| Re: |
"Jesus explained all the typologies in the OT about Himself (throughout OT), the Kingdom of God (many books), Salvation (Genesis), Baptism (Genesis), Resurrection (Job), Baptism of the Holy Spirit (Joel), etc., which were formerly concealed from most men. Just as He open the eyes of the disciples on the Emmaus road, He is available to open our eyes, too."
There is a slight difference between the Emmaus events and the today's revelations to Christians. Jesus appeared to those disciples physically in his resurrected body. We would give hard time to those apologists who try to prove Jesus was real and came in the flesh using eyewitness reports if we say that someone's subjective revelation carries the same weight. I believe this is the reason God wanted the gospel to spread this specific way (through the apostles). The first information about Jesus had to come from the time and place where Jesus was on the earth in the flesh. (the only exception to this was Paul but his message was authenticated by the apostles who were with Jesus.)
edited for clarity
| 2016/6/2 20:36|
| Re: Tozsu|
Dear sister before I continue my post. I need to see where you're coming from. Do you hold to the doctrine of "cessationism". Main proponent of this doctrine would be Dr. John MacArthur. Those who hold to such doctrine say that the Holy Spirit no longer works in the way he did in Acts. They also discredit the moving of the Holy Spirit among the Muslims. Do you hold to this doctrine?
| 2016/6/2 21:04|
| Re: |
No, I am not cessationist but we are not sent to lay the foundation of the church.I do not have enough information about the Muslims so I don't know about that. John MacArthur is a great Christian man but I am not a follower of him, I am also not Calvinist.
| 2016/6/2 21:27|
| Re: |
I read all of your recent posts and do agree with you. Being present with Jesus on the Emmaus Road or listening to the Apostles and having them minister the Word of God not only in word but also in deed would be wonderful. The Apostles were not able to duplicate their calling but through the ministry of the Word they were able to birth many spiritual children who learned from them how to live and how to die for Christ. Some followed the Lord while others did not. Today, Christ uses us as His living epistles and the written Word is a precious gift and I would not trade it for anything.
Realizing that the word of God then was the Torah.
It was the letters of the Apostles, too.
So unless it was a Messianic Jewish congregation the Torah would not have been available to the average Gentile congregation. A few of the apostolic letters we're floating around. But the written word as we know it was not readily available.
Yet the early church seem to be vibrant in their witness of Christ. The early church seem to have power.
So the question is how did they do what they did without the complete Canon of scripture?
Blane, some Gentile churches such as the Corinthian church had some real problems. And you can read the letters to the seven churches to read some of the problems other churches had.
The early church was made up of men "of like passions", such as you and I and nothing was automatic. Even in the presence of the Apostles there were many that fell away from the Lord or abandoned their brothers. Somehow we think that being in the presence of the Apostles we would be much better Christians and maybe we would, but where "the rubber meets the road" in our lives, is how we respond to the indwelling Lord Jesus, each day in our lives? I am not of the opinion that we have less than those in the early church who did not see Jesus. We all must live by faith not by sight.
2Tim 4:16 At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge.
We should also be careful how we use the word Torah today and understand what it means. If you think the word Torah means the entire Old Testament, it doesn't.
It is composed of the Five Books of Moses and also contains the 613 commandments (mitzvot) and the Ten Commandments.
The writings of the Torah are also part of the Tanach (Hebrew Bible), which contains not only the Five Books of Moses (Torah) but 39 other important Jewish texts. The word “Tanach” is actually an acronym: “T” is for Torah, “N” is for Nevi’iim (Prophets) and “Ch” is for Ketuvim (Writings).
| 2016/6/2 23:35|
| Re: |
"Today, Christ uses us as His living epistles"
I don't think we are epistles. Epistles are the letters written by the apostles. These belong to the foundation. We are the building but not the foundation.
To best preserve the original information even in modern offices they use a master copy carefully kept in a file cabinet and that is what's copied when they need new copies. They do not copy from copies because that would distort the information. The the books of NT are like this master copy. God preserved the historical record and teaching of Jesus to which all the believers throughout the ages can be directed. This is essential for our life not a wonderful addition.
It is not in the making but finished.
| 2016/6/3 2:21|
| Re: It is necessarily so - and if one had to|
42 They gave Him a piece of a broiled fish;
43 and He took it and ate it before them.
44 Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”
45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures,
46 and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that THE CHRIST WOULD SUFFER and rise again from the dead the third day,
47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
48 You are witnesses of these things. (Luke 24:42-48)
Christ opened their minds to understand the scriptures and ended by saying thus it is written that the Christ should suffer. And rise again.
Later on the road to Emmaus,
25 And He said to them, "O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!
26 - "Was it not NECESSARY FOR THE CHRIST TO SUFFER THESE THINGS and enter into His glory?"
27 - And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures. (Luke 24:25-27)
So on the Emmaus Road the two travellers spoke to Christ and were lamenting the fact that Christ had been killed and it had been He they had hoped would redeem Israel. He then explained the scriptures after saying you are slow to believe because don't you know from the scriptures it was NECESSARY FOR THE CHRIST TO SUFFER.
Peter's second sermon after Pentecost,
17 “And now, brethren, I know that you acted in ignorance, just as your rulers did also.
18 But the things which God announced beforehand by the mouth of all the prophets, that HIS CHRIST SHOULD SUFFER, He has thus fulfilled. (Acts 3:
19 Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord;
20 and that He may send Jesus, the Christ appointed for you,
21 whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time. (Acts 3:17-21)
Paul's defense before King Aggripa,
19 “So, King Agrippa, I did not prove disobedient to the heavenly vision,
20 but kept declaring both to those of Damascus first, and also at Jerusalem and then throughout all the region of Judea, and even to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds appropriate to repentance.
21 For this reason some Jews seized me in the temple and tried to put me to death.
22 So, having obtained help from God, I stand to this day testifying both to small and great, stating nothing but what Moses and the prophets said was going to take place; NOTHING BUT WHAT MOSES AND THE PROPHETS SAID WAS GOING TO TAKE PLACE;
23 that the CHRIST WAS TO SUFFER, and that by reason of His resurrection from the dead He would be the first to proclaim light both to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles.” (Acts 26:19-23)
I've been intrigued for a while by that word NECESSARY. So from Moses and the prophets and the Psalms and the entire OT corpus the early church reasoned with the lsost that Jesus was indeed the Christ and that it was NECESSARY for God's Christ to suffer when He came. In your opinion, does this word necessary mean it was destined to happen because it was written and prophetically forecast in the word or does it mean it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and atone for the sins of man before all else can be accomplished? Or can it mean both of these things? I find the word necessary very intriguing and wonder what others may think it is meant to convey.
Meanwhile, if one had to, could we make a case from the OT alone that when the Christ came He was destined to suffer and rise again? How would we do this and where would we go to buttress our assertions just using the OT alone? I'm not at all knocking the NT of course but just for the sake of perhaps understanding how the early church first went about their proclamations, how can a case be made from the OT alone for it being necessary for the Christ to suffer when He came and even die yet rise again on the third day. How would one go about this from the OT alone?
A Jewish lady who is a missionary in Israel recently came to our church and she said she was completely saved and born again before reading anything in the New Testament. Jewish acquaintances and others had taken her to Moses and the prophets and explained Christ and His suffering for her from the OT since being Jewish she had been raised overly suspicious of the NT. So it can be done and I am of the opinion that we are not fully utilizing the witness of the prophets from the OT in our witnessing. I guess. That's not a statement meant to cover all. And what's good for a Jewish inquirer is good for a Gentile inquirer. But our witness for Christ, from the NT also, is even more powerful if when the NT is explained we can also proclaim that all of this was prophesied and written down hundreds and even thousands of years before it happened. Then we make references to the OT. So though, if one had to make a case for a suffering, slain, and resurrected Christ from the OT alone how would one go about it and where would they go in the OT prophets and Moses etc. to frame together their witness?
Meanwhile, it was NECESSARY for the Christ to suffer. What does that mean in your opinion?
| 2016/6/3 3:53||Profile|
| Re: |
If we do not love the Lord with the whole heart, soul and mind, we hate Him. The scriptures are black and white about this. God made us to love Him in that way and if we are deceived by Satan to think that there is no God or that our God cannot be trusted entirely and we do not believe 100% in His promises, then we hate Him. "He who is not for Me is against Me".
