If Amils are right and we are in the Millennium "Kingdom" now, what other verses back this up?

[Spiritual Jew]

I was not.

But let me get your reasoning clear here in case you later say I am making false accusations about you.

If you agree with what vs 12 is saying about the word "preach" in vs 11, this is how you reasoned that they are preaching the "same gospel"

Peter and the other 11 preached that Christ rose from the dead
Paul also preached that Christ rose from the dead

Therefore they are preaching the exact same gospel.

Is that your entire reasoning here?

I've already explained my reasoning multiple times. Paul described the gospel that he preached in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8. Then he called himself the least of the apostles and that he did what he did only because of God's grace. Then in verse 11 he said "Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.". Who are "they"? The apostles that he had just referenced in verse 9. Who are "we" that "preach, and so ye believed"? Paul and the other apostles. What did they preach? The gospel that Paul described in verses 1-8. So, the apostles preached the same gospel that Paul described in verses 1-8. That's what verse 11 means. Do you understand what I'm saying now? This is the last time I'm going to try to explain it to you.

 

[Trivalee]

Have you read what Matthew 5:17-19 and Matthew 28:20 stated, the latter statement being made by the resurrected Christ himself?

As I said, resist the temptation to insert Paul's revelation into those passages, and just understand them literally.

Put yourself in the shoes of any of those 11 apostles, and understand how they would have understood Jesus's instructions at Matthew 28:20, before Paul even wrote any of his epistles.

If you can't, then of course you will naturally conclude that both gospels are the same.

Matt 28: 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 always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

I have tried very hard to understand how you believe the 11 apostles would have understood this passage, but couldn't. Perhaps you can shed more light?

If you are arguing that Paul's gospel was different from the 11 disciples, then you're wrong. It is the same gospel, the difference is the audience. The texts above are very clear that the Lord required the 11 to preach to the 'nations', ie, beyond Israel. It is arguable that it is because of the Lord's desire to save Israel that he assigned the 11 to focus on them while instructing Paul to the gentiles.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

If you can resist the temptation to "anticipate revelation", aka not try to read Paul's revelation into the 4 gospel accounts of Jesus's first coming, the gospel of the kingdom requires obedience to the Law of Moses, not just believing in the identity. (Matthew 5:17-19, Matthew 28:20).

Jesus can't possibly have been referring to the law of Moses in those verses. Do you not know that the old covenant law of Moses with its 613 commandments was made obsolete long ago?

Hebrews 8:13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

Colossians 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

Why would Jesus command people to always observe the entire law of Moses and its 613 commandments, knowing it would be made obsolete not long after that? That obviously makes no sense. Jesus fulfilled the law, including all of the ceremonial and ritualistic commandments in Himself. That's why it says the old covenant and its animal sacrifices and offerings were made obsolete. Christ's sacrifice fulfilled the ultimate purpose of blood sacrifices and made them no longer necessary.

In Matthew 5:19 Jesus was referring to was the moral law of God that we should all follow which is summed up with 2 commandments: love God with all your heart, soul and mind and love your neighbor as yourself. If you continue reading after Matthew 5:19 you can see the context of what Jesus was referring to when He referenced "these least commandments". Notice that He only referred to moral commandments after that and He explained the real meaning of them which the Jews did not understand before (You have heard...., but I tell you....).

Matthew 22:36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

This passage summarizes what Jesus was talking about in Matthew 5:19. Was Jesus saying that the Jews should continue following all of the 613 commandments in the law of Moses including all of the cumbersome ritualistic and ceremonial commandments? Not at all.

What He was saying is that He did not come to destroy the law but fulfill it. He made it so that following all of those cumbersome 613 commandments was no longer necessary. Only He could fulfill and keep the law since that required perfection. As James said in James 2:10, if anyone was guilty of violating even one of the commandments of the law then they were guilty of violating all of them.

Jesus fulfilled the law and simplified it by commanding all of His people to follow it by way of loving God with all of our heart, soul and mind and by loving our neighbors as ourselves. No one needs to eat only certain foods or make animal sacrifices and offerings or anything like that in order to obey His commands.

