Got ?s about 12 original disciples etc

[Sajarie]

Okay, long story, but was trying to find out 12 original disciples. Wed night while at work I was going through my travel booklet of book of John and started looking for them in there. I assumed Mark and Luke were one of original 12; however, someone on the phone did internet search and came up with 13 names and Luke and Mark were not one of those.

Who were the original 12 disciples?

What's the difference between a disciple and an apostle?

What's the apostle's creed?

If Mark and Luke were not original disciples, who were they, where did they come from, when did they enter the picture, and how did they come about writing a gospel?

Thanks in advance.

[Literalist-Luke]

Matthew 10:2-4 - "These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him."

Mark was "John Mark" of the book of Acts, who was an early traveler with Paul. From historical accounts of the time, we know that John Mark apparently became close friends with Simon Peter later on. His "Gospel of Mark" is commonly taken to be Peter's recollections of the Gospel account.

Luke was a medical doctor and Gentile. He also wrote the book of Acts. His Gospel account is based on information that he gathered by interviewing people around the area. From the many comments in his account about Mary "pondering these things", it seems reasonable to infer that a lot of the information in his account came from her. That would be a very reasonable explanation for why Luke is the only one who includes an account of the night of Jesus' birth, because he got the story straight from Mary. His Gospel is unique for being written with a medical perspective in mind, specifically about the virgin birth for one example. Luke later accompanied Paul on his journey to Rome to stand trial before Caesar.

Getting back to the original 12, when Judas hanged himself, that left only 11, so they picked Matthias to be Judas' replacement. Paul was designated an apostle later on by the Lord Himself, so I've often wondered if Paul shouldn't be considered the actual replacement for Judas and that perhaps the 11 were getting ahead of God in naming Matthias, but I don't see any way of getting a solid answer to that question in this life, so I don't worry about it too much. It's just a little side note.

Hope this helps. :nod

[Sajarie]

Thanks :)

It was a fun night when this came up. Four of my co-workers got involved and one co-worker called 2 people and they were on the company speakerphone swapped between hold status as we either talked to either one or we hid or conversation from the manager walking by from time to time. So seven people were in on a bible discussion about the original 12 disciples. This went on for an hour or so and one co-worker concluded that she needed to read the bible more.

Is a disciple also an apostle?

[BHiles]

Also Apostles must have been recruited by Jesus, Himself.

[Literalist-Luke]

Also Apostles must have been recruited by Jesus, Himself.And they also had to have personally witnessed the resurrected Jesus.

[Literalist-Luke]

Is a disciple also an apostle?A disciple is not necessarily an Apostle. Notice that Jesus said in Matthew 28:19 "Go and make disciples of all nations". The apostles were all disciples of Jesus, but you and I are also disciples of Jesus. We are trying to be conformed to His image and to follow His example. But we are not Apostles.

[Jany]

In agreement , Luke <><

[G-d Seeker]

...Getting back to the original 12, when Judas hanged himself, that left only 11, so they picked Matthias to be Judas' replacement. Paul was designated an apostle later on by the Lord Himself, so I've often wondered if Paul shouldn't be considered the actual replacement for Judas and that perhaps the 11 were getting ahead of God in naming Matthias, but I don't see any way of getting a solid answer to that question in this life, so I don't worry about it too much. It's just a little side note....Hiya Luke! How are ya? What do ya think of...

Acts 1:21
"Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us--
1:22
beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us--one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection."
1:23
So they put forward two men, Joseph called Barsabbas (who was also called Justus ), and Matthias .
1:24
And they prayed and said, "You, Lord, who know the hearts of all men, show which one of these two You have chosen
1:25
to occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place."
1:26
And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles.

According to the rules set forth by the Holy Spirit inspired words of Peter above, Paul could not have been one of the 12. Paul did NOT “accompany them all the time beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from them.” Also, Peter says they prayed and that the Lord would choose “Lord, you know the hearts of all men, show the one you have chosen…”

Besides, Paul was an apostle to the uncircumcision and Peter and the 11 were apostles to the circumcision.
Gal 2:7
But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised
2:8
(for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles ),
2:9
and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

[Literalist-Luke]

Hiya Luke! How are ya? What do ya think of...

Acts 1:21
"Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us--
1:22
beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us--one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection."
1:23
So they put forward two men, Joseph called Barsabbas (who was also called Justus ), and Matthias .
1:24
And they prayed and said, "You, Lord, who know the hearts of all men, show which one of these two You have chosen
1:25
to occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place."
1:26
And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles.

According to the rules set forth by the Holy Spirit inspired words of Peter above, Paul could not have been one of the 12. Paul did NOT “accompany them all the time beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from them.” Also, Peter says they prayed and that the Lord would choose “Lord, you know the hearts of all men, show the one you have chosen…”

Besides, Paul was an apostle to the uncircumcision and Peter and the 11 were apostles to the circumcision.
Gal 2:7
But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised
2:8
(for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles ),
2:9
and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.Uh huh, I figured that would bring up the old argu..., er um, (ahem) discussion. :):

I would point out that the Holy Spirit did not become fully manifest in them until Acts 2. That doesn't mean that they were not indwelt already, after all Jesus had already "breathed on them", so I could see an argument either way on whether or not Peter's words were really "Holy Spirit inspired" at this point. I've always found it a little odd that they cast lots at this point. That almost seems like they weren't willing to wait for a more definite answer from God. Later on in Acts 13:2 we see "While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, 'Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.'"

If they were able to "hear" the Holy Spirit so clearly on this occasion, could they not have heard Him just as clearly on the occasion of Matthias' appointment? So why did they have to resort to casting lots?

Anyway, I'm not saying the Matthias should not be viewed as one of the Apostles, I could just as easily see Paul being a 13th Apostle.