I believe that this anger of men is the reason why Christ had to suffer. When I first was led to Christ, without any scripture or knowledge of the Bible, this was the uppermost thing that was revealed to me - that Jesus had died on the cross and suffered for MY sins.
It was what Peter preched in his first sermon. "This is what you have done to the Son of God".
It is man whom God appeases.
| 2016/6/3 6:07|
| Re: |
9Therefore my heart is glad and my glory rejoices; My flesh also will dwell securely. 10For You will not abandon my soul to Sheol; Nor will You allow Your Holy One to undergo decay. Psalms 16 10...
4Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted. 5But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed. 6All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him.… Isa 53 5
| 2016/6/3 6:51||Profile|
| Re: |
Brenda with respect ,,if. any Christian ever says they loved the lord with all there mind heart soul and strength ,all their Christian walk ,are plain lieing or deceiving them selves ,,, only Jesus did that ,,,that is perfect love ....
| 2016/6/3 6:54||Profile|
| Re: How would Paul deal with the Gentiles?|
/But David if I remember correctly those were the Jewish leaders that were coming to Paul. If so. Then it would make sense that he would use Moses and the law to preach Jesus to them. For they would already be familiar with the Torah.
How would Paul deal with the Gentiles? How would he preach Jesus to them? Acts 28:30-31 says,
... And he stayed two full years in his own rented quarters and was welcoming all who came to him, preaching the kingdom of God and teaching concerning the Lord Jesus Christ with all open this, unhindered...
That would have been one marvelous Bible study to be in on if I could call it such. I wonder what Paul would have been teaching and perhaps even demonstrating?
Posted just wondering./
Paul based his turning to the Gentiles on an OT prediction of Gentile salvation found in Isaiah 49:6. So besides Christ appearing to him on the road to Damascus and commissioning him to go to the Gentiles, part of Paul's foundation for his ministry to the Gentiles was based on OT prophecy. Compare Isaiah 49:6 with Acts 13:46-47 and Acts 26:22-23.
Having no NT canon I am assuming Paul would have dealt with the Gentiles in the same way he dealt with his Jewish brethren. I belive he took them also to the writings of Moses and the prophets. Gentile salvation is based on the same promises first made to Abraham and later confirmed bgy Moses and the Hebrew prophets. Gentiles have been allowed to particioate in a covenant made with THEM, the natural branches of Israel. The covenants were made with them and NOW the Gentiles were allowed in - Ephe 3:6. So I assume Paul would have taken them to the same writings he did the Jews as he preached to the Gentiles the kingdom of God and taught concerning the Lord Jesus. The same suffering Christ, revealed in the prophets, is the same Savior to the Jews and Gentiles based on the same set of promises. I know you know that but I'm just making the point that Paul probably in my opinion took the Gentiles back to the same OT promises and prophetic predictions he took the Jews to. One does not enter the kingdom of God except by being born again and that comes as a result of believing in and clinging to the suffering,death and resurrection of the Christ that appeared to Israel. All predicted by the prophets long before it happened.
21 Who has announced this from of old? Who has long since declared it? Is it not I, the Lord? And there is no other God besides Me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none except Me. (Isaiah 45:21)
9 Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is none like Me,
10 Declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, 'My purpose will be established, and I will accomplish all My good pleasure.' (Isaiah 46:9-10)
If we are now witnessing to someone out of the NT and we can unflinchingly claim that what we are showing them from the NT was prophesied many many long years before it actually happened then that can exponentially increase the impact the word has in my opinion. God said all these things before they even happened and God is then glorified as the God who knows and reveals the end from the beginning before it even happens. I am coming to believe more strongly that we put ourselves at a disadvantage if we keep our witnessing of Christ coming from the NT only. What a great prophetic symmetry of prophecy and fulfillment the Old and New Testament form.
25 Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past,
26 but now is manifested, and BY THE SCRIPTURES OF THE PROPHETS, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith;
27 to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, be the glory forever. Amen. (Romans 16:25-27)
See also Acts 8:25-38.
| 2016/6/3 8:22||Profile|