those refer to the same thing, especially since 4 of the different terms occur in the first 2 chapters of Romans.

No doubt that you also believe that the gospel of the CIRCUMCISION is the same as the gospel of the UNCIRCUMCISION

Certainly, since Paul says (Supra) the Jew and the Greek are no different in how they are saved, it being the same Lord who saves both.

(which is a complete contradiction in terms and explicitly denied by Galatians 2).

No, it isn't, if Paul and Peter had different target audiences, which I think you would agree with.

 

[Right Divider]

And Christ had a job for him, to bear His name before Gentiles, kings and children of Israel.
Acts 9:15 KJV - 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:

Yes, so why did Paul later agree to limit his ministry?

Now we've already talked about the Jewish believers in Jerusalem that considered Paul to be preaching the faith that he had persecuted, but what about the term "this way" whereby Paul referred to the believers? Did he use the term later to describe what he was preaching? Luke, Paul's companion, did so here:
Acts 19:9 KJV - But when divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus.

Paul taught the WHOLE COUNCIL of God. That does NOT mean that the twelve did that... as they did NOT know anything about the gospel of the grace of God... until Paul taught THEM about it.

The same concept is stated in Romans 10:
Romans 10:8 KJV - But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, [even] in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
Romans 10:9 KJV - That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Romans 10:10 KJV - For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Romans 10:11 KJV - For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
Romans 10:12 KJV - For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
Romans 10:13 KJV - For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Again, you are failing the TIMELINE. The "no difference" came AFTER PAUL.

Before the gospel of the grace of God... there most certainly was a difference:

​

John 4:22 (AKJV/PCE)​

(4:22) Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.​

You have a very common problem: You see only the similarities in God's plans and ignore the differences.

Perhaps you could get back on topic.

 

[Derf]

Yes, so why did Paul later agree to limit his ministry?

Because he wasn't needed where 12 others were already preaching.

Paul taught the WHOLE COUNCIL of God. That does NOT mean that the twelve did that... as they did NOT know anything about the gospel of the grace of God... until Paul taught THEM about it.

Again, you are failing the TIMELINE. The "no difference" came AFTER PAUL.

I don't disagree, but of what significance is that to you? If the gospel was the same, but the audience was different, you still have a difference with Paul, without the division Christ prayed against.

Before the gospel of the grace of God... there most certainly was a difference:

​

John 4:22 (AKJV/PCE)​

(4:22) Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.​

Are you saying Jesus taught there's a different salvation for the Samaritans? Remember that before Paul, the Samaritans were already being accepted into the church by Peter (Acts 8:14-17).

You have a very common problem: You see only the similarities in God's plans and ignore the differences.

Perhaps you could get back on topic.

Perhaps so. Tell me where you think I'm off topic, and I'll adjust.

 

[Right Divider]

Because he wasn't needed where 12 others were already preaching.

Why was Paul needed at all? Why did God send 12 apostles to the tiny country of Israel and yet just ONE guy to the entire rest of the world?

Your "theory" is completely illogical.

I don't disagree, but of what significance is that to you? If the gospel was the same, but the audience was different, you still have a difference with Paul, without the division Christ prayed against.

Again, ILLOGICAL... you believe that two gospels (there are many more) is divisive and YET one gospel to TWO SEPARATE groups of people is not divisive.

Are you saying Jesus taught there's a different salvation for the Samaritans?

It looks like you're under the false impression that Samaritans are gentiles... they are NOT.

Remember that before Paul, the Samaritans were already being accepted into the church by Peter (Acts 8:14-17).

Indeed, so were all of the PROSELYTES accepted as well.

The ONLY people that the Bible documents were in attendance on that "day of Pentecost" were JEWS and PROSELYTES (i.e., no random gentiles).

Acts 2:22 (AKJV/PCE)​

(2:22) Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:​

​

Why was Peter being divisive by excluding gentiles?

Luke 12:51 (AKJV/PCE)​

(12:51) Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: ​

OH MY... why was Jesus being divisive?