As for Paul's supposed ministry to the "uncircumcision", we've already been round and round about that, so I'm not going to go there again. :):

[G-d Seeker]

Uh huh, I figured that would bring up the old argu..., er um, (ahem) discussion. :):

I would point out that the Holy Spirit did not become fully manifest in them until Acts 2. That doesn't mean that they were not indwelt already, after all Jesus had already "breathed on them", so I could see an argument either way on whether or not Peter's words were really "Holy Spirit inspired" at this point.Dude... what about all the OT writers? Their writings are not Holy Spirit inspired?

I've always found it a little odd that they cast lots at this point.Yeah, and Gideon and the fleece was odd too. I bet we could come up with a very long list of the queer way things were done in Biblical times.

That almost seems like they weren't willing to wait for a more definite answer from God.Really? Sometimes God answers my prayers immediately. But don't forget,... "When they had entered the city, they went up to the upper room where they were staying; ... these all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women...at this time, Peter stood up" (Acts 1:13-15).

Later on in Acts 13:2 we see "While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, 'Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.'"

If they were able to "hear" the Holy Spirit so clearly on this occasion, could they not have heard Him just as clearly on the occasion of Matthias' appointment? So why did they have to resort to casting lots?I guess I never thought of Peter and the rest of the disciples "resorting" to anything considering they were "all with one mind continually devoting themselves to prayer." So you wonder if not audibly hearing the Holy Spirit on this occasion means the Holy Spirit was not "hearing" them and/or not answering the prayers in which they were continually devoting themselves?

Anyway, I'm not saying the Matthias should not be viewed as one of the Apostles, I could just as easily see Paul being a 13th Apostle.Scripture clearly states that Paul was not qualified to become one of the 12. Like Peter said "it was necessary that of the men who accompanied them from the baptism of John until the day Jesus was taken up - one of these must become a witness with them."

As for Paul's supposed ministry to the "uncircumcision", we've already been round and round about that, so I'm not going to go there again. :):Yes, I thought you agreed Paul had a ministry to the uncircumcision? I'm not pushing for a "different gospel" here; I'm simply showing a different audience according to Paul's own writing. Matter of fact, I thought that was your whole argument - it was a different audience and NOT a different gospel.

[Literalist-Luke]

Dude... what about all the OT writers? Their writings are not Holy Spirit inspired?Of course they are.Yeah, and Gideon and the fleece was odd too. I bet we could come up with a very long list of the queer way things were done in Biblical times.Very true.Really? Sometimes God answers my prayers immediately. But don't forget,... "When they had entered the city, they went up to the upper room where they were staying; ... these all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women...at this time, Peter stood up" (Acts 1:13-15).That’s a good point.I guess I never thought of Peter and the rest of the disciples "resorting" to anything considering they were "all with one mind continually devoting themselves to prayer." So you wonder if not audibly hearing the Holy Spirit on this occasion means the Holy Spirit was not "hearing" them and/or not answering the prayers in which they were continually devoting themselves?No, it was just a personal thing of mine is all. See, if I was praying about a decision I was working on, I would not “cast lots” and use that to make the decision, even if I had asked the Lord to “bless” the casting of the lots. I suppose that it seemed weird to me personally that they would make such a monumental decision based on such a random method. But you’re right, there are plenty of other places in the Bible where “weird” methods of making a correct determination of God’s will are used.Scripture clearly states that Paul was not qualified to become one of the 12. Like Peter said "it was necessary that of the men who accompanied them from the baptism of John until the day Jesus was taken up - one of these must become a witness with them."Right, what I was wondering was whether or not that was really the Holy Spirit’s wish or if Peter was simply expressing his own personal opinion. However, after you point out all the praying that they had been doing, I have no problem accepting it as the genuine wish of the Holy Spirit.Yes, I thought you agreed Paul had a ministry to the uncircumcision? I'm not pushing for a "different gospel" here; I'm simply showing a different audience according to Paul's own writing. Matter of fact, I thought that was your whole argument - it was a different audience and NOT a different gospel.Yes, that’s exactly right. I guess I was putting words in your mouth and anticipating that you were about to start arguing for a separate Gospel. My apology for my mistake. :redface

Excellent points here, you’ve convinced me, Matthias should be considered a genuine member of the 12 after all. :thumb

[G-d Seeker]

No, it was just a personal thing of mine is all. See, if I was praying about a decision I was working on, I would not “cast lots” and use that to make the decision, even if I had asked the Lord to “bless” the casting of the lots. I suppose that it seemed weird to me personally that they would make such a monumental decision based on such a random method. But you’re right, there are plenty of other places in the Bible where “weird” methods of making a correct determination of God’s will are used.I wonder if casting lots or something very similar is found in other places in Scripture and/or if it is something that was commonly done in ancient Jewish tradition?

Right, what I was wondering was whether or not that was really the Holy Spirit’s wish or if Peter was simply expressing his own personal opinion...Ah, I see.

Yes, that’s exactly right. I guess I was putting words in your mouth and anticipating that you were about to start arguing for a separate Gospel. My apology for my mistake. :redfaceThat's okay, like I said before, you're really cute in red.

Actually, AnyDayNow wrote a few things which make me wonder about my approach. Apparently he wasn’t far from where I am on this at an earlier point in his walk with the Lord. Now, he sees one eternal gospel which stays constant (problem = sin, solution = Jesus) but that the way in which the message is conveyed changes. But somehow, I don’t think he sees dispensations but simply a change in the way the good news is presented depending on audience. Unfortunately, I can never get him to talk long enough on the subject to get the full picture.

Tell me something, you don’t go for dispensations anymore? Is that right? If not, how do you see it now?

Excellent points here, you’ve convinced me, Matthias should be considered a genuine member of the 12 after all. :thumbWell, if you are convinced, it’s probably the Scripture that did it. The trick is for each of us is finding that particular passage or verse that lights the bulb or flips the switch. If we can keep doing this for one another without offending or being impatient and then giving one another as much grace as we can muster up, we have the ability to build this Body that we are.

BTW, cool map in the other thread. I hope it’s okay that I swiped it for my own documents?

[Literalist-Luke]

I don’t think he sees dispensations but simply a change in the way the good news is presented depending on audience. Unfortunately, I can never get him to talk long enough on the subject to get the full picture.

Tell me something, you don’t go for dispensations anymore? Is that right? If not, how do you see it now? “Dispensationalism” is the idea that God's approach in dealing with humankind has been a gradually developing process in which the rules change occasionally. Two prominent examples of occasions when the rules supposedly “changed” would be the giving of the Ten Commandments, which initiated the Mosaic Covenant, and Christ's death/resurrection, which made the so-called Church Age possible. (There are other examples in Biblical history, these two merely stand out in my mind as I'm typing this.)

The argument used most often is that the beginning of the Church Age supposedly necessitated the end of the Mosaic Covenant in which God's dealing with humans was primarily through Israel. The Mosaic Covenant is now over (supposedly) and God is now dealing primarily through the Church. The reasoning this leads to about the Rapture is that when the Rapture occurs, membership in the Church is cut off, meaning that the “rules” that apply during the Church Age can no longer be in effect necessitating a reverting back to the Mosaic Covenant rules and a change of God’s focus from the Church to Israel. This argument is most often used in support of the Pre-Trib position, since God said in Daniel 9:26-27 that there would be so many “sevens” for Israel and, as most of us would agree, there is still one “seven” left to go. Therefore, since God (supposedly) cannot be dealing with Israel and the Church simultaneously, the Church must be gone by the time that final seven years begins.

The problems I see with this line of reasoning are as follows:

1. The suggestion that God “cannot” deal with two groups at once is ridiculous. God can do whatever He durn well pleases.

2. Even a Dispensationalist would agree that Israel's national salvation depends on their final acceptance as a nation of Jesus not only as their Messiah, but also as their Savior. Therefore, the “rules” of the Mosaic Covenant are not in effect, at least certainly not in their original form (which would beg the question, what other changes can we expect? to which I do not see a reasonable answer being possible). There was no Jesus during the Old Testament that Israel had to accept, so the Mosaic Covenant’s rules therefore cannot be re-applied. There's no goin' back.

3. It seems foolish to me to suggest that every single Gentile on the entire planet who remains after the Rapture (unless it is literally a Post-Trib Rapture) has absolutely no further opportunity for salvation. This would mean that God's focus will not be exclusively on Israel. Even Pre-Tribbers agree that Gentiles will be saved (by the billions, is what Pre-Tribbers usually say) during the Tribulation. That sets up a contradiction in a Pre-Trib Dispensationalist’s position.

4. Paul stated in his epistles that the Mosaic sacrifices were never intended to achieve true justification before God for Israel. They were only a “shadow”. Ultimately, even the Old Testament saints are dependent on Christ's death on the cross for their salvation. For God, this is no problem since He sees history all occurring simultaneously, so to Him when Old Testament saints died, Christ's death was an already-accomplished fact since He was “slain from the foundation of the world”. This being the case, to my way of thinking, Christ's death is the only reason that anybody ever gets into Heaven all the way from Adam & Eve until the end of the Millennial Kingdom. This being the case, I tend to be very suspicious of Dispensationalism. The procedures and rules changed, yes, but the means of salvation has always been Christ's death ever since that first bite from the forbidden fruit. Without Christ’s death on the cross, there would be no salvation for anybody at any time in all of history, no can do, no sir, no how, do not pass Go, do not collect $200. God even specified that Jesus’ death would be the key event when he said at Genesis 3:15:

“I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.”

In fact, I would even suggest that the Mosaic Covenant is STILL in effect today and that we are living under it! Now before you start accusing me of being a Judiadizing legalist, I'll point out that we live in a time or a phase of the Mosaic Covenant when the Mosaic Covenant has been fulfilled on our behalf by Christ’s perfect, sinless life, and we are therefore not bound by its rules, just as Paul went to great lengths to explain in Romans and Galatians, among other places. Because Christ paid a price for us that He didn’t owe for Himself, we don't have to worry about the Mosaic Law, because Christ fulfilled it. The Law is still in effect, but we can get out of it, so to speak, by claiming Christ’s death as our own. That's why Paul explains at great lengths that those who choose to live as being under the Law must obey the ENTIRE law or bring condemnation on themselves, because the Law is still in effect today. It's just that you and I don't have to worry about it, because we have been given judicial immunity because of Christ’s death.

That being the case, if you agree with this line of reasoning, the Rapture will have NO EFFECT on who God is dealing with. He’ll simply be clearing the chessboard, so to speak, of His own people. The ones left will still be eligible to be “grafted in”, which many will no doubt do as soon as they realize what has happened.

There’s another problem with Dispensationalism that I’ll mention. Notice in Romans Chapter 1 that God is holding everyone throughout history in the entire world responsible for rejecting Him:

Romans 1:19-20 – “...what may be known about God is plain to them [humankind in general], because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.”

Notice here that God is talking about a level of revelation that involves no Israel, no Mosaic sacrificial system, no Scriptures, and no Christ. Only nature and the creation around us. God says we should know based on His revelation of Himself in the creation around us. This is precisely the conditions that existed up until Moses wrote the Pentateuch. And yet Paul is using it as a reason for God's condemnation of the lost AFTER the start of the Church Age. “...what may be known about God IS plain to them...” “...so that people ARE without excuse.”

Here’s why that’s a problem – Traditional Dispensationalism has one phase of God’s revelation replacing the previous one, all going sequentially. This is why a lot of people believe that, today, unless you believe on the name “Jesus”, you are automatically condemned to hell, even if you've never even heard the name Jesus. Romans Chapter 1 directly contradicts this. Romans Chapter 1 suggests that we are only responsible for the level of revelation that we have been given. That being the case, the only logical conclusion is that God’s phases of revelation do not replace each other, but rather are added on top of each other.

The highest level of revelation we have been given thus far is the combination of the completed Word of God along with the historical revelation of Christ Himself in the flesh when He visited the earth 2000 years ago. But that doesn't mean that everything else before that simply gets thrown out with the bathwater.

