Twelve "In" or "Out"?

[Markea]

OK. But you did not answer my question.If the Twelve were given the commission to preach a "gospel" that is centered on the "purpose" of His death then why did they not?

I'm not sure if you can just say (in a matter of fact way) that they didn't understand or preach the purpose of all that the LORD did and told them as they witnessed all these things.. Peter preached the death and resurrection of Christ and the remission of sins in His name.. by FAITH in His name.. and the other Apostles write of these things as well..

Are we to assume that the latest letters written by Peter or John are all based on what Paul knew or revealed to them.. ? ?

Take John's letters for example.. they're typically dated much later than the writings of Paul and they do not teach of any new dispensation which supercedes the gospel they preached..

Take John's words here for example..

Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning.

...

Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.

And this is the promise that He hath promised us, even eternal life.

Wouldn't you think that if there was some amazing new revelation that it would be mentioned in these latter letters..? ? OR again.. would you suggest that any further revelation had to come to these Apostles through Paul.. ?

Peter spoke of the Lord bearing our sins in His own body on the tree.. is that because Paul told that to Peter..?

John spoke of Him being the propitiation for our sins.. and not for ours only, but for the whole world.. and in the gospel he writes that He is the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world..

Is this all because Paul told them..?

Again,the point is not what the welve might have known or not known,but instead if they were given a commission to preach a gospel centered on the purpose of His death then why didn't they?

In His grace,--Jerry

I'm beginning to think that much of this thinking is the result of Paul being placed onto the enormous pedestal that these preachers would have him on.. it's fanatical in a way which redefines fanaticism in my opinion... I mean, praise God for the scriptures which we have from Paul.. but let's face it.. they're the Lord's words.. not Paul's..

I do think that we can make distinctions between kingdom preaching pertaining to the Israel of God and gospel preaching pertaining to the church of God.. although they're both centered upon the grace and majesty of our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ.. not on Paul..

 

[Markea]

And yet, as shown previously, the disciples and apostles understood absolutely nothing of the cross and resurrection. Any honest read of scripture must come to this conclusion. So, how can anyone say that they "...preached Christ crucified...." 1 Cor. 1:23), or 1 Cor. 15:1-4, as Paul did? Impossible. Only later, through Paul's apostle ship, was the cross revealed as the central theme of the gospel(again, the discussion for the reasons for this are beyond the scope of this article).

In Christ,
John M. Whalen

Very good John.. and NOBODY has suggested that any person preached Christ crucified PRIOR to the cross.. this is simple stuff.. ALTHOUGH Peter clearly preached CHRIST crucified and resurrected and remission of sins in His name immediately after the Spirit was sent at Pentecost.. that's a scriptural fact..

 

[JMWHALEN]

Very good John.. and NOBODY has suggested that any person preached Christ crucified PRIOR to the cross.. this is simple stuff.. ALTHOUGH Peter clearly preached CHRIST crucified and resurrected and remission of sins in His name immediately after the Spirit was sent at Pentecost.. that's a scriptural fact..

Thanks for the condescending comment, ma'am-"this is simple stuff". You have a tendency to reflect that attitude in many of your posts to me and others-"and perhaps you'd try to manage smaller more focused posts in the future.... although this is simply a suggestion.." How is this for a novel, "simple" idea: don't read them. Not too complicated, eh? "Simple stuff"! Of course, this is simply a suggestion. I realize you just "don't have time." Boy, I have never heard that before! I never hear that in the secular world everyday-no siree!

Based on the confused premises of your posts, and your lack of reading comprehension skills, I find it quite ironic that you can't even understand the "simple stuff", such as there is more than one gospel, more than one "the church", more than one baptism. Of course, since you can't even understand these "simple" concepts, this "simple stuff", that are presented in "fifth grade English", and which do not require you to have 20 titles before and after your name to "get them", expecting you to understand the mystery program is not realistic.

Speaking of "simple stuff", you are probably aware that "remission" of sins is not equivalent to forgiveness of sins? Nah, I shouldn't have posted that question to you-that is "simple stuff" for you.

