Can you prove it?

[ralliann]

"The great commission" must be understood within the context of the narrative it is found in to understand its importance today. And within the context of that narrative its importance is not a matter of who the imperative commands to act, but who the message is to be carried to.

I don't know about the context today, but the context of first century Judaism. It had to be a lawful testimony. The twelve to the Jew's......
Two or three EYE wittiness to what they had seen and heard.

The gospel of Matthew serves as an apologetic for why the suffering Christ is the fulfillment of Jewish messianic promises, and one of the themes of messianic thought was that the messiah was primarily a blessing for the jews themselves.

Which would not have amounted to a hill of beans without having seen it with their own eyes, heard with their own ears.

This theme is reinforced in the course of Matthew's narrative where Jesus says things like being sent only for the lost sheep of Israel and restricting the preaching of his followers to Israel, even excluding Samaria. So what the great commission functions as is a reversal of that restriction, a command to bring the gospel message to the gentiles and bring them into the fold. The impetus for carrying that message today is not a function of the command in the narrative, though. That comes from the nature of the message itself and requires no command.

Acts 1:
20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.
21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

Luke 1:
1 ¶ Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

 

[Guojing]

IOW, our relationship with God, specifically the closeness and fellowship with Him that we normally experience, will suffer when we fail to forgive someone who asks us to (just like it always does when we sin), but our salvation will not be lost.

--David

I see, so may I confirm you are using the "fellowship" vs "relationship" distinction to reconcile this?

 

[Guojing]

The immediate/surrounding context (as well the whole of Chapter 13) makes it clear that it is the consistency of the Lord Jesus' teaching that is principally/most directly in view. To believe otherwise requires that we strip v8 from the very context that we find it in (or so it seems to me anyway).

This is not to say that the primary meaning of His being the same yesterday, today and forever is all that statement about Him is referring to, it is not, but it certainly is part of it, especially in this particular context.

Perhaps I am wrong about this, or perhaps I am misunderstanding you in some way. If you believe that is the case, that I am wrong for some reason, please show me/us why (including how the context of Chapter 13 led you to conclude what you did above).

Thanks

God bless you!!

--David

Jesus taught the necessity of following the Law of Moses to be saved. (Matthew 5, Matthew 19:16-17)

Protestants do not subscribe to that. As for Calvinists, they exclude many things from the Law of Moses to be obeyed today, so they are in the same category as well.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

It further proves to old saying. Wikipedia is to Britanica what Star Search is to Juilliard.

In other words once again there is a disagreement in theology and our stances.

Isn’t it interesting that Mark and Luke, while writers of the Gospels were not part of the 12.

They wrote of first hand accounts, which is why the three are Synoptic in places.

Saint Mark is thought to have been saint Peter's secretary and the Gospel according to saint Mark is thought to be a record of saint Peters recollections. Saint Luke is said to have been saint Paul's travel companion for most of his missionary journeys and the Gospel according to saint Luke is thought to be saint Luke's record of the research he did while with saint Paul and while he was in Jerusalem interviewing Blessed Mary, the mother of Jesus, and the other firsthand witnesses of the resurrection that were resident in Jerusalem in the 50s AD.

 

[hislegacy]

Saint Mark is thought to have been saint Peter's secretary and the Gospel according to saint Mark is thought to be a record of saint Peters recollections. Saint Luke is said to have been saint Paul's travel companion for most of his missionary journeys and the Gospel according to saint Luke is thought to be saint Luke's record of the research he did while with saint Paul and while he was in Jerusalem interviewing Blessed Mary, the mother of Jesus, and the other firsthand witnesses of the resurrection that were resident in Jerusalem in the 50s AD.

Paul never met nor traveled with Jesus before His crucifixion. Luke was physically there and recorded his experiences with Jesus.

No one is ever mentioned ‘interviewing Mary’. She did not travel with Jesus.

Teaching such things is at the least extra biblical and at the most error.

 

[Fervent]

I don't know about the context today, but the context of first century Judaism. It had to be a lawful testimony. The twelve to the Jew's......
Two or three EYE wittiness to what they had seen and heard.

I don't understand what your point in bringing this up is...since I said nothing of witnesses. And the great commission isn't about what Jews would accept, but a reversal of the "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel" and instead sending the apostles to the goyim.