I should also point out that this does not provide an “excuse” for us to not respond to Christ. We cannot say “Well, I don't want to respond to Christ, but I can agree that the world around me was definitely created by an intelligent being, so I'll just respond on that level.” Nope, sorry Charlie, you're still condemned, because Christ was revealed to you and you have to respond to the revelation that you were given.

So my point is that different phases of Dispensationalism do not cancel each other out, they simply clarify previous phases. It's like adding layers on a cake. Each layer makes the cake better, because it adds more flavor, but the lower layers are still kept. The key is that we are all responsible for the level of revelation that we have been given.Well, if you are convinced, it’s probably the Scripture that did it.That, and your pointing them out to me. :thumbThe trick is for each of us is finding that particular passage or verse that lights the bulb or flips the switch. If we can keep doing this for one another without offending or being impatient and then giving one another as much grace as we can muster up, we have the ability to build this Body that we are. Agreed completely. :nodBTW, cool map in the other thread. I hope it’s okay that I swiped it for my own documents?What?!
:bat :nunchucks http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w40/litluke/iroc-cop.gif http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w40/litluke/5822015413.gif

OK, that’s gonna require a report to the Federal Copyright Commission of an infringement violation as well as a report to the Federal Trade Commission of a trademark infringement. Oh, and uh, that’ll be 25¢. :D:

[Literalist-Luke]

Note to mods about previous post - I am not suggesting that Pre-Trib is incorrect. In fact, I am a "reborn" Pre-Tribber. :D: I'm only arguing that Dispensationalism is not a valid argument in Pre-Trib's defense. Just wanted to clarify that. Thanks. :wave

[roadrunner570]

A quick note on John Mark, many scholars feel this passage is referring to him:

Mk 14:51 A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him,
Mk 14:52 he fled naked, leaving his garment behind.

I know it doesn't say that it IS John Mark, but its kind of an odd thing to throw in there, this comes in right as they are taking Jesus away. If this is him, then it would put Mark in Jesus' presence at the time of Jesus' arrest.

[G-d Seeker]

Thanks very much for writing this out!

Dispensationalism” is…

The problems I see with this line of reasoning are as follows:

1. The suggestion that God “cannot” deal with two groups at once is ridiculous. God can do whatever He durn well pleases.When you say He can deal with two groups, do you mean that He does this now or He will do it after the Body is gone? If you mean now, do you mean Jews are saved by the faith they currently have if they haven’t heard of Jesus before?

2. Even a Dispensationalist would agree that Israel's national salvation depends on their final acceptance as a nation of Jesus not only as their Messiah, but also as their Savior. Therefore, the “rules” of the Mosaic Covenant are not in effect, at least certainly not in their original form (which would beg the question, what other changes can we expect? to which I do not see a reasonable answer being possible). There was no Jesus during the Old Testament that Israel had to accept, so the Mosaic Covenant’s rules therefore cannot be re-applied. There's no goin' back.Would you agree…

Eternal gospel, given due to grace, is knowing you have sin & need Savior

Rules:
Adam to Moses = faith + works perfecting faith (eternal gospel given through angels)
Moses to cross = faith + works perfecting faith along with Law following (eternal gospel primarily given through nation which came out of Egypt - Israel)
Cross to rapture = faith + works of Jesus perfecting faith (eternal gospel given through Church)
70th week = faith + works (not taking mark) (eternal gospel given through 144K and angel)
MK = faith + Law written on hearts of Israel & Judah who will give eternal gospel to gentiles who must have faith + works perfecting faith

In all cases, eternal life is only possible due to the shed blood of Jesus Christ.

3. It seems foolish to me to suggest that every single Gentile on the entire planet who remains after the Rapture (unless it is literally a Post-Trib Rapture) has absolutely no further opportunity for salvation. This would mean that God's focus will not be exclusively on Israel. Even Pre-Tribbers agree that Gentiles will be saved (by the billions, is what Pre-Tribbers usually say) during the Tribulation. That sets up a contradiction in a Pre-Trib Dispensationalist’s position.Why is it a contradiction? I thought the focus on Israel meant that they were now the ones who would be responsible for giving the eternal gospel (again)? Won’t gentiles be saved during the MK through Israel? This will begin with the 144K during the 70th week. Although “membership” in the Body is over, eternal life is not.

… Here’s why that’s a problem – Traditional Dispensationalism has one phase of God’s revelation replacing the previous one, all going sequentially. This is why a lot of people believe that, today, unless you believe on the name “Jesus”, you are automatically condemned to hell, even if you've never even heard the name Jesus. Romans Chapter 1 directly contradicts this. Romans Chapter 1 suggests that we are only responsible for the level of revelation that we have been given. That being the case, the only logical conclusion is that God’s phases of revelation do not replace each other, but rather are added on top of each other...Okay, so if a native in some remote land is living by the revelation he has before him (nature) and responds to it the best he can with the faith he has, will he then go to heaven based on that alone? But a missionary comes along and tells him about Jesus and he chooses not to believe, so he goes to hell? Wouldn’t this point of view make one not want to share the gospel of Jesus? Do you see what I am trying to say?

And as far as the "adding on top of one another", you must admit that once the Body is gone the "adding" of the rules which applied to the Church is no longer applicable (the layer would be gone). The tribulation is clearly faith + not taking the mark. The Body "rules" are faith + no works of your own since Jesus accomplished all works of righteousness on the cross.

What do you think of this…

It is written that Cornelius was a devout man and one who feared God with all his household and gave many alms to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually (Acts 10). This writing shows that he prayed to Yahweh and not some foreign god. It appears he had done all that was necessary to show his desire to be known by God yet later we find out he was not saved at all (Acts 11:14).

If the rules of layering applied, wouldn’t Cornelius already have been saved (faith + works perfecting faith)? For that matter, wouldn’t Peter and John and James already have been saved under the previous layer before Christ introduced himself to them?

