A different Gospel? or not?

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by carlaimpinge:
There are four "forms" of the gospel.

The gospel of the kingdom (Matt.3,4,10,24)
The gospel of God (1 Peter 4, Mark 16, Acts 2)
The gospel of the grace of God (Acts 20, Rom.1, Gal.1, Eph.3,6)
The everlasting gospel (Rev.14)

The gospel of the kingdom DID NOT include the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ as Paul's gospel of the grace of God did. The gospel of God did though. (Rom.1)

The 12 preached a gospel which didn't INCLUDE those items for they didn't KNOW them or UNDERSTAND them (Luke 18), and didn't LEARN THEM until their eyes were OPENED by the Lord AFTER HIS RESURRECTION. (Luke 24) Therefore, they preached TWO DIFFERENT FORMS of the gospel at two different times. (One before and the other after the crucifixion.)

It's very simple IF you believe what the Holy Scriptures state.

THEY DID NOT PREACH PAUL'S GOSPEL DURING THE EARTHLY MINISTRY OF THE LORD, "nor" did the Lord. IT WAS NOT REVEALED UNTIL PAUL. That's "why" it is called MY GOSPEL by Paul. To believe such is outrageous heretical thought DENYING the verses.

The gospel of the grace of God was given to Paul by DIRECT REVELATION from Jesus Christ. (Gal.1)

This is the kind of craziness and hairsplitting one gets into by buying into a theological system. It invariably leads you into nonsense at some point. There is only one gospel although various aspects or points of the gospel are emphasized and highlighted under different circumstances to differing audiences. It is the same gospel although it is not presented in its fullness or completeness in every instance. Anyone defining and categorizing it into different forms has created a theological artifact that is not part of Scripture.

 

[Archeryaddict]

Gospel The proclamation of the redemption preached by Jesus and the Apostles, which is the central content of Christian revelation.

There is only one gospel

Redemption through the Birth, Ministry, Death, Burial, and Resurrection of the Lord Jesus.

that is the GOSPEL message and the one Paul and the other Apostles preached.
if they preached any thing else it was NOT the gospel.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by carlaimpinge:
There are four "forms" of the gospel.

The gospel of the kingdom (Matt.3,4,10,24)
The gospel of God (1 Peter 4, Mark 16, Acts 2)
The gospel of the grace of God (Acts 20, Rom.1, Gal.1, Eph.3,6)
The everlasting gospel (Rev.14)

The gospel of the kingdom DID NOT include the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ as Paul's gospel of the grace of God did. The gospel of God did though. (Rom.1)

The 12 preached a gospel which didn't INCLUDE those items for they didn't KNOW them or UNDERSTAND them (Luke 18), and didn't LEARN THEM until their eyes were OPENED by the Lord AFTER HIS RESURRECTION. (Luke 24) Therefore, they preached TWO DIFFERENT FORMS of the gospel at two different times. (One before and the other after the crucifixion.)

It's very simple IF you believe what the Holy Scriptures state.

THEY DID NOT PREACH PAUL'S GOSPEL DURING THE EARTHLY MINISTRY OF THE LORD, "nor" did the Lord. IT WAS NOT REVEALED UNTIL PAUL. That's "why" it is called MY GOSPEL by Paul. To believe such is outrageous heretical thought DENYING the verses.

The gospel of the grace of God was given to Paul by DIRECT REVELATION from Jesus Christ. (Gal.1)

What you are proposing is a hyper-dispensational theological artifact created by your own theological presuppositions rather than a clear understanding of Scripture.

What do you do with the following:
Galatians 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

Paul is obviously speaking of the Gospel in the context of his own proclamation of the Gospel, yet this record of the Gospel being preached to Abraham, who was the patriarch of the nation Israel, predates any of the other supposed forms you have mentioned.

Has it ever occurred to you that it is the same gospel identified by different descriptive terms without fully delineating all rudiments and dealing with the points relevant to the time, audience, and occasion?

 

[Grasshopper]

Acts 26:22Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:

What does "none other" mean?

 

[HankD]

There is the one message of "good news", the redemption of mankind through the Promised Deliverer.

