1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Gospel of the Kingdom Versus the Gospel of the Grace of God

Discussion in 'Biblical Debates' started by Terral, Dec 25, 2019.

  1. Terral

    Terral Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2019
    Messages:
    34
    Ratings:
    +1
    Religion:
    Christian
    Greetings to All:

    John the Baptist, Jesus Christ and the Twelve preached the “Gospel of the Kingdom” to Israel only throughout the Four Gospels and early Acts. Doctrinal precepts teaching the Gospel of the Kingdom include John’s Baptism “for the forgiveness of sins” (Mark 1:4, Acts 19:3), baptism “in the name of Jesus” (Acts 19:5), and laying hands for the “Holy Spirit” (Acts 19:6). God used the Gospel of the Kingdom to gather Kingdom Disciples to the Prophetic Kingdom “Bride” (John 3:29) to become a “royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession” (1Peter 2:9). Peter, John, James, Cornelius and everyone God called via the Gospel of the Kingdom 2000 years ago obtained salvation, while those rejecting God’s offering were hardened. As it is written [my notes]:

    Israel’s “transgression” was committed by allowing John the Baptist to die in prison [strike 1) and then to demand Christ’s crucifixion (strike 2). The final strike came when the sons of Israel stoned Stephen using their own hands (Acts 7:54-60) committing the ultimate sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Matt. 12:30-32). God then raised Paul up on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:10-19) to give him the “Gospel of the Grace of God” (Acts 20:24-27) via a “revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1:11-12). Scripture says:

    God is currently calling members of “Christ’s Body” (1Cor. 12:27, Eph. 4:12, Col. 1:24, etc.) using the Gospel of the Grace of God that Paul characterizes as the “gospel to the uncircumcised,” as opposed to Peter’s gospel “to the circumcised” (Gal. 2:7) from the same verse. Today we are saved by God’s grace through faith apart from works (Eph. 2:8-10) part of the Gospel of the Kingdom that include water baptism by a human being and laying of hands to receive the Holy Spirit.

    Do you see the differences between the Gospel of the Kingdom and our Gospel of the Grace of God for today? Good luck in the debate. Terral
     
  2. whirlingmerc

    whirlingmerc Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2016
    Messages:
    4,649
    Ratings:
    +885
    Religion:
    Christian

    I searched on 'gospel of' and only found
    gospel of the kingdom
    and
    gospel of God/Christ/his son

    but no gospel of Grace
    not a phrase I'm finding
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  3. Terral

    Terral Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2019
    Messages:
    34
    Ratings:
    +1
    Religion:
    Christian
    Hi Whirlingmerc:

    Thank you for writing. You wrote:

    The quote appears in the Opening Post from Acts 20, saying,

    The amazing part for me is that Paul is testifying "solemnly of the gospel of the grace of God" and somehow readers see nothing at all. Paul even contrasts the "gospel of the grace of God" versus "preaching the kingdom" in this same verse within the same passage and somehow the majority of people miss the substance of what Paul is saying. The point here is that John the Baptist and Jesus Christ are preaching the "Gospel of the Kingdom" (Matt. 4:23) to begin Mark 1 that is totally different from the Gospel of the Grace of God." Scripture says:

    Jesus Christ follows directly behind John the Baptist in Mark 1:

    Let us think things through clearly to realize John the Baptist and Jesus Christ are both preaching the exact same thing (Matt. 3:2, 4:17) that God's Word calls the "Gospel of the Kingdom" (Matt. 4:23, 9:35, 24:14). And yet, we are still reading from Mark 1 and Jesus Christ has died for NOBODY. Paul also went about "preaching the kingdom" (Acts 20:24-27 above), because that was the "only" gospel in town, until God gave the "gospel of the grace of God" to Paul via a "revelation of Jesus Christ:"

    Let's think this through together for drawing a simple conclusion about whether John the Baptist and Jesus Christ could possibly be preaching the "Gospel of God" in Mark 1 that included Jesus Christ dying on the cross to save sinners??? No. That is impossible! Christ does not die for anyone until the 'end' of the Four Gospels at the crucifixion! Nobody could possibly preach salvation by God's grace through faith apart from works (Eph. 2:8-10) in Mark 1 when the "gospel of God" is definitely the "Gospel of the Kingdom" having nothing to do with Christ dying for anyone.

    Blessings,

    Terral
     
  4. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    12,884
    Ratings:
    +7,018
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    First of all we have to define the word "gospel"...which is "good news". Can there be more than one item of good news? I believe so....aren't there different elements of good news in any story? Of course.

    Acknowledging the word "gospel" but inferring that it is perhaps more like "doctrine" is a bit of an incorrect assumption IMO.

    These are not competing doctrines but elements of the overall "good news" that Christ commanded that his disciples teach when preaching the "good news" as he taught it.

    No...I believe that they are elements of the same "gospel".