[Literalist-Luke]

When you say He can deal with two groups, do you mean that He does this now or He will do it after the Body is gone?I’m not saying that He’ll ever be dealing with two groups. I’m only saying that He’s not restricted to one group at a time like Dispensationalists suggest He is.If you mean now, do you mean Jews are saved by the faith they currently have if they haven’t heard of Jesus before?Like I said, we are responsible for what has been revealed to us. Keep in mind, however, that the entire point of the Mosaic Law was to point the way to Jesus. For somebody to practice Judaism but to be unaware of their need for an ultimate sacrifice would seem unlikely to get them into Heaven.Would you agree…
Eternal gospel, given due to grace, is knowing you have sin & need Savior

Rules:
Adam to Moses = faith + works perfecting faith (eternal gospel given through angels)
Moses to cross = faith + works perfecting faith along with Law following (eternal gospel primarily given through nation which came out of Egypt - Israel)
Cross to rapture = faith + works of Jesus perfecting faith (eternal gospel given through Church)
70th week = faith + works (not taking mark) (eternal gospel given through 144K and angel)
MK = faith + Law written on hearts of Israel & Judah who will give eternal gospel to gentiles who must have faith + works perfecting faith

In all cases, eternal life is only possible due to the shed blood of Jesus Christ.I would have said only faith. Nothing else. Zippo. Nada. The works that you mention should be an automatic by-product of the saving faith that is already in place.Why is it a contradiction? I thought the focus on Israel meant that they were now the ones who would be responsible for giving the eternal gospel (again)?Not during the Tribulation. They don’t even reconcile with God until the end of the Tribulation. You’re probably speaking of the two witnesses and the 144,000, however, aren’t you? The problem with that is that all 144,002 of them have saving faith in Jesus. They’re Christians. Even if they are God’s primary witness during the Tribulation, His focus will still not be on Israel, because He’ll be using Jewish Christians. The nation of Israel will not be reconciled with God until the end of the Tribulation. That “remnant” that Paul speaks of in Romans 9-11 will not be available as God’s primary focus until after the Tribulation is over.

That’s not really the point I was making, however. Daniel’s 70 “sevens” have to do with the entire nation of Israel, not just a segment of 144,002 of them. A pre-tribulational dispensationalist (try to get your tongue around that one :D: ) would argue that, after the Rapture, God’s primary focus is back on Israel again, re: the 70th Seven. They would also argue, however, that a large segment of the world’s Gentile population will be saved during the Tribulation and will be “Tribulation Saints”. If the clock turns back to the Mosaic Covenant by virtue of the 70th Week being underway, then the world’s Gentiles would have to convert to Judaism to be saved, just as they would have had to do prior to Jesus. So which is it? Will the Gentiles be saved in mass numbers or will salvation be only by converting to a religious system that the world will be systematically trying to annihilate during that time period? So you see, there is a built in self-contradiction there.Won’t gentiles be saved during the MK through Israel?I’ve always figured they would be able to respond directly to Jesus in a manner similar to what we do today. They’ll have to participate in certain Jewish feasts as we see in Old Testament prophecies, such as in Isaiah and Ezekiel, but I don’t see Gentiles having to go through a Jew to agree that they need to claim Jesus’ death for their sins. I’m not as read up on that area as I am on others, however, so with some study in that area, I might turn out to be wrong.Okay, so if a native in some remote land is living by the revelation he has before him (nature) and responds to it the best he can with the faith he has, will he then go to heaven based on that alone?That would seem to be the case, yes.But a missionary comes along and tells him about Jesus and he chooses not to believe, so he goes to hell? But a person who was pre-disposed to respond positively to the creation around them will hear the message and will say “Ah! That’s the missing piece I was looking for!” There have been so many cases of third world salvation experiences like this over the years that I couldn’t even begin to guess at the huge number of them.Wouldn’t this point of view make one not want to share the gospel of Jesus? Do you see what I am trying to say? Yeah, I see what you’re saying, but if a person is predisposed to surrender their pride in light of the creation around them and to admit that they’ve fallen short of the standard of the Maker of the universe, then there shouldn’t be any issue with responding favorably to the Gospel once they hear it.And as far as the "adding on top of one another", you must admit that once the Body is gone the "adding" of the rules which applied to the Church is no longer applicable (the layer would be gone). The tribulation is clearly faith + not taking the mark. So not taking the Mark would be another addition, wouldn’t it? :D:The Body "rules" are faith + no works of your own since Jesus accomplished all works of righteousness on the cross.The Body “rules” are that you must turn in a perfect performance under the Law (which for us means the Mosaic Law) or you are condemned. Fortunately, we can turn in Jesus’ performance on our behalf. But we still have to turn in a perfect performance, one way or the other. And that’s the case throughout history at all times in any age. Whatever Law had been given at the time, you have to show God a perfect performance.What do you think of this…

It is written that Cornelius was a devout man and one who feared God with all his household and gave many alms to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually (Acts 10). This writing shows that he prayed to Yahweh and not some foreign god. It appears he had done all that was necessary to show his desire to be known by God yet later we find out he was not saved at all (Acts 11:14).I don’t see that he was headed for hell at that point, he was merely being given information that would allow him to complete his faith.If the rules of layering applied, wouldn’t Cornelius already have been saved (faith + works perfecting faith)?If Peter had never shown up, I could easily entertain the suggestion that Cornelius could have still gone to Heaven, based on his faith in what he knew.For that matter, wouldn’t Peter and John and James already have been saved under the previous layer before Christ introduced himself to them?I don’t see why not.

[G-d Seeker]

Not during the Tribulation. They don’t even reconcile with God until the end of the Tribulation. You’re probably speaking of the two witnesses and the 144,000, however, aren’t you? The problem with that is that all 144,002 of them have saving faith in Jesus. They’re Christians.But the 144K are not the Body. Notice that they are all Jews? They are the first fruits. The first fruits of what? They are Israel. All Israel will have faith in Jesus. The responsibility of getting the eternal gospel out will no longer be the responsibility of the Body (we will be gone). This 144K will not preach that one is baptized into the Body of Christ. So, the parts of the epistles which teach this will not apply to them, correct?

