Yes, it gospel of the Kingdom was for Israel and was to be preached only to Israel.

But, it is not the Christian gospel, the gospel of grace, which was given to the gentiles by Paul.

There are key differences.

Here's that passage:

<Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures>

I don't see any nexus between your claim and that passage.

<His gospel was for the Jew only. The Jews were to accept Him as their prophesied Messiah.>

His gospel was for the Jews only during his lifetime.

<That's not the gospel to the gentiles.>

When the apostles went to teach groups, did they have to take a show of hands to know which gospel to preach?>

This is the second time you asked this question and I'm not sure exactly what you are implying. Either way, this question of yours doesn't refute my point that <that's not the gospel to the gentiles.>

The gospel preached by John the Baptist, Jesus and the Disciples did not preach the Pauline gospel of grace, based as it is primarily on the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, when they did not believe that Jesus would die or be resurrected.

Luke 18:31-34

The gospel preached by John the Baptist, Jesus and the Disciples was a gospel of the kingdom, as promised to the Jews. No death and resurrection. Still under the law.

The gospel preached by Paul was a gospel of grace, as promised to the gentiles. The death and resurrection is the central point. Not under the law.

<BP: This is the second time you asked this question and I'm not sure exactly what you are implying. Either way, this question of yours doesn't refute my point that <that's not the gospel to the gentiles.>>

I thought I was cross examining you on this statement.

You don't want to relate how this question of yours is relevant, and I'm going to assume at this point that it's because it's not relevant.

However, I will answer your question since you think the whole ball game is wrapped up in the answer.

No, I don't think the apostles took a show of hands to know which gospel to preach.

<BP: I thought I was cross examining you on this statement.>

I don't see it that way, but no big deal.

<You don't want to relate how this question of yours is relevant, and I'm going to assume at this point that it's because it's not relevant.>

I was building foundation.

<However, I will answer your question since you think the whole ball game is wrapped up in the answer.>

Assumes facts not in evidence.

<No, I don't think the apostles took a show of hands to know which gospel to preach.>

Thanks for answering "No", after a mere 40 days.

<Now that I've answered this question, I call on you to show me what this has proved.>

It allows me to proceed with this point. Using your position, the apostle Paul should have preached a different message to Jewish and Gentile groups, yet you're on record as saying that he didn't determine which of those groups he was preaching to.

If you want to affirm he didn't preach to Jewish groups, I'll make the Biblical case that he did.

I'll reiterate this issue of nexus that you didn't address in the last 40 days:

<BP: Christ's gospel on earth did not include the resurrection and belief in it, as is made clear in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4.>

<OCF: Here's that passage:

<Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures>

I will now show you how your point is refuted and irrelevant, both. Then I will turn this point around on you, reverse the position and ask you to answer for it.

1. I did not say that Paul didn't determine which of these groups he was addressing. I said he didn't take a hand count.

2. Even if I didn't have the first point on my side, and it is, this would still be an irrelevant point as I'll illustrate. There are two issues here, that you've conflated.

A. The issue of whether Paul is <able to do> something, which is to discern his audience.

B. The issue of <what he was supposed to do>, regardless of whether he can do it or not.

Now the turnaround, which will illustrate the fallacy of your point.

Jesus told his disciples to preach to the Jew and not the Gentile.

Let's apply <ohio> logic to it.

ohio: did the disciples take a hand count before preaching?

bp: no

ohio: then they weren't told to preach to the Jew

Do you now see that your point was irrelevant? If not, we will sit right here, put this debate on pause, and I will ask you about whether or not the disciples had to take a count of hands before preaching, to make sure they weren't preaching to Gentiles, and then we'll talk about Jesus's directive to them <not> to preach to the Gentiles.

You think you had a clever point but it turns out to be both irrelevant and incorrect, and I knew this from the start. So this was a waste of time. Hence, I waited a long time to answer this point, so that I could waste your time too.

<Ohio>, I would like to have this discussion with you as I think you are a true blue Christian, but I don't want to waste time with obvious fallacies and red herrings. Maybe they're not obvious to you, but they're obvious to me. So if I ask why a thing is relevant, don't bark at me and say none of your business, just answer the question. Chances are I realize that you're going nowhere and I want to redirect you back to the topic.

I want <you> to put forth your <best> argument for your position. I don't want a weak argument so I can say I won this debate. This debate is not about a score. It's about the gospel, salvation and truth. This is far too important to waste time with.

So Paul was to preach the Gospel of Grace to the Gentiles and the Disciples were to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom to the Jews.

Two different gospels. Gospel of Grace, Gospel of the Kingdom. Two different people groups: The Jew, The Gentile.

Your objection was that Paul wasn't told to preach the Gospel of Grace to the Gentiles <because> he didn't take a hand count.

<BP: I will now show you how your point is refuted and irrelevant, both. Then I will turn this point around on you, reverse the position and ask you to answer for it.

1. I did not say that Paul didn't determine which of these groups he was addressing. I said he didn't take a hand count.>

<Eye roll>

<2. Even if I didn't have the first point on my side, and it is, this would still be an irrelevant point as I'll illustrate. There are two issues here, that you've conflated.

A. The issue of whether Paul is <able to do> something, which is to discern his audience.

B. The issue of <what he was supposed to do>, regardless of whether he can do it or not.>

Whew, get off the sophistry already.

<Now the turnaround, which will illustrate the fallacy of your point.

Jesus told his disciples to preach to the Jew and not the Gentile.

Let's apply <ohio> logic to it.

ohio: did the disciples take a hand count before preaching?

bp: no

ohio: then they weren't told to preach to the Jew>

They only taught in Israel. They were told to only teach to Jews. Paul taught all over the world. Both in Israel, and in Gentile nations. Paul was told to preach to both Jew and Gentile. He did so. You stand refuted.

<Do you now see that your point was irrelevant? If not, we will sit right here, put this debate on pause, and I will ask you about whether or not the disciples had to take a count of hands before preaching, to make sure they weren't preaching to Gentiles, and then we'll talk about Jesus's directive to them <not> to preach to the Gentiles.>

They didn't have to take a hand count in Israel.

<You think you had a clever point but it turns out to be both irrelevant and incorrect, and I knew this from the start. So this was a waste of time. Hence, I waited a long time to answer this point, so that I could waste your time too.

<Ohio>, I would like to have this discussion with you as I think you are a true blue Christian, but I don't want to waste time with obvious fallacies and red herrings. Maybe they're not obvious to you, but they're obvious to me. So if I ask why a thing is relevant, don't bark at me and say none of your business, just answer the question. Chances are I realize that you're going nowhere and I want to redirect you back to the topic.

I want <you> to put forth your <best> argument for your position. I don't want a weak argument so I can say I won this debate. This debate is not about a score. It's about the gospel, salvation and truth. This is far too important to waste time with.>

<So Paul was to preach the Gospel of Grace to the Gentiles and the Disciples were to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom to the Jews.>

Again, repeating the claim doesn't make it true.

<Two different gospels. Gospel of Grace, Gospel of the Kingdom. Two different people groups: The Jew, The Gentile.>

Paul taught the gospel to <both> Jews and Gentiles. That is the point you are missing. By <your> reckoning, Paul had to have 2 gospels ready to preach to the 2 different audiences.

Acts 9:11, 15 And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and enquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth....But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

<Your objection was that Paul wasn't told to preach the Gospel of Grace to the Gentiles <because> he didn't take a hand count.

Now that that's out of the way...or is it?>

<I've read a lot of chess books, especially when I was in my twenties, and to some degree, they helped me get better. I played a lot of chess against my tabletop Novag Diamond, which was just about 2200 level in standard time controls. I played it every day one or two games for a year and a half before I won my first game. But now we live in a new age! I think we can learn a lot more about chess from a few videos where the masters, or even IMs, GMs, or the world champ himself (!) provide live commentary as they play. That provides the kind of insight into high-level chess thinking that books struggle to get across.

I love <Kingscrusher's> channel because of the way he explains the games. I think Kramnik said that although he can't prove it, he somehow feels it's important, valuable, maybe even necessary for improvement, to be very familiar with the whole history of chess and study games from the best players of each respective era.

With that in mind, <Kingscrusher's> playlist on The Evolution of Chess Theory is perfect! He goes way back to the times of Greco and then Staunton, on to Morphy and then Steinitz, moving forward to the Lasker era and so forth.

I went through the different eras once and tried to emulate the style of play typical for each era in my blitz games. I would play thousands of games just trying to play like Morphy by focusing on quick development and increasing piece activity at all times, with an eye out of tactics. (Supplemented with tactics puzzles).

Then I got into the Steinitz era and that was so interesting, watching him change from a typical 1800s romantic style to the new position style. I then switched my style of play in blitz to Steinitz and resisted my old urges to sac and attack speculatively, focusing on the center, the bishops, and solid play.

My blitz rating went from about 1850-1950 to 2295 (the other day).

New Rogoff?>

I might have to. <Stonehenge> has suspended <George Wallace> (of course, I received an email from GW...) for 168 hours for violating guideline #1, while that guideline is routinely broken by other posters all the time.

So what we have here again is political censorship.

And that was after he <accidentally> deleted the rogoff page...

Meanwhile, Biden doing poopoo

 (of course, I <received an email from GW…)>>

A “progressive liberal”; a “mentally ill” enemy; but oh, they’ve exchanged emails.

There’s your tell.

There’s your tell. >

I advise you to read <George Wallace's> profile.