The different aspects of it have been unfolding since the expulsion from the garden of Eden:

Genesis 3
14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

1 John 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

HankD

 

[Grasshopper]

There is the one message of "good news", the redemption of mankind through the Promised Deliverer.

The different aspects of it been unfolding since the expulsion from the garden of Eden:

Exactly HankD. The Gospel message has always been the same. As more light was shed on it man's understanding increased.

 

[rjprince]

Charles,

Salvation has always been by grace through faith on the basis of shed blood. The charge that dispensationalism teaches two different means of salvation (works in the OT and grace in the NT) is a spurious allegation!

From the very first sin, God’s grace was made evident. He would have been just had He slain Adam and Eve on the spot! But, there is more to God’s character than righteousness. He is also a God of grace and mercy. So, rather than slay the sinful pair, God slew two animals. Their deaths standing in place of direct judgment upon Adam and Eve. Does the Bible directly tell us that God slew two animals in their place? No, but it does tell us that he gave them “coats of skins” as a covering. What does this picture if not substitutionary atonement?

Do we have record of God instructing Adam and Eve about approaching God on the basis of an animal sacrifice? Nope. But the fact that God held Cain accountable for offering an unacceptable sacrifice would seem to provide fairly clear evidence that God had taught them about animal sacrifice.

From the very first sin, grace stepped in to provide a means whereby sinful man could approach a righteous God.

It is not my contention that there has ever been more than one way of salvation! Salvation has always been by grace through faith on the basis of shed blood. HOWEVER, it is critical to understand that the content of faith has changed throughout the Word of God. Adam accepted the skins that were offered. Noah built an ark and then got into it with his family. Abraham was willing to offer his son as a sacrifice if God so required, believing that God would raise Isaac from the dead to fulfill His unconditional promise of a literal physical seed (Heb 11:17-19). Under the Mosaic Law (now defunct), the Jews approached God through numerous sacrifices offered by the priests descended from Levi. Now salvation is by grace through faith not in the shedding of the blood of bulls and goats, but in the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. The blood of the animals did provide a covering for their sin, but it could never take it away!

The means of salvation, by grace through faith on the basis of shed blood, has never changed. The content of what is believed has changed as God has revealed Himself in a progressive and ever expanding manner. The “gospel” for Adam and Eve what that God has provided animals to die in your place. The “gospel” for Abraham was the lamb in the thicket which died in the place of his son. The “gospel” under Moses was that God is approached through the sacrifices of the Levitical Priesthood. The “gospel” under John was that the King is here. The “gospel” of Jesus was that the kingdom is “at hand”! The “gospel” after the cross was that Jesus died for our sins, was buried, and rose again.

Not different ways of salvation, different ways in which the salvation is revealed and provided. So, is this so “heretical” after all? I think not.

Here is my BONE OF CONTENTION with amillennialists and covenant theology. You cannot just read the NT back over top of the OT to the disregard of the clear words of the OT text!!! The truths are not in competition nor are they a contradiction. Nor is it necessary to allegorize away most of OT prophecy to find reconciliation between seemingly discordant truths. Amils ignore the plain sense of the OT (CLGH) and read brief statements in the NT as turning all of OT truth on its head!

MY CONTENTION IS THIS: ALL SCRIPTURE MUST BE COMPARED AND CONTRASTED AND AN INTERPRETATION MUST BE SOUGHT WHICH BALANCES ALL THE TRUTH PRESENTED IN ALL PASSAGES!!! It is poor scholarship and poor hermeneutics to take one or two passages from the NT which make brief statements as basis for completely discarding (allegorizing) many detailed statements stating the same truth in slightly varied form in the OT.

Regarding whether or not all Scripture is to us and for us. All Scripture is for us, but not all Scripture is to us. One case in point, by which I hope to make the point undeniable.

2Chron 7:14 “If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.”

Many of us have heard this passage turned on its head and used to claim that if Christians in the US would just get right with God, He will pour such a blessing on this nation that there will not be room enough to receive it! Sound familiar? It may have been popular preaching at one time, but it is not sound exegesis or proper hermeneutics. This was a promise to national Israel, period. It does not expand to cover the United States, no way, shape, or form. IT IS NOT TO US, as citizens of the United States. IT IS FOR US, in that the principle of experiencing blessing for obedience to the Word of God holds true for both individuals and nations. Can anyone out there seriously challenge this explanation? All of the Word is FOR us. Not all of the Word is TO us.