Which would not have amounted to a hill of beans without having seen it with their own eyes, heard with their own ears.

Most of the apologetic is about interpreting events that were agreed to have happened, not about proving that certain events happened.

Acts 1:
20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.
21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

Luke 1:
1 ¶ Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

Are you trying to say that only eye-witnesses can preach the gospel? I'm thoroughly confused as to why you're highlighting these passages.

 

[St_Worm2]

I see, so may I confirm you are using the "fellowship" vs "relationship" distinction to reconcile this?

No, perhaps I should have stated what I did a bit differently. I typically speak of our fellowship and relationship with God as being basically the same thing, or two sides of the same coin anyway.

Sin changes the condition (specifically, the sense of closeness) of the fellowship or relationship that a penitent believer typically experiences with God which, PTL, is something that can begin to be changed back/restored as soon as we confess our sin to Him .. e.g. 1 John 1:9.

Finally, as King David said to God, "restore unto me the ~JOY~ of Thy salvation" .. Psalm 51:12, not salvation itself, because that had not been lost .. e.g. 2 Samuel 12:13.

God bless you!!

--David
p.s. - the topic of this thread has nothing to do with dispensationalism, hyper or otherwise. If you want to discuss that, perhaps starting a new thread would be in order (before the mods start their "cleaning" process, that is ).

 

[ralliann]

Paul never met nor traveled with Jesus before His crucifixion.

Paul never met nor traveled with Jesus before His crucifixion.

No, he was sent an apostle to the nations.

Luke was physically there and recorded his experiences with Jesus.

No one is ever mentioned ‘interviewing Mary’. She did not travel with Jesus.

Teaching such things is at the least extra biblical and at the most error.

he encountered Jesus on the road to damascus

No one is ever mentioned ‘interviewing Mary’. She did not travel with Jesus.

Teaching such things is at the least extra biblical and at the most error.

13 At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me.
14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
15 And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.
16 But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;
17 Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee,

 

[ralliann]

I don't understand what your point in bringing this up is...since I said nothing of witnesses. And the great commission isn't about what Jews would accept, but a reversal of the "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel" and instead sending the apostles to the goyim.

Christ appeared to call Paul an apostle to the Gentiles

Most of the apologetic is about interpreting events that were agreed to have happened, not about proving that certain events happened.

In a lawful court Eye witnesses are witnesses. Two or more were needed to be lawful. His works themselves were a witness to them.

Are you trying to say that only eye-witnesses can preach the gospel? I'm thoroughly confused as to why you're highlighting these passages.

No, I am saying the Apostles were distinct. It is not for everyone in the Church. Christ wasn't just a rabbi...

 

[Fervent]

Christ appeared to call Paul an apostle to the Gentiles

Paul wasn't alone in bringing the gospel to the gentiles

In a lawful court Eye witnesses are witnesses. Two or more were needed to be lawful. His works themselves were a witness to them.

Courts are only a small fraction of the concern, so legal requirements aren't really cogent.

No, I am saying the Apostles were distinct. It is not for everyone in the Church. Christ wasn't just a rabbi...

The apostle's certainly were distinct, but I still fail to see how you're applying it to this. Are you implying the great commission was only for the apostles?

 

[ralliann]

Paul wasn't alone in bringing the gospel to the gentiles

Courts are only a small fraction of the concern, so legal requirements aren't really cogent.

The apostle's certainly were distinct, but I still fail to see how you're applying it to this. Are you implying the great commission was only for the apostles?

Yes, the great commission from the apostles the foundation firstly because it met the legal requirement for eye witnesses, especially of his resurrection.

 

[Fervent]

Yes, the great commission from the apostles the foundation firstly because it met the legal requirement for eye witnesses, especially of his resurrection.

Again, legal testimony wouldn't really be a criteria. Seems you're pressing that a bit too hard.

 

[ralliann]

Again, legal testimony wouldn't really be a criteria. Seems you're pressing that a bit too hard.

So, they were not concerned with being lawful witnesses to the Jew's. And certainly all were to go and be like the Apostles without having access to the scriptures themselves.

 

[Guojing]

Again, legal testimony wouldn't really be a criteria. Seems you're pressing that a bit too hard.

Matthew 19:28
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.

You have no problems accepting that this "them" is only to the 12, correct?

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, ...

What makes this "them" different?

 

[ralliann]

Matthew 19:28
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.

You have no problems accepting that this "them" is only to the 12, correct?

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth...

What makes this "them" different?

Not only that...People did not even have access to the scriptures personally for the vast majority of christian history. Most were commissioned to simply raise their Children up on obedience to the Lord.

 

[linux.poet]

The Synoptic Problem is a term used to describe the literary relationship between the first three Gospels of the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, and Luke. These three Gospels are called the synoptic Gospels because they share many similarities in terms of content, structure, and wording 1.

The Synoptic Problem is concerned with determining the precise relationships between these three Gospels. Scholars have noted the alternating array of agreements and disagreements among the three Gospels and have wondered why and how the disparities came to be 2.

The most widely accepted solution to the Synoptic Problem is the Two-Source Hypothesis. This hypothesis posits that Mark was the first Gospel to be written and that both Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source. Additionally, Matthew and Luke also drew from another hypothetical document called Q 1 3.

The Synoptic Problem has been a topic of debate for centuries and has been described as “the most fascinating literary enigma of all time” 1. While no conclusive solution has been found yet, the Two-Source Hypothesis remains the most widely accepted theory 3.

This is anti-Christian thinking that has been brought in by secular literary criticism. I read an entire book on the two source hypothesis and other sickening ways of chopping up the Gospels. Introduction to the Gospels by Mitchell G. Reddish. That book was disgusting.

I believe in the three-source hypothesis, that Matthew, Mark, and Luke each independently wrote their Gospels, and those gospels are similar because they compile the stories about Jesus that were told in the Early Church. John's Gospel has a different style, because he was a disciple himself and he was there for the whole story. Matthew was there too, but he was a different writer who wanted to focus on the Jewish kingdom and what Jesus taught. The similarities are because of the community, not because the stories came from each other.

To answer your OP question, no I can't prove it. That's because a proof is mathematical, not theological. If there is a theological proof system, I don't know what it is and can't use it because I'm not a trained theologian.

The best I have is to point to Romans 10:9, and to point to my healing from mental illness after my conversion. First Romans 10:9:

that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;

The context of this verse doesn't say that contact with an Apostle is necessary. Notice that the Apostle Paul's instructions to the Early church were in order that the Church would be a witness to others. The command to avoid temple prostitutes, for example, was to distinguish them from the rest of the population. And there's Peter's command to "always have an answer" for people who inquire about our faith is pointless if witnessing is pointless. Why have a witness for the Lord otherwise?

14 But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are blessed. And do not fear their intimidation, and do not be in dread, 15 but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, but with gentleness and respect; 16 and keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who disparage your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame.

One must consider the Great Commission in the context of the whole counsel of God. To do otherwise is unsound hermeneutics. But of course, you can rerun the whole "but that Scripture only applied to the original audience" game for all the Scripture I can bring up, so try this:

In order to heal from mental illness, one must have a standard of truth. Without the Holy Spirit to guide me into truth, I would not be healed from mental illness today. This is supported by cognitive science - the human brain is not designed to hold contradictory ideas as true at once. To elevate the soul from depression, one must have true hope. To free the mind from trauma, one must have true order. Lies must be removed.

If the Gospel wasn't effective today, I wouldn't have healed up from mental illness today and I would not have survived. If the Bible was lies, it would have only caused more chaos and more disease within.

But I suspect that this topic is a trap, an intellectual game where the only proof is what the first poster may want, which is impossible to discern. I would advise against wasting time with such pointless intellectual exercises - to subject the mind to an impossible task is an act of cruelty. A better course is to live our faith in the most effective manner, rather than throwing around the concept of proof needlessly. We live by faith, not by sight, and proof is a function of sight.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

To answer your OP question, no I can't prove it. That's because a proof is mathematical, not theological. If there is a theological proof system, I don't know what it is and can't use it because I'm not a trained theologian.

Fair point.

In theology "proof" can mean "shown to be a statement wholly consistent with and fully explicit in the text of holy scripture".

 

[Studyman]

Some say that "The Great Commission" is addressed to Christians living today, in fact many say it and say also it was addressed to Christian in every age. The same goes for the Sermon on the mount. And for a great many of Jesus' sayings and lessons which were addressed to the apostles, or the disciples, or the Jews of his time, or the crowds of his time. Can you prove it? Why ought anyone take that perspective? And what about "apostolic succession", will you arguments justify or destroy belief in apostolic succession?

"Apostolic Succession" is a doctrine created by this world's religions out of necessity, in my view. Because these religious businesses cannot survive without the membership and contributions of the masses, it becomes necessary to market their religion. Each one promoting benefits of joining their particular religious business or sect, over the other religions with whom they compete for members.

The doctrine of "Apostolic Succession" provides the justification for whatever marketing strategy or religious philosophy a religion promotes, by claiming the leader of their religious sect is an "Apostle of Christ" and therefore they have the power from God to create any commandment or make something clean or holy, in spite of what the Holy Scriptures have already established. As time goes on, it becomes necessary for these progressive religions to change doctrines according to the changing cultures of the population they require, in order to grow and maintain their power and wealth. As a result, the religion changes as time goes on, and they justify themselves by the doctrine they created, "Apostolic Succession".

My argument against this popular religious philosophy is based on the warnings in the Scriptures of this very thing. The mainstream God of Abraham preaching people of Jesus Time, lived by and Promoted doctrines and religious traditions created by men who claimed God sent them.

The Jesus of the Bible, prophesies of a time when HE returns and judges "many" self-proclaimed "Apostles" of Christ, who teach, help others, even cast out demons, all as "Apostles of Christ", when in truth, because they didn't honor God by keeping His Commandments, Jesus said HE didn't even know them, even though they taught in His Name. Paul speaks to this very thing as well, specifically of men who promote the doctrine of "Apostolic Succession" so they can appear like Paul and other Disciples God Chose for the Testimony.

2 Cor. 11: 12 But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion; that wherein they glory, they may be found "even as we". 13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.

14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

Paul said to the Body of Christ;

2 Tim. 3: 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, "for instruction in righteousness" 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

So Paul still granted Authority to the Scriptures for the "man of God" to live by, even all these years after the Christ ascended.

He also warned against men who would claim to be an "Apostle of Christ".

Col. 2: 8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

And again;

Titus 1: 16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

It seems to me that the doctrine "Apostolic Succession", was created for the express purpose of justifying religious philosophy which contradicts Scriptures, and traditions of men which cause those who follow them to "Transgress God's commandments".

Why else would this doctrine even be needed?

 

[fhansen]

Some say that "The Great Commission" is addressed to Christians living today, in fact many say it and say also it was addressed to Christian in every age. The same goes for the Sermon on the mount. And for a great many of Jesus' sayings and lessons which were addressed to the apostles, or the disciples, or the Jews of his time, or the crowds of his time. Can you prove it? Why ought anyone take that perspective? And what about "apostolic succession", will you arguments justify or destroy belief in apostolic succession?

Why do we need to prove it? Jesus said it. No need for mental gymnastics or contrived positions to oppose these truths.

And the need for apostolic succession or a continuous legacy of the faith being passed down from generation to generation is obvious, or should be after observing all the disagreement over the meaning of scripture alone.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

"Apostolic Succession" is a doctrine created by this world's religions out of necessity, in my view.

You, too, are built upon the foundation laid by the apostles and prophets, the cornerstone being Christ Jesus himself. He is the one who holds the whole building together and makes it grow into a sacred temple dedicated to the Lord. In union with him you too are being built together with all the others into a place where God lives through his Spirit.
(Ephesians 2:20-22 GNB)

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel that is different from the one we preached to you, may he be condemned to hell!
(Galatians 1:8 GNB)

Take the teachings that you heard me proclaim in the presence of many witnesses, and entrust them to reliable people, who will be able to teach others also.
(2 Timothy 2:2 GNB)

The Church, says St. Paul, is “built upon the foundation laid by the apostles and prophets,” so that the doctrine which it propagates must be based on Apostolic teachings. Hence St. Paul says to the Galatians: “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel that is different from the one we preached to you, may he be condemned to hell!” The same Apostle gives this admonition to Timothy: “the teachings that you heard me proclaim in the presence of many witnesses, and entrust them to reliable people, who will be able to teach others also.” Timothy must transmit to his disciples only such doctrines as he heard from the lips of his Master.

Apostolic succession is completely biblical.