ECT How is Paul's message different?

[Clete]

Been there done that. I try to be clear in my questions but it's hard and I don't use a lot of words.




That wasn't exactly my point. What I'm trying to understand is this kingdom program. What I see is Jesus saying the kingdom is at hand. Then after his DBR, people proclaiming the kingdom.
Here Philip is preaching the good news about the kingdom and baptizing the believers.
Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

Here after Paul has baptized some believers he goes into the synagogue and persuades about the kingdom.
Acts 19:8 And he entered the synagogue and for three months spoke boldly, reasoning and persuading them about the kingdom of God.

In your understanding, what is Paul trying to persuade them about the kingdom?

Your question assumes that the Dispensationalist's use of the term "Kingdom gospel" or other references to "the Kingdom" as being equivalent to speaking only about the Jews means that every use of the phrase "kingdom of God" in the bible means the exact same thing.

We are all member of the greater kingdom of God and Paul's use of the phrase doesn't negate his entire ministry nor the unmistakable differences between what he taught vs. that which the Twelve taught.

Acts 19 is just before Paul goes, by inspiration, to Jerusalem where he is to explain his gospel to the Twelve. In Acts 20 he says...

Acts 20:22 And see, now I go bound in the spirit to Jerusalem, not knowing the things that will happen to me there, 23 except that the Holy Spirit testifies in every city, saying that chains and tribulations await me. 24 But none of these things move me; nor do I count my life dear to myself, so that I may finish my race with joy, and the ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of the grace of God.

25 “And indeed, now I know that you all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, will see my face no more.​

Then, if you continue reading, you discover that he meets with the Twelve who tell him that their converts in Jerusalem are all "zealous for the law". Then, when Paul gets into all sorts of trouble in Jerusalem, what is it about? It's about him teaching people not to be circumcised or follow the Law.

And therein lies the answer to your question about what is the kingdom gospel. It is what Jesus taught and it is what the Twelve taught after Him. That is to repent of your sins and following the Law and you will be saved. Paul's gospel was similar but sort of reversed in that instead of salvation being the result of a righteous life, it's that a righteous life is the result of salvation. As such, there is no longer any need for the Law! (Gal. 3)

If you want to know whether you follow the gospel that the Twelve preached, ask yourself whether you are "zealous for the law" and are into cleansing rituals and shaving your head as they asked Paul to do in order to keep everyone from freaking out.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Right Divider]

Not according to me but according to what Jesus said.
Mk. 16:15 And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

I don't understand why it's so hard to accept. Paul did just as Jesus said.
Acts 18:8 Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household. And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized.

So you conveniently IGNORE ALL THE REST of that passage!

Do you do ALL of these things that are ALSO in that passage?

• Cast out devils
• Speak in new tongues
• Take up serpents
• Not hurt by drinking deadly things
• Lay hand on the sick and heal them

Those things CANNOT be divorced for the other. Jesus said that THOSE SIGNS would follow those that believe and are baptized. Where are YOUR signs?

You are so into your Churchianity that you cannot see simple truth. You are a cherry-picker that has a few favorite verses taken OUT OF CONTEXT.

 

[Interplanner]

Your question assumes that the Dispensationalist's use of the term "Kingdom gospel" or other references to "the Kingdom" as being equivalent to speaking only about the Jews means that every use of the phrase "kingdom of God" in the bible means the exact same thing.

We are all member of the greater kingdom of God and Paul's use of the phrase doesn't negate his entire ministry nor the unmistakable differences between what he taught vs. that which the Twelve taught.

Acts 19 is just before Paul goes, by inspiration, to Jerusalem where he is to explain his gospel to the Twelve. In Acts 20 he says...

Acts 20:22 And see, now I go bound in the spirit to Jerusalem, not knowing the things that will happen to me there, 23 except that the Holy Spirit testifies in every city, saying that chains and tribulations await me. 24 But none of these things move me; nor do I count my life dear to myself, so that I may finish my race with joy, and the ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of the grace of God.

25 “And indeed, now I know that you all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, will see my face no more.​

Then, if you continue reading, you discover that he meets with the Twelve who tell him that their converts in Jerusalem are all "zealous for the law". Then, when Paul gets into all sorts of trouble in Jerusalem, what is it about? It's about him teaching people not to be circumcised or follow the Law.

And therein lies the answer to your question about what is the kingdom gospel. It is what Jesus taught and it is what the Twelve taught after Him. That is to repent of your sins and following the Law and you will be saved. Paul's gospel was similar but sort of reversed in that instead of salvation being the result of a righteous life, it's that a righteous life is the result of salvation. As such, there is no longer any need for the Law! (Gal. 3)

If you want to know whether you follow the gospel that the Twelve preached, ask yourself whether you are "zealous for the law" and are into cleansing rituals and shaving your head as they asked Paul to do in order to keep everyone from freaking out.

Resting in Him,
Clete

That is to repent of your sins and following the Law and you will be saved. Paul's gospel was similar but sort of reversed in that instead of salvation being the result of a righteous life, it's that a righteous life is the result of salvation

This is ridiculous, except the last line, because that was the structural difference from Judaism all through. When you 'do' a righteous life the other way (to obligate God) you ruin the heart of it.

In order to have that cause-effect structure, it had to have the same Gospel from the beginning, and it did. He was the Lamb that takes away the sins of the world. Not in some other 2nd way like RD keeps tooting. By his death. it was known from and before the beginning, but it was also despised because it did not fit with predominant zealot thinking.

The reign of God is the power of this message. Nothing is as powerful as forgiveness to make people change, so when you preach it first (as in the controversial opening miracle of Mk 2:1+) you have a power that Judaism did not have. this same forgiveneness is announced in the nativity songs of Lk 1-2.

The King was enthroned in the resurrection (to which all D'ists say NOT!) in Acts 2:30 because his sacrificial work was successful and honored by God and because that is the type of kingdom that always in mind, seizing the spirit of men and women everywhere. It never called for the end of existing government, but it did shake all existing societal structure. As you know from Acts 1, the disciples were cut out of asking about a 'kingdom for Israel' (as they knew it) because kingdom-power was going to be conferred shortly, the next event. D'ists are 100% in defiance of this truth.

To illustrate, I asked Walvoord in person in about 1977 at a Bible camp near Silverdale, WA, why he spent so much time on the 'kingdom of Israel' when Jesus said not to inquire about it. His answer 'it can't possibly mean that.' That's D'ism. Always adding NOT to the critical texts.

 

[Right Divider]

That is to repent of your sins and following the Law and you will be saved. Paul's gospel was similar but sort of reversed in that instead of salvation being the result of a righteous life, it's that a righteous life is the result of salvation

This is ridiculous, except the last line, because that was the structural difference from Judaism all through. When you 'do' a righteous life the other way (to obligate God) you ruin the heart of it.

Tell Peter....

Acts 10:34-35 (AKJV/PCE)​

(10:34) ¶ Then Peter opened [his] mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: (10:35) But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. ​

We, the body of Christ, are accepted IN THE BELOVED (Eph 1:6 KJV) and not because we "worketh righteousness" (Titus 3:5 KJV). You should join us.

In order to have that cause-effect structure, it had to have the same Gospel from the beginning, and it did. He was the Lamb that takes away the sins of the world. Not in some other 2nd way like RD keeps tooting. By his death. it was known from and before the beginning, but it was also despised because it did not fit with predominant zealot thinking.

Which goat took away the sins of the people? (HINT: The live one).

BTW, it's hilarious that you talk about zealots... being one yourself.

The reign of God is the power of this message. Nothing is as powerful as forgiveness to make people change, so when you preach it first (as in the controversial opening miracle of Mk 2:1+) you have a power that Judaism did not have. this same forgiveneness is announced in the nativity songs of Lk 1-2.

The Bible spoke of forgiveness before. God can forgive any time that He wants.

Your "understanding" of Luke 1-2 is bizarre. According to you, Zacharias was a zealous follower of Judaism.

Luke 1:67-79 (AKJV/PCE)​

(1:67) And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying, (1:68) Blessed [be] the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people, (1:69) And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David; (1:70) As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began: (1:71) That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us; (1:72) To perform the mercy [promised] to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant; (1:73) The oath which he sware to our father Abraham, (1:74) That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear, (1:75) In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life. (1:76) And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways; (1:77) To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins, (1:78) Through the tender mercy of our God; whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us, (1:79) To give light to them that sit in darkness and [in] the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace. ​

That is all about the Lord God OF ISRAEL and what He was doing for HIS PEOPLE. Just who do you think that the US, WE and OUR are there? (Hint: His people, ISRAEL).

The King was enthroned in the resurrection (to which all D'ists say NOT!) in Acts 2:30 because his sacrificial work was successful and honored by God and because that is the type of kingdom that always in mind, seizing the spirit of men and women everywhere. It never called for the end of existing government, but it did shake all existing societal structure. As you know from Acts 1, the disciples were cut out of asking about a 'kingdom for Israel' (as they knew it) because kingdom-power was going to be conferred shortly, the next event. D'ists are 100% in defiance of this truth.

More fictional hogwash from the great fiction author.

Matt 25:31-33 (AKJV/PCE)​

(25:31) ¶ When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: (25:32) And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth [his] sheep from the goats: (25:33) And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
​

When did Christ come in His glory with ALL the holy angels with Him?

To illustrate, I asked Walvoord in person in about 1977 at a Bible camp near Silverdale, WA, why he spent so much time on the 'kingdom of Israel' when Jesus said not to inquire about it. His answer 'it can't possibly mean that.' That's D'ism. Always adding NOT to the critical texts.

:rotfl:

 

[john w]

He was the Lamb that takes away the sins of the world.

More evidence that this fraud has not picked up the book, in years,much less studied it, including the sacrifices laid out in the OT. The lamb was never the sin offering, Jethro.


You're a clown-even you know it.

 

[Interplanner]

Tell Peter....

Acts 10:34-35 (AKJV/PCE)​

(10:34) ¶ Then Peter opened [his] mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: (10:35) But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. ​

We, the body of Christ, are accepted IN THE BELOVED (Eph 1:6 KJV) and not because we "worketh righteousness" (Titus 3:5 KJV). You should join us.


Which goat took away the sins of the people? (HINT: The live one).

BTW, it's hilarious that you talk about zealots... being one yourself.


The Bible spoke of forgiveness before. God can forgive any time that He wants.

Your "understanding" of Luke 1-2 is bizarre. According to you, Zacharias was a zealous follower of Judaism.

Luke 1:67-79 (AKJV/PCE)​

(1:67) And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying, (1:68) Blessed [be] the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people, (1:69) And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David; (1:70) As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began: (1:71) That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us; (1:72) To perform the mercy [promised] to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant; (1:73) The oath which he sware to our father Abraham, (1:74) That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear, (1:75) In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life. (1:76) And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways; (1:77) To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins, (1:78) Through the tender mercy of our God; whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us, (1:79) To give light to them that sit in darkness and [in] the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace. ​

That is all about the Lord God OF ISRAEL and what He was doing for HIS PEOPLE. Just who do you think that the US, WE and OUR are there? (Hint: His people, ISRAEL).


More fictional hogwash from the great fiction author.

Matt 25:31-33 (AKJV/PCE)​

(25:31) ¶ When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: (25:32) And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth [his] sheep from the goats: (25:33) And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
​

When did Christ come in His glory with ALL the holy angels with Him?


:rotfl:

There is nothing to "tell" Peter. He preached what he did because Christ had already acted for us. What we do--whether baptism or repentance or change--does not have to be perfect, but it does have to be out of thanks for that. The apostles had this message all the way through. It is the one Gospel. It always was meant for all mankind, if you know Lk 24 at all, but I don't think D'ists have Lk 24 in their Bibles. It is NOT.

You have no 'corner' on when Mt 25 happened. You also have no imagination. When did 'sit at my right hand' happen? The resurrection, even though there will be enemies around, following satan's rumors. You are way too literal, like Walvoord.

What is the mocking about talking to Walvoord? He was really ticked that I asked that question in public, because it was where all his spare dollars came from. Follow the money.

 

[Interplanner]

RD,
the zealot comment is really foolish. They believed the arm of God would fight Rome if they just policed circumcision and sabbath to perfection. If you want to know anything about me (you claim to be an expert), I'm the opposite of all that.

 

[john w]

. It is the one Gospel. .

Confirms that he is a devil child, asserting that there is just one piece of good news in the book, and Basil James 2:3 KJV Interplanner, satanically asserts, again, on record, that his saint Judas preached the gospel of Christ, outlined in 1 Cor. 15:1-4 KJV:

"Hey, everyone!!!!! This is Judas!!!! Listen up!!!My Saviour, the Christ, is going to die for our sins...be buried....raised again for our justification!!!!! Believe this good news, to be saved!!!!! Gotta Go....My broker told me to buy some silver, as he is bullish on it.......I know where to get some!!!!"


Clown.

 

[Right Divider]

There is nothing to "tell" Peter. He preached what he did because Christ had already acted for us.

That's NOT what Acts 10:35 says IP.

Acts 10:35 (AKJV/PCE)​

(10:35) But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
​

Why does this evade your ability to understand? Are you so dumb as to not be able to add 2 plus 2?

What we do--whether baptism or repentance or change--does not have to be perfect, but it does have to be out of thanks for that. The apostles had this message all the way through. It is the one Gospel. It always was meant for all mankind, if you know Lk 24 at all, but I don't think D'ists have Lk 24 in their Bibles. It is NOT.

You Bible blenders are an incredibly confused bunch.

You have no 'corner' on when Mt 25 happened. You also have no imagination.

Another childish DIVERSION. Just answer the question instead of attempting to EVADE it. You are ALL imagination!

When did 'sit at my right hand' happen? The resurrection, even though there will be enemies around, following satan's rumors. You are way too literal, like Walvoord.

You are way too fictional, like most of Churchianity and cultists.

Sit at My right hand is NOT Christ sitting on the THRONE OF HIS GLORY. It is Christ sitting with His Father on HIS (the Father's) throne.

Rev 3:21 (AKJV/PCE)​

(3:21) To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. ​

Are you unable to know the difference between MY and HIS?

Your ignorance and arrogance are astounding!

What is the mocking about talking to Walvoord? He was really ticked that I asked that question in public, because it was where all his spare dollars came from. Follow the money.

I could care less about your opinions about others opinions.

 

[Right Divider]

RD,
the zealot comment is really foolish. They believed the arm of God would fight Rome if they just policed circumcision and sabbath to perfection. If you want to know anything about me (you claim to be an expert), I'm the opposite of all that.

There is more than ONE type of zealotry dimwit. You are a zealot for your fairy tale version of the Bible.

 

[Danoh]

That is to repent of your sins and following the Law and you will be saved. Paul's gospel was similar but sort of reversed in that instead of salvation being the result of a righteous life, it's that a righteous life is the result of salvation

This is ridiculous, except the last line, because that was the structural difference from Judaism all through. When you 'do' a righteous life the other way (to obligate God) you ruin the heart of it.

In order to have that cause-effect structure, it had to have the same Gospel from the beginning, and it did. He was the Lamb that takes away the sins of the world. Not in some other 2nd way like RD keeps tooting. By his death. it was known from and before the beginning, but it was also despised because it did not fit with predominant zealot thinking.

The reign of God is the power of this message. Nothing is as powerful as forgiveness to make people change, so when you preach it first (as in the controversial opening miracle of Mk 2:1+) you have a power that Judaism did not have. this same forgiveneness is announced in the nativity songs of Lk 1-2.

The King was enthroned in the resurrection (to which all D'ists say NOT!) in Acts 2:30 because his sacrificial work was successful and honored by God and because that is the type of kingdom that always in mind, seizing the spirit of men and women everywhere. It never called for the end of existing government, but it did shake all existing societal structure. As you know from Acts 1, the disciples were cut out of asking about a 'kingdom for Israel' (as they knew it) because kingdom-power was going to be conferred shortly, the next event. D'ists are 100% in defiance of this truth.

To illustrate, I asked Walvoord in person in about 1977 at a Bible camp near Silverdale, WA, why he spent so much time on the 'kingdom of Israel' when Jesus said not to inquire about it. His answer 'it can't possibly mean that.' That's D'ism. Always adding NOT to the critical texts.

Because Jesus never said "not to inquire about it" that is your guessing at into Acts 1:7.

Obviously, Walvoord was merely being polite.

I swear, IP, you should just go throw yourself off a cliff somewhere (spiritually) - for your ever made up contributions around here are that consistently useless.

:rotfl:

Rom. 5:6-8.

 

[turbosixx]

So you conveniently IGNORE ALL THE REST of that passage!

What I can't ignore is that Paul baptized believers just as (1) Peter did and (2) Jesus instructed. Peter and Paul made Christians the same exact way just as Jesus instructed.

Do you do ALL of these things that are ALSO in that passage?

Also in that passage, to the apostles, it gives a reason for the signs.
Mk 16:20 And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by accompanying signs
Those sign were to confirm that the words they spoke were from/approved by God. Also, if you will notice, the apostles are the ones preaching and performing the signs.

Acts 2:42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. 43 And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles.

Acts 8:6 And the crowds with one accord paid attention to what was being said by Philip, when they heard him and saw the signs that he did.

Acts 14:3 So they remained for a long time, speaking boldly for the Lord, who bore witness to the word of his grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands.

They confirmed the word they spoke and wrote it down for us. It's been confirmed, we do not need to confirm it. That's why we do not have/need signs today.
Jn. 20:30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

 

[turbosixx]

Acts 19 is just before Paul goes, by inspiration, to Jerusalem where he is to explain his gospel to the Twelve. In Acts 20 he says...

Could you please point out the verse/s where you see Paul was to go to Jerusalem to explain his gospel to the 12? I couldn't find it. Thanks

 

[turbosixx]

Your question assumes that the Dispensationalist's use of the term "Kingdom gospel" or other references to "the Kingdom" as being equivalent to speaking only about the Jews means that every use of the phrase "kingdom of God" in the bible means the exact same thing.

This is what I'm trying to understand, their view of the kingdom. I am also a Dispensationalist.

We are all member of the greater kingdom of God and Paul's use of the phrase doesn't negate his entire ministry nor the unmistakable differences between what he taught vs. that which the Twelve taught.

Yes, we are all in God's greater kingdom but I'm concerned with the kingdom that has been prophesied about, the one the Jews were/are looking for and the one Jesus said was at hand. I do not see Paul persuading people about the "greater" kingdom because those passages do not allude to that and also because of the overall narrative.

Then, if you continue reading, you discover that he meets with the Twelve who tell him that their converts in Jerusalem are all "zealous for the law". Then, when Paul gets into all sorts of trouble in Jerusalem, what is it about? It's about him teaching people not to be circumcised or follow the Law.

I agree.

And therein lies the answer to your question about what is the kingdom gospel. It is what Jesus taught and it is what the Twelve taught after Him. That is to repent of your sins and following the Law and you will be saved.

I would suggest there is a lot of assuming going on here. I do not see a single verse where the 12 instructed believers to follow the law especially in order to be saved. These believers were zealous for the law but one has to assume to the 12 preached/taught observance of the law. If you could point me to a verse where they instructed it, I would appreciate it.

It’s apparent that observing the law is not sin. Paul did it on several occasions. Once without mention of a good reason, Acts 18:18.

Paul also preached repentance from the very beginning.
Acts 26: 19 “Therefore, O King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, 20 but declared first to those in Damascus, then in Jerusalem and throughout all the region of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds in keeping with their repentance.

Paul's gospel was similar but sort of reversed in that instead of salvation being the result of a righteous life

Could you please elaborate on this teaching of the 12?

 

[Right Divider]

Could you please point out the verse/s where you see Paul was to go to Jerusalem to explain his gospel to the 12? I couldn't find it. Thanks

You are this uninformed about what the Bible says and yet you adamantly disagree with what we show you?

Gal 2:1-2 (AKJV/PCE)​

(2:1) Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with [me] also. (2:2) And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.
​

You are a hopeless case.

 

[Right Divider]

What I can't ignore is that Paul baptized believers just as (1) Peter did and (2) Jesus instructed. Peter and Paul made Christians the same exact way just as Jesus instructed.

Yes, just childishly stick to your ignorance.

Also in that passage, to the apostles, it gives a reason for the signs.
Mk 16:20 And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by accompanying signs
Those sign were to confirm that the words they spoke were from/approved by God. Also, if you will notice, the apostles are the ones preaching and performing the signs.

Acts 2:42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. 43 And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles.

Acts 8:6 And the crowds with one accord paid attention to what was being said by Philip, when they heard him and saw the signs that he did.

Acts 14:3 So they remained for a long time, speaking boldly for the Lord, who bore witness to the word of his grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands.

They confirmed the word they spoke and wrote it down for us. It's been confirmed, we do not need to confirm it. That's why we do not have/need signs today.
Jn. 20:30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

That Jesus is the Christ is NOT THE GOSPEL OF THE GRACE OF GOD.

 

[turbosixx]

You are this uninformed about what the Bible says and yet you adamantly disagree with what we show you?

Gal 2:1-2 (AKJV/PCE)​

(2:1) Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with [me] also. (2:2) And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.
​

You are a hopeless case.

I believe here he's talking about the council in Acts 15 when they dealt with this very subject, circumcision.

 

[Interplanner]

Yes, just childishly stick to your ignorance.


That Jesus is the Christ is NOT THE GOSPEL OF THE GRACE OF GOD.

There is no other Biblical definition of Messiah but that he is the grace of God and a sacrifice. It is utterly mistaken to think otherwise. This is why there is conflict between 1st century Judaism and Christian faith: because the 'Christ' of Judaism was opposite on both points.

D'ists cannot know what they are talking about because of the flaw inherent in D'ism.

 

[Clete]

Could you please point out the verse/s where you see Paul was to go to Jerusalem to explain his gospel to the 12? I couldn't find it. Thanks

Acts 19:21 When these things were accomplished, Paul purposed in the Spirit, when he had passed through Macedonia and Achaia, to go to Jerusalem, saying, “After I have been there, I must also see Rome.”

Acts 20:22 And see, now I go bound in the spirit to Jerusalem, not knowing the things that will happen to me there,

Galatians 2:2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain.

 

[Interplanner]

Your question assumes that the Dispensationalist's use of the term "Kingdom gospel" or other references to "the Kingdom" as being equivalent to speaking only about the Jews means that every use of the phrase "kingdom of God" in the bible means the exact same thing.

We are all member of the greater kingdom of God and Paul's use of the phrase doesn't negate his entire ministry nor the unmistakable differences between what he taught vs. that which the Twelve taught.

Acts 19 is just before Paul goes, by inspiration, to Jerusalem where he is to explain his gospel to the Twelve. In Acts 20 he says...

Acts 20:22 And see, now I go bound in the spirit to Jerusalem, not knowing the things that will happen to me there, 23 except that the Holy Spirit testifies in every city, saying that chains and tribulations await me. 24 But none of these things move me; nor do I count my life dear to myself, so that I may finish my race with joy, and the ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of the grace of God.

25 “And indeed, now I know that you all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, will see my face no more.​

Then, if you continue reading, you discover that he meets with the Twelve who tell him that their converts in Jerusalem are all "zealous for the law". Then, when Paul gets into all sorts of trouble in Jerusalem, what is it about? It's about him teaching people not to be circumcised or follow the Law.

And therein lies the answer to your question about what is the kingdom gospel. It is what Jesus taught and it is what the Twelve taught after Him. That is to repent of your sins and following the Law and you will be saved. Paul's gospel was similar but sort of reversed in that instead of salvation being the result of a righteous life, it's that a righteous life is the result of salvation. As such, there is no longer any need for the Law! (Gal. 3)

If you want to know whether you follow the gospel that the Twelve preached, ask yourself whether you are "zealous for the law" and are into cleansing rituals and shaving your head as they asked Paul to do in order to keep everyone from freaking out.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Going back to Clete's point about cause and effect:

Commenting on Mk 1:15, the historian Foerster writes:

what was new about Jesus' preaching was the fact that this divine rule would not be brought about by repentance, but that the summons to repentance flowed from the immanence of the divine rule. It was exactly the reverse of what the Jews thought right up the Great War and after.

The 'reign' of God is better than using 'kingdom' in case it confuses things with Judaism, but the 'power' of God is even more clear: the power of God to salvation (that wins and stirs men to obedience) was 'there/near' That's what had arrived.

Hopefully this will clear up all the continuous confusion of D'ism that there was to be a kingdom as Israel knew it. Jn 12:34. It was 'light' to follow the Son. It was therefore darkness to follow what the crowd thought the law and prophets said. Like following D'ism today.