Even if they are God’s primary witness during the Tribulation, His focus will still not be on Israel, because He’ll be using Jewish Christians. The nation of Israel will not be reconciled with God until the end of the Tribulation. That “remnant” that Paul speaks of in Romans 9-11 will not be available as God’s primary focus until after the Tribulation is over.The final portion of “all” Israel will not be reconciled with God until the very end.

If the fullness of the Gentiles comes in just before the rapture, the blindness that was placed on Israel must be lifted at that moment in time. This allows Israel to finally be receptive to the idea that her King already came and is coming back.

That’s not really the point I was making, however. Daniel’s 70 “sevens” have to do with the entire nation of Israel, not just a segment of 144,002 of them. A pre-tribulational dispensationalist (try to get your tongue around that one :D: ) would argue that, after the Rapture, God’s primary focus is back on Israel again, re: the 70th Seven. They would also argue, however, that a large segment of the world’s Gentile population will be saved during the Tribulation and will be “Tribulation Saints”. If the clock turns back to the Mosaic Covenant by virtue of the 70th Week being underway, then the world’s Gentiles would have to convert to Judaism to be saved, just as they would have had to do prior to Jesus. So which is it? Will the Gentiles be saved in mass numbers or will salvation be only by converting to a religious system that the world will be systematically trying to annihilate during that time period? So you see, there is a built in self-contradiction there.The focus is back on Israel as in responsibility to take the eternal gospel to the ends of the earth. The 144K are qualified to do this. Gentile and Jew alike will hear from the 144K creating new converts. Believing Jews will have the promise of the kingdom and being part of exalted Israel for the entire MK. Gentiles will have the promise of being part of that under Israel’s rule. All with faith in Christ will have eternal life and will eventually be a part of the eternal order. There is not a return to Mosaic Law following during the tribulation. There is a requirement of not taking the mark and enduring to the end in this manner.

I’ve always figured they would be able to respond directly to Jesus in a manner similar to what we do today. They’ll have to participate in certain Jewish feasts as we see in Old Testament prophecies, such as in Isaiah and Ezekiel, but I don’t see Gentiles having to go through a Jew to agree that they need to claim Jesus’ death for their sins. I’m not as read up on that area as I am on others, however, so with some study in that area, I might turn out to be wrong. “Thus says the LORD of hosts, ‘In those days ten men from all the nations will grasp the garment of a Jew, saying “Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you”’ (Zech. 8:23).

This and other passages show that it is Israel who is exalted and the nations will come to the Lord through her.

So not taking the Mark would be another addition, wouldn’t it? :D:No. It’s not an additional command. It is a different command. It’s the only one I find during the tribulation outside of treating the brethren of Jesus with care.

The Body “rules” are that you must turn in a perfect performance under the Law (which for us means the Mosaic Law) or you are condemned. Fortunately, we can turn in Jesus’ performance on our behalf. But we still have to turn in a perfect performance, one way or the other. And that’s the case throughout history at all times in any age. Whatever Law had been given at the time, you have to show God a perfect performance.But we are not required to perfect our faith with works. OT saints were.

I don’t see that he was headed for hell at that point, he was merely being given information that would allow him to complete his faith. If Peter had never shown up, I could easily entertain the suggestion that Cornelius could have still gone to Heaven, based on his faith in what he knew.So, all the people whom the gospel does not reach go to heaven based on the faith they have?

I’m thinking that the layers only top one another partially and temporarily until the transition is complete.

[Literalist-Luke]

But the 144K are not the Body. Notice that they are all Jews? They are the first fruits. The first fruits of what? They are Israel.Now that is a point that I had not previously considered. (The 144,000 being the firstfruits of Israel, that is.) That is an excellent point. I was just looking at Revelation 14 a day or so ago and scratching my head :confused trying to figure what the “firstfruits” comment was referring to. That actually makes sense. :thumbAll Israel will have faith in Jesus. The responsibility of getting the eternal gospel out will no longer be the responsibility of the Body (we will be gone). OK, I’m with you so far.This 144K will not preach that one is baptized into the Body of Christ. So, the parts of the epistles which teach this will not apply to them, correct? That would seem to be correct. :nodThe final portion of “all” Israel will not be reconciled with God until the very end.I assume you mean the “very end” of the Tribulation? :nodIf the fullness of the Gentiles comes in just before the rapture, the blindness that was placed on Israel must be lifted at that moment in time. This allows Israel to finally be receptive to the idea that her King already came and is coming back. Sounds good…The focus is back on Israel as in responsibility to take the eternal gospel to the ends of the earth. The 144K are qualified to do this. Gentile and Jew alike will hear from the 144K creating new converts. Believing Jews will have the promise of the kingdom and being part of exalted Israel for the entire MK. Gentiles will have the promise of being part of that under Israel’s rule. Right. :thumbAll with faith in Christ will have eternal life and will eventually be a part of the eternal order. There is not a return to Mosaic Law following during the tribulation. There is a requirement of not taking the mark and enduring to the end in this manner. I can go along with that. :nod“Thus says the LORD of hosts, ‘In those days ten men from all the nations will grasp the garment of a Jew, saying “Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you”’ (Zech. 8:23).Yeah, I thought about this verse, and I guess my question would be this: What precisely is that Jew supposed to do when 10 Gentiles “grasp their garment” and ask to “go with them”? Do they take the Gentiles directly to Jesus in Jerusalem? That would seem to mean that Jerusalem will be very busy. Or would this Jew simply explain to them the Gospel, such as it is at that time, and give them the opportunity to respond to it? I need more clarification about that.This and other passages show that it is Israel who is exalted and the nations will come to the Lord through her.Agreed, but I would like to know more about precisely what that entails.No. It’s not an additional command. It is a different command. It’s the only one I find during the tribulation outside of treating the brethren of Jesus with care.When I said that it is an “additional” command, I meant that it’s in addition to the “faith-only” requirement that we are currently living under today, not the Mosaic Law or anything similar. It would seem that, in the Tribulation, one only need to have faith, like today, and to seal that faith by refusing the Mark and being kind to Jews. I don’t see that there is any additional requirement to be saved during the Tribulation.But we are not required to perfect our faith with works. OT saints were.I can see your point of view on that. You mean like when God asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac? However, I could actually see Old Testament works being a two-edged sword. Did God require Abraham to sacrifice his son to obtain salvation? The Bible actually tells us that Abraham had “righteousness” credited to him as soon as he believed, not after he also carried out any commands. His willingness to sacrifice Isaac confirmed his faith, but all-knowing God already knew that faith was there. With this in mind, Old Testament works would actually seem to be precisely the same as our “works” today – not a means of obtaining salvation, but an expression of the salvation that has already taken place based on our faith.So, all the people whom the gospel does not reach go to heaven based on the faith they have?Well, not everybody, obviously there will be a lot of these people who will not respond “favorably” to the creation around them. I honestly don’t know precisely what the criteria would be in this case, because the Bible doesn’t spell it out. I just know that it does seem possible, based on Romans 1, to die today without having ever heard of the Bible or any of its stories, including about Jesus, and yet in spited of this to go to Heaven. I should clarify that doesn’t mean everybody who doesn’t hear the Gospel goes to Heaven. I said it’s possible, depending on how you respond to “what has been made”.I’m thinking that the layers only top one another partially and temporarily until the transition is complete.And at what point is the transition complete?