 

[Derf]

Why was Paul needed at all? Why did God send 12 apostles to the tiny country of Israel and yet just ONE guy to the entire rest of the world?

Jews are stubborn. And God loved the Jews as His chosen people.

Your "theory" is completely illogical.


Again, ILLOGICAL... you believe that two gospels (there are many more) is divisive and YET one gospel to TWO SEPARATE groups of people is not divisive.

Huh??? Why would a single gospel to two separate groups be divisive?

It looks like you're under the false impression that Samaritans are gentiles... they are NOT.

But Jesus said not to go to either the Gentiles or the Samaritans in Matt 10:5. Why would they then go to the Samaritans? But not Gentiles later, after Jesus gave them the great commission?

Indeed, so were all of the PROSELYTES accepted as well.

The ONLY people that the Bible documents were in attendance on that "day of Pentecost" were JEWS and PROSELYTES (i.e., no random gentiles).

Acts 2:22 (AKJV/PCE)​

(2:22) Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:​

​

Why was Peter being divisive by excluding gentiles?

Because he didn't yet understand that the gospel was for the whole world, not just the Jews.

Luke 12:51 (AKJV/PCE)​

(12:51) Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: ​

OH MY... why was Jesus being divisive?

He would have been were He saying He came to divide one of His churches from another. But that's not the plain reading of the text. But He was referring to division between those who acknowledged Him as Lord and those who did not.

 

[Right Divider]

Jews are stubborn.

So are you!

And God loved the Jews as His chosen people.

No kidding... neither of those is why God chose TWELVE apostles for the TWELVE tribes of ISRAEL.

Huh??? Why would a single gospel to two separate groups be divisive?

Why would two gospels (and there are many more) be divisive? Either they are both divisive or they are both NOT divisive.

But Jesus said not to go to either the Gentiles or the Samaritans in Matt 10:5. Why would they then go to the Samaritans? But not Gentiles later, after Jesus gave them the great commission?

Perhaps you need to read the Bible... They were to BEGIN in Jerusalem (Luke 24:47,49) and move out from there (Acts 1:8). But Jerusalem was rejecting their message and continued to reject their message.

God gave Israel a "limited time offer" (Luke 13:6-9) and they failed to accept it (Act 7). Therefore, God revealed a MYSTERY to the apostle Paul.

Because he didn't yet understand that the gospel was for the whole world, not just the Jews.

Both gospels (and there are many more) were/are for the whole world. But not in the exact same way. The gospel of the kingdom has Israel as the head nation with gentiles following them. The gospel of the grace of God has no hierarchy with all people having the same standing before God.

Israel was to be a nation of priests to the gentiles. Exo 19:6, 1 Pet 2:9

BUT NOW, Paul's gospel (MY GOSPEL) has no priesthood... everyone can go directly to God through a single mediator, the Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Tim 2:5

He would have been were He saying He came to divide one of His churches from another.

But that's not the plain reading of the text. But He was referring to division between those who acknowledged Him as Lord and those who did not.

Amen! A DIVISION.

You'll probably never come to the knowledge of the truth... so be it.

 

[Derf]

So are you!

Thank you.

No kidding... neither of those is why God chose TWELVE apostles for the TWELVE tribes of ISRAEL.

Why would two gospels (and there are many more) be divisive? Either they are both divisive or they are both NOT divisive.

Maybe we should define what a gospel is suppose to comprise. In other wrods, if a gospel is good news, why is it good news. And if one gospel has to give way to another, does the good news change? So, WHAT IS THE GOOD NEWS OF THE KINGDOM, AND WHY IS IT GOOD NEWS, especially since you say it was for the whole world (eventually).

Perhaps you need to read the Bible... They were to BEGIN in Jerusalem (Luke 24:47,49) and move out from there (Acts 1:8). But Jerusalem was rejecting their message and continued to reject their message.

God gave Israel a "limited time offer" (Luke 13:6-9) and they failed to accept it (Act 7). Therefore, God revealed a MYSTERY to the apostle Paul.

Please tell me what the mystery was, so I can understand your complete picture.