Your venture "into the ring "on these boards finds you sparring, "...as one that beateth the air..."(1 Cor. 9:27). You have "...added nothing to me..."(Galatians 2:6). Thankfully, I am not required "to answer all phone calls". As someone once said, "Even the moon would refuse to shine if it paid attention to every little dog that barked at it".

Therefore, I will let you "...be ignorant..."(1 Cor. 14:38). How is that for a "simple" statement?

In Christ,
John M. Whalen

 

[Markea]

Thanks for the condescending comment, ma'am-"this is simple stuff". You have a tendency to reflect that attitude in many of your posts to me and others-"and perhaps you'd try to manage smaller more focused posts in the future.... although this is simply a suggestion.." How is this for a novel, "simple" idea: don't read them. Not too complicated, eh? "Simple stuff"! Of course, this is simply a suggestion. I realize you just "don't have time." Boy, I have never heard that before! I never hear that in the secular world everyday-no siree!

Based on the confused premises of your posts, and your lack of reading comprehension skills, I find it quite ironic that you can't even understand the "simple stuff", such as there is more than one gospel, more than one "the church", more than one baptism. Of course, since you can't even understand these "simple" concepts, this "simple stuff", that are presented in "fifth grade English", and which do not require you to have 20 titles before and after your name to "get them", expecting you to understand the mystery program is not realistic.

Speaking of "simple stuff", you are probably aware that "remission" of sins is not equivalent to forgiveness of sins? Nah, I shouldn't have posted that question to you-that is "simple stuff" for you.

Your venture "into the ring "on these boards finds you sparring, "...as one that beateth the air..."(1 Cor. 9:27). You have "...added nothing to me..."(Galatians 2:6). Thankfully, I am not required "to answer all phone calls". As someone once said, "Even the moon would refuse to shine if it paid attention to every little dog that barked at it".

Therefore, I will let you "...be ignorant..."(1 Cor. 14:38). How is that for a "simple" statement?

In Christ,
John M. Whalen

Well pardon me John for speaking out against your completely ridiculous and false claim from your last post.. insinuating that anyone preached Christ crucified before the cross.. you must have stayed up late for that one ey..

And then you have the audacity to speak of condescending.. while you folks redefine the term..? ? You and your self proclaimed group of 'right dividers' have done nothing more than talk down to every other perspective here which doesn't align with your own view.. as if you're the standard of truth..

So perhaps in the future you'll think a little deeper before making such a ridiculous claim...but hey, that's just some simple little advice friend..

 

[JerryShugart]

Markea,

I asked you:

If the Twelve Apostles were given a commission to preach a "gospel" centered on the purpose of the death of the Lord Jesus on the Cross then why didn't they do just that?

To which you replied:

I'm not sure if you can just say (in a matter of fact way) that they didn't understand or preach the purpose of all that the LORD did and told them as they witnessed all these things..

Why should we believe that they preached the purpose of His death since the Scriptures reveal exactly what was being preached to the Jews during the Acts period?The Acts record will be searched in vain for any evidence that the purpose of His death was preached to the Jews during that time.

On the day of Pentecost Peter used the facts of the death and the resurrection of the Lord Jesus in order to prove that He is their promised Messiah (Acts2:23-35).And then he summed up his argument by saying:


"Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ"(Acts2:36).

Later,after hearing the gospel preached the Ethiopian treasurer asked to be baptized with water: "And Philip said,If thou believeth with all thine heart,thou mayest.And he answered and said,I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God"(Acts8:37).

After Paul was converted,the first thing that he did was to preach this same gospel in the synagogues of the Jews: "And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God...proving that this is the very Christ"(Acts9:20,22).

That was the same gospel which Paul continued to preach to the Jews: "And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ"(Acts17:2,30).

That is the same message that Apollos preached to the Jews: "For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus is Christ"(Acts18:28).

That is the gospel that went to the Jews,and it is plain that the heart and soul of that gospel was in regard to the "identity" of the Lord Jesus.

Despite this Scriptual evidence you still think that they might have been preaching the purpose of His death.

Peter preached the death and resurrection of Christ and the remission of sins in His name.. by FAITH in His name.. and the other Apostles write of these things as well..

Yes,"in His name".And the "name" that they were to believe is "Christ".

"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name"(Jn.1:12).

The Jews who believed that the Lord Jesus is "the Christ,the Son of God,were born of God (Jn.1:13;1Jn.5:1-5).

They were not born again by believing the gospel that we are to preach today.Today we are given the "ministry of reconciliation" to preach the "word of reconciliation".But that is not what was preached to the Jews during the Acts period.

Are we to assume that the latest letters written by Peter or John are all based on what Paul knew or revealed to them.. ? ?

Take John's letters for example.. they're typically dated much later than the writings of Paul and they do not teach of any new dispensation which supercedes the gospel they preached..

Markea,during the Acts period the Jerusalem church remained under the law.James told Paul:

"And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law"(Acts21:20).

These people in the Jerusalem church continued to keep the law of Moses,but at the same time Paul was writing the following to the churches which he founded:

"Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster"(Gal.3:24,25).

If the Jews were being preached the same gospel that Paul preached to the churches he founded why did the Jewish believers continue to place themselves under the law?

In regard to the Jewish epistles that were written after the Acts period,we can see that finally the purpose of the Lord's death upon the Cross was being preached,and that they were no longer under the law:

"As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God"(1Pet.2:16;Compare with Gal.5:1,13).

Paul makes it plain that in the present dispensation we are to preach a gospel centered on the purpose of His death upon the Cross.

That did not happen on the day of Pentecost,and that gospel was not preached until Paul was converted.

I'm beginning to think that much of this thinking is the result of Paul being placed onto the enormous pedestal that these preachers would have him on.. it's fanatical in a way which redefines fanaticism in my opinion...

My "thinking" is based on what the Scriptures actually reveal.I do not depend on any "assumption" that the Twelve were preaching a gospel centered on the "purpose" of the death of the Lord Jesus despite the Scriptual evidence that they were not.

I mean, praise God for the scriptures which we have from Paul.. but let's face it.. they're the Lord's words.. not Paul's..

I never said that they were not the words of the Lord Jesus.

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[eph3Nine]

Well pardon me John for speaking out against your completely ridiculous and false claim from your last post.. insinuating that anyone preached Christ crucified before the cross.. you must have stayed up late for that one ey..

And then you have the audacity to speak of condescending.. while you folks redefine the term..? ? You and your self proclaimed group of 'right dividers' have done nothing more than talk down to every other perspective here which doesn't align with your own view.. as if you're the standard of truth..

So perhaps in the future you'll think a little deeper before making such a ridiculous claim...but hey, that's just some simple little advice friend..

Markea, Markea...

We have done nothing but provide you with more than adequate scripture and evidence. YOU are the one hell bent on proving us wrong, when in actuality it is NOT us whom you fight.

This is not OUR perspective. Its the one given TO Paul for US, by God Himself. God is the One setting the standard.

Now...all kidding aside...would you like some Cheese to go with that "whine".....sorry I just couldnt help myself.

 

[Markea]

Markea,

Despite this Scriptual evidence you still think that they might have been preaching the purpose of His death.

No Jerry, I believe that they understood the reason why Christ died.. that it was for their sins.. OR.. perhaps everyone was completely oblivious to this as you seem to believe..

Yes,"in His name".And the "name" that they were to believe is "Christ".

"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name"(Jn.1:12).

OR how about John the baptist saying.. BEHOLD, THE LAMB OF GOD WHICH TAKETH AWAY THE SIN OF THE WORLD...

Maybe Paul let John the Baptist in on this..

How about in John 2.. when they REMEMBERED the words of the Lord..

When therefore He was risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said..

How about these which believed on Him in John 8.. ?

I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am He, ye shall die in your sins.

...

Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am He, and that I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father hath taught Me, I speak these things.

...

Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

How about John 10..?

I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth His life for the sheep.

How about John 16..

And when He is come, He will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:Of sin, because they believe not on Me; Of righteousness, because I go to My Father, and ye see Me no more; Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged..

Maybe they just never got it until Paul revealed it to them.. let's look at some of the other gospels.. shall we..?

Joseph was told this in a dream concerning Jesus..

And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call His name JESUS: for He shall save His people from their sins.

More from Matthew's gospel...

But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.

Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

THEN OF COURSE WE HAVE THE LORD WITH HIS DISCIPLES AT SUPPER..