[G-d Seeker]

I assume you mean the “very end” of the Tribulation?Yes I do. I wonder if they are the Jews in the wilderness who convert after the 2nd coming. If so, this protected group, although they do not take the mark which is part of the command, they are NOT put in the position to be tempted with the mark because they are hidden and protected. You see, even for this set apart group the command is different. They seem to “get the most” out of God’s supernatural intervention and yet are the last to believe in Jesus as Messiah and Savior. I see it as beautiful grace yet again. So, do you think the last of the Jews to believe are those kept in the wilderness? The last portion of the “all Israel”?

Yeah, I thought about this verse, and I guess my question would be this: What precisely is that Jew supposed to do when 10 Gentiles “grasp their garment” and ask to “go with them”? Do they take the Gentiles directly to Jesus in Jerusalem? That would seem to mean that Jerusalem will be very busy. Or would this Jew simply explain to them the Gospel, such as it is at that time, and give them the opportunity to respond to it? I need more clarification about that.

Agreed, but I would like to know more about precisely what that entails.I’m not sure, but I think both take place. It appears Israel & Judah are given knowledge of God’s Law. If the Law is written on their hearts, these Jews will be in perfect harmony with one another in understanding the Law of God. Does this indicate the written Word, the Bible, will no longer be needed? Prophecy will not be finished, correct? So, maybe it will still be used by Gentiles?

Anyway, this understanding of God’s Law will then be given to the Gentiles through exalted Israel. One of the promises (i.e. like land and a king) is that Israel will be a holy nation set apart for God as a kingdom of priests (Ex. 19:6). Priests are “go-betweens”. They are the mediators between God and man. “And it shall come to pass, that as ye were a curse among the heathen, O house of Judah and house of Israel; so will I save you, and ye shall be a blessing…” (Zech. 8:13). “Thus saith the LORD of hosts; It shall yet come to pass, that there shall come people, and the inhabitants of many cities: And the inhabitants of one city shall go to another, saying, Let us go speedily to pray before the LORD, and to seek the LORD of hosts in Jerusalem and to pray before the LORD” (Zech. 8:20-21). So, Gentiles will not only be required to go up to Jerusalem during the feast of tabernacles (Zech. 14:16), but these passages indicate they will choose to do so at various times during the year. This one too, “But in the last days it shall come to pass, that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be established in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted about the hills; and people shall flow into it. And many nations shall come and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord and to the house of the God of Jacob…” (Micah 4:1-2). Isaiah 2:2, a similar verse, says “all nations flow into it.” Jerusalem does sound very busy.

It also appears many Gentiles will choose to live in Jerusalem to tend the flocks and grow the crops of Israel. Isaiah 61:5-6 “…strangers shall stand and feed your flocks, and the sons of the alien shall be your plowmen and your vinedressers. But ye shall be named the Priests of the LORD: men shall call you the Ministers of our God: ye shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, and in their glory shall ye boast yourselves.”

It does appear Jews live in Jerusalem only. Perhaps they will make trips to visit the congregations which are all over the world? Isa. 66:23 indicates that the people will continue to have weekly and monthly worship “and it shall be from new moon to new moon and from Sabbath to Sabbath, all mankind will come to bow down before Me.” Not sure if they go out to the Gentiles or if it is always the Gentiles going to them? Maybe the missionary movement will be switched! You know how Paul would go out to the churches he set up to check in on them and keep them united? Maybe that is one of the reasons for the requirement of going up to the feast every year? Let me know if you find other verses about this.

When I said that it is an “additional” command, I meant that it’s in addition to the “faith-only” requirement that we are currently living under today, not the Mosaic Law or anything similar. It would seem that, in the Tribulation, one only need to have faith, like today, and to seal that faith by refusing the Mark and being kind to Jews. I don’t see that there is any additional requirement to be saved during the Tribulation.Got it.

I can see your point of view on that. You mean like when God asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac? However, I could actually see Old Testament works being a two-edged sword. Did God require Abraham to sacrifice his son to obtain salvation? The Bible actually tells us that Abraham had “righteousness” credited to him as soon as he believed, not after he also carried out any commands. His willingness to sacrifice Isaac confirmed his faith, but all-knowing God already knew that faith was there. With this in mind, Old Testament works would actually seem to be precisely the same as our “works” today – not a means of obtaining salvation, but an expression of the salvation that has already taken place based on our faith.The work of an OT saint was an expression of his faith, but he was asked to express his faith in a particular way. The faith of an OT saint was perfected by his own works; his faith working with his works. If you look back, we see many examples of faith working with works: Abel (offered right sacrifice), Enoch (obtained witness), Noah (built ark), etc. Through this "working faith" the OT saints gained the approval of God. A man is justified by works and not by faith alone (James 2:24). The Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him righteousness” after he offered up Isaac (James 2:21-23).