    What is the good news of God's Kingdom that Christians were told to preach right up to "the end"?
    "And this good news of the Kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come". (Matthew 24:14)

    What lies as the foundation of the Kingdom's establishment? God's undeserved kindness (grace) in providing the means for us to have our sins forgiven on the basis of Christ's sacrifice. Without a basis for God's forgiveness, we would have no hope for becoming subjects of God's Kingdom.

    So what is God's Kingdom? :shrug: That is the more pressing question, because I find it hard to get professed 'Christians' to actually define what it is, and what it will do that is good news in the first place.....?

    What say you...?
     
  5. leov

    leov Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2019
    Messages:
    3,509
    Ratings:
    +846
    Religion:
    Gnostic Christian
    Gospel of the Kingdom, the kingdom as near, the Kingdom as as near as within you. I.e. all you need exists within you. Jesus said if follow what i did you be like me to the Father, Grace says that you just believe that that i followed the Father is good.
     
  6. Brickjectivity

    Brickjectivity Veteran Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2012
    Messages:
    29,414
    Ratings:
    +10,564
    Religion:
    liber-scripta grim Christian
    Its a valiant effort to construct a model of things based on the canon. I think you should keep working on it and not consider it finished. I agree that the gospels do represent Jesus talking to Jews and not to gentiles. That does not clinch that they are written to Jews, and they may well have been written to gentiles who study the torah. His words are arguments to people who are studied in torah. To follow them and debate them requires studying it.

    I have heard Jewish people challenge something he has taught in the gospels though they don't seem to think it is written to them necessarily. One common challenge I have heard from multiple Jewish people relates to his comments in the gospels about poverty. For example can you really give to whomsoever asks of you? In a debate over this you will certainly be asked to give up property. Giving up your property will be the only way to demonstrate your sincerity though I suppose you could try to argue that Jesus words are only figurative or are only for Jews.

    Your argument about three strikes does not work for me. If someone commits murder by mistake it is atoned for by means of general community good will and the ashes of the red heifer burnt offering, and this is offered whether or not it is known that such sins have been committed. Your three examples: stoning of Stephen, death of Jesus and the death of John the baptist either are performed by mistake or by corrupt individuals. It seems such acts would have been atoned for easily and would not have been permanent stains upon the people.

    Another thing is that faithfulness matters, yes, as you point out. When Hebrews quotes from Hoshea "The righteous will be saved by his faithfulness" its often translated in English in the Hoshea (much older and in Hebrew) as faithfulness but then as faith in English in Hebrews (written in Greek centuries later), suggesting a bias of interpretation is responsible for many misunderstandings about this. Would it not make more sense to translate it as 'Faithfulness' both in the original and in the quotation in Hebrews? I ask you how can mere belief justify better than faithfulness? Even Abraham has his doubts though he does act with sincerity. Its not explicitly explained why he is asked to offer Isaac, but he does it with sincerity not knowing it is a test. 1 Corinthians 13 says this means his faith is credited as righteousness. Fortunately he's not required to follow through. It would have been much easier for Abraham to offer someone else's child, but he offers his own as requested. The test is personal and is about his own son not how he treats someone else's son. His sincerity is credit for him. Its his actions not his words. He must pass the test. This is evidence of his invisible sincerity. Similarly Hebrews argues that our actions act on our behalf. You must be sincere, and you will be tested. You must be tested, or no one will believe you. Why would they?

    Hence if you try to argue that Jesus is the messiah you naturally should be willing to give all you own to whomsoever asks for it. You must be tested in your obedience to everything Jesus has said. Failing in any way disqualifies your testimony.
     
    #6 Brickjectivity, Dec 25, 2019
    Last edited: Dec 25, 2019
  7. Fool

    Fool ALL in all
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2016
    Messages:
    11,236
    Ratings:
    +2,131
    Religion:
    Light Impressed with Love


    the people became priests, or prophets once they were baptized in the name and understood what it meant.

    this is why it is written and having understood the name implies the lord as self


    jeremiah 31:34

    No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, 'Know the LORD,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the LORD. "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more."
     
  8. Terral

    Terral Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2019
    Messages:
    34
    Ratings:
    +1
    Religion:
    Christian
    Hi Deeje:

    Thank you for writing on my first topic at religiousforms.com. You wrote:

    We disagree. John the Baptist and Jesus Christ are preaching the "Gospel of the Kingdom" in Mark 1 and Christ has died for nobody. The doctrinal precepts teaching the "Gospel of the Kingdom" have nothing whatever to do with Jesus Christ dying for anybody. Period. For Israel ONLY (Matt. 10:5-7) both John the Baptist and Jesus Christ are preaching, "Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand." Matt. 3:2, 4:17.

    The claim is impossible, because the "Gospel of the Kingdom" contains directly opposing doctrinal precepts teaching the "Gospel of the Grace of God," from my original post on this topic (link).