 

[keras]

For a start, your timing is way off because the Jews returned in 538 BC, to rebuild Jerusalem, not 715 BC. Jer 50:20 has nothing to do with the end times. According to Ezra 1:7-8, it was the period that Zerubbabel led a batch of returnees back to Zion.

Sorry. my typo.
I meant 515 for the return of the most of the Jews, that date being 70 years after their conquest.
The prophecy of Jeremiah 50:20.....the sins of Judah will not be found, as those whom I leave as as remnant, I shall pardon. Is unfulfilled, for the end times, after the Day of fiery wrath. Isaiah 6:11-13

 

[Guojing]

I have tried very hard to understand how you believe the 11 apostles would have understood this passage, but couldn't. Perhaps you can shed more light?

You bolded different words than mine.

Based on Matthew 5:17-19, and Peter's statement in Acts 10:14, and what James stated in Acts 21:18-24, they would have taught Israel to follow the Law of Moses.

 

[Guojing]

I've already explained my reasoning multiple times. Paul described the gospel that he preached in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8. Then he called himself the least of the apostles and that he did what he did only because of God's grace. Then in verse 11 he said "Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.". Who are "they"? The apostles that he had just referenced in verse 9. Who are "we" that "preach, and so ye believed"? Paul and the other apostles. What did they preach? The gospel that Paul described in verses 1-8. So, the apostles preached the same gospel that Paul described in verses 1-8. That's what verse 11 means. Do you understand what I'm saying now? This is the last time I'm going to try to explain it to you.

Again, why are you back to ignoring vs 12 here, to understand what preach meant in vs 11?

Its the second time already you dropped vs 12.

At least Jeff was willing to use vs 12 in his doctrine.

Let's be clear and not add words into scripture, what they preached as Paul did, in vs 11, is defined by the very next verse, which is found in vs 12.

 

[Guojing]

Correct! The message was that the Kingdom was at Hand in Jesus the Messiah. That's all they knew at that time. The rest was to become clear later. THAT'S why they were arguing over who would sit next to Jesus on the throne, why they panicked and fled, and why they didn't understand Jesus saying that his body was the temple that would be destroyed and rebuilt in 3 days. They only understood after. Even when Jesus was ascending to heaven they were asking about their understanding of this kingdom - but he explained they had to go out into all the world. Acts 1:8. Huh? Where's the kingdom Jesus - all the world - what? Then Pentecost and BOOM it all made sense.

When you say correct, are you agreeing with my conclusion in that post, "So it follows that the "gospel of the kingdom" that they were preaching cannot be about the cross"?

 

[Trivalee]

Sorry. my typo.
I meant 515 for the return of the most of the Jews, that date being 70 years after their conquest.
The prophecy of Jeremiah 50:20.....the sins of Judah will not be found, as those whom I leave as as remnant, I shall pardon. Is unfulfilled, for the end times, after the Day of fiery wrath. Isaiah 6:11-13

I will accept your error. The return to Jerusalem was phased and it is possible that 515 BC perhaps, marked the first return to Zion. But historians recognise 538 BC as the year in which the remnant returned to their homeland.

 

[Trivalee]

You bolded different words than mine.

Based on Matthew 5:17-19, and Peter's statement in Acts 10:14, and what James stated in Acts 21:18-24, they would have taught Israel to follow the Law of Moses.

There is no denying that the disciples struggled to find a line between the old (Mosaic) and the New Covenant. This was their reality, reflected in Peter's attitude in Acts 10:14. I suppose that was what the Lord set out to change through that vision.

My view is that the 11 apostles and Paul preached the same gospel of redemption through the blood of Jesus. The matter of the law is one (as we see in Acts, 10:14 & 21:18-24, which the Apostles tried to uphold, vide: Gal 2:12-14) and the gospel of salvation is another. There's no difference between the disciples and Paul's messages in this regard.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Again, why are you back to ignoring vs 12 here, to understand what preach meant in vs 11?

I'm not ignoring it, as I already told you. It is you who is ignoring verses 1-8, which describes the gospel that Paul preached

Its the second time already you dropped vs 12.

That verse only mentions one of the things that Paul preached and it was mentioned already previous to verse 12, so there's no need to include it.

At least Jeff was willing to use vs 12 in his doctrine.

And he includes verses 1-8 like I do as well. Verse 12 is redundant since Christ being raised from the dead was already mentioned in verse 4, so there's no need to include it.

Let's be clear and not add words into scripture, what they preached as Paul did, in vs 11, is defined by the very next verse, which is found in vs 12.

I'm not doing that and I don't appreciate that false accusation. You are ignoring the context of verse 11 which relates to ALL of the things that Paul preached as described in verses 1-8.

I explained why I interpret verse 11 the way I do in post #961. If you disagree with my reasoning, so be it. I'm done talking to you about this.

 

[jeffweedaman]

I'm not ignoring it, as I already told you. It is you who is ignoring verses 1-8, which describes the gospel that Paul preached

That verse only mentions one of the things that Paul preached and it was mentioned already previous to verse 12, so there's no need to include it.

And he includes verses 1-8 like I do as well. Verse 12 is redundant since Christ being raised from the dead was already mentioned in verse 4, so there's no need to include it.

I'm not doing that and I don't appreciate that false accusation. You are ignoring the context of verse 11 which relates to ALL of the things that Paul preached as described in verses 1-8.

I explained why I interpret verse 11 the way I do in post #961. If you disagree with my reasoning, so be it. I'm done talking to you about this.

Exactly right.

 

[keras]

I will accept your error. The return to Jerusalem was phased and it is possible that 515 BC perhaps, marked the first return to Zion. But historians recognise 538 BC as the year in which the remnant returned to their homeland.

You don't understand how BC/AD works?
538 BC is 23 years later than 515 BC. I see 538 as when Ezra and Nehemiah returned and 515 as when the rest of the Jews came back. Actually; many of then never returned and remain in exile now.
Maybe is is their descendants to whom Jeremiah 50:4-5 & 20 applies to?

 

[Guojing]

I'm not ignoring it, as I already told you. It is you who is ignoring verses 1-8, which describes the gospel that Paul preached

That verse only mentions one of the things that Paul preached and it was mentioned already previous to verse 12, so there's no need to include it.

And he includes verses 1-8 like I do as well. Verse 12 is redundant since Christ being raised from the dead was already mentioned in verse 4, so there's no need to include it.

I'm not doing that and I don't appreciate that false accusation. You are ignoring the context of verse 11 which relates to ALL of the things that Paul preached as described in verses 1-8.

I explained why I interpret verse 11 the way I do in post #961. If you disagree with my reasoning, so be it. I'm done talking to you about this.

vs 1-8 described what Paul preached, that I agree

vs 11-12 stated clearly that both of them preached that Christ rose from the dead.

As I said to you numerous times, you are making a jump in logic to conclude that vs 11 connects to vs 1-8, rather than the very verse that follows vs 12.

You want to do that because you want to believe they are preaching the same gospel.

Actually, what is wrong with just admitting that your reasoning is simply this

Peter and the other 11 preached that Christ rose from the dead
Paul also preached that Christ rose from the dead

Therefore they are preaching the exact same gospel.

Jeff has no problem seeing that, so I don't understand why you refuse to do the same.

 

[Guojing]

My view is that the 11 apostles and Paul preached the same gospel of redemption through the blood of Jesus. The matter of the law is one (as we see in Acts, 10:14 & 21:18-24, which the Apostles tried to uphold, vide: Gal 2:12-14) and the gospel of salvation is another. There's no difference between the disciples and Paul's messages in this regard.

You always have the right to your view, I am fine with that.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

vs 1-8 described what Paul preached, that I agree

vs 11-12 stated clearly that both of them preached that Christ rose from the dead.

As I said to you numerous times, you are making a jump in logic to conclude that vs 11 connects to vs 1-8, rather than the very verse that follows vs 12.

No, I am not. I'm interpreting the verse in context and verses 1-8 are part of the context of that verse. Period. End of story. Discussion over.

 

[jeffweedaman]

No, I am not. I'm interpreting the verse in context and verses 1-8 are part of the context of that verse. Period. End of story. Discussion over.

Yes .
Its clear that Paul becomes an Apostle through what was received through Jesus enlightenment of the scriptures , just like the rest of the Apostles did.
He received the same enlightenment of the scriptures what Peter and the eleven received when Jesus opened their minds to understand those scriptures....,


Lk 24
44 Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all the things that are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and He said to them, “So it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. 49 And behold, I am sending the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”

They are preaching the same revelation to all nations.


3 For I handed down to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; 7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; 8 and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.

 

[Guojing]

No, I am not. I'm interpreting the verse in context and verses 1-8 are part of the context of that verse. Period. End of story. Discussion over.

You may not think you are making a leap in logic but can you understand why others, who do not think like you, may conclude you are doing that?

Note again, you can understand a point "Hmm if I put myself in their shoes, I can certainly understand why they think I am making a logical leap", without necessarily agreeing to it.

 

[Trivalee]

Yes .
Its clear that Paul becomes an Apostle through what was received through Jesus enlightenment of the scriptures , just like the rest of the Apostles did.
He received the same enlightenment of the scriptures what Peter and the eleven received when Jesus opened their minds to understand those scriptures....,
Lk 24
44 Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all the things that are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and He said to them, “So it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. 49 And behold, I am sending the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”

They are preaching the same revelation to all nations.

3 For I handed down to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; 7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; 8 and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.

There is no logical basis to argue that Paul and the 11 Apostles preached different gospels. That's simply untrue. The discernible difference in their gospels is the audience; the 11 Apostles focused on their kin, while Paul as we know, was sent to the Gentiles. It is regrettable that this is misunderstood by some to mean a different gospel.

Did Jesus give different gospels to Jews and Gentiles? The answer is no! If the 11 and Paul preached different gospels, then one must be false. I have searched the scriptures and read all the epistles from Paul and the 11 disciples and found zero contradiction, save that their audiences are different.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

You may not think you are making a leap in logic but can you understand why others, who do not think like you, may conclude you are doing that?

Yes, I can understand why that is. I believe it's because of doctrinal bias that others would only take verse 12 into account without also taking verses 1-8 into account. I can't think of any other reason.

 

[Trivalee]

You don't understand how BC/AD works?
538 BC is 23 years later than 515 BC. I see 538 as when Ezra and Nehemiah returned and 515 as when the rest of the Jews came back. Actually; many of then never returned and remain in exile now.
Maybe is is their descendants to whom Jeremiah 50:4-5 & 20 applies to?

I don't rely on Wikipedia only. On matters of importance, I find it helps to visit my local library to scour religious history books for facts. And in this instance, 538 BC is the recognised year of Israel's return to its homeland.

We know that the vanguard first returned to rebuild the broken walls before the people returned en masse, however, the date is not as significant as the date the majority returned. That a few remnants for undisclosed reasons didn't return is not in doubt, nevertheless, every Jew need not return before it can be acknowledged that Israel has returned from captivity. Please bear this in mind because as you continue to misunderstand this notion, it has affected your understanding of how an event impacts a group of people.

When God accused Israel and Judah of disobedience to the law, it does not necessarily mean that everyone that lived at the time was guilty. There certainly were a handful that upheld the law, but with numbers - the majority always wins. IOW, if the majority of the people were evil, wicked and disobeyed the law, then to God all of Israel is guilty. The reverse applies if the majority were blameless and faithful. This is called national judgment - a few individuals may be blameless and still suffer judgement with the guilty majority.

The reason I'm telling you this is to help you perhaps, reconsider your views on Israel. For far too long, you have promoted this biased and unfounded claim that the present inhabitants of Israel are not ethnic Jews. It is as wrong as can be.

Shalom