This is true of the some of the words of Jesus as well! Don’t believe me? Do you only witness to Jews, not Gentiles or Samaritans? Well then, you do believe me. Quoting again, Jesus said, “Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt 10:5-6). Do we have churches in US cities and other places outside of Israel? Then we as “the Church” are giving clear testimony to the fact that some of the Words of Jesus were to a specific people and for a specific time but NOT to all people and not for all time. Can anyone seriously challenge this? Again, I think not. A theoretical challenge that does not line up with your actual practice is meaningless.

Re the Sermon on the Mount, you never told me whether or not you or someone in your family has a job. Do you really believe that all of the words of the Sermon on the Mount are fully applicable today? I don’t think so, therefore you have evaded my question to avoid making a concession. If your entire family is independently wealthy and no one has to work, how about spreading a little of the wealth my way, I will quit my job and devote more time to struggling with important theological issues!

So, who will be man enough to admit that maybe we ALL (not just Ds) need to adjust our theology and the manner in which we state it from time to time? Until we understand it ALL, we are bound to make continual adjustments.

 

[rjprince]

In reviewing the many posts that argue for “one gospel” I think that perhaps a little Greek lesson is in order at this point. The word “gospel” is euaggelion (yoo-ahn-gehl-ee-on) and means “good news” or “glad tidings.” At various times throughout the Word of God, “good news” has been given. This “good news” has not always been “salvation by grace through faith in the death burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ”. The “gospel” preached by Jesus was not “salvation by grace through faith in the death burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ”, as already stated.

ALL “GOOD NEWS” HAS ULTIMATELY DEPENDED ON THE DEATH BURIAL AND RESURRECTION OF JESUS, but that has not been the subject or content of all “good news”. Requiring that the word “gospel” refer to the substitutionary atonement in its every occurrence is forcing more upon the word than either the language or the context will bear.

 

[rjprince]

Schoolmaster,

(pedagogue, for those who may not recognize it)

I do not propose a “hyperdispensational” construct (artifact?) as you allege. I propose that the word “gospel” as used in the Word of God refers to messages with different content! A message with different content is not the same message! It is a different message, a different “gospel”. Not a different salvation, but a different message as to content.

Gal 3:8 specifically tells us the content of the “good news” that was preached to Abraham, “In thee shall all nations be blessed”. As noted above, all “good news” ultimately flows from the death burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus, but that is not the content of all “good news”. Not only did Abraham not understand the ultimate fulfillment of this portion of the promise, he did not even have the slightest inkling of what God was going to do! All he was told was the result, “In thee shall all nations be blessed”.

How can you sincerely argue that the message Abraham received was the same message that Paul preached?!?!?!

 

[rjprince]

Grasshopper (re your post 1/5/5 - 9:42),

"None other" does not mean that Moses and the prophets either fully stated, fully explained, or fully understood the message that Paul was preaching and that therefore Paul was merely repeating what they had already said.

"None other" does mean that Paul's message is the fulfillment of what was foretold by Moses and the prophets.

COMPARE, COMPARE, COMPARE Scripture with Scripture. Do not just pull out a phrase, fill it with your theology, and then disregard the rest of the Bible. Your interpretation and explanation must be consistent with the WHOLE counsel of God.

 

[Benjamin]

[/QUOTE]This is the kind of craziness and hairsplitting one gets into by buying into a theological system. It invariably leads you into nonsense at some point. There is only one gospel although various aspects or points of the gospel are emphasized and highlighted under different circumstances to differing audiences. It is the same gospel although it is not presented in its fullness or completeness in every instance. Anyone defining and categorizing it into different forms has created a theological artifact that is not part of Scripture. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Exactly, One Gift One Gospel (OGOG)
Do I always have to go through this muck to learn something around here?

1 Peter 4:10
As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.

 

[James_Newman]

Originally posted by rjprince:
In reviewing the many posts that argue for “one gospel” I think that perhaps a little Greek lesson is in order at this point. The word “gospel” is euaggelion (yoo-ahn-gehl-ee-on) and means “good news” or “glad tidings.” At various times throughout the Word of God, “good news” has been given. This “good news” has not always been “salvation by grace through faith in the death burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ”. The “gospel” preached by Jesus was not “salvation by grace through faith in the death burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ”, as already stated.

ALL “GOOD NEWS” HAS ULTIMATELY DEPENDED ON THE DEATH BURIAL AND RESURRECTION OF JESUS, but that has not been the subject or content of all “good news”. Requiring that the word “gospel” refer to the substitutionary atonement in its every occurrence is forcing more upon the word than either the language or the context will bear.

I agree that there are different aspects to the gospel, that are all part of the gospel of Jesus Christ, but do not all pertain to our salvation in eternity. But there is not a separate gospel for Jews and gentiles (ie we are saved by grace, but Jews get to work for eternal salvation). The work of Christ on the cross payed for the sins of the world, any Jew who believes on Him is born again and partaker of the gospel. All other 'gospels', such as the gospel of the kingdom, apply to believers who are born again. Without being born again, you cannot see the kingdom, let alone inherit it and reign with Christ.

 

[rjprince]

Originally posted by JamesN:
I agree that there are different aspects to the gospel, that are all part of the gospel of Jesus Christ, but do not all pertain to our salvation in eternity. But there is not a separate gospel for Jews and gentiles (ie we are saved by grace, but Jews get to work for eternal salvation). The work of Christ on the cross payed for the sins of the world, any Jew who believes on Him is born again and partaker of the gospel. All other 'gospels', such as the gospel of the kingdom, apply to believers who are born again. Without being born again, you cannot see the kingdom, let alone inherit it and reign with Christ.

No separate gospel for Jew and Gentile. Agreed.
The work of Christ paid... Agreed.
“gospel of the kingdom apply to believers who are born again” Where did you come up with that? Can you give me any kind of a reference that says so?

 

[rjprince]

Ben,

Studying theology is like eating watermelon. Sometimes you have to spit out alot of seeds! It has always been thus...

AND, unfortunately, eating food that tastes bad at times really intensifies the distinction between what is bad and what is really good. Not to suggest that we should look for bad food though. But sometimes it finds us! Like the terrible spinach casserole we were once given by a lady at church. Even the dog would not eat it! Threw it out! Next Sunday I smiled broadly as I told her, "Oh dear sister, the taste was unforgettable. Something like that does not last long around our house!" She beamed radiantly as she returned my smile and I returned her pan!

 

[Grasshopper]

This is true of the some of the words of Jesus as well! Don’t believe me? Do you only witness to Jews, not Gentiles or Samaritans? Well then, you do believe me. Quoting again, Jesus said, “Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt 10:5-6).

Matt 15: 24He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”

He is putting back the two sticks of Ez 37:19-20.(Eph 2:14).

He is also fulfilling the last week of Daniel 9.

Dan 9: 24 "Seventy 'sevens' are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy.

Daniel is a whole other thread but it answers your concern with those verses. Jesus came to finish up OT business.

27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven. In the middle of the 'seven' he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing of the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.

Jesus confirms the covenant with the Jews in His 3 and 1/2 year ministry.( first half fo the 70th week).

Romans 15:8For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the Jews on behalf of God's truth, to confirm the promises made to the patriarchs

He brought an end to sacrifices and offering at His crucifixtion.

The 70 weeks ended 3 and 1/2 years after the death of Christ, probably at the stoning of Stephen afterwards the Gospel was spread. Acts 8:4)

"None other" does mean that Paul's message is the fulfillment of what was foretold by Moses and the prophets.

Then we agree, Paul teaches the same Gospel of that of the Prophets, just in a fulfilled sense. Jesus also taught what the Prophets taught. Perhaps I'm not quite understanding what your point is. If Paul taught what the prophets taught and if Jesus taught what the prophets taught then didn't Jesus and Paul teach the same thing?

 

[James_Newman]

Originally posted by rjprince:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JamesN:
I agree that there are different aspects to the gospel, that are all part of the gospel of Jesus Christ, but do not all pertain to our salvation in eternity. But there is not a separate gospel for Jews and gentiles (ie we are saved by grace, but Jews get to work for eternal salvation). The work of Christ on the cross payed for the sins of the world, any Jew who believes on Him is born again and partaker of the gospel. All other 'gospels', such as the gospel of the kingdom, apply to believers who are born again. Without being born again, you cannot see the kingdom, let alone inherit it and reign with Christ.

No separate gospel for Jew and Gentile. Agreed.
The work of Christ paid... Agreed.
“gospel of the kingdom apply to believers who are born again” Where did you come up with that? Can you give me any kind of a reference that says so? </font>[/QUOTE]Mt 4:17
From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

The Jews understood that the Messiah was coming to reign on the earth, and Jesus did not deny this, as some would have us believe. He only said that the timing was wrong.

John 18:36
Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

The Jews didn't understand that He had to die first to redeem us from our sin. But even after He died, the apostles questioned Him about the kingdom.

Acts 1
6 ¶ When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

The gospel of the kingdom is that He has made provision for us to be partakers of the inheritance with Him.

Mt 18
1 ¶ At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?
2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,
3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Re 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.

Re 20:4
And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

If we will overcome in this life through His grace, we will get to reign with Him. But you must be born again to be an overcomer.

 

[carlaimpinge]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
The notion of 2 different gospels is heretical!

It is only by approaching the Bible with presupposed notions (hyperdispensationalism) that one can come up with such a thing! Verses used out of context do not prove anything.

This is a gross example of forcing once's own interpretation on the Bible.

I mean think about it - 2 gospels?

TWO GOSPELS???

The TEACHING of more than one gospel is BIBLICAL and SCRIPTURAL with prooftexts as noted above (which have been ignored).

The belief of more than one gospel is related to PAULINE DISPENSATIONALISM which is biblical and scriptural. (Eph.3, 1 Cor.9) It has also been ignored.

I'm a Baptist with PAULINE DISPENSATIONALIST BIBLE beliefs, not hyperdispensational beliefs.

No verses were taken out of context. The verses were posted FOR READING. THEY SHOW the 12 did "not" preach the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ DURING HIS EARTHLY MINISTRY, although they PREACHED the gospel of the kingdom. Continuance to state otherwise manifests and demonstrates REJECTION of the plain words of the text, along with those "presupposed" notions of which you write.

That amounts to WRESTING the scriptures coupled with DISTORTION and CORRUPTION of them.

The texts are really easy and simple to read. There's NO MISTAKE about what they said. The 12 did not preach Paul's gospel, WHICH CONTAINS the death, burial, and resurrection at that time. THAT MAKES THE GOSPELS DIFFERENT. We do "not" preach the KINGDOM OF HEAVEN IS AT HAND, as they did. You know why? It's NOT! It won't be UNTIL THE MIDST OF DANIEL'S WEEK, when the gospel of the kingdom is AGAIN preached! (Matt.24)

Only LUNACY prevails in teaching otherwise.

 

[carlaimpinge]

Originally posted by paidagogos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by carlaimpinge:
There are four "forms" of the gospel.

The gospel of the kingdom (Matt.3,4,10,24)
The gospel of God (1 Peter 4, Mark 16, Acts 2)
The gospel of the grace of God (Acts 20, Rom.1, Gal.1, Eph.3,6)
The everlasting gospel (Rev.14)

The gospel of the kingdom DID NOT include the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ as Paul's gospel of the grace of God did. The gospel of God did though. (Rom.1)

The 12 preached a gospel which didn't INCLUDE those items for they didn't KNOW them or UNDERSTAND them (Luke 18), and didn't LEARN THEM until their eyes were OPENED by the Lord AFTER HIS RESURRECTION. (Luke 24) Therefore, they preached TWO DIFFERENT FORMS of the gospel at two different times. (One before and the other after the crucifixion.)

It's very simple IF you believe what the Holy Scriptures state.