    Let's try to approach this from a different angle. Paul describes the Gospel of the Grace of God to the Corinthians, saying,

    Paul is describing the "Gospel of the Grace of God" from the OP stating very clearly that Christ died for our sins, was buried in the tomb, and that God raised Him from the dead on the third day. If you are going to prove that the "Gospel of the Kingdom" preached in Mark 1 is this same "good news message," then you must prove that Jesus died for our sins "before" the events of Mark 1. Otherwise, the "Gospel of the Kingdom" that John the Baptist, Christ and the Twelve preached is definitely something else. You wrote:

    On this point we can agree. However, John the Baptist and Christ are still preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom in Mark 1 and Christ has died for nobody AT THAT TIME. Right or wrong?

    We disagree. We are wise to consider the doctrinal precepts teaching the "Gospel of the Grace of God" taught only in the Pauline Epistles, or risk distorting the "wisdom given him" (2Peter 3:14-16). Paul writes to Timothy on this very topic, saying,

    Suppose for a moment that there are vast differences between the Gospel of the Kingdom that John the Baptist and Jesus Christ preached to Israel at the beginning "and" the Gospel of the Grace of God given to Paul via a "revelation of Jesus Christ" (Gal. 1:11-12). Suppose that the doctrinal precepts are indeed "opposite" and that adding works from the Gospel of the Kingdom to the Gospel of the Grace of God makes "void" (1Cor. 1:17) the power of the cross to save anyone! Are we not wise to get these things right while still walking around on the Earth? I see the differences between the Gospel of the Kingdom and the Gospel of the Grace of God and want others to see the differences too.

    Blessings,

    Terral
     
  9. Terral

    Terral Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2019
    Messages:
    34
    Ratings:
    +1
    Religion:
    Christian
    Hi Rickjetivity:

    Thank you for writing on my first topic on the ReligiousForums.com Forum. You wrote:

    First of all, your rebuttal attempt of my first OP on this Forum contains zero supported statements using Scripture. 2Tim. 2:15. That means simply that every word of the OP remains standing by default like with any serious debate. BTW, my thorough Opening Post on this topic appears here if you would like to register an offer a challenge. :0) You are looking at the watered-down version to avoid Spam in this Forum in keeping with CoC rules.

    Please. Let us try to focus on my "valiant effort to construct a model of things based on the canon" posted in the OP of this thread without hijacking the topic to SomeWhereElseVille. We are deliberating the difference (for advocates) or similarities (for adversaries) to the Gospel of the Kingdom and the Gospel of the Grace of God.

    Murder? Mistakes? Red heifer? Please... We are debating about whether the Gospel of the Kingdom preached by John the Baptist, Jesus Christ and the Twelve in the Four Gospels is the "same" good news message preached by Paul as the "Gospel of the Grace of God." Let's try to write somewhere near the OP topic in this debate.

    While I appreciate the time invested in writing on this topic, nothing you are saying here has any influence whatsoever on what is presented in the OP of this thread. My topic says the Gospel of the Kingdom is part of Christ's "water" ministry, while the Gospel of the Grace of God is part of Christ's "blood" ministry. Scripture says:

    Yes, this translation is a combination of the NASB and the Wycliffe translation, but the right translation of the original Greek sitting on my desk as we speak. The biggest problem for anyone trying to force the Gospel of the Grace of God "and" Preaching the Kingdom into being the same thing appears in Acts 20, that is quoted in the OP, saying,

    Here we see the Apostle Paul finishing his course and the ministry received from the Lord Jesus Himself, to testify of the "gospel of the grace of God," when those he went about "preaching the kingdom" will see his face no more. And yet, many will conclude after all the dilberations that the Gospel of the Grace of God "and" the "Gospel of the Kingdom" are exactly the same thing.

    Please forgive, but I am not following, because Jesus as the Messiah and being tested by obedience in everything has nothing to do with what is posted in the OP of this thread. The topic is very simple: The Gospel of the Kingdom Versus the Gospel of the Grace of God. Good luck in the debate.

    Blessings,

    Terral
     
    #9 Terral, Dec 25, 2019
    Last edited: Dec 25, 2019
  10. Brickjectivity

    Brickjectivity Veteran Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2012
    Messages:
    29,414
    Ratings:
    +10,564
    Religion:
    liber-scripta grim Christian
    Sorry my mistake. I somehow missed that the OP was in Biblical Debates, and it also was not intended a full rebuttal. It was a little bit meandering and partially agreeing partially disagreeing. Yes, it was lacking in references and would have been off topic. I see now your argument is that there is a gospel of the kingdom and a separate gospel of grace.
     
  11. Brickjectivity

    Brickjectivity Veteran Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2012
    Messages:
    29,414
    Ratings:
    +10,564
    Religion:
    liber-scripta grim Christian
    In the other longer OP you have some specialist language that I have not seen before: "Word of the cross," "kingdom bride," "kingdom disciples" and "mystery body of Christ" are new to me, possibly common phrases used by you. Its a pretty sweeping and many layered OP. Just to start off I do agree that the things said in the gospels to the Jews are not necessarily addressed to gentiles, and I also think that Paul's preaching to gentiles is somewhat different than what he or Jesus preaches to Jews. I am not sure if that is similar to what you mean when you contrast the gospel of the kingdom and gospel of grace. The whole timeline image is fatally complex and dependent upon particular views of John's texts. That is far too complicated I think for debate on this one subject since disagreement can find so many avenues. It would be great if we were already in agreement on all the particulars of Revelation and timelines and what prophecies mean, but cart before horse. Lets struggle to find some commonalities, because there is just so much there in your OP. You obviously have a way at looking at things which touches many, many items.

    Regarding your comments about kingdom and grace I can't help but wonder if you aren't talking about the 12 disciples versus Paul and Barnabas. Mark 16 seems to indicate a difference exists between what Jesus disciples preach and what Paul preaches later. At the end of Mark it says that the gospel is preached everywhere by the disciples using signs. Paul never receives their same commission as far as I am aware. His conversion appears in Acts 9, and according to Galatians 1 he is directly tapped by Jesus to preach to the
    gentiles.
     
  12. Terral

    Terral Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2019
    Messages:
    34
    Ratings:
    +1
    Religion:
    Christian
    Hi Brickjectivity:

    Thank you for writing. You wrote:

    All good, brother. While this is my first OP topic posted on this Forum, this is not my first rodeo. :0) The doctrinal of salvation is very important and getting the doctrine precepts right teaching the "Gospel of the Grace of God" is very important for building a "sound doctrine" foundation. We should agree that Jesus Christ could not possibly preach Himself crucified in Mark 1. Right? And yet, Christ is preaching the "gospel of God" (Mark 1:14) that MUST by definition be something else. The Gospel of the Kingdom is "the gospel" that Israel rejected to commit the "transgression" (Rom. 11:11), while the Gospel of the Grace of God is "according to the revelation of the mystery" (Rom. 16:25) that God revealed only after He raised Christ from the dead. Paul writes about "the mystery" (Eph. 3:3, read Vine's definition carefully) in his Epistle to the Ephesians that Peter characterizes as "the wisdom given him" when issuing warnings! Peter writes [my notes]:

    Recognizing the differences between the Gospel of the Kingdom that John the Baptist, Jesus Christ and the Twelve preached to Israel, that was rejected by Israel as a nation, is totally different from the Gospel of the Grace of God preached by Paul part of the "wisdom given him" only AFTER God raised Christ from the dead. The danger comes when anyone mixes the doctrinal precepts teaching the Gospel of the Kingdom (water baptism, repentance of sins, laying of hands, etc.) with our Gospel of the Grace of God (salvation by God's grace through faith APART from works) making void the power of the cross to save anyone. Denominationalism mixes the two gospels together to create a man-made good news message that God sent to nobody! That is the purpose of these deliberations and I pray that members can see the differences.

    Blessings in Christ Jesus,

    Terral
     
  13. Terral

    Terral Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2019
    Messages:
    34
    Ratings:
    +1
    Religion:
    Christian
    Hi Brickjectivity:

    Thank you for writing. My reading of your post makes me believe the Lights are coming on. :0) You wrote:

    Let's try to get a little closer to being on the same page to remove semantics from the deliberations. Paul uses the phrase "Word of the Cross" in addressing the Corinthians, saying [my notes],

    John's Gospel uses the term "bride" to describe Kingdom Disciples (Peter, John, James, etc.) chosen via the "Gospel of the Kingdom,"

    Recognize that John the Baptist, Jesus Christ and everyone else in the Four Gospels is preaching the "Gospel of the Kingdom" (Matt. 4:23, 9:35, 24:14) and you have Kingdom Disciples being included in a Prophetic Kingdom Bride. Paul connects our gospel to the mystery in Eph. 6:19 and Rom. 16:25 with our "His body" church described in Col. 1:24-27 [my notes].

    The key here is that the Prophetic Kingdom Bride "was" seen by the OT Prophets (Hosea 2:19-20), but our mystery Body of Christ is seen by NONE of the OT Prophets. That is what Paul means by writing about our "His body" church and the mystery hidden from past ages and generations, but NOW being manifested. Anyone commingling the doctrinal precepts teaching the Gospel of the Kingdom "and" the Gospel of the Grace God together is distorting the "wisdom given him" (2Peter 3:14-16) quoted in my previous post.

    Amen, brother. The substance of the CF.com post was drafted after decades of research on this topic and has withstood debate all over the world-wide web for more than a decade. I am happy to defend anything from the original Two Gospels OP should any members here wish to "quote >>" and offer a thoughtful reply using Scripture.

    We agree. The key here is that the "good news about the kingdom of God" (Acts 8:12, a.k.a, Gospel of the Kingdom) was the "only" good news message in town at the time of Paul's conversion in Acts 9. Saul-Paul preaches the kingdom like everybody else to the Jews, but God gave our gospel for today to Paul via a "revelation of Jesus Christ" (Gal. 1:11-12) that is totally different from the Gospel of the Kingdom.

    Guess what? :0) The admins/mods on this Board made the same observations when helping me to make my first post on this board, which was a duplicate of the CF.com post. Multiple admins-mods helped me to realize that a simpler version would be more suitable and fitting for the debate forum and I finally realized that they were right. :0) The finer details can be shared in the clarifying statements while defending the OP hypothesis concerning the differences between the Gospel of the Kingdom and the Gospel of the Grace of God. I greatly appreciate the work done on this Board by the admins and moderators to help keep the debates and discussions on an even keel that helps everyone.

    Hmmm, we disagree on this point. Decades of experience in learning and helping others understand the truth of God's Word has taught me that laying down a firm foundation concerning the "mystery gospel" our "mystery church" and our one "baptism" (Eph. 4:5) helps everyone taking part in the deliberations to get on the same doctrinal page. Getting the basics down pat helps us to move onto the more complicated things at some point later in the timeline. After all, if we cannot agree on the doctrinal precepts teaching our gospel, our church, etc., then the chances of agreeing on Daniel's prophecies and interpretations from Revelation are somewhere between zero and none.

    Ahh, yes; obviously. Paul goes down to Jerusalem to submit the gospel he preaches among the Gentiles and in fear of failure (Gal. 2:2) calling his gospel the "gospel to the Uncircumcised" (Gal. 2:7) while Peter's message is the gospel "to the circumcised" in the same verse. This meeting in Jerusalem is taking place around 50 AD a decade and a half after Christ's resurrection and ascension in Acts 1. Then, Peter is wrong about the "truth of the gospel" in Galatians 2:14! Peter, John, and James (those of reputation) had no idea that Paul's Gentiles were part of a totally different "dispensation of God's grace" (Eph. 3:2) until that meeting. These are seeming contradictions for anyone trying to transform the Gospel of the Kingdom and Paul's Gospel of the Grace of God into the same good news message.

    While Paul's ministry begins in Acts 9 with Paul "preaching the kingdom" (as stated in Acts 24-27), eventually Paul turns his back on the Jews and the Gospel of the Kingdom to go strictly to the Gentiles after the period marking the end of Acts.

    Blessings,

    Terral
     
  14. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    12,884
    Ratings:
    +7,018
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    Can we back up here for a moment....?
    To whom are Jesus and the 12 preaching at this time? Jesus was sent only to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel"...correct? So his audience was primarily Jewish. They had the prophesies in their scripture about the Messiah but they were not fully understood until Jesus was ready to reveal explicitly who he was. Odly enough the demons identified him, but he would never let them tell anyone. (The first time he actually identified himself as Messiah, was to the Samaritan woman at the well.) That, coupled with John's witness and Christ's miraculous abilities, people started to put 2+2 together and began to believe that he was the foretold Messiah. Daniel's prophesies had pinpointed that this was the time for the Messiah's arrival. But because he castigated the religious leaders of the day, and exposed them as hypocrites, many were hesitant about openly confessing him.

    Jesus had died for no one at that point in time because he was yet to prepare his disciples for what was to come three and a half years later. The Kingdom was the theme of his preaching and we can see from the Lord's Prayer that the 'coming' of the Kingdom would mean that God's will would be "done on earth as it is in heaven".

    So what is the "Kingdom of God" and how does it "come" and produce those results? Did you give me a specific answer? Strangely, most people can't and yet it is the most basic, fundamental belief.

    Your link is to another site and its a difficult read because so much of what you have written is twisted all out of shape.
    Is this your own personally formulated account of how things went down? Or are you preaching the teachings of a particular church or leader? I need to know this to take you seriously and not count you in with the thousands of other 'lone rangers' proffering their own ideas by distorting the scriptures to tell a story different to what Jesus and his apostles taught.

    You do understand that Paul was preaching to a completely different audience....don't you?

    After Christ's death and resurrection, Peter was instructed to go to the home of a Roman Centurion named Cornelius as the first Gentile convert to Christianity. An angel had visited him and told him to send for Peter. On the way Peter had visions of unclean animals that he was told to "slaughter and eat". He was puzzled by the visions and why God had told him not to call "unclean" "what God had cleansed".

    Gentiles had converted to Judaism in the past but Cornelius was not a Jew...he was a Roman who got to know of the God of the Jews, and apparently saw the truth in what Jesus and his apostles taught. His whole household and intimate friends were there ready to hear what Peter had to say. Even before they could be baptized, holy spirit was poured out on them confirming that God had accepted these ones into his Christian family. Peter then understood why God had given him the visions.

    The first phase of Jesus ministry was completed and the second phase had begun. The combining of people of all nations under Christ made the distinction between Jew and Gentile obsolete. Paul became a Christian after this. He was designated as "an Apostle to the Nations" and his ministry was special even though he was never counted as one of the 12. He was "a chosen vessel to Christ" so that his special ministry would carry the good news far and wide. As an educated former Pharisee, Paul could address the Philosophers in Athens, and others in high station. His Roman citizenship also opened doors that were not open to the other apostles.

    Paul taught those he called "the Israel of God" (Galatians 6:16) These included both Jews and Gentiles because Christians now had no nationality to identify them as God's people. (Acts 15:14) These were 'spiritual' Jews, not of the flesh, but of the spirit by their exercising faith in the shed blood of the Christ.

    I hope you can see why that is nonsense. Jesus had no need to stress his sacrificial death too early. There was no point. There were times when he alluded to it, and one famous quote from Jesus resulted.

    "When he had come into the region of Caes·a·reʹa Phi·lipʹpi, Jesus asked his disciples: “Who are men saying the Son of man is?” 14 They said: “Some say John the Baptist, others E·liʹjah, and still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them: “You, though, who do you say I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 In response Jesus said to him: “Happy you are, Simon son of Joʹnah, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father in the heavens did"

    Then after giving Peter instructions and "the keys of the Kingdom". . . .

    "Then he sternly instructed the disciples not to tell anybody that he was the Christ.

    21 From that time forward, Jesus began explaining to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes and be killed, and on the third day be raised up. 22 At this Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying: “Be kind to yourself, Lord; you will not have this happen to you at all.” 23 But turning his back, he said to Peter: “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me, because you think, not God’s thoughts, but those of men.”



    Whilst Christ was still alive and walking the earth NO! He had not died for anybody as yet.....your point being....?

    And you don't correlate this to Jesus teaching about the "wheat and the weeds"? What the apostles warned about was an apostasy that was to take place after their death. Even when they were still alive, apostates were snapping at their heels trying to introduce false teachings. The 'weeds' were not sown recently, but from the second century onward, things went downhill for "Christianity"...by the 4th century, it entered its death throes with the introduction of Roman Catholicism and the fusion of pagan sun worship with a very weakened form of Christianity. What passes today for the "Christian" church bears no resemblance to the original at all. This is what Paul and others alluded to. (2 Thessalonians 2:3; 2 Peter 2:1-3; 1 John 2:18-19; Acts 20:30)

    Suppose that you are completely mistaken because you fail to see what the scriptures actually teach? What "doctrinal precepts are opposite"? Nothing in God's word makes anything "void".....because then it cannot be the word of God. Nothing in scripture contradicts anything else.....if it does, then that is proof that that we have our interpretation wrong.

    Trying to push two separate gospels that are at odds with each other proves what?

    Is this a faith verses works thread?
     
  15. LightofTruth

    LightofTruth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2019
    Messages:
    1,614
    Ratings:
    +288
    Religion:
    Scripture
    When Abraham's children had multiplied greatly in the land of Egypt, God sent Moses to deliver the people and bring them into the holy land.
    While the children were still in the wilderness God entered covenant with them whereby He became their King and those His people. God gave them His laws and ordinances and statutes and judgments which they were to follow as God as their King.
    If the children had been able to follow the letter of the law then they would have inherited the promises.
    But we come to find out that the promises through the works of the law can not be obtained.
    Anyone who thought they could be justified by the works of the law fell under the curse of the law.
    Therefore, if the inheritance of the kingdom of God is to be obtained it must come by some other way than the strict adherence to the law.
    And that's where FAITH enters.
    And that's where the gospel of the inheritance of the kingdom of God as preached to Abraham, before the Law and covenant at Mount Sinai, comes as the only covenant whereby the inheritance can be obtained.
    So it is the promises of God to Abraham, by faith, and not works of the law, which is the true gospel of the kingdom whereby men can be saved. And all those who have the faith as Abraham are children of Abraham. Both jew and Gentile alike.
    The covenant God made with Abraham did not come into force until the death of the testator of that covenant (Christ).
     
    #15 LightofTruth, Dec 26, 2019
    Last edited: Dec 26, 2019
  16. Terral

    Terral Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2019
    Messages:
    34
    Ratings:
    +1
    Religion:
    Christian
    Hi Deeje:

    Thank you for writing on the Two Gospels topic. You wrote:

    Yes. Jesus Christ sends the Twelve to preach the same message ("The kingdom of heaven is at hand,") in Matthew 10:5-7 saying specifically not to go in the way of the Gentiles nor the Samaritans (half Jews). Jesus Christ sets the record straight about His audience in addressing the Canaanite woman, saying, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Matt. 15:24.

    John the Baptist clears the way for Jesus Christ identifying Him as the "Lamb of God" and the "Son of God" right out of the starting gate in John 1. There is absolutely no doubt that the Disciples already knew that Jesus Christ was the "Messiah," again, right out of the starting gate, as Andrew "found first his own brother Simon and said to him, 'We have found the Messiah' (which translated means Christ." John 1:41. We know from deduction that John the Baptist told Israel that Jesus was the Messiah, because that is where Andrew received the message stated in John 1:40 in the previous verse.

    John the Baptist, Jesus Christ and the Twelve are all preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom, but Jesus Christ "warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ." Matt. 16:20. In each case, John the Baptist and Jesus Christ and the Twelve all preached to Israel only that the Kingdom of heaven was "at hand" that they were to repent of their sins, be baptized in water and believe the good news; but Jesus Christ being the "Messiah" is obviously not part of the Gospel of the Kingdom moving through the Four Gospel period.

    We agree that Jesus Christ has died for nobody in Mark 1 or John 1 to start the Four Gospels period. That is the main problem with attempting to transform the "Gospel of the Kingdom" into Paul's "Gospel of the Grace of God" that could only be preached after God raised Christ from the dead. We are going to disagree on your point about Jesus preparing His disciples for His destiny at Calvary, because the Disciples were never prepared sufficiently. Jesus Christ will tell the Disciples the details of His death on three different occasions in Matthew's Gospel account alone (Matt. 16:21, 17:22-23, 20:17-19) saying each time that He would be raised "on the third day." Can we agree that Christ is doing everything to prepare the Disciples for His crucifixion? Well, unfortunately, Christ's statements were believed by NONE of the Disciples. Just how many of Christ's Disciples were standing outside the tomb on the third day? Answer: NONE of them. Only the women showed up and with burial linens for a dead man.

    The women show up to anoint Christ's dead body and to their surprise the stone covering the tomb entrance had been rolled away. Mary runs to tell Peter, John and the others and nobody believes her. Then, Christ meets two of the disciples strolling around on their way to the country:

    If Jesus Christ was really preparing the Disciples for His future death, burial and resurrection in the early part of the Four Gospel period, then the case can be made for Christ doing a bad job. You would think after three years of hearing about their Lord, Savior and Messiah being raised on the third day that at least one of them would be standing at the tomb on that Sunday morning. Right? Let's demonstrate right here the folly of attempting to put our Gospel of the Grace of God into the mouths of Peter, John and James at any point in the Four Gospel period. Paul writes about the gospel he preaches among the Gentiles to the Corinthians, saying,

    We are looking at doctrinal precepts teaching the doctrine of salvation for the Gospel of the Grace of God preached by Paul to these Corinthians that include Jesus Christ being raised on the third day. Right? We know that Christ dying for our sins means that our forgiveness is "through the blood of His cross" having "redemption through His blood" (Col. 1:20, Eph. 1:7). On these points we should agree 100 percent. However, someone please explain how Peter, John, James, or any of the Disciples could possibly preach "Jesus Christ, and Him crucified" (1Cor. 2:2), when the Disciples did not even believe this "good news" themselves??? Again, anyone attempting to place Paul's Gospel of the Grace of God into the mouths of the Disciples is commingling doctrinal precepts teaching the Gospel of the Kingdom "and" the Gospel of the Grace of God without knowing the difference. So, the last part of Paul's statement to the Corinthians include the fact that Christ finally ran down the Disciples to appear to Cephas and then the twelve. Very good, but there is another problem. If Jesus Christ appeared to the Disciples after His resurrection, then why is Peter still preaching water baptism for the forgiveness of sins on the Day of Pentecost like John the Baptist did from day one?? (my notes)

    While Jesus Christ did appear to Peter, Jesus Christ did not reveal to Peter anything about the "Gospel of the Grace of God" that would be given to Paul via "a revelation of Jesus Christ" (Gal. 1:11-12) later in the timeline. If Peter and John already knew about "the gospel I preach among the Gentiles" (Gal. 2:2), then Paul had no reason to go up and submit the "gospel to the Uncircumcised" (Gal. 2:7) to them more than 15 years after God raised Christ from the dead.

    Please forgive, but everything from the original Two Gospels OP (link) appears fine on my web browser page.

    Everything you see in all of my posts on the world-wide web is commentary from my online ministry that began coming together long before anyone invented the internet. While CoC rules forbid self promotion (and I want to follow all the rules), you can simply Google search my first name and visit my website homepage available in my forum profile. If coming from a family of ministers and writing a large book that helps people see God's wisdom hidden in plain sight and having a website are sins, then I am guilty as charged. :0)

    Yes. Peter, John and James are going to the Circumcised and Paul is going to the Uncircumcised following the famous meeting in Jerusalem around 50 AD (Gal. 2:7-9 again).

    This reply is getting too long and will be continued below.

    Blessings,

    Terral
     
  17. Terral

    Terral Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2019
    Messages:
    34
    Ratings:
    +1
    Religion:
    Christian
    Continued from above as Part 2:

    Hi Deeje:

    Thank you again for writing

    Hold on for a minute: Your statement about Cornelius being the first Gentile to convert to Christianity is suspect, unless you consider everyone obeying the Gospel of the Kingdom "and" the Gospel of the Grace of God as Christians. In either case, Cornelius comes along in Acts 10 and we have "both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs" (Acts 2:8-11) hearing Peter's preaching of the Gospel of the Kingdom on the Day of Pentecost coming before Cornelius.