The work of a Body saint is also an expression of faith, but we do not do it to gain approval nor do we need to gain His approval. We already have God’s approval when we are baptized into the Body of Christ. Righteousness is not reckoned to us as our faith works with our works, perfecting our faith. We already have the righteousness of Jesus Christ. Our fruit automatically blooms when we understand the grace given us. The fruit is not a product of desiring to gain His approval; it is a product of already having His approval.

Well, not everybody, obviously there will be a lot of these people who will not respond “favorably” to the creation around them. I honestly don’t know precisely what the criteria would be in this case, because the Bible doesn’t spell it out. I just know that it does seem possible, based on Romans 1, to die today without having ever heard of the Bible or any of its stories, including about Jesus, and yet in spited of this to go to Heaven. I should clarify that doesn’t mean everybody who doesn’t hear the Gospel goes to Heaven. I said it’s possible, depending on how you respond to “what has been made”.Depending on how you respond will, imo, lead God to draw near to you through visions, through dreams, an angelic visit or a missionary visit. "And He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us" (Acts 17:26-27).

And at what point is the transition complete?I don’t know. Does that mean it doesn’t happen that way?

[Literalist-Luke]

Yes I do. I wonder if they are the Jews in the wilderness who convert after the 2nd coming. If so, this protected group, although they do not take the mark which is part of the command, they are NOT put in the position to be tempted with the mark because they are hidden and protected. You see, even for this set apart group the command is different. They seem to “get the most” out of God’s supernatural intervention and yet are the last to believe in Jesus as Messiah and Savior. I see it as beautiful grace yet again. So, do you think the last of the Jews to believe are those kept in the wilderness? The last portion of the “all Israel”?Yep. :nodI’m not sure, but I think both take place. It appears Israel & Judah are given knowledge of God’s Law. If the Law is written on their hearts, these Jews will be in perfect harmony with one another in understanding the Law of God. Does this indicate the written Word, the Bible, will no longer be needed? Prophecy will not be finished, correct? So, maybe it will still be used by Gentiles?

Anyway, this understanding of God’s Law will then be given to the Gentiles through exalted Israel. One of the promises (i.e. like land and a king) is that Israel will be a holy nation set apart for God as a kingdom of priests (Ex. 19:6). Priests are “go-betweens”. They are the mediators between God and man. “And it shall come to pass, that as ye were a curse among the heathen, O house of Judah and house of Israel; so will I save you, and ye shall be a blessing…” (Zech. 8:13). “Thus saith the LORD of hosts; It shall yet come to pass, that there shall come people, and the inhabitants of many cities: And the inhabitants of one city shall go to another, saying, Let us go speedily to pray before the LORD, and to seek the LORD of hosts in Jerusalem and to pray before the LORD” (Zech. 8:20-21). So, Gentiles will not only be required to go up to Jerusalem during the feast of tabernacles (Zech. 14:16), but these passages indicate they will choose to do so at various times during the year. This one too, “But in the last days it shall come to pass, that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be established in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted about the hills; and people shall flow into it. And many nations shall come and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord and to the house of the God of Jacob…” (Micah 4:1-2). Isaiah 2:2, a similar verse, says “all nations flow into it.” Jerusalem does sound very busy.

It also appears many Gentiles will choose to live in Jerusalem to tend the flocks and grow the crops of Israel. Isaiah 61:5-6 “…strangers shall stand and feed your flocks, and the sons of the alien shall be your plowmen and your vinedressers. But ye shall be named the Priests of the LORD: men shall call you the Ministers of our God: ye shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, and in their glory shall ye boast yourselves.”

It does appear Jews live in Jerusalem only. Perhaps they will make trips to visit the congregations which are all over the world? Isa. 66:23 indicates that the people will continue to have weekly and monthly worship “and it shall be from new moon to new moon and from Sabbath to Sabbath, all mankind will come to bow down before Me.” Not sure if they go out to the Gentiles or if it is always the Gentiles going to them? Maybe the missionary movement will be switched! You know how Paul would go out to the churches he set up to check in on them and keep them united? Maybe that is one of the reasons for the requirement of going up to the feast every year? Let me know if you find other verses about this. No problem. :thumb

Got it.

The work of an OT saint was an expression of his faith, but he was asked to express his faith in a particular way. The faith of an OT saint was perfected by his own works; his faith working with his works. If you look back, we see many examples of faith working with works: Abel (offered right sacrifice), Enoch (obtained witness), Noah (built ark), etc. Through this "working faith" the OT saints gained the approval of God. A man is justified by works and not by faith alone (James 2:24). The Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him righteousness” after he offered up Isaac (James 2:21-23).

The work of a Body saint is also an expression of faith, but we do not do it to gain approval nor do we need to gain His approval. We already have God’s approval when we are baptized into the Body of Christ. Righteousness is not reckoned to us as our faith works with our works, perfecting our faith. We already have the righteousness of Jesus Christ. Our fruit automatically blooms when we understand the grace given us. The fruit is not a product of desiring to gain His approval; it is a product of already having His approval.

Depending on how you respond will, imo, lead God to draw near to you through visions, through dreams, an angelic visit or a missionary visit. "And He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us" (Acts 17:26-27).Possibly. It’ll be interesting to see how many people are in heaven who never heard of Jesus. Like during the Dark Ages, when the Church was languishing in squalor and was making no missionary effort outside of Europe.I don’t know. Does that mean it doesn’t happen that way?I don’t know, I’m just asking a FrankDH question. :D: