MATTHEW 28 IS IT OUR COMMISSION?

[csuguy]

Not so simple if the perspective is that Jesus gave a new command to spread the gospel to “all nations" after his resurrection.There is a very distinct contrast happening there.

Now the message of salvation by grace was to be spread to all people groups, not Israel exclusively. And that will derail Mat. 28:18-20.

So if I'm correct about JudgeRightly position. Then this has to be looked into further into the scriptures. I'm not saying that I agree with his theory but I have to look into it more closely.

I don't see why this makes it any more complicated to understand or derails the Great Commission. There is a shift here, yes, but one that is quite explicit. It is further followed up by additional revelation, such as in Acts 10.

 

[k0de]

I don't see why this makes it any more complicated to understand or derails the Great Commission.

Not complicated. And when I meant derail I meant to evangelis in a different way but ending up with the same results.

There is a shift here, yes, but one that is quite explicit. It is further followed up by additional revelation, such as in Acts 10.

I don't know about Acts 10 as of yet. I have to look in that direction more closely.

But my sources put it this way. Going into your position. That Jesus is not postponing His return, and waiting for all the believers or the church hurry up and reach every single person before “the end” comes. And that Matt. 24:14 is fullfilled in the book of Revelation:14:6-7. And it is preached against the whole world and at the same time condemning those who reject Jesus.

But, the point is: the “Great Commission”?

The other way around with Matthew 28 the Church would have believers belief to be responsible to accomplish the very thing that God Himself accomplishes as part of His plan.

And in this is light. Jesus is building His own church adding daily to the church for those who are destined to be saved.

“And the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved.” (Acts 2:47)

So the conclusion to the OP is:

Should we preach and evangelize? The answer is yes.

But, should we feel pressure to carry on the “Great Commission” of Matthew 28 and the necessity to advance the gospel in order to accomplish Christ’s work? The answer is no.

And my conclusion to all this uncessarry work is that it all boils down to same thing. To the Great Commission. And you error because the Church never said we were pressure to carry on with the Great Commission. It's choice to the believers if they want to go and evangelis.

Now looking into the direction of Acts 10

 

[Right Divider]

The myths of Churchianity has a strong hold on you guys. You'll do anything but actually read and understand what is written in scripture.

 

[csuguy]

But my sources put it this way. Going into your position. That Jesus is not postponing His return, and waiting for all the believers or the church hurry up and reach every single person before “the end” comes. And that Matt. 24:14 is fullfilled in the book of Revelation:14:6-7. And it is preached against the whole world and at the same time condemning those who reject Jesus.

Not sure where you are getting those ideas from - I never asserted that as my position. God has determined when Christ will return - and not even the Son knows when that is.

The other way around with Matthew 28 the Church would have believers belief to be responsible to accomplish the very thing that God Himself accomplishes as part of His plan.

Why are you trying to find a way around Matthew 28? Just accept what it states.

But, should we feel pressure to carry on the “Great Commission” of Matthew 28 and the necessity to advance the gospel in order to accomplish Christ’s work? The answer is no.

Yea... not following your train of thought at all... but this is definitely the wrong conclusion.

And my conclusion to all this uncessarry work is that it all boils down to same thing. To the Great Commission. And you error because the Church never said we were pressure to carry on with the Great Commission. It's choice to the believers if they want to go and evangelis.

Churches generally do teach the Great Commission; never attended a church that didn't. Not to say they aren't out there. And as far as the Early Church, the disciples and apostles most certainly did this.

 

[k0de]

Not sure where you are getting those ideas from - I never asserted that as my position. God has determined when Christ will return - and not even the Son knows when that is.



Why are you trying to find a way around Matthew 28? Just accept what it states.



Yea... not following your train of thought at all... but this is definitely the wrong conclusion.



Churches generally do teach the Great Commission; never attended a church that didn't. Not to say they aren't out there. And as far as the Early Church, the disciples and apostles most certainly did this.

Ok I thought you agree with RightDivider. You and I are pretty much on the same position then. This was really intended RightDivider let me quote it on his post.

My mistake.

 

[k0de]

The myths of Churchianity has a strong hold on you guys. You'll do anything but actually read and understand what is written in scripture.

Scriptures please to back up your claim.

 

[Right Divider]

Scriptures please to back up your claim.

Jesus chose twelve apostles that will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. It that hard to understand?

Mat 19:28 KJV 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.​

Jesus gave these SAME apostles (minus one to be replaced later) the commission. This commission is described in FIVE different passages of scripture.

In the Acts 1 version of this commission, immediately after Jesus' ascension, they replaced Judas to restore them to TWELVE.

From there on, they continued with the prophetic program for Israel. This is what we see in Acts 1-8.

In Acts 2:16-22, Peter quotes the prophet Joel describing the prophecy that was being fulfilled. All of this was a continuation of what God had been doing with and through Israel.

 

[TrumpTrainCA]

Scriptures please to back up your claim.

How would you have asked that question in the... ...oh, lets say, in the the second century, before there was a Bible?

 

[Right Divider]

How would you have asked that question in the... ...oh, lets say, in the the second century, before there was a Bible?

Why do you think that there was no Bible then?

The Bible was already well established in the first century.

 

[TrumpTrainCA]

Why do you think that there was no Bible then?......

Because, there wasn't?

The canon of the Bible (the NT to be precise) was not completed until the 4th century. And even then it physically existed in the form of individual epistles and books spread around to and fro. And even when the entire thing was collated into a single book, such a book did not exist in villages and provinces. You do understand that there was no printing press until the 16th century, right?