For this is My blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Perhaps none of them got it until Paul finally revealed it to them.. they must of been like.. DOH ! !

Markea,during the Acts period the Jerusalem church remained under the law.James told Paul:

"And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law"(Acts21:20).

Being zealous for the LAW does not mandate that they HAD to obey the LAW to be justified in God's sight.. I'm sure that many Jews had enormous respect for the LAW (as do Christians, as it is Holy) although they were justified by FAITH in CHRIST.. just as WE ARE TODAY..

These people in the Jerusalem church continued to keep the law of Moses,but at the same time Paul was writing the following to the churches which he founded:

"Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster"(Gal.3:24,25).

If the Jews were being preached the same gospel that Paul preached to the churches he founded why did the Jewish believers continue to place themselves under the law?

Because that's what they knew very well.. I can't imagine why this would seem difficult for anybody.. seriously.. the LAW was all they knew.. it was natural for them to observe its precepts.. it took time to realize that they were justified by His grace through FAITH..

This came up in Acts 15.. and PETER sets the record straight.. he tells them that they will be saved in the same way.. because he says that GOD MADE NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN US.. PURIFYING THEIR HEARTS BY FAITH..

In regard to the Jewish epistles that were written after the Acts period,we can see that finally the purpose of the Lord's death upon the Cross was being preached,and that they were no longer under the law:

"As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God"(1Pet.2:16;Compare with Gal.5:1,13).

So in your opinion they had to learn that from PAUL ? ? ?

Paul makes it plain that in the present dispensation we are to preach a gospel centered on the purpose of His death upon the Cross.

That did not happen on the day of Pentecost,and that gospel was not preached until Paul was converted.

Peter preached CHRIST crucified and risen.. JESUS as LORD and CHRIST.. baptism in His name for the remission of sins.. FAITH in His name.. etc etc etc.. It's infinitely more the same GOSPEL rather than the different one that you say that it is..

My "thinking" is based on what the Scriptures actually reveal.I do not depend on any "assumption" that the Twelve were preaching a gospel centered on the "purpose" of the death of the Lord Jesus despite the Scriptual evidence that they were not.

Oh pardon me Jerry.. and thanks for sharing your thoughts and opinion on these things..

 

[Markea]

Markea, Markea...

We have done nothing but provide you with more than adequate scripture and evidence.

What you have done eph.. is share your opinion on these matters..

NOW.. I understand that YOU believe that you're on the VERY SAME LEVEL as GOD concerning what you SAY and THINK.. although that's simply a testimony to how delusional a person can actually become in their self proclaimed status..

YOU are the one hell bent on proving us wrong, when in actuality it is NOT us whom you fight.

I could care less about proving YOU wrong eph.. I share thoughts and an opinion on these things.. and I know that in your mind I'm an enemy of the cross.. although that too shows your delusional thinking in that I'm fighting over these things..

[quoteThis is not OUR perspective. Its the one given TO Paul for US, by God Himself. God is the One setting the standard.[/quote]

I'm well aware of your self proclaimed God status perspective eph.. I do actually listen to what you say..

Now...all kidding aside...would you like some Cheese to go with that "whine".....sorry I just couldnt help myself.

Absolutely.. I'm always game for some good ol cheese.. at least that would be something that I could digest and find nourishment in..

 

[JerryShugart]

No Jerry, I believe that they understood the reason why Christ died.. that it was for their sins.. OR.. perhaps everyone was completely oblivious to this as you seem to believe..

Markea,

You did not answer why they did not preach a gospel that was centered on the "purpose" of the death of the Lord Jesus if that was their commission.You continue to want to go back to what they knew and not what they preached.

OR how about John the baptist saying.. BEHOLD, THE LAMB OF GOD WHICH TAKETH AWAY THE SIN OF THE WORLD...

Maybe Paul let John the Baptist in on this..

The correct translation is "bearing the sin of the world".Here is an explanation of this verse provided by Sir Robert Anderson:

This rendering of the text in both our versions savours of exegesis. The Baptist’s words are definitely clear, "Behold the Lamb of God, who is bearing the sin of the world." And they are usually supposed to be a revelation to the Jews that Christ was to die; the only question in doubt being whether the type to which they refer be the Paschal lamb or the sin-offering.

