These are NOT the same gospel

[glorydaz]

This gospel indeed! And the only gospel mentioned in the passage to which "this" might apply, would be? The death of Christ. And John gives us just a wee bit more info, explaining that the "woman" was Mary, the sister of Lazarus. You remember him--the dead guy who came back to life, who happened to be sitting at the table with Jesus when he talked of this gospel. I can't guarantee it, but I imagine Jesus pointed at Mary's brother when he said "this gospel"! It's about the resurrection. Same as Paul's gospel.

This isn't the same gospel Paul preached.

Luke 7:22 Then Jesus answering said unto them, Go your way, and tell John what things ye have seen and heard; how that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, to the poor the gospel is preached.

I know there is a prophesy.

Isaiah 35:5-6
Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped.
Then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing: for in the wilderness shall waters break out, and streams in the desert. Read full chapter

 

[glorydaz]

This gospel indeed! And the only gospel mentioned in the passage to which "this" might apply, would be? The death of Christ. And John gives us just a wee bit more info, explaining that the "woman" was Mary, the sister of Lazarus. You remember him--the dead guy who came back to life, who happened to be sitting at the table with Jesus when he talked of this gospel. I can't guarantee it, but I imagine Jesus pointed at Mary's brother when he said "this gospel"! It's about the resurrection. Same as Paul's gospel.

Was Lazarus present? I don't think so.

Luke 7:
36 And one of the Pharisees desired him that he would eat with him. And he went into the Pharisee's house, and sat down to meat.
37 And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster box of ointment,
38 And stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment.

Regardless, the Gospel of the Kingdom was for a physical people living on a physical earth. Thus all the physical healings....in preparation for the Messiah to rule on the earth.

 

[Right Divider]

This gospel indeed! And the only gospel mentioned in the passage to which "this" might apply, would be? The death of Christ. And John gives us just a wee bit more info, explaining that the "woman" was Mary, the sister of Lazarus. You remember him--the dead guy who came back to life, who happened to be sitting at the table with Jesus when he talked of this gospel. I can't guarantee it, but I imagine Jesus pointed at Mary's brother when he said "this gospel"! It's about the resurrection. Same as Paul's gospel.

Again... the gospel of the KINGDOM is not identical to the gospel of the GRACE OF GOD. You can be as hard-headed as you like. You will not change that fact.

Paul never preached the gospel of the kingdom; Paul preached the gospel of the grace of God.

Resurrection was not a mystery. The body of Christ was a mystery.... UNTIL God revealed it to and through Paul.

P.S. I guess that you really never understood the OP.

 

[Idolater]

Peter was preaching they had to endure to the end

Wasn't Paul? Colossians 1:21 "
And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled 22 In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:
23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;
"

Well, there's definitely a time of transitioning once the Jews crucified their Messiah.

And clearly Paul was critically instrumental in that 'transitioning', no argument there.

I think, though, from what Peter and James and Jude write they were still waiting for the Kingdom, and that Kingdom will still come.

Whereas Paul says we're already in that Kingdom: Colossians 1:12 " Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: 13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:"

You should start a thread on that.

This isn't the wrong thread.

 

[Idolater]

Again... the gospel of the KINGDOM is not identical to the gospel of the GRACE OF GOD. You can be as hard-headed as you like. You will not change that fact.

Paul never preached the gospel of the kingdom

Sure he did. Acts 28:30 " And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him, 31 Preaching the kingdom of God"

 

[Right Divider]

Sure he did. Acts 28:30 " And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him, 31 Preaching the kingdom of God"

Paul did NOT preach the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM to gentiles. The GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM is about ISRAEL. When Jesus was preaching the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM, He also said that He was sent ONLY TO ISRAEL (Matt 15:24).

The kingdom of God that Paul talks about is not the same kingdom. Paul's preaching the kingdom of God is broader and more abstract.

 

[Arial]

There are actually Dispensationalists in the Bible. They are the ones who thought the Lord was coming preaching what you all call the 'Kingdom Gospel'. They appear occasionally in the Gospel accounts (sometimes the Disciples themselves are Dispensationalists) and in early Acts, when they----even at the Ascension----still ask about the coming of the earthly kingdom.

The lesson of the New Testament is not to read the thing thinking the Dispensationalists are the protagonists, they're always either corrected or ignored; it's to notice that what everybody thought was coming, is not what was coming. The Lord brought the New Covenant to the earth, He was dedicating the 'New Testament' with His blood and body on the altar of the cross; our High Priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.

Peter was one of the Dispensationalists in the Gospels, that's for sure. But part of the story of Acts shows how he came to learn the full nature of what the Lord was preaching when He walked this earth. It took at least one altercation with newly 'minted' Apostle Paul to set Peter straight, but afterward, there isn't any necessary indication that Peter was still talking about the 'Kingdom Gospel' in Acts or in his letters.

And remember Galatians was written very early in terms of New Testament books. What Paul recounted there was past, no later than the year AD 50. We don't have any reason to necessarily think that Peter didn't learn his lesson, and while it's granted that 1st Peter was written seemingly to particularly 'Jewish' church assemblies ('Jewish' here meaning any of Abraham's descendants, not just those of Judah, so including what are called 'Samaritans' in the Gospels as well), there is also a distinct lack of instruction to be circumcised, and there is a certain promulgation of the sacrificial death and Resurrection of the Lord.

Peace.

In addition to all this--- there is evidence that Paul and Peter and James and John were all preaching the same gospel. It is found in a scripture in Acts which is often quoted as applying to us as instruction to check what you hear against scripture. Which is a good and correct application, but there is something in there we mostly overlook that shows there is one gospel---not a gospel of the kingdom (which as you said was much misunderstood even by the apostles. It kind of exasperated Jesus after awhile, when they still didn't understand after His resurrection (Acts 1: 1-8).

The scripture I speak of is Acts 17: 10-11 Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the scriptures to find out if these things were so. What scriptures were they checking Paul's words with? The only scriptures they had----the OT.

 

[Right Divider]

In addition to all this--- there is evidence that Paul and Peter and James and John were all preaching the same gospel. It is found in a scripture in Acts which is often quoted as applying to us as instruction to check what you hear against scripture. Which is a good and correct application, but there is something in there we mostly overlook that shows there is one gospel---not a gospel of the kingdom (which as you said was much misunderstood even by the apostles. It kind of exasperated Jesus after awhile, when they still didn't understand after His resurrection (Acts 1: 1-8).

There is NO "exasperation" of Jesus in Acts 1... if there was you could show it. Jesus simply told them that is was not the TIME... not that the question was wrong.

The scripture I speak of is Acts 17: 10-11 Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the scriptures to find out if these things were so. What scriptures were they checking Paul's words with? The only scriptures they had----the OT.

Paul was given REVELATION... much of that revelation was NEW information. That Paul confirms and uses the OT is not proof otherwise.

 

[Derf]

Was Lazarus present? I don't think so.

Luke 7:
36 And one of the Pharisees desired him that he would eat with him. And he went into the Pharisee's house, and sat down to meat.
37 And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster box of ointment,
38 And stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment.

Regardless, the Gospel of the Kingdom was for a physical people living on a physical earth. Thus all the physical healings....in preparation for the Messiah to rule on the earth.

Ok. But that doesn't mean Peter and Paul preached different gospels. After all Paul went through in Acts, here's what he was preaching:
Acts 28:31 (KJV) Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.

 

[Derf]

Again... the gospel of the KINGDOM is not identical to the gospel of the GRACE OF GOD. You can be as hard-headed as you like. You will not change that fact.

Paul never preached the gospel of the kingdom; Paul preached the gospel of the grace of God.

Resurrection was not a mystery. The body of Christ was a mystery.... UNTIL God revealed it to and through Paul.

P.S. I guess that you really never understood the OP.

I think the mystery is more that Gentiles were to be included than that it's a different gospel.

 

[Right Divider]

I think the mystery is more that Gentiles were to be included than that it's a different gospel.