Both gospels (and there are many more) were/are for the whole world. But not in the exact same way. The gospel of the kingdom has Israel as the head nation with gentiles following them. The gospel of the grace of God has no hierarchy with all people having the same standing before God.

would you say that the gospel of the kingdom was also a gospel of grace, just delivered through a different mechanism? Iow, before Paul's gospel, as you say, would the world be saved by faith or by their works?

Israel was to be a nation of priests to the gentiles. Exo 19:6, 1 Pet 2:9

Meaning they were the chosen mechanism for the dispensation of the gospel? Or of salvation?

BUT NOW, Paul's gospel (MY GOSPEL) has no priesthood... everyone can go directly to God through a single mediator, the Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Tim 2:5

The Lord Jesus Christ is a high priest, isn't He? Why is this a difference? If Israel was to be a nation of priests, who were to go to the whole world with the good news of the kingdom, and now Paul, skipping the ascendancy of the Jewish people in the kingdom, goes straight to the gentiles, isn't he just doing the work of the Jewish nation in being a priest to the gentiles?

Amen! A DIVISION.

Not sure why this helps you.

You'll probably never come to the knowledge of the truth... so be it.

Stay patient, you're being more clear than usual.

 

[Right Divider]

Thank you.

It wasn't a compliment.

Maybe we should define what a gospel is suppose to comprise. In other wrods, if a gospel is good news, why is it good news.

Yes, gospel simply means "good news" or "good message".

And if one gospel has to give way to another, does the good news change?

It doesn't really work that way. "Gospels" are not solitary things that must "give way" if there is another "good news". They can and sometimes do run concurrently. But the offer of the kingdom to Israel was rejected and the mystery of Christ was revealed to and through the apostle Paul.

So, WHAT IS THE GOOD NEWS OF THE KINGDOM, AND WHY IS IT GOOD NEWS, especially since you say it was for the whole world (eventually).

The Bible describes the gospel of the kingdom as the kingdom being "at hand" (i.e., near in time).

Matt 3:1-2 (AKJV/PCE)​

(3:1) In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea, (3:2) And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is 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. ​

​

Matt 10:5-8 (AKJV/PCE)​

(10:5) These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into [any] city of the Samaritans enter ye not: (10:6) But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. (10:7) And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. (10:8) Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.​

​

Mark 1:14-15 (AKJV/PCE)​

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

Please tell me what the mystery was, so I can understand your complete picture.

You really don't know? It sounds like you might be an unsaved person.

would you say that the gospel of the kingdom was also a gospel of grace, just delivered through a different mechanism? Iow, before Paul's gospel, as you say, would the world be saved by faith or by their works?

Ask James.

Jas 2:14 (AKJV/PCE)​

(2:14) What [doth it] profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? ​

It's a rhetorical question.

Jas 2:24 (AKJV/PCE)​

(2:24) Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.​

On the other hand... Paul says:

Rom 4:1-5 (AKJV/PCE)​

(4:1) What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? (4:2) For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath [whereof] to glory; but not before God. (4:3) For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. (4:4) Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. (4:5) But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. ​

Those are OPPOSITE comments about faith and works.

Meaning they were the chosen mechanism for the dispensation of the gospel? Or of salvation?

They were separated from other people for a purpose. To preach God to the rest of the world. To bring the nations (i.e., gentiles) to God.

The Lord Jesus Christ is a high priest, isn't He?

In His relationship to Israel in the flesh, absolutely!

We in the body of Christ have a different relationship with Him. 2 Cor 5:16

Why is this a difference? If Israel was to be a nation of priests, who were to go to the whole world with the good news of the kingdom, and now Paul, skipping the ascendancy of the Jewish people in the kingdom, goes straight to the gentiles, isn't he just doing the work of the Jewish nation in being a priest to the gentiles?

No, because God gave Paul a NEW MESSAGE that was previously KEPT SECRET since the world began.

Rom 16:25 (AKJV/PCE)​

(16:25) Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, ​

 

[Derf]

The Bible describes the gospel of the kingdom as the kingdom being "at hand" (i.e., near in time).