    Here is the deal with Peter and Cornelius in nutshell: God was preparing Peter to stand up and clear the air at the famous meeting in Jerusalem (Acts 15) concerning Paul and "the gospel I preach among the Gentiles." The Gospel of the Grace of God includes the believer receiving the Holy Spirit upon hearing and believing the gospel (Eph. 1:13-14). God therefore gave Peter this "sign" that the Holy Spirit would be given to the Gentiles apart from the laying of hands, which is a doctrinal precept of the Gospel of the Kingdom for Kingdom Disciples. Peter would then use the evidence from this sign at the Jerusalem meeting to help John, James (the Lord's brother) and the Kingdom Disciples understand that Paul's Gentiles (and Jews among them) were part of a completely different "dispensation of God's grace" (Eph. 3:2) and not part of their Kingdom Dispensation at all.

    No. Paul was converted in Acts 9, while Cornelius comes along in Acts 10. Cornelius is a Kingdom Disciple joining Peter's Kingdom "Bride" Church having nothing to do with Paul's Mystery Body of Christ Church receiving his Epistles to the Gentiles. We will explore the differences between the two primary churches (Peter's Bride and Paul's Body) in my next debate topic.

    Paul is a type of our mystery church in that he is a Pharisee and a Roman Citizen skilled in the languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek) where Greek was the language of commerce for the known world like English today.

    We are applying the "Christian" tag differently where semantics is getting in the way. We disagree on your statement about "the Israel of God." Paul writes (my notes):

    Paul is writing to uncircumcised Gentiles throughout his Epistles and the Jews among them, and with certain messages written for the benefit of Kingdom Disciples too. However, the "new creation" language here is particular to the Christ's Body members of our mystery "His body" church (Col. 1:24) having nothing to do with the Kingdom Bride and certainly nothing to do with Israel of the flesh. The conjunction "and" is used here to include two groups where the first group "walks by this rule" (new creation: see 2Cor. 5:16-21 = "news things have come") "and" the Israel of God representing a completely different dispensation-administration-household.

    Again, Peter heard through John the Baptist and Andrew that Jesus was the Christ-Messiah early on in John 1 right out of the starting gate "and" Peter was a no show at the tomb on the third day after hearing Christ's testimony time and time and time again. In any case, Christ preached the Gospel of the Kingdom like John the Baptist and the Twelve and warned the disciples to tell no one that He was the Christ-Messiah.

    The simple point and the 800-pound gorilla in the room is that Paul's Gospel of the Grace of God is preached nowhere in the Four Gospels making the Gospel of the Kingdom something else. That is the conclusion based upon all the related evidence presented in the OP of this thread and in the original CF.com thread.

    This message is still too long. Continued below as Part 3.

    Blessings,

    Terral
     
  18. Terral

    Terral Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2019
    Messages:
    34
    Ratings:
    +1
    Religion:
    Christian
    Continued from above as Part 3 of 3.

    Hi Deeje:

    Thank you again for writing on the Two Gospels topic. You wrote:

    Let's try to debate the "topic" while resisting the temptation to attack others for whom Christ died in these deliberations. I agree with you 100 percent that the "opposite doctrinal precepts" point is not made in the OP of this thread, because you are looking at the watered-down version. The only way to provide clarifying statements to answer your questions is to provide a few examples. Again, the original OP created for this topic can be reviewed here. I will quote just four doctrinal precepts teaching each gospel message for making my point:

    The Gospel of the Kingdom is shown on top (#1) and Paul's Gospel of the grace of God is gospel #2. The kingdom coming for Israel is a matter of Prophecy seen by the OT prophets, but Paul's "my gospel" is "according to the revelation of the mystery." God kept these things hidden inside Himself, until given to Paul through a revelation of Jesus Christ. Christ taught that the Disciples would obtain eternal life by keeping the commandments, but we are saved by God's grace through faith apart from works. Then finally, the Gospel of the Kingdom includes water baptism by a human being for the forgiveness of sins, while our forgiveness is through Christ's precious blood. Again, the Gospel of the Kingdom "and" the Gospel of the Grace of God are taught using directly opposing doctrinal precepts and whether the substance of these truths are understood or not.

    Amen! Now you are preaching to the choir. :0)

    No. John the Baptist, Jesus Christ and the Twelve all preach the Gospel of the Kingdom in the Four Gospels that is completely different and separate from the Gospel of the Grace of God for Christ's body members today. That is the simple truth that some members can see, while other members see only one gospel apparently mixing the two together into a good news message that God sent to nobody. Thank you again for writing on the Two Gospels topic.

    Blessings,

    Terral
     
Loading...