Thank you kindly for the reply. (I think I'm getting our conversation over two threads somewhat mixed together, sorry about that.)
I believe that God has opened up the way to Himself, through the Teachings of His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, whom God did confirm by his death and Resurrection.
Him, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
(Acts 2:23-24 KJV)
And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
(Romans 1:4 KJV)
Most Christians I've met (not including the Catholics) don't rather give a crap about obedience to the teachings of Jesus, or even care to understand them. And yet:
And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?
(Luke 6:46 KJV)
The parable continues on to explain that the Teaching of Jesus is the foundation of our salvation.
Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like:
(Luke 6:47 KJV)
I know the foundation of my faith, and (though it may be rude) have been trying to tease it out of you.
Not if they don't obey Him.
So much for faith, then. Even Jesus did not limit himself to Jews. Regarding a Roman soldier, he said:
When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.
(Matthew 8:10 KJV)
And it's obvious from Acts 10 that Jesus did not limit the Gospel only to the Jews, even though God did have to overcome their racism (though this was coming from James the brother).
Even before the ascension:
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
(Matthew 28:19-20 KJV)
Did Jesus make a mistake here?
For that specific mission, I agree. But are you saying that the entirety of the Teachings of Jesus were only for the Jews? And that they were all dispensed with upon His death? If so, why were the Gospel accounts, which were written after the ascension of Jesus, say this? Why don't those authors say so?
Indeed it was at hand, and started in Acts chapter two.
And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
(Mark 1:15 KJV)
How could this be a different Gospel, if there is only one Gospel?
The Good News is that God sent His Son to teach us the ways of Repentance for the Forgiveness of Sin.
Do you believe that there are two Gospels? I've run into these, calling themselves Acts 28 Christians. But they present a Jesus that was clueless, teaching a useless Gospel, reducing Jesus to a pawn for mere slaughter to satisfy the blood lust of a God.
Okay then, you realize that the Gospel which Jesus preached was different from that of Paul, and your reason to reject what Jesus taught is that you're a Gentile. Then these verses become very perplexing, no?
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
(Galatians 3:28 KJV)
Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.
(Colossians 3:11 KJV)
What I hear, then, is you saying that since you're Gentile, you are saved through the teachings of Paul who said there is neither Jew nor Gentile. I'm sorry, but I find that really confusing.
But indeed, a saving grace as taught during the latter part of the ministry of Paul cannot be found in the words of Jesus, the Very Grace of God.
And the Word (LOGOS) was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
(John 1:14 KJV)
LOGOS, means Teaching. Yet if I understand you correctly, such LOGOS expired at Jesus' death?
Says who?
That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
(Ephesians 2:12 KJV)
Weren't the Jews who rejected Christ (or never having heard of Christ) also without Christ? And again, weren't the disciples sent to all the nations? Every one who did not hear the Gospel of Jesus could be said to be without Christ, not merely Gentiles, and there were Gentiles who adopted Judaism as their faith. How else could the following even happen?
And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert. And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,
(Acts 8:26-27 KJV)
The eunuch was most certainly not Jewish.
Did God make this same Jesus both Lord and Christ only for the Jews?
Of course the house of Israel should know. As should all nations.
I am of the house of Rhema - the spoken Word of God as taught through His Son the Lord Jesus Christ.
To whom else should one listen?
Hebrews is not in our canon, because it contains two great errors. Just as with the Trinity, it is strongly discouraged here to speak truth about these. Maybe by PM.
That's not what the text actually says. It does not say, go throughout all nations to teach the Jews. It literally says to Teach ALL Nations.
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
(Matthew 28:19-20 KJV)
And I find no translation problems here. The text could not be more clear.
Interesting. Why do you believe that? What in the text could possibly give you that impression? Where does it say "will be" or "shall be"?
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
(Matthew 28:18 KJV)
There's no future tense or subjunctive mood in this passage. Technically "is" was written in the Aorist tense, which is typically rendered as past tense... "was given unto me." I'll provide the Young's Literal for comparison.
And having come near, Jesus spake to them, saying, 'Given to me was all authority in heaven and on earth;
(Matthew 28:18 YLT)
Was he? Or wasn't he? This is either true now, or it is not. Again, what would make one think differently?
People have been baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost for
centuries. Some scholars think this was a later addition by Catholic scribes to prove the Trinity. I believe that by the time Matthew penned these words, the rite of baptism had expanded so that none could think the Father was not part of this:
And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
(Acts 2:42 KJV)
Things got so bad that Paul even started to reject water baptism completely.
I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
(1 Corinthians 1:14-15 KJV)
While this might be an interesting discussion for later, I would note that the word "name" is singular. The text doesn't say in the
Names of the Father (YHWY) the Son (Y'shua) and ... (does the Holy Spirit even have a name?).
But in Matthew 28, there is no indication whatsoever that it applies or should apply to a future date. I am curious, though, did you hear this teaching from somewhere, is it something that just makes sense to you, is it a church tradition? (We can put a pin in it.)
Then those things he taught ought not to have been different from that which Jesus taught. Can we agree on that?
This is a view held in America by some rather fundamentalist believers who claim that there can only be 12 Apostles, and that Paul was selected by God to replace Judas. As for myself, it would seem that Paul had to fight for recognition as an Apostle, and he certainly protested a bit too much about it.
My apologies for the Socratic Method, I know it tends to irk a lot of people. But I'd rather understand what you believe the basis to be for your salvation, than me just spouting off what I think everyone ought to believe.
And I thank you for your patience.
Rhema
(So, why were all your sins forgiven?)