The body of Christ is NOT "gentiles included with Israel".
The body of Christ is NEITHER Jew NOR Greek. Gal 3:28

 

[Derf]

The body of Christ is NOT "gentiles included with Israel".
The body of Christ is NEITHER Jew NOR Greek. Gal 3:28

You seem upset.

 

[Right Divider]

You seem upset.

You seem dense.

 

[Derf]

You seem dense.

That's kinda funny, because you said the gospels were different, I disagreed and said Peter and Paul preached the same gospel. You are saying Peter preached the gospel of the kingdom, and Acts 28--the very last verse in narrative form in the whole bible about Paul--says Paul was preaching the kingdom. The next to last verse says he preached it to all who came to him. The fourth to last verse describes what his kingdom message was, "salvation of God", which is certainly good news, and it included the gentiles.

Here they are, for your reference. Read with your eyes open.
Acts 28:28-31 (KJV) 28 Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and [that] they will hear it. 29 And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves. 30 And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him, 31 Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.

Now go read vs 27, which talks about being dense.

 

[Right Divider]

That's kinda funny, because you said the gospels were different,

They are different... each time you see "the gospel OF <something>"... that's different.

I disagreed and said Peter and Paul preached the same gospel.

You're wrong.

You are saying Peter preached the gospel of the kingdom, and Acts 28--the very last verse in narrative form in the whole bible about Paul--says Paul was preaching the kingdom.

Paul never once uses the term "gospel of the kingdom".
Paul is NOT preaching Israel's kingdom (that's what the gospel of the kingdom is about) to gentiles.

The next to last verse says he preached it to all who came to him. The fourth to last verse describes what his kingdom message was, "salvation of God", which is certainly good news, and it included the gentiles.

Again, many "good news'" in the Bible. Gentiles are not excluded from "good news".

Gospel of the kingdom: Israel's kingdom with Christ as King, gentiles allowed to bless Israel and get blessed in return. (per Genesis 12:1-3)
Gospel of the grace of God: body of Christ where there is NEITHER Jew NOR Greek. (per Gal 2:28).

 

[Derf]

They are different... each time you see "the gospel OF <something>"... that's different.

You're wrong.

Paul never once uses the term "gospel of the kingdom".
Paul is NOT preaching Israel's kingdom (that what the gospel of the kingdom is about) to gentiles.

Again, many "good news'" in the Bible. Gentiles are not excluded from "good news".

Gospel of the kingdom: Israel's kingdom with Christ as King, gentiles allowed to bless Israel and get blessed in return. (per Genesis 12:1-3)
Gospel of the grace of God: body of Christ where there is NEITHER Jew NOR Greek. (per Gal 2:28).

Paul never said the word, "trinity," either.

Do you think he's preaching a gospel in Acts 28? Which one and to whom?

 

[Right Divider]

Paul never said the word, "trinity," either.

Very funny.

Do you think he's preaching a gospel in Acts 28? Which one and to whom?

Paul is trying to get the Jews to recognize their Messiah. They cannot get past that.

 

[glorydaz]

Wasn't Paul? Colossians 1:21 "
And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled 22 In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:
23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

I don't think Paul is speaking of losing salvation. Could be he's saying this:

1 Corinthians 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

More likely, considering the text, he is speaking of the surety of the "hope" of the gospel.
Colossians 1:4-6
4 Since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and of the love which ye have to all the saints,
5 For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel;
6 Which is come unto you, as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth:

"

And clearly Paul was critically instrumental in that 'transitioning', no argument there.

Yay. I love when that happens.

Whereas Paul says we're already in that Kingdom: Colossians 1:12 " Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: 13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:"

This isn't the wrong thread.

Amen to that.

 

[Right Divider]

This explains the kingdoms of God: https://graceambassadors.com/midacts/paul-taught-the-kingdom-of-god

 

[glorydaz]

Paul did NOT preach the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM to gentiles. The GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM is about ISRAEL. When Jesus was preaching the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM, He also said that He was sent ONLY TO ISRAEL (Matt 15:24).

The kingdom of God that Paul talks about is not the same kingdom. Paul's preaching the kingdom of God is broader and more abstract.

Yep, Paul is speaking of a spiritual kingdom when he talks about the Kingdom of God.