Matt 3:1-2 (AKJV/PCE)(3:1) In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea, (3:2) And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is 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. Matt 10:5-8 (AKJV/PCE)(10:5) These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into [any] city of the Samaritans enter ye not: (10:6) But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. (10:7) And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. (10:8) Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.Mark 1:14-15 (AKJV/PCE)(1:14) Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, (1:15) And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

So why was it good news? News is obvious—why good?

 

[Right Divider]

So why was it good news? News is obvious—why good?

Have you never read any of the old testament prophets?

A little help from Gemini:

TL;DR: The gospel of the kingdom is the good news preached to Israel that God would establish his prophesied, literal earthly reign through the Messiah, requiring repentance, water baptism, and obedience.​

• The Core Message: Jesus Christ arrived as the promised Messiah to fulfill the covenants made to Abraham and David, offering Israel its promised earthly kingdom (Matthew 4:17, Matthew 10:5-7).
• The Audience: Preached by John the Baptist, Jesus during his earthly ministry, and the twelve apostles exclusively to the circumcision—the house of Israel (Matthew 15:24).
• The Requirements: Repentance, belief in Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God, water baptism for the remission of sins, and endurance under the law (Mark 1:4, Acts 2:38).
• The Hope: A literal, physical reign of Christ on earth with his resurrected saints ruling over the nations from Jerusalem.

 

[Derf]

Have you never read any of the old testament prophets?

Why was it good news for the people that weren't going to benegotiate from it?

A little help from Gemini:

I should have known you would need some artificial intelligence help.

TL;DR: The gospel of the kingdom is the good news preached to Israel that God would establish his prophesied, literal earthly reign through the Messiah, requiring repentance, water baptism, and obedience.​

• The Core Message: Jesus Christ arrived as the promised Messiah to fulfill the covenants made to Abraham and David, offering Israel its promised earthly kingdom (Matthew 4:17, Matthew 10:5-7).
• The Audience: Preached by John the Baptist, Jesus during his earthly ministry, and the twelve apostles exclusively to the circumcision—the house of Israel (Matthew 15:24).

But you admitted the exclusion was temporary, correct?

• The Requirements: Repentance, belief in Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God, water baptism for the remission of sins, and endurance under the law (Mark 1:4, Acts 2:38).

Neither of those references speaks of endurance under the law. John's baptism in Mark 1:4 was part of the preparation for the arrival of the Christ, and not part of the gospel itself.

The Acts reference, here:

Acts 2:38 KJV — Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

talks about the gift of the Holy Ghost, something John promised from the coming Messiah as part of the gospel he preached:

Mark 1:8 KJV — I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.

Why do you not include the Holy Ghost part of the gospel, and what does the Holy Ghost signify in the kingdom gospel as opposed to Paul's gospel?

• The Hope: A literal, physical reign of Christ on earth with his resurrected saints ruling over the nations from Jerusalem.

Interesting that the last point has no scripture reference. Part of the understanding was that no one would rule over the Jews (i.e., they would be saved from the Romans).

Here's part of one of the prophecies:
Isaiah 2:4 KJV — And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

Doesn't this sound like a gospel of peace, similar to what Paul taught?
Ephesians 6:15 KJV — And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;

 

[Right Divider]

Why was it good news for the people that weren't going to benegotiate from it?

I cannot understand your word.

Note that something does not have to be "good news" for everyone for it to be "good news" to someone.

I should have known you would need some artificial intelligence help.

What's the actual problem? (Hint: there is none, you're just trying to distract).

But you admitted the exclusion was temporary, correct?

The kingdom is Israel's. That's why Jesus and the twelve limited their audience. Matt 15:24, Acts 2:22
The gospel of the grace of God is indiscriminate. Gal 3:28

Neither of those references speaks of endurance under the law. John's baptism in Mark 1:4 was part of the preparation for the arrival of the Christ, and not part of the gospel itself.

You think that the arrival of Christ was not part of the gospel of the kingdom? Christ is the KING of that KINGDOM. That is exactly why the kingdom was AT HAND (i.e., the gospel of the kingdom).