The disobedience of the 12 does not invalidate his instruction to make disciples of all nations. If anything, it shows he needed Paul because the 12 were not doing what he explicitly told them to do.
That's the simplest Biblical explanation
Well, the simplest is that it simply wasn't part of the instructions given to them.
There are literally zero manuscripts that do not contain Matthew 28:19. That said, you still did not address Luke.
Cannot preach the gospel to the ends of the Earth without including Gentiles. It is impossible.
Granted, the verse is there (didn't mean to say the entire verse wasn't), but Eusebius does (debatably) quote a shorten version of it. But whether it is or isn't isn't the issue. It's the timing of it, which gets into a far different take on these verses (the couple in Matt, Luke, and I think Mark may have one as well) than has been touched upon at this point. In short, I think the fulfillment of which is yet to come.
The shortened verse quoted by Eusebius, to the best of my memory, said "disciple all nations in my name," which is still a pretty blunt calling to preach to the gentiles.
The shortened verse quoted by Eusebius, to the best of my memory, said "disciple all nations in my name," which is still a pretty blunt calling to preach to the gentiles.
It's not a new idea that all of Israel would be (or could have become) a nation of priests (to the rest of the world.) Again, the issue becomes one of opportunity or timing. And, as the record in Acts appears to confirm... it didn't happened. (Hasn't yet, anyways.)
You didn't ask if it happened. You asked: "If anyone can plainly show from scripturewhere this directive for the 12 ever changed, please do so."
The directive from the lips of Jesus himself to the 12 was to get out there and preach to everybody. Make disciples of all nations. That's just Bible.
True that they didn't do it. [Makes you wonder if it ever really happened. But that's another subforum].
Okay, evidently I wasn't clear enough and a better explanation is needed as to what I think they might have viewed their mission as. First and foremost, they very plainly directed all of their effort and energies towards moving the "whole house of Israel" towards repentance and acceptance of Christ as the Messiah. Thus, it appears that they understood this (acceptance by all of Israel) to be a prerequisite before any outreach should be done to the other nations of the world. Their gospel message was, in essence, that Jesus Christ is the promised Messiah, repent and be baptized in his name. There's actually no "release from the law" in and of itself in that message, nor would there be. It's "keep my commandments" and do good... but if you mess up and don't, well, there's always confession and forgiveness. So, seems it might have meant to the 12 apostles, (1) get all of Israel on board with the program first, after which, (2) Christ could/would return, and then (3) become a nation of priests to all other nations of the world. At least, that's how it looks like it was presented in the old testament scriptures. And, considering their culture, knowledge and intimacy with the scriptures, I don't see much reason to think that's not how they understood that their mission.
So, seems it might have meant to the 12 apostles, (1) get all of Israel on board with the program first, after which, (2) Christ could/would return, and then (3) become a nation of priests to all other nations of the world.
Based on Matthew 28:19, there is no reason for them to have accepted this framework if they had ears. He said to them to go and make disciples of all the nations. They would have had to go through some quite sophisticated gymnastics to go from a clear instruction like that to "ok, first Israel, then Christ comes back, THEN the rest of the world."
You can get Israel first out of Luke, but not Matthew. And in neither case does Christ's return PRECEDE preaching to the gentiles.
Based on Matthew 28:19, there is no reason for them to have accepted this framework if they had ears. He said to them to go and make disciples of all the nations. They would have had to go through some quite sophisticated gymnastics to go from a clear instruction like that to "ok, first Israel, then Christ comes back, THEN the rest of the world."
You can get Israel first out of Luke, but not Matthew. And in neither case does Christ's return PRECEDE preaching to the gentiles.
Well, it seems that Zechariah 8 alludes to the coming (or return) of Christ first, and the instructions that were given to the apostles prior to this were unmistakably clear ( see Matt. 10:5, for example.) However, given that I'm also aware of the possibility that the 144 thousand (of Rev. 7:4) might be sent to all the nations. So, the order of it is a bit uncertain. Still seems, Israel first, either way.