LOL. Folks like you I find quite amusing. You assume that because there is a book on every shelf these days that there was 2,000 years ago too. LOL. The very concept of a "book" didn't even exist.

Q: When was the first book made?
A: 1455: The Gutenberg Bible (in Latin) was the first major book printed in Europe with movable metal type by Johannes Gutenberg.

 

[Right Divider]

Because, there wasn't?

The canon of the Bible (the NT to be precise) was not completed until the 4th century. And even then it physically existed in the form of individual epistles and books spread around to and fro. And even when the entire thing was collated into a single book, such a book did not exist in villages and provinces. You do understand that there was no printing press until the 16th century, right?

LOL. Folks like you I find quite amusing. You assume that because there is a book on every shelf these days that there was 2,000 years ago too. LOL. The very concept of a "book" didn't even exist.

Q: When was the first book made?
A: 1455: The Gutenberg Bible (in Latin) was the first major book printed in Europe with movable metal type by Johannes Gutenberg.

So, according to you, the Bible was not the Bible until you could run over to Barnes and Nobles and pick one up?

 

[TrumpTrainCA]

So, according to you, the Bible was not the Bible until you could run over to Barnes and Nobles and pick one up?

Please try to concentrate sir. Do you suffer from OCD?

I originally asked someone how they could search the scriptures in the second century when there were no Bibles. You replied, "Why do you think that there was no Bible then?".

As we can see, the answer is, because there weren't. A person could not just grab a Bible and look up a verse until over a thousand years later.

 

[Right Divider]

Please try to concentrate sir. Do you suffer from OCD?

I originally asked someone how they could search the scriptures in the second century when there were no Bibles. You replied, "Why do you think that there was no Bible then?".

As we can see, the answer is, because there weren't. A person could not just grab a Bible and look up a verse until over a thousand years later.

The scriptures were widely available. Your theory is just plain silly.

 

[TrumpTrainCA]

The scriptures were widely available.......

Where? How? You are in a second century village: No books, no mail, no communications, no nothing. Where do you grab a scripture to look up.

YOU are the one who is being silly, not me.

 

[Right Divider]

Where? How? You are in a second century village: No books, no mail, no communications, no nothing. Where do you grab a scripture to look up.

YOU are the one who is being silly, not me.

I wasn't implying that there was scripture under every rock.

According to you they just needed to wait a thousand years. That's beyond silly.

 

[Aimiel]

So according to you it could be any eleven disciples and not the apostles?

If that's the way you read it. I read that those who had already been appointed as apostles having one of the best writers of the Gospels (Matthew) calling himself and the other ten: "Disciples," for a reason... so that we know this Great Commission is for all of the Body of Christ. If you don't know that: you don't know ANYTHING.

 

[Right Divider]

If that's the way you read it.

If that's the way who reads what?

The eleven were clearly the twelve minus one that will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

I read that those who had already been appointed as apostles having one of the best writers of the Gospels (Matthew) calling himself and the other ten: "Disciples," for a reason... so that we know this Great Commission is for all of the Body of Christ. If you don't know that: you don't know ANYTHING.

WE (meaning YOU) just keep making things up out of thin air. The "for a reason" is your made up excuse for your theory. Of course, the Bible gives no such indication.

And enough of the child accusations.

(it's also funny how Churchianity think that capitalizing things helps their "case").

 

[k0de]

Jesus chose twelve apostles that will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. It that hard to understand?

Mat 19:28 KJV 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.​

Nothing to difficult to understand at all. I just see this verse in a more futuristic way. Something more like Rev 4:4

"And around the throne were twenty-four thrones, and seated on the thrones were twenty-four elders dressed in white clothing, and on their heads were gold crowns."

Jesus gave these SAME apostles (minus one to be replaced later) the commission. This commission is described in FIVE different passages of scripture.

In the Acts 1 version of this commission, immediately after Jesus' ascension, they replaced Judas to restore them to TWELVE.

Yes I know they added Matthias. I can't find this version of the commission in Acts. Where can I find it?

From there on, they continued with the prophetic program for Israel. This is what we see in Acts 1-8.

In Acts 2:16-22, Peter quotes the prophet Joel describing the prophecy that was being fulfilled. All of this was a continuation of what God had been doing with and through Israel.

Yes I know. But how is that judging the 12 tribes of Israel on earth?

By the way thanks for jumping in and telling that Trump guy we're to go. He was creepy could be the @realdonaldtrump. Lol

 

[Right Divider]

Nothing to difficult to understand at all. I just see this verse in a more futuristic way. Something more like Rev 4:4

"And around the throne were twenty-four thrones, and seated on the thrones were twenty-four elders dressed in white clothing, and on their heads were gold crowns."

The book of Revelation is entirely Israeli.

Yes I know they added Matthias. I can't find this version of the commission in Acts. Where can I find it?

Matthew 28 and Acts 1 are both describing Jesus' last instructions before His ascension.

Yes I know. But how is that judging the 12 tribes of Israel on earth?

Just exactly where do you think that the kingdom in the land will be?

By the way thanks for jumping in and telling that Trump guy we're to go. He was creepy could be the real@donaldtrump. Lol

He's got some very strange ideas about scripture.

 

[Aimiel]

If that's the way who reads what?

The eleven were clearly the twelve minus one that will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.


WE (meaning YOU) just keep making things up out of thin air. The "for a reason" is your made up excuse for your theory. Of course, the Bible gives no such indication.

And enough of the child accusations.

(it's also funny how Churchianity think that capitalizing things helps their "case").

I'm done, since you ignore what I post and then use satire to try to feel like a big man. :nono: