ECT To whom were the Gospels written ?

[dodge]

Was that always the case?

You only show you have left too many questions un-asked about what all a passage like that is talking about.

You may as well assert that the instructions of the Marines (on the Earth) are the same as the instructions for the Air Force (in the Air).

Earth: Israelites over the Gentiles nations of this Earth.

Body: Formerly lost Jews and Gentiles, as a New Creature, this side of ISRAEL'S fall and TEMPORARY setting aside.

Said New Creature to reign over the Heavenly Host.

But like I said, you may as well assert that the instructions of the Marines (on the Earth) are the same as the instructions for the Air Force (in the Air).

Prov. 27:17

How many different groups do you believe are in the B.O.C. scripture says there is only ONE with Christ as the head ?

 

[john w]

Army ? Nope that would be Marine Corps.

Uncertainty ? I have more confidence in scripture than that.

You were never in the Marines, you troll. That is a lie. No Marine "talks" like you do, acts like a snotty brat, and has tantrums, like you. My evidence? You. You're an embarrassment to this country, and would not qualify.

 

[dodge]

Why do you call me Lord Lord and do not the things I have commanded you ?

Not everyone that says unto me Lord Lord will enter into heaven but he that does my Father's will.

Christians mourn for those trapped in MAD they know it is a lie.

 

[john w]

Why do you call me Lord Lord and do not the things I have commanded you ?

Not everyone that says unto me Lord Lord will enter into heaven but he that does my Father's will.

Christians mourn for those trapped in MAD they know it is a lie.

You are A Catholic liar, and were never in the Marines, "known" liar,as no Marine acts like the sissy, wining, pouting, tantrum brat that you are, Gomer.

 

[Tambora]

Dodgeism is a fraud.

 

[Tambora]

USMC=USAF Says the same thing, like all of the bible.

That's the Dodgeism way.

 

[Tambora]

Watch it, Bora of Tam-dodgeball will come back and shut you down, with a "MAD IS A LIE!!!" debate clincher.

Oh my!
I would be scared, but I know you are walking the walls.

 

[john w]

That's the Dodgeism way.

He is a devious troll, accuser of the brethren, actor, engaging in sophistry, deception.

 

[oatmeal]

To Whom Were the Gospels Written?


Another huge problem for the teaching that Jesus' words and the gospels are not for the church is that of the intended audience of the gospel writers. Take Luke for example:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word have handed them down to us, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; (Luke 1:1-3)

Theophilus is a Greek name, not a Jewish name. If the gospels were only for the Jews, as the hyperdispensationalists claim, why was Luke writing to a Gentile? Furthermore, when was Luke written? It was written after the end of Acts, probably between 60 and 62 A.D. In his commentary on Luke, Robert Stein writes, "The earliest and latest possible dates for the writing of the Third Gospel are quite clear. The earliest would be immediately after the events of Acts 28 (i.e., after Paul's arrest and two-year stay in Rome.)"14 This means that Luke wrote to a Gentile after Paul was imprisoned as recorded in Acts 28 (if not later). So Luke was written not to the supposed "Jewish Church" that supposedly existed under a gospel different from Paul's, but to the church as it was after the supposed withdrawal of the offer of the kingdom and change of dispensations.

But why would Luke write a gospel to the church as it was after the end of Acts and apply Jesus' teachings to that church? Jesus' teachings supposedly were no longer authoritative by the time Luke wrote his gospel. Why did Luke write to Theophilus? He says this: "So that you might know the exact truth about the things you have been taught" (Luke 1:4). The gospels were given and applied to the church. The gospel writers assumed that the teachings of the head of the church, Jesus Christ, are for the church. They are not merely an historical curiosity for those who want to know what the kingdom "church" would have been like had the Jews not rejected it.

This is seen by this passage in Matthew: "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:19). Hyperdispensationalists annul Jesus' teaching for the church and think they are thereby "rightly dividing" the Bible.

Consider this passage in Mark: "And He said to them, ‘Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him; because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?' (Thus He declared all foods clean.)" (Mark 7:18, 19). Hyperdispensationalists claim that the "Jewish church" until the kingdom offer was withdrawn, was still under the law. But Mark's parenthetical clarification tells us that Jesus declared, to Jews, that all foods are clean. Despite this, hyperdispensationalist Stam says, "There is no indication of any revelation to them that the death of Christ had freed them from observance of the Mosaic law."15 So, for whom exactly was Jesus' teaching as recorded in Mark? If Jesus indeed declared all foods clean, He could not have done so for the Jews whom Stam says were still under the law even after the cross, and if He had not given this teaching through Paul, it was not binding on the church either (according to their scheme of things). So Jesus declared foods clean to no one at all. He was wasting His words.

Hyperdispensationalists tell us that until mid-Acts (or in Acts 28 depending on which one you listen to), the 12 disciples intended to set up the kingdom because they still hoped that Israel as a whole would accept the kingdom offer. They consider the law to still be in affect: "This is why [because Jesus asked the Father to forgive them] as the book of Acts opens we are still in a period of time when the dispensation of Law is in effect and God's people, Party #2, is still Israel."16 But consider what Peter said to those who were saved from their sin on the Day of Pentecost: "And with many other words he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, ‘Be saved from this perverse generation!'" (Acts 2:40). Why would Peter tell these believing Jews to be saved from that perverse generation (Israel that had rejected Messiah) if Peter believed that Israel might soon accept the offer and the kingdom would be established just then? The reason believers needed to be "saved from them" was that the "perverse generation" already rejected the Messiah and His kingdom. Peter saw them as the enemies of Messiah, whom they had rejected and crucified. Luke/Acts leaves open the saving of Israel as a nation (see Acts 3:19-21). But it is clear that this will not happen until after the times of the Gentiles: "and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled" (Luke 21:24).

http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue108.htm

Is "Theophilus" a name? It could be.

What does theophilus mean?

It means beloved of God.

Is there only one individual that fits that description or for that matter, just because he was named that does that mean he was named appropriately?

Are there not many people who fit the description "beloved of God"

How many people fit the description "saints"

How many people fit the description, "them who call on the name of Jesus Christ"

I am not aware of people with those names but they are descriptions of people.

Have you ever heard of a person named "Hope" or "Charity" or any other such Biblical name?

I have, the ones I have met are not the only person who lives hope or God's love.

 

[oatmeal]

Is "Theophilus" a name? It could be.

What does theophilus mean?

It means beloved of God.

Is there only one individual that fits that description or for that matter, just because he was named that does that mean he was named appropriately?

Are there not many people who fit the description "beloved of God"

How many people fit the description "saints"

How many people fit the description, "them who call on the name of Jesus Christ"

I am not aware of people with those names but they are descriptions of people.

Have you ever heard of a person named "Hope" or "Charity" or any other such Biblical name?

I have, the ones I have met are not the only person who lives hope or God's love.

Does the four gospels other than Luke contain any plain statement that would clearly tell us?

Luke is addressed to the beloved in God as is the book of Acts

Romans is addressed to the believers in Rome specifically, but generally to "beloved of God called saints" Romans 1:7

The other church epistles are likewise specifically and generally addressed.

Since Romans 15:4 tells us all scripture written aforetime is for our learning, and there were no Christians in the gospel period, of course, there were followers of Jesus Christ, but no "Christians" we learn that the gospels is for our learning.

It is not written to us as is Romans through Thessalonians.

Romans through Thessalonians teaches us the lifestyle God expects us to rise up to and live because of the completed accomplishments of His son Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ is the hinge upon whom all human history centers.

His life made a difference, the gospels tell us of that life but by no means whatsoever, all that he did.

In John 20:31;21:25 we learn why John ( and logically why all scripture) was written and that Jesus Christ did much much much more than what is recorded in the four gospels.

We can learn from the four gospels about Jesus Christ's earthly ministry, but the gospels describe his "works in progress" not the result of his completed works. Romans through Thessalonians does that.

Scripture was written in general to and for believers. Others read it, no doubt, but God knows who those are that choose to believe and this is His instruction manual for life for us.

The gospels do not directly apply to us in the sense that Romans through Thes does. (although Judeans and Gentiles are addressed in some passages.)

The rules that applied in the gospels do not directly apply to us. Jesus Christ was fulfilling the law in the gospels, the epistles are our instructions on how to live now that the law was fulfilled. See for instance, Romans 13:10

Likewise we learn that righteousness did not come by the law. Without Christ, we could not have the righteousness that Paul speaks of in Galatians 2:21

Summing up. The gospels were written for our learning, whose learning? So that the beloved of God can learn what God chose to have recorded concerning Jesus Christ's earthly ministry

 

[DAN P]

The Church.

And, to those who were thinking about believing in the Resurrection, so they would have the whole story surrounding it.

Hi and they were only called and ASSEMBLY / EKKLESIA as they were led out of EGYPT as Israel is a NATION !!

dan p

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

He is a devious troll, accuser of the brethren, actor, engaging in sophistry, deception.

Like Breenism, I believe Dodgeism to be in error.

 

[john w]

Like Breenism, I believe Dodgeism to be in error.

I told Dodgeball to dry up.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

I told Dodgeball to dry up.

He did turn out to be kind of a wiseguy, didn't he?

 

[Right Divider]

He did turn out to be kind of a wiseguy, didn't he?

Yes, a wiseguy but not a wise guy.

 

[Nihilo]

Hi and they were only called and ASSEMBLY / EKKLESIA as they were led out of EGYPT as Israel is a NATION !!

dan p

So the Gospels were written to the Church, and to all those interested in the rest of the story surrounding the Lord Jesus Christ's glorious Resurrection.

 

[Right Divider]

So the Gospels were written to the Church, and to all those interested in the rest of the story surrounding the Lord Jesus Christ's glorious Resurrection.

You don't seem to be interested in truth, just your false ideas about the Bible.

You like to Capitalize words like they have a singular meaning apart from the CONTEXT in which they are used.

 

[Nihilo]

You don't seem to be interested in truth, just your false ideas about the Bible.

So the Gospels were written to the Church, and to those interested in the story surrounding the glorious Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and especially those who do believe that He is risen.

You like to Capitalize words like they have a singular meaning apart from the CONTEXT in which they are used.

So what part of "the Resurrection of the Lord Jesus" is wanting in context?

 

[Right Divider]

So the Gospels were written to the Church, and to those interested in the story surrounding the glorious Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and especially those who do believe that He is risen.

The "church" in the "Gospels" and early Acts is NOT the body of Christ.

That you fee the need to capitalize "Church" shows your complete lack of that understanding.

So what part of "the Resurrection of the Lord Jesus" is wanting in context?

There is still NO need to capitalize the word "resurrection" regardless of who's resurrection you're talking about.

This is just your silliness.

 

[Nihilo]

The "church" in the "Gospels" and early Acts is NOT the body of Christ.

There really was no Church during the Lord's earthly ministry since the Holy Spirit was not given until Pentecost anyway. And the Gospels (why do you quote this? and then give me grief for capitalizing Resurrection? :think weren't written until after the giving of the Spirit, so the Gospels were written to the Church.

That you fee the need to capitalize "Church" shows your complete lack of that understanding.

Oh.

There is still NO need to capitalize the word "resurrection" regardless of who's resurrection you're talking about.

So?

This is just your silliness.

Is it sillier to capitalize the most important event that's ever happened in human history, or to criticize me capitalizing Resurrection? :idunno: