Yet you never address (Matt. 10: 5-7). Why?
The 'kingdom of Heaven' in Matthew is in the kingdom of God. It doesn't mean both are the same.
You say the only thing Paul ever preached was the Messiah promised in the Old Testament. That is not true. See (Eph. 2:11-22).
In other words, the Gospel of the kingdom is not the Gospel of Grace that Paul preached.
Stranger
Why is the term K of H only used in Matthew and not in the other 3 gospels? I don't know either.
Why does Matthew use K of H, 32 times through Mt 19:12 and stop. Beyond that, he uses K of G, 3 times. In 2 other verses before Mt 19:12, he says K of G.
As everyone knows, there are many passages in the 4 gospels that overlap each other, in the various scenes that are depicted. In the example I gave, Mt 13:10-11 depicts the same scene as Mk 4:11. Both talk about keeping the mysteries of the Kingdom from Israel. Same exact time and place, in almost the exact same words. but Matthew uses K of H and Mark uses K of G. In that scene, the 2 were definitely interchangeable, since the K of H can always be called the K of G. It would take a little time, but I think I could find at least 5 more pairs of identical scenes, with K of H in one and K of G in the other
I agree that the earthly K of H is one part of the Universal K of G. In 1Cor 15:50, it says that flesh and blood cannot inherit the K of G. That can't be the earth, can it? It can't be heaven, because no one during Acts had a calling of Heaven. I think it's the New Jerusalem, in that case.
If the K of H is only a part of the all-encompassing universal K of G, it would be OK to call the K of H the K of G, but not OK to call the K of G the K of H. Therefore, in Mk 4:11, above, the K of G must be identical with the K of H in Mt 13:10-11, at least in its earthly form. And, in Mk, Lk, and Jn, where K of H is never used, many of those places where it says K of G, it means K of H. The same with many of the 15 total occurrences of the K or G in Acts and Paul's 6 Acts epistles. Many of these could likely be the K of H. To find out, they and their context would have to be closely looked at
The command by God to rightly divide His Word, in 2Tim 2:15, means, in my opinion and just about anyone else's opinion that
rightly divides, to cut God's word in one place where only scripture written directly to us Gentiles would be on one side of the cut and only books about or for Israel would be on the other side of the cut. The phrase, "rightly divide:, according to Strong's, means "to make a straight cut", "cut correctly" or "correctly dissect". If your Bible says something different, like "correctly handle", it's wrong, according to the true definition. The reason God tells us to do this is because god's dealings with Israel are very much different than the way He deals with Gentiles. Therefore, if we don't rightly divide His Word, there will be many contradictions and much confusion on what God meant for only us Gentiles. If we don't rightly divide, we will end up thinking that many of the things meant for Israel are meant for us, and we would be very wrong. Actually, that is the case today in all of Christendom. If I were a betting man, I would wager that not more than 1/2% of all of Christendom obey God and rightly divide His word. Since denominational preachers have to toe the Denomination's line, and no mainstream denomination obeys God and rightly divides, at least half of what is taught in denominational churches is NOT meant for us Gentiles.
So, where must we CUT the scripture? The only place in the Bible, after Gen 11, that, when cut, will be all-Israel on one side of the cut and all-Gentile on the other side is Acts 28:25-28, where God set Israel aside. On the back side of the cut, there is the Acts dispensation, which is all-Israel, because all the saved Gentiles in the Acts church were grafted into Israel and were, therefore, part of Israel. On the other side of the cut are Paul's 7 epistles, all written after Acts, and only they contain what is truth for today TO us Gentiles. There is nothing in Acts or the Gospels that will tell you what or where your future afterlife will be or what the rules are concerning that afterlife. Everything in Acts is for that Jewish/Gentile church formed during Acts. The information about the Hope, Calling, and other things, that concern you and your family and every Saint living today, are found ONLY in Paul's last 7 books - Eph, Phil, Col, 1&2Tim, Titus, and Philemon . For example, the Calling for the Acts Church is the New Jerusalem, which comes down out of Heaven and attaches to the New Earth. The Acts resurrection Hope is the Rapture. The Calling for us today, found in those 7 books, is to be IN Heaven and the Resurrection, or Hope, for today, is called the "Appearing", a completely different event that is infinitely better than the rapture.
The reason I went through all of this was to show you that you cannot prove anything about the Acts period by quoting scripture from Ephesians or the other 6 after-Acts books listed above, or, Visa Versa. The 2 are incompatible, because of the huge differences of time and people, and that the content of the 2 are totally different. That's what right division is all about. There is much in Acts that is valuable FOR our learning, but there's nothing in Acts that tell you and I what happens to US. For that, we can only look in Paul's after-Acts books.
So, your quoting Eph 2:11-22, to prove that Paul taught something other than what he said in Ac 26, is totally invalid, based on right division. Paul did preach things that were different than Ac 26:22, but ONLY for the NEW dispensation found ONLY in Eph, Col, etc.
Most all of the denominational system mixes the all-Jewish things found in Acts and the Gospels, with the all-Gentile things in Eph, Col, etc., That is why the denominational system is so messed up and that is why God inspired Paul to write 2Tim 2:15. However, NO PREACHER in the mainstream Denominational System obeys 2Tim 2:15 except for some very feeble Acts 2 dispensational attempts by some Baptists.
The Gospel of grace was named such, only because the saved Gentiles in Acts didn't have to keep the law, but they still had to keep those 4 ordinances spelled out in Acts 15. Gentiles during Acts never had PURE Grace, like we have today, under Paul's post-Acts dispensation. I still think the Kingdom was preached to the Gentiles in Acts, the only difference being that, they "officially" did not have to keep the law. In ever case I know of, in the NT, Grace is the opposite of Law.