But this involves a glaring anachronism. For it was not until the Sanhedrin decreed His destruction (Matthew xii. 32) that the Lord revealed even to the Twelve that He was to be put to death. And so utterly opposed was it to all Jewish beliefs and hopes that they gave no heed to it. Upon other grounds also such an exegesis is unintelligent. For the Passover did not typify "bearing sin," and a lamb was never the sin-offering victim. Nor was it " the sin of the world" that the scapegoat bore away, but the sins of the children of Israel (Leviticus xvi. 21).

"Who is bearing the sin of the world." This was not a prophecy of Calvary, but a revelation of what the Lord was during His life. Therefore the word here used is not a sacrificial term, as in 1 Peter ii. 24 and other kindred passages, but an ordinary word in common use for taking up and carrying burdens. Its five occurrences in John v. 8 - 12 are fairly representative of its use in the ninety-six other passages where it is found. Accordingly we read in 1 John iii. 5 - the only other passage where the word is used in this connection - "He was manifested to take away (or to bear) sins" (R.V.), the Apostle’s purpose being, as the context plainly indicates, not to assert the doctrine of expiation, but to impress on the saints that sin is utterly opposed to Christ, and hinders fellowship with Him. Mark the word "manifested" ; it was not the mystery of Calvary, but the openly declared purpose of His life. For in this sense He was a sin-bearer during all His earthly sojourn ; as witness, for example, His groans and tears at the grave of Lazarus. He took up and bore the burden of human sin; not as to its guilt - that was not till Gethsemane and Calvary - but as to the sufferings and sorrows it brought upon humanity(Anderson,"Misunderstood Texts of the New Testament",p.59).

Noted Christian author Alfred Edersheim concurs that the words of the Baptist were not in regard to His death but instead to His life:

"I can scarcely find words strong enough to express my dissent from those who would limit Is. liii. 4, either on the one hand to spiritual, or on the other to physical 'sicknesses.' The promise is one of future deliverance from both, of a Restorer from all the woe which sin had brought. In the same way the expression 'taking upon Himself,' and 'bearing' refers to the Christ as our Deliverer, because our Substitute. Because He took upon Himself our infirmities, therefore He bore our sicknesses. That the view here given is that of the N.T., appears from a comparison of the application of the passage in St. Matt. viii. 17 with that in St. John i. 29 and 1 Pet. ii. 24. The words, as given by St. Matthew, are most truly a N.T. 'Targum' of the original. The LXX. renders, 'This man carries our sins and is pained for us;' Symmachus, 'Surely He took up our sins, and endured our labors;' the Targum Jon., 'Thus for our sins He will pray, and our iniquities will for His sake be forgiven.' (Comp. Driver and Neubauer, The Jewish Interpreters on Isaiah liii., vol. ii.) Lastly, it is with reference to this passage that the Messiah bears in the Talmud the designation, 'The Leprous One,' and 'the Sick One' (Sanh. 98 b).(Edersheim,"The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah";footnote 1,Book III,Chapter XIV).

I will address your other points later so as not to make this post overly long.

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Markea]

Then again.. the latest letters we have from John say nothing of a newer and greater revealtion.. but that which they had heard from the beginning..

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life..

...

My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: and He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

...

Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning..

...

Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father. And this is the promise that He hath promised us, even eternal life.

...

These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in Him.

...

And ye know that He was manifested to take away our sins; and in Him is no sin..

...

Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for His seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.




For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.



...



Hereby perceive we the love of God, because He laid down His life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.



...



Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us, and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.



And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.



...



For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.



Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?



...



And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know Him that is true, and we are in Him that is true, even in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

 

[JerryShugart]

How about these which believed on Him in John 8.. ?

I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am He, ye shall die in your sins.

Markea,

Again,the reference is to believing that He is the Christ,the Son of God--not that He died for sins.

You continue to evade the main issue here.The question is not in regard to what the Twelve knew,but instead what they preached.

If they were given the "ministry of reconciliation" to preach the "word of reconciliation" then why were they not preaching that word?

Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am He, and that I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father hath taught Me, I speak these things.

...

Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

Again you quote a verse that is in regard to believing that He is the Messiah,the Son of God--"then shall ye know that I am He".

How about John 10..?

I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth His life for the sheep.

So we are supposed to believe that those who heard Him say those words understood the "purpose" of His death,despite the fact that the Apostles did niot even understand that HE was to die?

How about John 16..

And when He is come, He will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:Of sin, because they believe not on Me; Of righteousness, because I go to My Father, and ye see Me no more; Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged..

Do you think that when He said "believe not on Me" that this is in reference to believing that He died for our sins?

Maybe they just never got it until Paul revealed it to them.. let's look at some of the other gospels.. shall we..?

Joseph was told this in a dream concerning Jesus..

And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call His name JESUS: for He shall save His people from their sins.

Does this say "how" He would save His people from their sins?Of course not!

More from Matthew's gospel...

But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.

Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

Again,these verses say nothing about the purpose of His death.

THEN OF COURSE WE HAVE THE LORD WITH HIS DISCIPLES AT SUPPER..

For this is My blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Perhaps none of them got it until Paul finally revealed it to them.. they must of been like.. DOH ! !

You assume that they understood exactly what He was referring to despite the fact that at the time He said those words they did not even know that He was to be resurrected.

The Apostles would understand His words as being the answer to the New Covenant that was promised to the houses of Israel and Judah.He also said:

"Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you"(Lk.22:20).

Being zealous for the LAW does not mandate that they HAD to obey the LAW to be justified in God's sight.. I'm sure that many Jews had enormous respect for the LAW (as do Christians, as it is Holy) although they were justified by FAITH in CHRIST.. just as WE ARE TODAY.

The Jews were keeping the law even though Paul told the Jews in the churches that he founded that they are no longer under the law.Therefore it is obvious that the Jerusalem church was not receiving the same teaching that Paul was teaching the churches which He founded.

Because that's what they knew very well.. I can't imagine why this would seem difficult for anybody.. seriously.. the LAW was all they knew.. it was natural for them to observe its precepts.. it took time to realize that they were justified by His grace through FAITH..

The Jews in the churches that Paul founded had no trouble believing that they were no longer to keep the law.

This came up in Acts 15.. and PETER sets the record straight.. he tells them that they will be saved in the same way.. because he says that GOD MADE NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN US.. PURIFYING THEIR HEARTS BY FAITH..

And when Paul came to the Jerusalem church in regard to the gospel he preached among the Gentiles he said:

"But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person,for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter..."(Gal.2:6,7).

They added nothing to what Paul knew but "contrawise" the other Apostles learned something from him.

So in your opinion they had to learn that from PAUL ? ? ?

It was Paul who received from the Lord Jesus the gospel that he was to preach among the Gentiles.It was not the same gospel that had been preached to the Jews.That is why Paul makes a distinction,speaking of "that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles"(Gal.2:2).

Peter preached CHRIST crucified and risen.. JESUS as LORD and CHRIST.. baptism in His name for the remission of sins.. FAITH in His name.. etc etc etc.. It's infinitely more the same GOSPEL rather than the different one that you say that it is..

More the same gospel?

How can it be more the same if the facts concerning the "purpose" of His death is not even mentioned?

Again,at that time it was those who "believed in His name" who were saved,and the name is "Christ,the Son of God".

When Paul went to the Gebtiles He preached nothing except "Jesus Christ and Him crucified"(2Cor.2:2).

That is not what was being preached on the day of Pentecost.

You still have not explained why the Twelve did not preach the "word of reconciliation" or the "gospel of grace" on the day of Pentecost.If that was their commission then there must be an explanation as to why they did not preach the word that we have been given the ministry.

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[eph3Nine]

Thats because John is a minister to the CIRCUMCISION...from the beginning of THEIR program these are the things being heard.

The beginning of a NEW and different program began with the instructions given to PAUL, which were BRAND NEW...NOT known, HID, KEPT SECRET!

Our program is NOT an extension of that given to Peter and the twelve, but a DEPARTURE.

 

[Markea]

Seems to me that there is a great emphasis by the Holy Spirit of God to keep that which was from the beginning.. John continues this theme into his 2nd epistle..

I rejoiced greatly that I found of thy children walking in truth, as we have received a commandment from the Father.

And now I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another.

And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it.

For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.

Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:

For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

 

[Markea]

Jerry,

In my feeble estimation... they would have understood these things AFTER He died and rose again.. just as the scriptures tell us that they remebered things afterwards..

NOT BEFOREHAND.. nobody could foreknow the enormity of Calvary up front.. except our Lord Jesus Christ... of course He knew it all beforehand..

AFTER... NOT BEFORE..

They were TOLD all those things BEFOREHAND.. although they would only understand them in light of what took place in Jerusalem during those days... just as the Lord opened the scriptures to them on the road to Emmaus.. and told them all things concerning Himself.. how that He should suffer to enter into His glory...

I'm certain that they just didn't sit there and dismiss all the things that HE FORETOLD them.. but began to understand the enormity of it all in light of what took place right before their eyes...

 

[Markea]

Thats because John is a minister to the CIRCUMCISION...from the beginning of THEIR program these are the things being heard.

The beginning of a NEW and different program began with the instructions given to PAUL, which were BRAND NEW...NOT known, HID, KEPT SECRET!

Our program is NOT an extension of that given to Peter and the twelve, but a DEPARTURE.

Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God.

He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:

hmmmm... this seems awfully applicable to the situation at hand..

 

[eph3Nine]

The only gospel at hand for John was NOT Pauls gospel.....sigh.

 

[Markea]

John's epistles are known to be of much later date than Paul's writings.. it's kind of shocking that nothing new is mentioned.. but rather a tremendous emphasis placed upon that which was from the beginning..

 

[JerryShugart]

Jerry,

In my feeble estimation... they would have understood these things AFTER He died and rose again.. just as the scriptures tell us that they remebered things afterwards..

Markea,

Again,the question is not what the Twelve knew,but instead if they were given the ministry of reconciliation to preach the word of reconciliation why did they not preach that word?

It is quite simple.Paul makes it plain that the present dispensation is in regard to preaching the "gospel of grace",a gospel that cannot be preached apart from the facts concerning the "purpose" of His death.

If the Twelve were given that same dispensation or stewardship to preach the "gospel of grace" then we would see them preaching that gospel on the day of Pentecost.

But they did not!

Despite this you continue to insist that the present dispensation began on the day of Pentecost.It is an error to represent what was being preached that day as Christian doctrine,or as the institution of a new religion.The speakers were Jews,the Apostles of the Lord Jesus Who was Himself "a minister of the circumcision"(Ro.18:8).The Jerusalem church was Jewish and their Bible was the Jewish Scriptures.Their meeting place was the Jewish Temple and it was their house of prayer.The last thing that the Apostles had on their mind was "establishing a new religion".They hailed Jesus as their national Messiah all the while clinging to Judaism,the religion of their fathers.

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Markea]

Despite this you continue to insist that the present dispensation began on the day of Pentecost.It is an error to represent what was being preached that day as Christian doctrine,or as the institution of a new religion.The speakers were Jews,the Apostles of the Lord Jesus Who was Himself "a minister of the circumcision"(Ro.18:8).The Jerusalem church was Jewish and their Bible was the Jewish Scriptures.Their meeting place was the Jewish Temple and it was their house of prayer.The last thing that the Apostles had on their mind was "establishing a new religion".They hailed Jesus as their national Messiah all the while clinging to Judaism,the religion of their fathers.

In His grace,--Jerry

AMEN ! Salvation is of the Jews..

And Christianity is not a NEW religion, it's the body of Christ.. James tells us that the prophets AGREE with this... that the LORD is taking out of the GENTILES a people for His name.. ie, Christians.

That doesn't mean that JEWS are not included... for the gospel is to the Jew FIRST.. and that's exactly what we see... it starting in Jerusalem..

When CHRIST was preached.. and JESUS declared both LORD and CHRIST.. people believed IN HIM and were saved.. God added them to the church based on their believing upon the Lord Jesus Christ.. He purified their hearts by faith..

You yourself agree that they're part of the CHURCH.. the Body of Christ..

As far as another dispensation...that's great.. that's fine.. that doesn't matter to me as much as the matter of when the church was established.. I don't agree with this other church which these folks spoke of.. and I don't believe that you do either..

 

[JMWHALEN]

Well pardon me John for speaking out against your completely ridiculous and false claim from your last post.. insinuating that anyone preached Christ crucified before the cross.. you must have stayed up late for that one ey..

And then you have the audacity to speak of condescending.. while you folks redefine the term..? ? You and your self proclaimed group of 'right dividers' have done nothing more than talk down to every other perspective here which doesn't align with your own view.. as if you're the standard of truth..

So perhaps in the future you'll think a little deeper before making such a ridiculous claim...but hey, that's just some simple little advice friend..

________________________________
My first response:

"insinuating that anyone preached Christ crucified before the cross.. you must have stayed up late for that one ey..

comment:The Bible's testimony is that the followers of The Lord Jesus Christ never preached Christ crucified, never preached that he would rise from the dead,as a basis for justification, i.e., that Christ would die for their sins as a basis for their propitiation by blood, and that he would rise again as a basis for their justification. This is what I wrote. Again, you confuse your lack of comprehension skills with error on the part of what I wrote.

"such a ridiculous claim."

My comment: And what claim is that?

"No Jerry, I believe that they understood the reason why Christ died.. that it was for their sins.. OR.. perhaps everyone was completely oblivious to this as you seem to believe.. "


My comment on: "... perhaps everyone was completely oblivious to this as you seem to believe.. "

Perhaps? In simple, "5th grade English", i.e., "simple stuff"(bold is my emphasis), from a "delusional... person" with "delusional thinking "(your words, characterization of us) :

"For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day. But they understood not that saying, and were afraid to ask him." Mark 9:31,32

"Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished. For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on: And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again. And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken." Luke 18:31-34

"For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead." John 20:9

"Perhaps" 1 Cor. 15:1-4, "....Christ died for our sins....was buried....he rose again from the dead" needs to be revised to another "perspective here"(your words), since it "doesn't align with your own view"(your words).


Even after the Lord's death, burial, and resurrection, they intially did not believe it:

"And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted." Mt. 28:17

"And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not. After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them. Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen." Mark 16:11

"And returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest. It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles. And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not." Luke 24:9-11

" And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?" Luke 24:41

And you claim that scripture testifies that they knew the reason for the Lord Jesus Christ's death, burial, and resurrection? Tell everyone on the board, just how is it possible to preach that which you do not understand, that which was hid from you, and that which you do not believe? It will not do to contend that they did not know it until after the cross, but knew it after the cross,because you cite scriptures prior to the cross in support s your argument that they understood it.

"But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." 1 Cor. 2:7,8

Of course, since you believe "they understood the reason why Christ died", despite the Holy Bible's testimony that "...as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead"(John 20:9), and Paul's statement in 1 Cor. 2:7,8, explaining one of the reasons it "...was hid from them...", is therefore not relevant. After all, the 12 and Paul preached the same gospel, according to you(and there are no difference between the message Paul preached and the 12-same "the church", same baptism", same "the gospels" Nah, no such thing as "... the mystery of the gospel"(Eph. 6:19). Nah, no need for Paul to proclaim/preach "...Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery..."(Romans 16:25)-this was being preached in early Acts! No difference-same "the gospel"! "My gospel" doesn't really mean anything.



Yes,"in His name".And the "name" that they were to believe is "Christ".

"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name"(Jn.1:12)."

My comment: And where is 1 Cor. 15:1-4 here?
"How about John 10..?

I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth His life for the sheep. "

My comment: And who are the sheep? And does this say they understood it?

"For this is My blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.


My comment: And does this state they understood it? And who is the "for many", as compared to the 1 Timothy 2:6: "Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time." Could 'due time' be a reference to the revelation given to Paul, i.e., "the mystery of the gospel"(Eph. 6:19)? Nah, that was testified to in early Acts! And does this say they understood it?


"Peter preached CHRIST crucified and risen.. JESUS as LORD and CHRIST.. baptism in His name for the remission of sins.. FAITH in His name.. etc etc etc.. It's infinitely more the same GOSPEL rather than the different one that you say that it is.. "

My comment: "infinitely more" of the "same gospel"? Water baptism for the remission of sins? "Class dismissed". You never answered my previous post: you do realize that remiision of sins is not equivalent to forgiveness of sins, do you not?

In Christ,
John M. Whalen