Paul did not write Hebrews; we do not know who did

[Idolater]

I don't really recommend learning what Mid-Acts Dispensationalists believe from a Catholic, but rather from MADs themselves.

I tried. I asked, can any MAD please point me to canonical MADism. It turns out, there is no authoritative MAD.

It makes discussion extremely difficult.

In contrast, everything Catholicism believes is published openly on the web, just search for the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I tried. I asked, can any MAD please point me to canonical MADism. It turns out, there is no authoritative MAD.

It makes discussion extremely difficult.

In contrast, everything Catholicism believes is published openly on the web, just search for the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

As mentioned previously, Things That Differ: The Fundamentals of Dispensationalism by C. R. Stam is an excellent place to start.

 

[Idolater]

Liar.

Yeah? You speak for all Dispensationalists? Can you cite to your source?

I remember the very discussion you and I were having a while back where I acknowledged that some of the Twelve had gone on mission trips to other parts of the world

Terrific. Except calling them "mission trips" makes it sound like they left and quickly returned from whence they came, rather than that they just left home, never to return.

, and that I specifically pointed out that even though they did go, the Bible mentions it hardly at all, and for a reason. It minimizes their trips because by the time they DID go on those trips, Paul had already been converted, and God's dispensation of Grace had already been started, and so the story being told by the Bible would reflect that by hardly mentioning such trips, since they would distract from Paul's gospel.

Begging the question.

The Bible was written the way it was written for a reason, and the authors were very careful to include or exclude, magnify or minimize some things to make certain points.

Of course, that's not in dispute.

... Beating up straw men doesn't make your position stronger.

I know. That's why I've asked so many times for an authoritative source of MAD teaching.

 

[Idolater]

As mentioned previously, Things That Differ: The Fundamentals of Dispensationalism by C. R. Stam is an excellent place to start.

I have already started. I'm looking for something solid, that every MAD agrees to. Are you saying this publication is canonical MADism?

iow, for clarity, there's nothing in this book by this author that any MAD will contend with or gripe about? iow its contents are undisputed, authoritative MADism?

I'm not asking for a lot here.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Yeah? You speak for all Dispensationalists? Can you cite to your source?

This is what happens when you make broad accusations.

Terrific. Except calling them "mission trips" makes it sound like they left and quickly returned from whence they came, rather than that they just left home, never to return.

I think you're nit-picking.

Begging the question.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Of course, that's not in dispute.

I know. That's why I've asked so many times for an authoritative source of MAD teaching.

The only authority is the Bible. But for non-authoritative guides, the book I have now mentioned twice, along with Bob Enyart's The Plot (the 2nd Edition will be available soon, by the way!), will suffice.

I have already started. I'm looking for something solid, that every MAD agrees to.

The Bible, for starters, as I said above.

Are you saying this publication is canonical MADism?

I'm saying that it is one of the best presentations of Mid-Acts Dispensationalism you can get that isn't inspired Scripture.

 

[Clete]

I understand that, and that's why I don't buy into the MAD doctrine--they take it too far. There is significant evidence that all of them eventually went elsewhere and preached to Gentiles, especially right before 70 AD when Jerusalem was destroyed. The evidence may not be as trustworthy as the bible, but it is evidence that still needs to be considered, since the the bible doesn't say "and they all stayed in Jerusalem and disobeyed the Lord's command to go to all the world," and it doesn't say they all died before 70 AD. It would make sense to me that they, in general, kept the agreement with Paul for a time, because they felt the need to evangelize the Jews--until the Jews were destroyed for their rejection of their messiah. After that, the agreement was null and void (Paul and Peter were both dead--something we know from extra-biblical sources), if it was that strict in the first place. Peter's dalliances with Gentiles, spoken of by Paul in Galatians, tells us that He was already meeting with and eating along with Gentiles even before Galatians was written.

But I'm getting off topic...

The fact that they had some contact with and perhaps even preached to Gentiles isn't an issue for me. It's what they preached and why that would be an issue. If, Peter ended up in Rome for some reason and he was telling people there about Jesus then, so long as he was teaching doctrine that was in keeping with the gospel to the uncircumcision, which he was definitely aware of (See Galatians 2), I see no problem with him doing that at all.

He was, however, an apostle to the Jews and had the Circumcision Gospel committed to him and so his primary ministry would have been toward those Jews who believed in the Circumcision Gospel while that dispensation was still in effect. The one's, for example, who sold all their belongings and began to live in a commune because they expected Christ to return right away (i.e. within seven years - the final week of Daniel's prophecy). And, when we read his epistles and those written by James, John and Jude (as well as the author of Hebrews), you can see that this was indeed their primary focus well into the later years of their ministry. John's book of Revelation is perhaps the most clearly Israel-centric of them all, except for maybe the book of Hebrews.

 

[Clete]

I have already started. I'm looking for something solid, that every MAD agrees to. Are you saying this publication is canonical MADism?

iow, for clarity, there's nothing in this book by this author that any MAD will contend with or gripe about? iow its contents are undisputed, authoritative MADism?

I'm not asking for a lot here.

Canonical MADism?

I'm pretty sure there isn't any such thing.

There are details in Stam's teachings that I might quibble with and that are debatable. For example, while he was certainly a Pauline Dispensationalist, I don't know whether he believed that the dispensation of grace started in Acts 9 with the conversion of Saul on the Damascus Road or at some point after that. That particular distinction, however, doesn't have nearly the impact that believing that it started in Acts 2 or even earlier has on one's theology. There may be other details that not every Mid-Acts believer would 100% agree with and so I'd have to say that, no, his work isn't canonical by any means but that, generally speaking, Stam's work is correct.

C.R. Stam's book entitled "Things that Differ" is brilliant, by the way. It's book number 3 on my recommended reading list.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I don't know whether he believed that the dispensation of grace started in Acts 9 with the conversion of Saul on the Damascus Road or at some point after that.

As I alluded to in one of my posts above, I've not been entirely sure on a closely related issue, that being when God stopped accepting people into the New Covenant. Maybe you know?

 

[Hoping]

I have no clue what you're talking about.
You continue to be very confused.
Wrong again. You don't even seem to understand what an apostle is.
We now have the completed Word of God.
Again, you don't know what an apostle is.
Do you have wonder why Paul never writes about making disciples?
And that is why you do not understand context.

Get with the current program.

The "current program" seems to tolerate, and in some cases, advocate sinful behavior.
I prefer the "real program".

 

[Right Divider]

C.R. Stam's book entitled "Things that Differ" is brilliant, by the way. It's book number 3 on my recommended reading list.

Stam also has an excellent 4 part set of books called Acts Dispensationaly Considered.

I believe that Stam was Acts 9, but I have a few problems with his doctrines:

• He believes that the twelve were added to the body of Christ
• He believes that the book to the Hebrews is doctrine for the body of Christ.
• He things that the body of Christ falls under the umbrella of the new covenant (not completely sure if that's him or Paul Sadler that took over his organization).

 

[Derf]

By God. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, remember? Scripture says that Matthias was numbered with the eleven, making the required twelve apostles that will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Jesus chose Matthias as the replacement for Judas Iscariot.

Indeed, then why do you doubt Jesus?

So you say that Jesus picked Matthias and still you doubt? What is the difference between Jesus picking directly or indirectly? What does it even mean to "pick indirectly"?

The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof [is] of the LORD. [Proverbs 16:33 KJV]

But the disciples, not exercising their authority to select Judas's replacement, as you would have us believe they had, instead only determined the candidates, and left the choice to the casting of lots. No one would have thought to include Saul as one of the choices, but Jesus didn't choose his disciples based on how well they knew the law, or history of the nation, or other scholarly achievements. We don't really know what criteria He used. So when the disciples decided they needed to pick from those that had been with them the whole time, that seemed wise, but it might not have been necessary, nor appropriate. In fact, perhaps the biggest requirement was that Jesus chose them.

One way to get the lot to be cast the way you want is to make sure there are only options that you approve of. Since Saul wasn't on the list, and the list didn't have a "wait for now to fill the office" option, the lot might not have been a valid one in Jesus' mind. And since this is the last time you hear of lot casting in the bible to make a decision for the church, perhaps they realized it wasn't the right method for such decisions--certainly not for decisions where they had the authority, because such authority would not require the casting of lots to find out the decision--that's the opposite of exercising authority.

It's not directly relevant. Perhaps it's indirectly relevant.

LOL.

Paul did not meet the requirements:
Acts 1:21-22 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:21) Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, (1:22) Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

Paul didn't meet the apostles' requirements. He did meet Jesus' requirements. He knew His will, He WAS a witness of the resurrection, as much as any other apostle was, and He taught him.
And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth. [Acts 22:14 KJV]
But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God. [Acts 20:24 KJV]
For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the [same] night in which he was betrayed took bread: [1 Corinthians 11:23 KJV]

 

[Hoping]

You'd think that if they were divvying up the world, the majority of it would go to the Twelve, and Paul would get a small portion to go to. But the complete opposite is true. Why?

The OAs were already in Jerusalem, while Paul was visiting in the foreign lands.
Jesus had commanded the apostles..."
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen. Matthew 28:20
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. Mark 16:15
"Go ye into all the world."
Your inferring that they decided not to "go into all the world".
Eventually they did go into all the world, as most died in far away lands, refuting the "circumcision only" thesis.

JudgeRightly:
I think, as Scripture states, that they recognized, after Paul went into them to explain his doctrine to them, that preaching to gentiles would be ineffective for them, since the doctrine they were taught directly by Christ was different (with similarities) to what Paul was given, and as such, agreed with him, that he would go to the uncircumcision, and they to the circumcision, Israel.
It is written..."Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:" (Acts 15:24)
Their doctrines were the same.
Salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

JudgeRightly:
Why would Paul or Barnabas stop teaching at synagogues where the Jews there did not believe in Christ the Savior, and were effectively Gentiles?
They stopped only after the Israelites showed they didn't believe in Christ the Savior.

JudgeRightly:
What laws were abolished?
The priesthood, circumcision, dietary rules, tithing, feast keeping, sabbath days, etc.

JudgeRightly
Why do you continue to deny what Jesus said?
The Twelve taught that Jesus died for our sins and was raised from the dead, before He was crucified?
Nope.
Jesus died for our sins and was raised form the dead after He was killed on the cross.

JudgeRightly
Then He called His twelve disciples together and gave them power and authority over all demons, and to cure diseases.He sent them to preach the kingdom of God and to heal the sick.And He said to them, “Take nothing for the journey, neither staffs nor bag nor bread nor money; and do not have two tunics apiece.“Whatever house you enter, stay there, and from there depart.And whoever will not receive you, when you go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet as a testimony against them.”So they departed and went through the towns, preaching the gospel and healing everywhere. - Luke 9:1-6 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke9:1-6&version=NKJV

Or could it be that there were two different gospels, one that Jesus taught the Twelve, called the gospel of the Kingdom of Israel, where Jesus was to be the King and Israel's Messiah, and another, called the gospel of the grace of God, where Jesus was crucified, buried, and was raised, so that the entire world could be reconciled to God, and be saved from eternal suffering in hell?
Same gospel.
Obey and live forever, versus, you can obey and live forever.
One presentation from the perspective before His resurrection and one from the perspective after His resurrection.

JudgeRightly
Not what I asked. Why won't you let it do so for you?
I do.

JudgeRightly
Why does the Bible not mention, except in passing in a very few instances, such mission trips done by the Twelve? You'd think that since Jesus Himself told them to go into the world, such missions would have been the main focus of the Bible, but instead, we have Paul going into the world, while the Bible shows the Twelve staying in Jerusalem for the majority of the rest of their lives.
I'm not saying that the Twelve didn't go on mission trips, only that the Bible minimizes those trips, but magnifies the trips Paul went on, and that it does so for a reason, which you so far seem ignorant of, or have ignored.
It is because the bible's words were completed before they "went into the world".

 

[Derf]

Matthew 19:28 So Jesus said to them, “Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Luke 22:30 that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”

Acts 1:23 And they proposed two: Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. 24 And they prayed and said, “You, O Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which of these two You have chosen 25 to take part in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.” 26 And they cast their lots, and the lot fell on Matthias. And he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

Revelation 21:14 Now the wall of the city had TWELVE foundations, and on them were the names of the TWELVE apostles of the Lamb.

You make much of the number 12, but it doesn't help you if Paul could be one of those twelve--and I don't see anything the proves he couldn't be.
Mat 19:28 was obviously spoken to more than twelve of His disciples, or Matthias and Joseph Barsabas would not qualify. But if both qualified so well that a lot needed to be cast to decide, then of all the people to whom Jesus said, "you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones...", some of them will NOT sit on one of those thrones, Joseph Barsabas being the prime example. Therefore Jesus' words didn't mean that everybody that heard them would sit on one of the 12 thrones, even if they faithfully followed Him (unless the meaning is more the position shared by a larger group than twelve, and "12 thrones" is figurative--in which case your argument is even weaker).

Let's consider the "numbered with the eleven apostles" phrase. Matthias isn't the only one it is used of in Acts 1. Judas was the other one.
For he [Judas] was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. [Acts 1:17 KJV] But Mat. 19:28 specifically speaks of "in the regeneration", usually taken to mean after the restoration of all things, but certainly AFTER the apostles have all died. Therefore Judas could also be resurrected and participate--except that he is excluded. By whom is he excluded? Not by the apostles themselves, but by the judgment of Christ. If Jesus can exclude one that He chose Himself, then surely He can exclude someone that He didn't choose.

The interesting thing about Rev 21:14 is that the names aren't recorded. So Paul might well be one of the names--you don't know any more than I do. To assert without the shadow of doubt one (Matthias) over the other (Paul) is to add to scripture...or at least to interpret scripture by your system, which is something you guys are telling me not to do. Be consistent and don't do it yourselves.

 

[Hoping]

Stam also has an excellent 4 part set of books called Acts Dispensationaly Considered.

I believe that Stam was Acts 9, but I have a few problems with his doctrines:

• He believes that the twelve were added to the body of Christ
• He believes that the book to the Hebrews is doctrine for the body of Christ.
• He things that the body of Christ falls under the umbrella of the new covenant (not completely sure if that's him or Paul Sadler that took over his organization).

How can anyone not believe the Lord's apostles were part of His body?

 

[Derf]

You don't think that Paul explicitly separating himself from the Twelve and agreeing with them that his ministry would be to the gentiles while the Twelve ministered to Israel is relevant to that discussion?

Do you think Paul can't write to the Jews even if He agreed not to "go" to the the Jews?

No, it isn't. It's based on the following facts...

• Paul, then Saul, was in the process of destroying the church when Judas was replaced with Matthias. (i.e. Saul could not have qualified as a replacment for Judas for this a several other reasons.)

Invalid. Assumes that the replacement had to be made immediately but God often has a different timetable than men.

• Mathias' Apostleship was confirmed by God when he was filled with the Holy Spirit along with the rest of the Apostles at Pentecost.

Can you point to the scripture that tells exactly how many were filled with the Spirit and spoke in tongues that day, and what were their names?

• Paul, then Saul, was converted by the risen, ascended and glorified Lord Jesus Christ Himself AFTER the Jews had officially rejected Christ as their Messiah.

Ok. And?

• Paul explicitly and repeatedly separated himself from anyone else's ministry and specifically that of the Twelve.

Did he? What about Barnabas and Silas?

• Paul taught a different gospel than that of the Twelve, a gospel that he repeatedly refers to as "my gospel".

Circular. You assume it was different because of your doctrine that says it was different.

• Paul taught to not allow yourself to be placed under the law while James' followers were "zealous for the law".

But Paul was instrumental in teaching them something else, as Peter tells us in 2 Pet 3:15. These were hard things for Peter to swallow, but swallow them he had to.

• Paul was sent, by divine revelation, to Jerusalem for the purpose of explaining his gospel to the Twelve

Or perhaps explaining why he kept including Gentiles, which they were supposed to in Jerusalem, according to Peter's vision, but they were reticent to do.
And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. [Acts 15:9 KJV]
But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. [Acts 15:11 KJV]
Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. [Acts 15:12 KJV]
There's no mention of Paul explaining his "gospel" to the twelve, only explaining how God was working miracles among the Gentiles. Just Peter calling it "the gospel":
And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men [and] brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. [Acts 15:7 KJV]

• Paul withstood Peter to his face because Peter didn't get it.

That's what I've been saying. Peter didn't get that they were supposed to be including the Gentiles that believed, even though they weren't following the whole law (and especially circumcision). But if you read Paul's description, Peter really DID get it--he was hanging out with Gentiles and living like the Gentiles. The problem was that Peter pretended NOT to be living like the Gentiles when the men from James came.
But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before [them] all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? [Galatians 2:14 KJV]
Peter was living like a Gentile--he wasn't following the Jewish law! Peter definitely "got it", but then he backslid into law-keeping to put on a show for those from Jerusalem.

• Paul agreed with the Twelve that they (the Twelve) would stay in Jerusalem and minister to their converts (i.e. the circumcision) and he (Paul) would go to the gentiles.

Paul agreed to go to the Gentiles with same good new Peter was preaching to the Jews.

I can, of course, provide biblical references to all those points and several more that fully establish that Paul was definitely not numbered with the Twelve.

Not without revealing the weakness of your position.

Well, then it is your own flawed understanding of our doctrine and why we hold it that is circular. Who told you that was the reason behind it? Did anyone at all ever make that argument to you or did you just leap to that conclusion?

Regardless of where you came up with it, now the question becomes whether you will now drop the accusation since it's been shown to be wrong and make any effort at all to answer the original argument which is, "Where's the need for a thirteenth Apostle?"

Hint: There wasn't any need for a thirteenth Apostle!

You mean they didn't need to appoint Matthias? I'd agree with that.

It would destroy a lot more than that. If Paul was a member of the Twelve then it would falsify the testimony of Acts and, by extention, would destroy the veracity of the entire Christian theological construct.

Nope, just your interpretation/system.

No, you can't.

Do yourself a favor and stop trying to read our minds and base your arguments and rebuttals on what we actually say rather than on what you think you see as our motives and premises.

The only reason we deny it is because that's what the bible explicitly says, as I partially established above. The text itself is clear as can be, the only reason you reject something so transparently true is because of your doctrine. And I mean that literally. Your allegiance is to your doctrine first. You bring your doctrine with you to the reading of the text and so see your doctrine everywhere. It's called confirmation bias and we all have to combat it.

You should combat it harder.

Indeed, I believe it is a primary reason God wrote a book in the first place. The text serves as an anchor point for one's doctrine but only when allowed to do so. Getting things backward and allowing your doctrine to determine your understanding of the text rather than the other way around is to cut your mooring lines and set yourself adrift into an ocean of meandering doctrines that shift with the wind.

II Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for [c]instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.​

​

II Timothy 2:15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.​

Yep.

 

[Derf]

Not what I said. Please pay attention.

You said "explicitly". Can you elicit what you meant?

And then later, Judas killed himself, and so his office was empty. Thus, in Acts 1, almost immediately after Jesus' ascension, they chose someone to fill that role.

You'd think if Jesus didn't want Matthias as the one to fill the role, He would have made it clear to the twelve very quickly that Matthias wasn't the one.

Why would I think that? Can you give me scripture?

But instead, just as Jesus described in the parable of the barren fig tree, Jesus waited another year to see if Israel bore fruit, and when they didn't, and instead started by killing Stephen, God cut off Israel, as He said He would in Jeremiah.

Ok. He was willing to wait another year for Israel. Why wouldn't He be willing to wait another year for #12?

As was just pointed out, Paul didn't meet the requirements to be one of the Twelve, but did meet the requirement of being an Apostle.

Numbers are somewhat important in scripture.

Anytime the number 12 is used, or multiples of it, as far as I'm aware, it always has some relation to Israel. 12 Apostles, 12 gates in the New Jerusalem which represent the 12 tribes, 12 thousand from each tribe (144,000 total) will be sealed in the Great Tribulation, Christ's bride (Israel) in Revelation 12, wears a crown with 12 stars in it, Solomon appointed 12 officers over Israel, the high priest's breastplate had 12 stones in it.

13, on the other hand, usually has the connotation of rebellion and lawlessness. Israel had rebelled against her Messiah, and become lawless, so God cut them off, just as Adam and Eve were cut off from God (likely on Friday the 13th day), and started a different program with the 13th Apostle, Paul, who wrote 13 books.

Numerology is an inexact science. You can make it say a whole lot of stuff.

So then what's the problem? Why can't Matthias be the one chosen by Jesus, especially if Scripture indicates that he is?

Circular--that's the current issue, isn't it? Whether scripture actual indicates Matthias was the one being chosen by Jesus?

Again, The requirement was for whoever was chosen to have been with Jesus since the beginning of His ministry. Paul didn't meet that requirement. He DOES meet the requirement of being given his message directly from Jesus Christ, so in that, he was a true Apostle. But he could not have been one of the twelve, and as Scripture makes clear, Matthias had already filled that empty role, about a year prior to Paul even being mentioned.

In other words, not a chance!

See my other post(s), above, about this.

 

[Derf]

The OAs were already in Jerusalem, while Paul was visiting in the foreign lands.
Jesus had commanded the apostles..."
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen. Matthew 28:20
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. Mark 16:15
"Go ye into all the world."
Your inferring that they decided not to "go into all the world".
Eventually they did go into all the world, as most died in far away lands, refuting the "circumcision only" thesis.

JudgeRightly:
I think, as Scripture states, that they recognized, after Paul went into them to explain his doctrine to them, that preaching to gentiles would be ineffective for them, since the doctrine they were taught directly by Christ was different (with similarities) to what Paul was given, and as such, agreed with him, that he would go to the uncircumcision, and they to the circumcision, Israel.
It is written..."Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:" (Acts 15:24)
Their doctrines were the same.
Salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

JudgeRightly:
Why would Paul or Barnabas stop teaching at synagogues where the Jews there did not believe in Christ the Savior, and were effectively Gentiles?
They stopped only after the Israelites showed they didn't believe in Christ the Savior.

JudgeRightly:
What laws were abolished?
The priesthood, circumcision, dietary rules, tithing, feast keeping, sabbath days, etc.

JudgeRightly
Why do you continue to deny what Jesus said?
The Twelve taught that Jesus died for our sins and was raised from the dead, before He was crucified?
Nope.
Jesus died for our sins and was raised form the dead after He was killed on the cross.

JudgeRightly
Then He called His twelve disciples together and gave them power and authority over all demons, and to cure diseases.He sent them to preach the kingdom of God and to heal the sick.And He said to them, “Take nothing for the journey, neither staffs nor bag nor bread nor money; and do not have two tunics apiece.“Whatever house you enter, stay there, and from there depart.And whoever will not receive you, when you go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet as a testimony against them.”So they departed and went through the towns, preaching the gospel and healing everywhere. - Luke 9:1-6 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke9:1-6&version=NKJV

Or could it be that there were two different gospels, one that Jesus taught the Twelve, called the gospel of the Kingdom of Israel, where Jesus was to be the King and Israel's Messiah, and another, called the gospel of the grace of God, where Jesus was crucified, buried, and was raised, so that the entire world could be reconciled to God, and be saved from eternal suffering in hell?
Same gospel.
Obey and live forever, versus, you can obey and live forever.
One presentation from the perspective before His resurrection and one from the perspective after His resurrection.

JudgeRightly
Not what I asked. Why won't you let it do so for you?
I do.

JudgeRightly
Why does the Bible not mention, except in passing in a very few instances, such mission trips done by the Twelve? You'd think that since Jesus Himself told them to go into the world, such missions would have been the main focus of the Bible, but instead, we have Paul going into the world, while the Bible shows the Twelve staying in Jerusalem for the majority of the rest of their lives.
I'm not saying that the Twelve didn't go on mission trips, only that the Bible minimizes those trips, but magnifies the trips Paul went on, and that it does so for a reason, which you so far seem ignorant of, or have ignored.
It is because the bible's words were completed before they "went into the world".

That's pretty hard to read. If you reply to the whole post of someone, then select the point where you want to comment and hit "enter". The editor will add in the right stuff to keep your postings separate from theirs.

 

[Right Divider]

Can you point to the scripture that tells exactly how many were filled with the Spirit and spoke in tongues that day, and what were their names?

Acts 2:4 (KJV) And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Acts 2:14 (KJV) But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:

 

[Derf]

Acts 2:4 (KJV) And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Acts 2:14 (KJV) But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:

That doesn't say how many spoke in tongues, just how many stood up. There were undoubtedly more than 12 in the upper room.

 

[Clete]

As I alluded to in one of my posts above, I've not been entirely sure on a closely related issue, that being when God stopped accepting people into the New Covenant. Maybe you know?

Interesting question.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any reason why there would have to have been a hard dead line. I'm content with believing that there was a transitional period when the growth of the Kingdom was diminishing while the growth of the Body of Christ was increasing.

If I had to put an outer limit to the timing of it, while I couldn't be dogmatic about it at all, it seems to me that anyone who was born under the dispensation of law could have become saved under that dispensation for as long as they lived.