Well, it seems that Zechariah 8 alludes to the coming (or return) of Christ first, and the instructions that were given to the apostles prior to this were unmistakably clear ( see Matt. 10:5, for example.) However, given that I'm also aware of the possibility that the 144 thousand (of Rev. 7:4) might be sent to all the nations. So, the order of it is a bit uncertain. Still seems, Israel first, either way.
Jesus could look the 12 right in the eye and say Make disciples of all nations and STILL we have to twist ourselves into knots over whether the 12 were ever commissioned to preach the gospel to all the nations.
Wow.
And people wonder why I throw my hands up trying to reason with them.
Jesus could look the 12 right in the eye and say Make disciples of all nations and STILL we have to twist ourselves into knots over whether the 12 were ever commissioned to preach the gospel to all the nations.
Wow.
And people wonder why I throw my hands up trying to reason with them.
Yeah, isn't it wonderful that you're so much sharper and clearly understand the message so much better than those apostles that were brought up in the culture and thinking of that day and time. Or, maybe you prefer to think they just chose to be disobedient and not carry it out.
Oh, but that's right.... I almost forgot. You don''t believe any of that really happened anyways...
Whether I believe it happened or not is really not the issue. You believe it did, and you STILL deny it, which is hysterical.
You asked for a verse where Jesus commissions the 12 to preach the gospel to the gentiles. I showed you a verse where Jesus tells the 12 to preach the gospel to the gentiles. And you're so butthurt about having an atheist point out such an obvious verse that you would rather deny Jesus said it than admit you were wrong.
I'm not the one twisting the scripture into a knot to get Jesus to NOT say what the scripture records him saying to conform to my preconceived notions about what happened next.
Clearly you don't care to think about this from another perspective, nor do you know what motivates me... but why bother projecting (apparently your own) arrogant meanness onto me?
Furthermore, given your proclivity towards trying to twist what I say into a knot, there's not a doubt in my mind that you do much the same with scripture.
It appears by the title of this thread that it would primarily contain or concern itself with what Paul is presumed to have written. With that in mind, I had previously posted (on 7/12/2018 at 1:25 AM) that before his death Jesus Christ was a minister to the circumcision, as were the 12 apostles. The point being, the gospel that they were given and instructed to promote, was not the same gospel that was given to and promoted by Paul (who was very clearly and plainly called out as *the* apostle to the Gentiles.) Yet, instead of considering whether or not *the gospel* (the focal point of the directive) that was given the 12 preached ever changed or was different from that which was given to Paul, you determined to steer it entirely and solely towards who it was applicable to. Which, btw, I was quick to point out here:
On 4/9/2019 at 6:04 PM, TLC said:
I don't see that departs from the gospel (of the Kingdom) message that was preached previously. It simply elaborates on the fact that they would soon be equipped better for it, and where it could (or perhaps some day would) reach. Furthermore, I don't see that it automatically or necessarily includes any Gentiles, considering that (as a result of Israel's previous dispersion into all nations.) In fact, if that message meant to include Gentiles, why were (all 12 of) the apostles apparently so disobedient of it so many, many years? (see Acts 11:19, which was probably at least a good 10-11 years later.)
But note your own stedfast determination to (as noted above) quickly steer it entirely and solely (aka, twisting) back towards who it was applicable to:
On 4/9/2019 at 8:14 PM, Raf said:
Preach the gospel to all nations...
You don't see where that includes gentiles.
For real.
So, don't play like or pretend that you don't ever twist things, as plainly you do (and then brag about how good you are, as you "throw up your hands up trying to reason with them.")
There's more than ample addition scriptural evidence that illustrates significant differences between the gospel of the Kingdom (which the 12 promoted) and the gospel of grace (which was first given to the apostle Paul), which I have little time nor concern for discussing any further here (with the likes of you.)
Clearly you don't care to think about this from another perspective, nor do you know what motivates me... but why bother projecting (apparently your own) arrogant meanness onto me?
Furthermore, given your proclivity towards trying to twist what I say into a knot, there's not a doubt in my mind that you do much the same with scripture.
It appears by the title of this thread that it would primarily contain or concern itself with what Paul is presumed to have written. With that in mind, I had previously posted (on 7/12/2018 at 1:25 AM) that before his death Jesus Christ was a minister to the circumcision, as were the 12 apostles. The point being, the gospel that they were given and instructed to promote, was not the same gospel that was given to and promoted by Paul (who was very clearly and plainly called out as *the* apostle to the Gentiles.) Yet, instead of considering whether or not *the gospel* (the focal point of the directive) that was given the 12 preached ever changed or was different from that which was given to Paul, you determined to steer it entirely and solely towards who it was applicable to. Which, btw, I was quick to point out here:
But note your own stedfast determination to (as noted above) quickly steer it entirely and solely (aka, twisting) back towards who it was applicable to:
So, don't play like or pretend that you don't ever twist things, as plainly you do (and then brag about how good you are, as you "throw up your hands up trying to reason with them.")
There's more than ample addition scriptural evidence that illustrates significant differences between the gospel of the Kingdom (which the 12 promoted) and the gospel of grace (which was first given to the apostle Paul), which I have little time nor concern for discussing any further here (with the likes of you.)
Wow! No matter how much anyone asks you for clarification of what you say in any given comment, the only response you seem to ever give is that the reader so asking is willfully refusing to get your point. And when you say so, you usually have some "arrogant meanness" in your response. So, how do you get off claiming anyone else is doing the projecting?
Further, when you're faced with questions you seem to not know how to answer, you make statements like you end that comment with. Really, dude!
Wow! No matter how much anyone asks you for clarification of what you say in any given comment, the only response you seem to ever give is that the reader so asking is willfully refusing to get your point. And when you say so, you usually have some "arrogant meanness" in your response. So, how do you get off claiming anyone else is doing the projecting?
Further, when you're faced with questions you seem to not know how to answer, you make statements like you end that comment with. Really, dude!
Don't even pretend that you care one whit about what I might see or think on the matter.
I think TLC should make an extra love offering to the GSC! He definitely got the benefit of “makes life meaningful” from the GSC foundational class for the logically and intellectually challenged! Glad he’s got a sandbox here to whine and ruminate in. At least local officials know where they can find him. I hope he’s not armed!! LOL!
Don't even pretend that you care one whit about what I might see or think on the matter.
First, to DWBH, please, let's keep it about content and not about people. And in that vein...I for one don't care one whit about what TLC might see or think on the matter. I only care about the actual quality of the argument and contribution to the discussion.
[The bulk of this post was deleted as soon as I realized it was off topic. The following replaces what I originally wrote. If you saw what I originally wrote: I stand by it. But it's off topic.]
Jesus specifically commissioned the 12 to preach the gospel to the gentiles. They didn't do it. THEN Jesus goes to Paul. Seems to me that if the apostles had done what Jesus told them to do, he would not have needed to commission Paul to do something as specific as the very thing he told the 12 to do.
That is an explanation that is completely consistent with what the Bible teaches on every level. It does not insert an extraneous subtext of "first Israel, then etc. It's really not even a little complicated. This is what the Bible shows and tells.
Why am I the only one quoting Jesus in this conversation?
P.S. To TLC:
I have twisted NOTHING and I am sick of you LYING about that. You are NOT entitled to LIE about other posters, so STOP LYING. You keep saying that I'm twisting your words when I am merely holding a mirror up to the weaknesses of your arguments. That you should constantly resort to false accusations against me is becoming tiresome. it only shows how little you have to contribute to the dialogue here.
It appears by the title of this thread that it would primarily contain or concern itself with what Paul is presumed to have written. With that in mind, I had previously posted (on 7/12/2018 at 1:25 AM) that before his death Jesus Christ was a minister to the circumcision, as were the 12 apostles. The point being, the gospel that they were given and instructed to promote, was not the same gospel that was given to and promoted by Paul (who was very clearly and plainly called out as *the* apostle to the Gentiles.) Yet, instead of considering whether or not *the gospel* (the focal point of the directive) that was given the 12 preached ever changed or was different from that which was given to Paul, you determined to steer it entirely and solely towards who it was applicable to.
Before his death Jesus and his apostles were ministers to the circumcision. Matthew 28:19 is post death and post resurrection. In that verse, Jesus plainly tells the apostles to make disciples of all the nations. Given the change in circumstances, and the change in "news," and the change in instructions, it is plain that the gospel they were to preach to the nations would make the nations disciples of Christ... it is improbable that he was telling them to preach the same gospel as previous to his death and resurrection, as the new gospel would at LEAST have to include that information.
Not even I, in all my skepticism, would argue that every word Jesus spoke to the 12 during this time was recorded in the gospels. To think that he would tell them to make disciples of all the nations without adjusting the gospel to account for his own death and resurrection defies reason. But even so, once the apostles began carrying out his abundantly clear instruction to preach the gospel to all the nations, it is consistent with the theology of the Bible to surmise they would have received the exact same required revelation that Paul later received.
The likeliest explanation consistent with the scripture is that the apostles went as far as they wanted to. Paul gets commissioned when, for whatever reason, the apostles frankly disobey Jesus' instruction by not going further.
You asked a question. The Bible gives an answer. You moved the goalposts because you had a pet theory that didn't account for the Bible having an answer that conflicted with it. Your theory has no credible reason Jesus would tell the 12 to preach to all the nations. If he was only sending them to Israel, he would have said so. But in Matthew and Luke he makes his expectations very clear (so does Mark 16:15, if you accept it as canon). In none of those verses does he give the 12 ANY indication that he wants them to restrict their preaching to the circumcision. They didn't. That's on them, but his instruction could not be more clear.
I have twisted NOTHING and I am sick of you LYING about that. You are NOT entitled to LIE about other posters, so STOP LYING.
There are MANY ways to twist things, Raf, not all of which are necessarily intentional. And, to a certain extent, I suppose that we are all guilty of it at one time or another (and I'm no saint)... so why be so upset and claim that somehow you're so perfect that you never do? More than once you've jumped to conclusions or "put words in my mouth" in an effort to get your point across or validate your view simply by misstating or misrepresenting mine. Call it whatever you want, but it appears to me to be no different than twisting. Perhaps you'd prefer calling it spin. Some number of news media folk are real pros at it. So good, in fact, a fair number of people don't (maybe can't) recognize it for what it is.
5 hours ago, Raf said:
I for one don't care one whit about what TLC might see or think on the matter. I only care about the actual quality of the argument and contribution to the discussion.
Really? Then why post this:
On 4/19/2019 at 10:14 AM, Raf said:
And you're so butthurt about having an atheist point out such an obvious verse that you would rather deny Jesus said it than admit you were wrong.
Probably a good thing I didn't see this:
5 hours ago, Raf said:
[The bulk of this post was deleted as soon as I realized it was off topic. The following replaces what I originally wrote. If you saw what I originally wrote: I stand by it. But it's off topic.]
But, if you really did care to discuss it (see below) more openly (I.e. intelligently), without putting the typical derogatory spin on my posts (kindly let me know if that's possible, and you'd agree not to), it's not some quick and easy 15 minute deal.
5 hours ago, Raf said:
Seems to me that if the apostles had done what Jesus told them to do, he would not have needed to commission Paul to do something as specific as the very thing he told the 12 to do.
Simply put, I'm not persuaded that they didn't (at least, try to) do what they were told to do. Not only does Luke (24:47) speak of it beginning at Jerusalem, Peter calls upon "all the house of Israel" to know in Acts 2:36 and for "every one" [all the house of Israel] to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Furthermore, Peter rather plainly states in Acts 3:25 that it was in Abraham's seed that all the kindreds of the earth be blessed, and follows that up by telling "Ye men of Israel" (see verse 12) that the blessing is "unto you first," in turning away every one of you from his iniquities. However, I could agree that had "all the house of Israel" repented and been baptized (as mentioned above), there would have been no need to commission Paul to do what he did.
5 hours ago, Raf said:
That is an explanation that is completely consistent with what the Bible teaches on every level. It does not insert an extraneous subtext of "first Israel, then etc. It's really not even a little complicated. This is what the Bible shows and tells.
No, Raf. That's your take on it. And regardless of who or where all you might or might not be taking it from, it doesn't exactly fit with all other scripture. But to set if forth as the be all, end all, "this is what the Bible shows and tells" is, in so many words, your "spin"on it (aka, this is how every other reasonable and logically thinking person surely sees it.)
Ever try to put yourself in their shoes, Raf? Maybe not. But, if you were there, immersed in their long, deeply religious background and culture... generation after generation of tradition, having such great respect for the scriptures and the prophets of old, that foretold of a great Messiah (like unto Moses) that would one day deliver the nation of Israel from its enemies, and reign as their king, to restore it (the nation of Israel) to its former glory among all the nations of the earth... where it (Israel) was not the tail, but the head, above all other nations on earth... perhaps it wouldn't be so strange to you to think that maybe the gospel of the kingdom message was intended for "all the house of Israel" first. And in light of that, perhaps the reason for calling out Paul would be seen more, not as a failure of the 12 apostles to follow instructions, but rather, as the failure of "all the house of Israel" to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ... which, by the way, was clearly established in Acts 7, with the high priest and council of Israel's complete and utter rejection of Stephen's powerful testimony. Furthermore, to what does Paul attribute salvation coming unto the Gentiles? Not the failure of the 12 apostles. No, it was the failure of Israel. (see Romans 11.) What failure? In that they rejected and crucified Jesus Christ? That's part of it, yes. But not the whole of it. Why exclude the nation's failure to recognize the mistake, and simply repent and be baptized in his name (even as the 3000 did on the day of Pentecost)? Had the nation, as a whole, done so, would it not have to be said in Romans 11:11 that they stumbled (for sure, as they killed him), but did not fall? Yet, the nation (represented by the council and high priest) did fall, as noted in Acts 7. Hence, the introduction to Saul immediately thereafter. Not a coincidence, it seems. All of which begins to paint quite a different picture then what you've put forth as what the Bible "shows and tells."
Another clue as to what might have been in the minds of the 12 apostles in the days following the resurrection of Christ, is this verse:
Matthew 19
[27] Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?
[28] And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
73
31
47
76
Popular Days
Feb 3
25
Jul 16
21
May 15
21
Feb 21
21
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 73 posts
geisha779 31 posts
waysider 47 posts
TLC 76 posts
Popular Days
Feb 3 2010
25 posts
Jul 16 2018
21 posts
May 15 2019
21 posts
Feb 21 2010
21 posts
Popular Posts
Sunesis
Well, we do have over 30,000 Christian denominations, so I don't think you're going to see all Christians agreeing. I imagine that's why it is more important to God that we keep the unity of the Spir
Broken Arrow
I think I get what you're trying to do here as far as getting people to think through something that may have simply been accepted blindly. I'm not going to offer a lengthy defense as to the authenti
Raf
First, to DWBH, please, let's keep it about content and not about people. And in that vein...I for one don't care one whit about what TLC might see or think on the matter. I only care about the actual
Posted Images
TLC
Well, the simplest is that it simply wasn't part of the instructions given to them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
"Make disciples of all the nations"
How is that NOT "preach to gentiles"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
There are literally zero manuscripts that do not contain Matthew 28:19. That said, you still did not address Luke.
Cannot preach the gospel to the ends of the Earth without including Gentiles. It is impossible.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Granted, the verse is there (didn't mean to say the entire verse wasn't), but Eusebius does (debatably) quote a shorten version of it. But whether it is or isn't isn't the issue. It's the timing of it, which gets into a far different take on these verses (the couple in Matt, Luke, and I think Mark may have one as well) than has been touched upon at this point. In short, I think the fulfillment of which is yet to come.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The shortened verse quoted by Eusebius, to the best of my memory, said "disciple all nations in my name," which is still a pretty blunt calling to preach to the gentiles.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
It's not a new idea that all of Israel would be (or could have become) a nation of priests (to the rest of the world.) Again, the issue becomes one of opportunity or timing. And, as the record in Acts appears to confirm... it didn't happened. (Hasn't yet, anyways.)
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
You didn't ask if it happened. You asked: "If anyone can plainly show from scripture where this directive for the 12 ever changed, please do so."
The directive from the lips of Jesus himself to the 12 was to get out there and preach to everybody. Make disciples of all nations. That's just Bible.
True that they didn't do it. [Makes you wonder if it ever really happened. But that's another subforum]. But that wasn't the question.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Okay, evidently I wasn't clear enough and a better explanation is needed as to what I think they might have viewed their mission as. First and foremost, they very plainly directed all of their effort and energies towards moving the "whole house of Israel" towards repentance and acceptance of Christ as the Messiah. Thus, it appears that they understood this (acceptance by all of Israel) to be a prerequisite before any outreach should be done to the other nations of the world. Their gospel message was, in essence, that Jesus Christ is the promised Messiah, repent and be baptized in his name. There's actually no "release from the law" in and of itself in that message, nor would there be. It's "keep my commandments" and do good... but if you mess up and don't, well, there's always confession and forgiveness. So, seems it might have meant to the 12 apostles, (1) get all of Israel on board with the program first, after which, (2) Christ could/would return, and then (3) become a nation of priests to all other nations of the world. At least, that's how it looks like it was presented in the old testament scriptures. And, considering their culture, knowledge and intimacy with the scriptures, I don't see much reason to think that's not how they understood that their mission.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Based on Matthew 28:19, there is no reason for them to have accepted this framework if they had ears. He said to them to go and make disciples of all the nations. They would have had to go through some quite sophisticated gymnastics to go from a clear instruction like that to "ok, first Israel, then Christ comes back, THEN the rest of the world."
You can get Israel first out of Luke, but not Matthew. And in neither case does Christ's return PRECEDE preaching to the gentiles.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Well, it seems that Zechariah 8 alludes to the coming (or return) of Christ first, and the instructions that were given to the apostles prior to this were unmistakably clear ( see Matt. 10:5, for example.) However, given that I'm also aware of the possibility that the 144 thousand (of Rev. 7:4) might be sent to all the nations. So, the order of it is a bit uncertain. Still seems, Israel first, either way.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Could that be confirmation bias?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Jesus could look the 12 right in the eye and say Make disciples of all nations and STILL we have to twist ourselves into knots over whether the 12 were ever commissioned to preach the gospel to all the nations.
Wow.
And people wonder why I throw my hands up trying to reason with them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Yeah, isn't it wonderful that you're so much sharper and clearly understand the message so much better than those apostles that were brought up in the culture and thinking of that day and time. Or, maybe you prefer to think they just chose to be disobedient and not carry it out.
Oh, but that's right.... I almost forgot. You don''t believe any of that really happened anyways...
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Whether I believe it happened or not is really not the issue. You believe it did, and you STILL deny it, which is hysterical.
You asked for a verse where Jesus commissions the 12 to preach the gospel to the gentiles. I showed you a verse where Jesus tells the 12 to preach the gospel to the gentiles. And you're so butthurt about having an atheist point out such an obvious verse that you would rather deny Jesus said it than admit you were wrong.
I'm not the one twisting the scripture into a knot to get Jesus to NOT say what the scripture records him saying to conform to my preconceived notions about what happened next.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Clearly you don't care to think about this from another perspective, nor do you know what motivates me... but why bother projecting (apparently your own) arrogant meanness onto me?
Furthermore, given your proclivity towards trying to twist what I say into a knot, there's not a doubt in my mind that you do much the same with scripture.
It appears by the title of this thread that it would primarily contain or concern itself with what Paul is presumed to have written. With that in mind, I had previously posted (on 7/12/2018 at 1:25 AM) that before his death Jesus Christ was a minister to the circumcision, as were the 12 apostles. The point being, the gospel that they were given and instructed to promote, was not the same gospel that was given to and promoted by Paul (who was very clearly and plainly called out as *the* apostle to the Gentiles.) Yet, instead of considering whether or not *the gospel* (the focal point of the directive) that was given the 12 preached ever changed or was different from that which was given to Paul, you determined to steer it entirely and solely towards who it was applicable to. Which, btw, I was quick to point out here:
But note your own stedfast determination to (as noted above) quickly steer it entirely and solely (aka, twisting) back towards who it was applicable to:
So, don't play like or pretend that you don't ever twist things, as plainly you do (and then brag about how good you are, as you "throw up your hands up trying to reason with them.")
There's more than ample addition scriptural evidence that illustrates significant differences between the gospel of the Kingdom (which the 12 promoted) and the gospel of grace (which was first given to the apostle Paul), which I have little time nor concern for discussing any further here (with the likes of you.)
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Wow! No matter how much anyone asks you for clarification of what you say in any given comment, the only response you seem to ever give is that the reader so asking is willfully refusing to get your point. And when you say so, you usually have some "arrogant meanness" in your response. So, how do you get off claiming anyone else is doing the projecting?
Further, when you're faced with questions you seem to not know how to answer, you make statements like you end that comment with. Really, dude!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Don't even pretend that you care one whit about what I might see or think on the matter.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
I think TLC should make an extra love offering to the GSC! He definitely got the benefit of “makes life meaningful” from the GSC foundational class for the logically and intellectually challenged! Glad he’s got a sandbox here to whine and ruminate in. At least local officials know where they can find him. I hope he’s not armed!! LOL!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
First, to DWBH, please, let's keep it about content and not about people. And in that vein...I for one don't care one whit about what TLC might see or think on the matter. I only care about the actual quality of the argument and contribution to the discussion.
[The bulk of this post was deleted as soon as I realized it was off topic. The following replaces what I originally wrote. If you saw what I originally wrote: I stand by it. But it's off topic.]
Jesus specifically commissioned the 12 to preach the gospel to the gentiles. They didn't do it. THEN Jesus goes to Paul. Seems to me that if the apostles had done what Jesus told them to do, he would not have needed to commission Paul to do something as specific as the very thing he told the 12 to do.
That is an explanation that is completely consistent with what the Bible teaches on every level. It does not insert an extraneous subtext of "first Israel, then etc. It's really not even a little complicated. This is what the Bible shows and tells.
Why am I the only one quoting Jesus in this conversation?
P.S. To TLC:
I have twisted NOTHING and I am sick of you LYING about that. You are NOT entitled to LIE about other posters, so STOP LYING. You keep saying that I'm twisting your words when I am merely holding a mirror up to the weaknesses of your arguments. That you should constantly resort to false accusations against me is becoming tiresome. it only shows how little you have to contribute to the dialogue here.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Before his death Jesus and his apostles were ministers to the circumcision. Matthew 28:19 is post death and post resurrection. In that verse, Jesus plainly tells the apostles to make disciples of all the nations. Given the change in circumstances, and the change in "news," and the change in instructions, it is plain that the gospel they were to preach to the nations would make the nations disciples of Christ... it is improbable that he was telling them to preach the same gospel as previous to his death and resurrection, as the new gospel would at LEAST have to include that information.
Not even I, in all my skepticism, would argue that every word Jesus spoke to the 12 during this time was recorded in the gospels. To think that he would tell them to make disciples of all the nations without adjusting the gospel to account for his own death and resurrection defies reason. But even so, once the apostles began carrying out his abundantly clear instruction to preach the gospel to all the nations, it is consistent with the theology of the Bible to surmise they would have received the exact same required revelation that Paul later received.
The likeliest explanation consistent with the scripture is that the apostles went as far as they wanted to. Paul gets commissioned when, for whatever reason, the apostles frankly disobey Jesus' instruction by not going further.
You asked a question. The Bible gives an answer. You moved the goalposts because you had a pet theory that didn't account for the Bible having an answer that conflicted with it. Your theory has no credible reason Jesus would tell the 12 to preach to all the nations. If he was only sending them to Israel, he would have said so. But in Matthew and Luke he makes his expectations very clear (so does Mark 16:15, if you accept it as canon). In none of those verses does he give the 12 ANY indication that he wants them to restrict their preaching to the circumcision. They didn't. That's on them, but his instruction could not be more clear.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
I see what you did there. It's called "misdirection."
Further, I concur with what Raf said!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
There are MANY ways to twist things, Raf, not all of which are necessarily intentional. And, to a certain extent, I suppose that we are all guilty of it at one time or another (and I'm no saint)... so why be so upset and claim that somehow you're so perfect that you never do? More than once you've jumped to conclusions or "put words in my mouth" in an effort to get your point across or validate your view simply by misstating or misrepresenting mine. Call it whatever you want, but it appears to me to be no different than twisting. Perhaps you'd prefer calling it spin. Some number of news media folk are real pros at it. So good, in fact, a fair number of people don't (maybe can't) recognize it for what it is.
Really? Then why post this:
Probably a good thing I didn't see this:
But, if you really did care to discuss it (see below) more openly (I.e. intelligently), without putting the typical derogatory spin on my posts (kindly let me know if that's possible, and you'd agree not to), it's not some quick and easy 15 minute deal.
Simply put, I'm not persuaded that they didn't (at least, try to) do what they were told to do. Not only does Luke (24:47) speak of it beginning at Jerusalem, Peter calls upon "all the house of Israel" to know in Acts 2:36 and for "every one" [all the house of Israel] to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Furthermore, Peter rather plainly states in Acts 3:25 that it was in Abraham's seed that all the kindreds of the earth be blessed, and follows that up by telling "Ye men of Israel" (see verse 12) that the blessing is "unto you first," in turning away every one of you from his iniquities. However, I could agree that had "all the house of Israel" repented and been baptized (as mentioned above), there would have been no need to commission Paul to do what he did.
No, Raf. That's your take on it. And regardless of who or where all you might or might not be taking it from, it doesn't exactly fit with all other scripture. But to set if forth as the be all, end all, "this is what the Bible shows and tells" is, in so many words, your "spin"on it (aka, this is how every other reasonable and logically thinking person surely sees it.)
Ever try to put yourself in their shoes, Raf? Maybe not. But, if you were there, immersed in their long, deeply religious background and culture... generation after generation of tradition, having such great respect for the scriptures and the prophets of old, that foretold of a great Messiah (like unto Moses) that would one day deliver the nation of Israel from its enemies, and reign as their king, to restore it (the nation of Israel) to its former glory among all the nations of the earth... where it (Israel) was not the tail, but the head, above all other nations on earth... perhaps it wouldn't be so strange to you to think that maybe the gospel of the kingdom message was intended for "all the house of Israel" first. And in light of that, perhaps the reason for calling out Paul would be seen more, not as a failure of the 12 apostles to follow instructions, but rather, as the failure of "all the house of Israel" to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ... which, by the way, was clearly established in Acts 7, with the high priest and council of Israel's complete and utter rejection of Stephen's powerful testimony. Furthermore, to what does Paul attribute salvation coming unto the Gentiles? Not the failure of the 12 apostles. No, it was the failure of Israel. (see Romans 11.) What failure? In that they rejected and crucified Jesus Christ? That's part of it, yes. But not the whole of it. Why exclude the nation's failure to recognize the mistake, and simply repent and be baptized in his name (even as the 3000 did on the day of Pentecost)? Had the nation, as a whole, done so, would it not have to be said in Romans 11:11 that they stumbled (for sure, as they killed him), but did not fall? Yet, the nation (represented by the council and high priest) did fall, as noted in Acts 7. Hence, the introduction to Saul immediately thereafter. Not a coincidence, it seems. All of which begins to paint quite a different picture then what you've put forth as what the Bible "shows and tells."
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Jesus told them to make disciples of all the nations. They didn't.
TLC is not convinced they didn't follow his instruction.
Good lord. You said you wouldn't discuss it with "the likes of" me.
Be a person of your word, mk?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Another clue as to what might have been in the minds of the 12 apostles in the days following the resurrection of Christ, is this verse:
Matthew 19
[27] Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?
[28] And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.