THEY DID NOT PREACH PAUL'S GOSPEL DURING THE EARTHLY MINISTRY OF THE LORD, "nor" did the Lord. IT WAS NOT REVEALED UNTIL PAUL. That's "why" it is called MY GOSPEL by Paul. To believe such is outrageous heretical thought DENYING the verses.

The gospel of the grace of God was given to Paul by DIRECT REVELATION from Jesus Christ. (Gal.1)

This is the kind of craziness and hairsplitting one gets into by buying into a theological system. It invariably leads you into nonsense at some point. There is only one gospel although various aspects or points of the gospel are emphasized and highlighted under different circumstances to differing audiences. It is the same gospel although it is not presented in its fullness or completeness in every instance. Anyone defining and categorizing it into different forms has created a theological artifact that is not part of Scripture. </font>[/QUOTE]A lot of putrid talk but no verses to back up the soteriological "foolishness" you present.

Hairsplitting to you is called RIGHTLY DIVING the word of truth to Paul. (2 Tim.2) The GOSPEL is called the word of truth in Eph.1.

Ain't that something?

Paul was GIVEN a dispensation of the gospel. How do I know? HE SAID SO. (1 Cor.9)

The gospel of grace does NOT contain the elements of the gospel of the kingdom, the gospel of God, or the everlasting gospel.

The kingdom of heaven was AT HAND during the kingdom message. (Matt.3,4, 10)

People received the Holy Spirit by getting baptized according to Acts 2 under the message of the gospel of God (the gospel of the circumcision).

The everlasting gospel is preached by an ANGEL during the day of the Lord, and concerns FEARING GOD and GIVING GLORY to him as CREATOR. (Rev.14)

Those aren't the Pauline message of grace, UNLESS you didn't score highly in reading comprehension.

 

[carlaimpinge]

Originally posted by Archeryaddict:
Gospel The proclamation of the redemption preached by Jesus and the Apostles, which is the central content of Christian revelation.

There is only one gospel

Redemption through the Birth, Ministry, Death, Burial, and Resurrection of the Lord Jesus.

that is the GOSPEL message and the one Paul and the other Apostles preached.
if they preached any thing else it was NOT the gospel.

The "definition" of the gospel AS YOU PUBLISHED it IS NOT the Bible's definition IN THE CONTEXTS where the term appears.

Again, just stating that there is one gospel WHEN THE BIBLE SHOWS OTHERWISE is being naive OR simple.

The angel of Rev.14 preaches NOTHING about redemption YET he preaches a gospel. It's DIFFERENT from the others.

Sorry, you're quite mistaken and deceived due to NON BELIEF of the Book.

 

[Grasshopper]

We do "not" preach the KINGDOM OF HEAVEN IS AT HAND, as they did. You know why? It's NOT!

It arrived. What Kingdom does Daniel 2 speak of?

Acts 2:30For two whole years Paul stayed there in his own rented house and welcomed all who came to see him. 31Boldly and without hindrance he preached the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ.

It won't be UNTIL THE MIDST OF DANIEL'S WEEK, when the gospel of the kingdom is AGAIN preached! (Matt.24)

Might want to re-evaluate Daniel 9. Context of verse 26 is Messiah.

As far as Matt 24, I assume you speak of this verse:

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

You have a problem, this was fulfilled according to scripture. Notice the greek:

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

Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world ( ko/smov ), and preach the gospel to the whole creation .(ktiðsiv)

Matt.28:19 Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations (eáqnov ), baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit:


Acts 1:8 But ye shall receive power, when the Holy Spirit is come upon you: and ye shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth ( gh=),

All fulfilled in the 1st century:

Col.1:6 which is come unto you; even as it is also in all the world ( ko/smov ) bearing fruit and increasing, as it doth in you also, since the day ye heard and knew the grace of God in truth;

Col 1:23 if so be that ye continue in the faith, grounded and stedfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel which ye heard, which was preached in all creation ( ktiðsiv )under heaven; whereof I Paul was made a minister

Romans 16:26 but now is manifested, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, is made known unto all the nations ( eáqnov) unto obedience of faith:

Romans 10:18 But I say, Did they not hear? Yea, verily, Their sound went out into all the earth ( gh=), And their words unto the ends of the world ( oiÎkoumeÑnh ).

Lunacy?