“THIS” gospel of the kingdom

[Pelaides]

“THIS” gospel of the kingdom

Romans 10:9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

To me, this verse sums up the gospel according to Paul. However, when Christ spoke these words….

Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

….Christ had not been crucified and raised from the dead, so His message (this gospel) wasn’t talking about the plan of salvation according to Paul. Any ideas what “THIS’’ gospel might be that Christ was talking about?

The gospel of the kingdom,Explains what heaven is like,and how the new world will be when the second coming occurs,The teachings of paul is something different.

 

[veteran]

Shalom, veteran.


I just don't understand why you are being so resistant to the simple idea of what was going on that day when He talked to them about the future on that mount outside Jerusalem. Today, you can't see the trees for the forest! I study the prophecies of the Tanakh just fine and often. I am also quite aware of Isra'el's history and the historical fulfillment of MANY of the prophets! It is important to know WHEN each prophet proclaimed a message for YHWH and to whom he was sent! Some things that they were given to speak and write were things for the future, including times that are yet future to us, but MANY of the things that they were given to speak and write were fulfilled soon after being given!

You've made a false assumption about me right off the bat. I have resisted none of what my Lord Jesus spoke to His disciples upon the Mount of Olives in Matt.24. As a matter of fact, just with these discussions between me and you about it, I have actually covered more... of the Matt.24 Scriptures than you have. You keep wanting to slide back to men's Preterist ideas that it was fulfilled in 70 A.D. when it has not... been. And so far, you have yet to get past just the Matt.24:1-3 section of verses which 'places' the timeframe of the signs Jesus was giving them (and us).

For instance, almost all of the prophecy of Yonah (Jonah) was for Nineveh in HIS time, not for the future, particularly the distant future! There might have been a FEW things, such as the example he left of being in the belly of the great fish for three days and nights. MUCH of Yirmeyahu's (Jeremiah's) prophecy was fulfilled shortly after he gave it! Only the portions that were about the distant future might still be needed to be fulfilled, but even some of those are already fulfilled, at least in part!

That doesn't mean the seven signs of the end Jesus gave in Matt.24, which parallel the 6 Seals of Rev.6, happened like those layouts in Jonah or Jeremiah. There's even a section of Isaiah chapters that are for the very end of this world and parallel the events of Revelation, to further show the OT books of the prophets did that. But that does not mean Matt.24 is doing that simply because of the type of question Christ's disciples asked about the end of the world at the first start of that chapter.

And further, since the 6 Seals of Revelation parallel those signs Jesus gave in Matt.24, and because His Revelation was specifically given to the 7 Churches at a later time per Rev.1, that also should be enough proof for you to not go looking to place those Matt.24 signs back in prior history than when Revelation was given to Apostle John on Patmos.

That's why I say, "Those who don't learn from history are DOOMED to think that the prophecy must still be fulfilled!" Much of the prophecies in the Tanakh (the OT) have already been fulfilled (for instance, the 400 or so prophecies about the first coming of the Messiah); thus, they are OVER AND DONE WITH, NEVER TO BE REPEATED! That's important to understand and remember! When a prophecy is fulfilled, it is COMPLETE! Each prophecy must have its ONE AND ONLY fulfillment; otherwise, it would be no different than Nostradamus' prophecies or those of Jeanne Dixon, open to the interpretation of the one reading the prophecy, and that is PRECISELY what Peter was speaking against in his epistle!

Well, haven't you and I discussed the matter of some events in OT history serving as 'types' for later prophetic events to come, i.e., like why Rev.18 repeats verbatum that Babylon is fallen, is fallen from Isaiah 21? That phrase in Isaiah was about historical Babylon's fall, but serves as a 'type' blueprint for the future fall of the Babylon harlot of Revelation.

And since you have brought up the history of Antiochus IV in 165 B.C. Jerusalem, why haven't you covered what he specifically did inside the 2nd temple in that time with placing an abomination idol for all to bow to in false worship? And why have you yet to explain why Christ Jesus forewarned of the "abomination of desolation" much later after Antiochus IV had died prior to Christ's 1st coming? And further, why do your refuse that prophetic connection of his acts and the abomination idol with the Rev.13 prophecy about the setting up of the "image of the beast"??

So what one should easily 'see', is how many past historical events serve as "ensamples" for those at the end, upon whom the end of the world is come, just as Apostle Paul said...

1 Cor 10:11
11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.
(KJV)

Like Solomon said, what has been will be again, and there is no new thing under the sun (Eccl.1:9).

Let's just remember who was present that day: There was Yeshua` Himself, His twelve Sent-Ones, and possibly more of His talmidiym - His students - His disciples than just the Twelve. We were told that there were about 120 disciples in Acts 1:15 right after Yeshua`s ascension. Neither Abraham, David, nor Shlomoh (Solomon), nor those who were taken captive to Babylon (a PAST event, btw) were present that day! WE weren't there, either!

Doesn't matter exactly how many were there with Him, we know per Matt.24:3 that He spoke those things to His disciples there "privately". So that suggests there were followers there also not of the group of His disciples.

There's no sense in looking backward to what had happened to Jerusalem in the past, nor was there any sense in looking too far in the future to disciples that THESE disciples wouldn't even know would exist!

That statement just does not make any sense at all, especially since God Himself was constantly REMINDING His people in Jerusalem of what had taken place before, and how their forgetfulness was DOOMING THEM TO REPEAT IT.

As for your idea of no sense in looking too far in the future, that statement doesn't make sense in connection with Scripture either, since Jesus made sure His disciples understood what was to happen far, far in their future! That's even one of the facts of their specific question in Matthew 24:3 about the signs of the end of this world, and of Christ's return!!!

The more you try to get away from admitting His disciple's question of Matt.24:3 was specific to the end of this world, the more you do show that's exactly what they meant.

The questions that these disciples asked Yeshua` that day were in three parts:

Matthew 24:1-3
1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
KJV

They asked ...
1) "When shall these things be?"
2) "What shall be the sign of thy coming?" and
3) "(What shall be the sign) of the end of the world?"

The first question was in response to Yeshua`s information that the Temple would be destroyed. It wasn't about "EVERY stone!" "Every stone" where? In Jerusalem? In Y'hudah? In Isra'el? In the WORLD?! NO!!!! Yeshua` had JUST been given a tour and shown THE BUILDINGS OF THE TEMPLE! He was talking about the stones used in the building of the Temple complex!

He wasn't just talking to them about the distant future! He was also talking to them about THEIR future and the future of THEIR families!

Finally, you get down to actually addressing the specific Scripture.

Matt 24:3
3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
(KJV)

Their question was... about the very end of this world, to include Jesus' words that not one stone would be standing on top of another. The stones still standing in Jerusalem that make up the Wailing Wall are still standing today. That wall is part of the old footing of the western side of the Temple Mount. But when will they NOT be standing at all? At Christ's second coming when He comes to flatten that area per the OT prophets on the Day of The LORD. I've already covered that tidbit in my earlier posts.

Once again, because His disciples specifically mention the sign of Christ's coming and the end of this world in their question, that is the perspective of the signs Jesus gave them later in that chapter.

In the very next verse of Matt.24:4-5, Jesus gives the 1st sign that parallels the first mentioned Seal of Rev.6. And then the event flow of the rest of the Seals follow that. Nowhere in Matt.24 or Rev.6 does He point to the Roman army coming to destroy Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

As a matter of fact, the signs He continued that directly parallel the 6 Seals, a STANDING TEMPLE is 'required' when He gets to the subject of the "abomination of desolation" standing in the "holy place". That's further proof that He was not giving signs about Jerusalem's and the 2nd temple's destruction in 70 A.D.

And even once again, since Jesus sent His Revelation through His Apostle John to the seven Churches in Asia, and the Romans had already destroyed Jerusalem and the temple by then, it further shows these Matt.24 signs were to be future to 70 A.D.

 

[Retrobyter]

Shalom, Enoch.

Roy is the statement in Matt:24-3 (and the end of the world) about the end of the world as we know it, or the end of their world ( the temple and worship as they did) ?

No, it's not the "end of the world" but rather the "end of the AGE" (Greek: sunteleias tou aioonos = "entire-completion of-the age"), specifically, the end of the Messianic Age, and the end of the second age of humanity (2 Peter 2:3-13), when the deluge of Fire and the Great White Throne Judgment occur, followed by the Second Death in the Lake of Burning Sulfur just prior to the re-creation of the New Earth or the THIRD EARTH with its New Sky or the THIRD SKY.

Nor is it just the "end of the temple and temple-based worship." They were asking about the age's "ENTIRE-COMPLETION (SUNTELEIAS)!"

 

[veteran]

Shalom, Enoch.


No, it's not the "end of the world" but rather the "end of the AGE" (Greek: sunteleias tou aioonos = "entire-completion of-the age"), specifically, the end of the Messianic Age, and the end of the second age of humanity (2 Peter 2:3-13), when the deluge of Fire and the Great White Throne Judgment occur, followed by the Second Death in the Lake of Burning Sulfur just prior to the re-creation of the New Earth or the THIRD EARTH with its New Sky or the THIRD SKY.

Nor is it just the "end of the temple and temple-based worship." They were asking about the age's "ENTIRE-COMPLETION (SUNTELEIAS)!"

Their question means exactly how it reads, for the end of this present world. Interpretation of the Greek word for "world" there to only mean the end of an 'era', which is how Preterists supply the meaning of an 'age', is just supposition away from the actual context of the Matt.24 chapter.

Revelation 6 parallels the subject of the 7 signs of the end Jesus gave in Matthew 24 and Mark 13 while upon the Mount of Olives speaking with His disciples. His Revelation was given to Apostle John in approximately 96 A.D., some 26 years after the Roman army had destroyed Jerusalem.

The very last sign Jesus gave in Matthew 24 was the sign of His second coming. The previous 6 signs He gave that parallel the 6 Seals of Rev.6 also cover the subject of the time of trouble great tribulation and the abomination of desolation from the Book of Daniel. And per the Book of Daniel, those prophecies Daniel was specifically told would happen in the END, at the COMPLETION of the symbolic 70 weeks. Per the Book of Daniel the completion of the 70 weeks is when the sanctuary will be cleansed and glory comes to Jerusalem with Christ's return.

So not only does Rev.6 parallel the 7 signs Jesus gave in Matt.24, but the events for the end per the Book of Daniel do also. And in Revelation specific parallels to the end prophecies in Daniel are given. So the whole matter of these signs in Matthew 24 are tightly weaved together with end time prophecies that our Lord Jesus and His Apostles gave us for the end of this world leading up to His second coming and our gathering to Him.

 

[Retrobyter]

Shalom, veteran.

Their question means exactly how it reads, for the end of this present world. Interpretation of the Greek word for "world" there to only mean the end of an 'era', which is how Preterists supply the meaning of an 'age', is just supposition away from the actual context of the Matt.24 chapter.

Revelation 6 parallels the subject of the 7 signs of the end Jesus gave in Matthew 24 and Mark 13 while upon the Mount of Olives speaking with His disciples. His Revelation was given to Apostle John in approximately 96 A.D., some 26 years after the Roman army had destroyed Jerusalem.

The very last sign Jesus gave in Matthew 24 was the sign of His second coming. The previous 6 signs He gave that parallel the 6 Seals of Rev.6 also cover the subject of the time of trouble great tribulation and the abomination of desolation from the Book of Daniel. And per the Book of Daniel, those prophecies Daniel was specifically told would happen in the END, at the COMPLETION of the symbolic 70 weeks. Per the Book of Daniel the completion of the 70 weeks is when the sanctuary will be cleansed and glory comes to Jerusalem with Christ's return.

So not only does Rev.6 parallel the 7 signs Jesus gave in Matt.24, but the events for the end per the Book of Daniel do also. And in Revelation specific parallels to the end prophecies in Daniel are given. So the whole matter of these signs in Matthew 24 are tightly weaved together with end time prophecies that our Lord Jesus and His Apostles gave us for the end of this world leading up to His second coming and our gathering to Him.

And, picking a translation that says (archaically) that it is at the "end of the world" instead of WHAT IT MEANS, "the end of the AGE," is how some Futurists dump important points meant for the past into the FUTURE!

Let's use YOUR approach to "diplomacy": "That's how the Devil works in the lives of Futurists to steer them away from the Truth of Scripture and mislead those they try to teach!" (I remember QUITE well how you've treated me in the past! LOL!)

Seriously, though, you just need to understand that there are some parts of a prophecy that were meant for the NEAR future, our PAST, that were already fulfilled! That's true about Matthew 24, (Mark 13, and Luke 21,) Daniel 9 and 11 and 12, and other passages in the Tanakh (the OT). It's not "preterism," as you like to label it and thus file it away. It's just reading the text of what Yeshua` or the prophets said and CHECKING PROPHECY AGAINST HISTORY! That's one area of eschatology in which you are lacking.

 

[veteran]

Shalom, veteran.


And, picking a translation that says (archaically) that it is at the "end of the world" instead of WHAT IT MEANS, "the end of the AGE," is how some Futurists dump important points meant for the past into the FUTURE!

Let's use YOUR approach to "diplomacy": "That's how the Devil works in the lives of Futurists to steer them away from the Truth of Scripture and mislead those they try to teach!" (I remember QUITE well how you've treated me in the past! LOL!)

Seriously, though, you just need to understand that there are some parts of a prophecy that were meant for the NEAR future, our PAST, that were already fulfilled! That's true about Matthew 24, (Mark 13, and Luke 21,) Daniel 9 and 11 and 12, and other passages in the Tanakh (the OT). It's not "preterism," as you like to label it and thus file it away. It's just reading the text of what Yeshua` or the prophets said and CHECKING PROPHECY AGAINST HISTORY! That's one area of eschatology in which you are lacking.

You've obviously gone off into one huge foolish rant. All those things in your rant apply to those under the Preterist school which wish to destroy the simplicity of the meaning of 'end of the world and sign of Christ's coming which Jesus' disciples asked Him there.

Furthermore, treating the word for 'world' there like Preterism teaches is totally inconsistent with the main subject of the chapter about the signs of the end of this world that Jesus was giving there upon the Mount of Olives. I've already well shown that connection to other prophetic Scripture while all you've tried to do is attack my credibility, which that's really the only ploy left you in this discussion, but even so, it won't work either.

 

[Retrobyter]

Shalom, veteran.

You've obviously gone off into one huge foolish rant. All those things in your rant apply to those under the Preterist school which wish to destroy the simplicity of the meaning of 'end of the world and sign of Christ's coming which Jesus' disciples asked Him there.

Furthermore, treating the word for 'world' there like Preterism teaches is totally inconsistent with the main subject of the chapter about the signs of the end of this world that Jesus was giving there upon the Mount of Olives. I've already well shown that connection to other prophetic Scripture while all you've tried to do is attack my credibility, which that's really the only ploy left you in this discussion, but even so, it won't work either.

I thought you've studied Greek before. Guess I was wrong about that. Tell me:

Was George Ricker Berry a "preterist?" Yet, HE was the one who wrote in his book The Interlinear KJV: Parallel New Testament in Greek and English Based on the Textus Receptus with Lexicon and Synonyms, that the word employed in Matthew 24:3 was "aioonos" that was translated as "world!"

Was Dr. James Strong a "preterist?" And yet, HE is the one who said that the word the disciples were translated to have used "aioonos" was a form of "aioon" by applying the New Testament number 165! He defines it this way in A Concise Dictionary of the Words in The Greek Testament; with Their Renderings in the Authorized English Version":

NT:165 aioon (ahee-ohn'); from the same as NT:104; properly, an age; by extension, perpetuity (also past); by implication, the world; specially (Jewish) a Messianic period (present or future):
KJV - age, course, eternal, (for) ever (-more), [n-] ever, (beginning of the while the) world (began, without end). Compare NT:5550.

(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

ANYBODY could look this up and find this same information! Why are you being so obstinate?!

Oh, and I have hardly begun to dig into my bag of techniques. I'm just trying to establish some semblance of consensus between us before digging any deeper. However, if you can't agree to the SIMPLEST of information available just to be disagreeable, then why should we talk any longer? Don't be CLOSED-MINDED!

 

[veteran]

The real fact is that Greek word aion is also used like this...

Luke 18:30
30 Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting.
(KJV)

What's that "world" about? and how long does it last?

And since that's the same Greek word used in Matt.24:3 with the disciples' question about the "end of the world"...

 

[Dodo_David]

The real fact is that Greek word aion is also used like this...

Luke 18:30
30 Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting.
(KJV)

What's that "world" about? and how long does it last?

And since that's the same Greek word used in Matt.24:3 with the disciples' question about the "end of the world"...

Here is Luke 18:30 as given in versions other than the KJV:

Young's Literal Translation: "... who may not receive back manifold more in this time, and in the coming age, life age-during."

ESV: "... who will not receive many times more in this time, and in the age to come eternal life."

NASB: "... who will not receive many times as much at this time and in the age to come, eternal life."

HCSB: "... who will not receive many times more at this time, and eternal life in the age to come."

NRSV: "... who will not get back very much more in this age, and in the age to come eternal life."

:mellow:

Now, here is Matthew 24:3 as given in versions other than the KJV.

Young's Literal Translation: "And when he is sitting on the mount of the Olives, the disciples came near to him by himself, saying, `Tell us, when shall these be? and what [is] the sign of thy presence, and of the full end of the age?'"

ESV: "As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”"

NASB: "As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”"

HCSB: "While He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples approached Him privately and said, “Tell us, when will these things happen? And what is the sign of Your coming and of the end of the age?”"

NRSV: "When he was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”"

According to the New Analytical Greek Lexicon and Vine's Expository Dictionary, the Greek word "aiōn" is translated as "age" .
Vine's Expository Dictionary states that the Greek word "aiōn" is sometimes wrongly rendered "world."

No English version of the Bible is flawless, not even the KJV.
No English version of the Bible is the standard for comparison, not even the KJV.

 

[veteran]

Here is Luke 18:30 as given in versions other than the KJV:

Young's Literal Translation: "... who may not receive back manifold more in this time, and in the coming age, life age-during."

ESV: "... who will not receive many times more in this time, and in the age to come eternal life."

NASB: "... who will not receive many times as much at this time and in the age to come, eternal life."

HCSB: "... who will not receive many times more at this time, and eternal life in the age to come."

NRSV: "... who will not get back very much more in this age, and in the age to come eternal life."

:mellow:

Now, here is Matthew 24:3 as given in versions other than the KJV.

Young's Literal Translation: "And when he is sitting on the mount of the Olives, the disciples came near to him by himself, saying, `Tell us, when shall these be? and what [is] the sign of thy presence, and of the full end of the age?'"

ESV: "As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”"

NASB: "As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”"

HCSB: "While He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples approached Him privately and said, “Tell us, when will these things happen? And what is the sign of Your coming and of the end of the age?”"

NRSV: "When he was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”"

According to the New Analytical Greek Lexicon and Vine's Expository Dictionary, the Greek word "aiōn" is translated as "age" .
Vine's Expository Dictionary states that the Greek word "aiōn" is sometimes wrongly rendered "world."

No English version of the Bible is flawless, not even the KJV.
No English version of the Bible is the standard for comparison, not even the KJV.

That's why this word fallacy stuff is a silly argument in the first place and does not in itself 'define' the context of Scripture. But certain ones here always fall to that word fallacy play when they cannot get around the context simplicity of Scripture. Such is the case with this disscussion on Matt.24.

The KJV translators, as all Bible translators, take certain license with translating the Greek to English with the goal of abiding by the best meaning that goes with the context in the manuscripts. The context to English in the 1611 KJV was not done by a small group of men as many other English translations have been. That fact is one of the special points of the KJV translation that stands out against later English translations.


Christ Jesus gave His disciples signs to occur at the end of this world with the very last sign being His coming and the gathering of His saints...

Matt 24:30-31
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31 And He shall send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
(KJV)

That stands as proof of His answering His disciples question in Matt.24:3 about the sign of Christ's coming and of the end of this world. It is impossible to move that context to any other period. Word fallacy games won't do it either.

 

[Retrobyter]

Shalom, veteran.

"Yessiree! If the King James Version was good enough for the Apostle Paul, it's good enough for me!"

Brother!

 

[guysmith]

Shalom Retrobyter,

I sent you a PM, did you receive it?

In Yehoshua,
Guy

 

[veteran]

Retrobyter

Yes, I agree that the Gospel spoken of by Jesus in Matt.24:14 is the Gospel of the Kingdom.

Quantrill

The Gospel of Jesus Christ always includes... the idea of His future Kingdom. The two cannot be separated as some try to do.

Acts 28:23-29
23 And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.
24 And some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed not.
25 And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers,
26 Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive:
27 For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
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.
(KJV)

The Jewish leaders in Rome visited Apostle Paul in his house agreeing to a day when they would hear Paul. What Gospel did Paul preach to those Jews? The Gospel of "the kingdom of God", and that in connection with Jesus BOTH out of the law of Moses AND the OT prophets!

And because of those Jews there that would not believe, Paul said The Gospel would be sent to the Gentiles who would believe.

NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST AND THE KINGDOM per that example.

 

[Quantrill]

The Gospel of Jesus Christ always includes... the idea of His future Kingdom. The two cannot be separated as some try to do.

Acts 28:23-29
23 And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.
24 And some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed not.
25 And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers,
26 Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive:
27 For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
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.
(KJV)

The Jewish leaders in Rome visited Apostle Paul in his house agreeing to a day when they would hear Paul. What Gospel did Paul preach to those Jews? The Gospel of "the kingdom of God", and that in connection with Jesus BOTH out of the law of Moses AND the OT prophets!

And because of those Jews there that would not believe, Paul said The Gospel would be sent to the Gentiles who would believe.

NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST AND THE KINGDOM per that example.

The Kingdom of God always exists. Just because Paul preached the Gospel of Grace, does not mean the Kingdom of God doesn't exist. And when one becomes a Christian, then he enters the Kingdom of God. Just because the Kingdom is involved always with God, doesn't mean the Gospel of the Kingdom is being preached.

We enter through obedience to the Gospel of Grace, which is faith in Jesus Christ. The Gospel of the Kingdom is 'Repent and be baptized' . It is to the Jews to recieve their King. The King is coming. Get right because you are not right.

We as the Church are in the Kingdom now. That does not mean that God is not going to establish His Kingdom on Earth, with Israel as its leading nation and Jesus Christ ruling and reigning in Jerusalem. He is. And when He is ready to do yet in the future, that Gospel of the Kingdom will be preached again.

Quantrill

 

[Retrobyter]

Shalom, guysmith.

Shalom Retrobyter,

I sent you a PM, did you receive it?

In Yehoshua,
Guy

Oops. Sorry. I get so few messages that way that I've gotten out of the habit of looking for them. I have now, and I'm considering starting a thread on the subject because of its importance.

I also do not frequent too many other places on the forum than right here in the Christian Eschatology Forum. The subject of the "Lord, Lord..." question surely applies to the future, though, as the reaction of our Lord suggests. As to the Shabbat (Sabbath), I'll answer you in a PM.

Again, sorry for missing it.

 

[Dodo_David]

The KJV translators, as all Bible translators, take certain license with translating the Greek to English with the goal of abiding by the best meaning that goes with the context in the manuscripts. The context to English in the 1611 KJV was not done by a small group of men as many other English translations have been. That fact is one of the special points of the KJV translation that stands out against later English translations.

I am always amazed at the variety of ways that people beg the question.

 

[veteran]

The Kingdom of God always exists. Just because Paul preached the Gospel of Grace, does not mean the Kingdom of God doesn't exist. And when one becomes a Christian, then he enters the Kingdom of God. Just because the Kingdom is involved always with God, doesn't mean the Gospel of the Kingdom is being preached.

We enter through obedience to the Gospel of Grace, which is faith in Jesus Christ. The Gospel of the Kingdom is 'Repent and be baptized' . It is to the Jews to recieve their King. The King is coming. Get right because you are not right.

We as the Church are in the Kingdom now. That does not mean that God is not going to establish His Kingdom on Earth, with Israel as its leading nation and Jesus Christ ruling and reigning in Jerusalem. He is. And when He is ready to do yet in the future, that Gospel of the Kingdom will be preached again.

Quantrill

I think you missed the point of that Acts 28 example.

Within it Apostle Paul preached the Gospel of the Kingdom to the Jews there, some received it some didn't. Because of those Jews who rejected Paul's preaching of that... Gospel, Paul then said it would go to the Gentiles, and they would 'hear' it. So just which Gospel would the Gentiles 'hear' per that? The SAME Gospel Paul had preached to those JEWS there.

Furthermore, Acts 28:23 reveals what Paul's source for preaching "the kingdom of God" about Jesus to them was, i.e., from the law of Moses and the OT prophets.

So the ideas of men that there's really TWO separate Gospels, one about the Kingdom and another about Grace, is nothing but a bunch of hogwash. No such distinction exists Biblically. In other words, just because phrases like gospel of the kingdom is given, it does NOT mean the idea of grace which Paul preached is not attached to it.

I am always amazed at the variety of ways that people beg the question.

If you've got something to say, then say it. Don't go beating around the bush like hiding in the shadows.

 

[Quantrill]

I think you missed the point of that Acts 28 example.

Within it Apostle Paul preached the Gospel of the Kingdom to the Jews there, some received it some didn't. Because of those Jews who rejected Paul's preaching of that... Gospel, Paul then said it would go to the Gentiles, and they would 'hear' it. So just which Gospel would the Gentiles 'hear' per that? The SAME Gospel Paul had preached to those JEWS there.

Furthermore, Acts 28:23 reveals what Paul's source for preaching "the kingdom of God" about Jesus to them was, i.e., from the law of Moses and the OT prophets.

So the ideas of men that there's really TWO separate Gospels, one about the Kingdom and another about Grace, is nothing but a bunch of hogwash. No such distinction exists Biblically. In other words, just because phrases like gospel of the kingdom is given, it does NOT mean the idea of grace which Paul preached is not attached to it.


If you've got something to say, then say it. Don't go beating around the bush like hiding in the shadows.

No, I didn't miss the point at all. That Paul spoke of and preached about the Kingdom doesn't mean he was presenting the Gospel of the Kingdom. The Gospel of the Kingdom is 'Repent and be baptized'. The Gospel of Grace is 'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ'.

We who are Christian also speak of 'repentance' and 'baptism'. But, that is not the 'repentance' or 'baptism' that pertains to the Gospel of the Kingdom. So, just because Paul speaks of the Kingdom doesn't mean he is presenting the Gospel of the Kingdom.

Jesus Christ is not presenting Himself at this time as the King of Israel to be recieved by Israel. He is presenting Himself as The Son of God and Saviour. When speaking to the Jews and presenting the Gospel of Grace, you do have to address His being their Messiah as presented in the Old Testament.

Quantrill

 

[veteran]

We who are Christian also speak of 'repentance' and 'baptism'. But, that is not the 'repentance' or 'baptism' that pertains to the Gospel of the Kingdom. So, just because Paul speaks of the Kingdom doesn't mean he is presenting the Gospel of the Kingdom.

I think you're confused...

Matt 24:14
14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
(KJV)

Rom 1:1-2
1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
2 (Which He had promised afore by His prophets in the holy scriptures,)
(KJV)

There are many different label pointers to God's Salvation Plan through His Son signifying what all it contains. Just because the word 'kingdom' does not always appear in many of those phrases does not mean it is a different Gospel of Jesus Christ, for there is only ONE Gospel of Jesus Christ, not two, or three, or more.
2 Tim 4:1
1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom;
(KJV)

So Christ's Kingdom will come at His appearing, i.e., His second coming? Yes! That's to show His Kingdom is still... expecting today, and per the Acts 28 Scripture it is the SAME Gospel Apostle Paul preached to the Jews in Rome and then said it would be preached to the Gentiles and they would hear it.

Acts 28:30-31
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.
(KJV)

Is Jesus Christ always included with that preaching of "the kingdom of God"? Yes, of course, for His Kingdom cannot be separated from Him. Afterall, the word 'kingdom' comes from two words, 'king' and 'dominion', can't have one without the other.

Mark 16:15-16
15 And He said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
(KJV)

Matt 28:19-20
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
(KJV)

 

[Retrobyter]

Shalom, veteran and all.

I think you're confused...

Matt 24:14
14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
(KJV)

Rom 1:1-2
1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
2 (Which He had promised afore by His prophets in the holy scriptures,)
(KJV)

There are many different label pointers to God's Salvation Plan through His Son signifying what all it contains. Just because the word 'kingdom' does not always appear in many of those phrases does not mean it is a different Gospel of Jesus Christ, for there is only ONE Gospel of Jesus Christ, not two, or three, or more.
2 Tim 4:1
1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom;
(KJV)

So Christ's Kingdom will come at His appearing, i.e., His second coming? Yes! That's to show His Kingdom is still... expecting today, and per the Acts 28 Scripture it is the SAME Gospel Apostle Paul preached to the Jews in Rome and then said it would be preached to the Gentiles and they would hear it.

Acts 28:30-31
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.
(KJV)

Is Jesus Christ always included with that preaching of "the kingdom of God"? Yes, of course, for His Kingdom cannot be separated from Him. Afterall, the word 'kingdom' comes from two words, 'king' and 'dominion', can't have one without the other.

Mark 16:15-16
15 And He said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
(KJV)

Matt 28:19-20
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
(KJV)

You are so very right that Paul preached the same gospel of the Kingdom of God from heaven; HOWEVER, if you think that gospel is about "God's Salvation Plan," you are so VERY wrong! And, the message is in the meaning of the word "Christ" = "Christos" = "Mashiach" = "Messiah" = "Anointed (One by God)" = "Selected (by God)" = "Chosen (by God to be the next King of Isra'el)!" Do you or anyone honestly believe that "Christ" means that He is the Son of God?! NO!!! That's not what this HEBREW word means!

Furthermore, that is NOT what the word "salvation" means! Anyone who thinks that "salvation" means being justified by God is WRONG! That's the WRONG TERM! "Salvation" is talking about Yeshua` coming back and RESCUING His people Isra'el, the Jews! "Salvation is of the Jews!" This is a statement that Yeshua` made that tells who He is going to rescue when He arrives! He didn't make the statement to say where "Salvation" comes from; He didn't make the statement to suggest to whom "Salvation" belongs; He was simply saying that the prophecies predict that God's Emissary will RESCUE THE JEWS when He arrives!