Christ became saviour when he died or when he rose?

[MHz]

Mark is the longer book and on that note alone it would have Peter as the author.

Matthew is the book that is almost a duplicate of what Mark is. When 'doing deed' to literary works you always take a small part away from the bigger part rather than taking a small part and adding to it. To follow this it would be a question of did one jot get changed or is all the lip service simply the smoke to explain why we need professionals to explain the Bible to 'us'. If a e-bible is needed for one reader to cover all the text in learning mode then that just points to the book being written for a specific generation. It was 1500AD before we knew the world was round and that 3/4 of it was water. As I mentioned the Bible lets that out but nobody without a modern globe would be able to correctly connect the two to arrive at a 'common piece of truth'. When you can do that in many places it totally eliminates it as being a book of 'random thoughts' and it is s precise document that is written to cover God rather than it being needed for use to fully understand it before what it mentions 'comes our way'. I've been skipping posting the references and since I'm trying to convince you of certain thing it is only fair to fully share what led me to have my current view and you reading the same thing will spot anything I've missed, if I have missed something. The 70 weeks being completed takes about 10 references and about 10 sentences from me. The verses alone are of more value than my 'cheat-sheet'.

Both Peter and John were fishermen and therefore illeterates.

Lets say all were from the lower levels of society and paying taxes was about all the education they needed. Mary as being a daughter of Aaron seems to have been quite educated if you examine her talk with her cousin when both were with child. Being cousins if one was a daughter of Aaron then the other one was also. It is quite possible that because of Temple duties that they were in the 'could read' class. That would apply to any woman that was a Disciple of John the Baptist as well if they talked to the Temple staff about such things as purity of women.
What about after the Acts:2 event where all that were baptized in that fashion has the cure of the tower of Babel reversed and they could understand all men no matter what nation they were from. There is no reason to 'assume' it was spoken only and reading and writing was excluded. The point the bible makes is that they could not have written anything before that date, especially in a 'foreign language'. Parables are used to teach the 'newbies' and it uses symbolism, if Jesus used that method until after the cross the God used that same method in the OT and it would include 'private' being a party of one or a party of 13 as was the case in the time of Jesus.

Lu:10:39:
And she had a sister called Mary,
which also sat at Jesus' feet,
and heard his word.
Lu:10:40:
But Martha was cumbered about much serving,
and came to him,
and said,
Lord,
dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone?
bid her therefore that she help me.
Lu:10:41:
And Jesus answered and said unto her,
Martha,
Martha,
thou art careful and troubled about many things:
Lu:10:42:
But one thing is needful:
and Mary hath chosen that good part,
which shall not be taken away from her.

Most women at that time were uneducated as well.

The talk between Elizabeth and Mary would show His mom was 'educated' and this letter from Mary shows she was the equal to any Apostle and she had more information because she was the first and the last as she lived longer than Andrew. That makes her the head of the Church in reality and Peter is the 2nd oldest. That is too much info for the Church to let out. They make a lot of money off the flock, is salvation was assured and it didn't matter if you learned about God or not it would kill the cash cow that exist for the Clergy when the false impression they maintain is that the bible is a very complicated books and even the Clergy has to study it 24/7 at Lawyers rates before a few lines can be understood.

That is why Paul wrote the first books in the NT. He was educated and spoke fluent Greek.

Ac:2:11:
Cretes and Arabians,
we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
Ac:2:12:
And they were all amazed,
and were in doubt,
saying one to another,
What meaneth this?
Ac:2:13:
Others mocking said,
These men are full of new wine.
Ac:2:14:
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:

What the bible says about John and Peter and why the people are shocked Jesus surrounded himself with ignorant illeterates.

Acts 4:13 When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus

Take the mystery out of the Bible by reading the Bible. Most will not be clear but a part here and there will be and over time what wasn't clear will be clear because of what you already understand. 2Thess:2 start out with a few verses that build on an earlier topic mentioned. It add some details to a prophecy Jesus mentioned and that helps us understan that much more. The return cannot happen befopre two events take place. The 'falling away' was when the RCC changed from the Greek to the Latin in about 500AD, the 2nd part is a reference to the 7th trump so the first gathering cannot be a 'fact'. Given that Revelation is the prophecy and it wasn't written yet goes without saying. That is the same with dating Luke as being later than 33AD as the prophecy in Luke:21:12-24 is specific to the Apostles and the time they spend in Jerusalem after Stephen is killed and including the 70AD Temple incident. The Bible might appear sloppy but that is putting a prophecy as being written in hindsight. If that is impossible then the onlt alternative is the Gospel was being preached orally in Jerusalem but hard copies existed in Judea as that message was extended past Jerusalem by 70AD.

Also according to Mark his disciples were as dumb as the crowds because even they did not understand what Jesus was ranting. Jesus had to explain it all over to them privately.

Mark 4:34 In fact, in his public ministry he never taught without using parables; but afterward, when he was alone with his disciples, he explained everything to them.

Even then what they learned was 'minimal' if they fell asleep 3 times on the last night He was alive. They all seemed more focused and clarity on the first communication would be 'gifts' that show a progression. If that is how they were gathered that is how we will be gathered, step by step by step and they will always be as far ahead as they are now.

Here we know Jesus had to explain to his disciples everything he said in his sermons.

We don't have a copy of those sermons, we are given that they took place. The one where He explauns all the OT prophecies that were about Him going back to Moses would have saved us a lot of time as we get to do that on our own and getting things right on the first go is not a trait we have. 24 places in the OT that use the phrase 'day of the lord', that is 24 steps closer to knowledge or 24 steps across the 'not stupid' line. An even better exercise is to search the NT for the term 'grace' and do a mental summation on what those verses mean. Then go to each of those references and see if your summation holds up or has reading the whole passage added some extra info. At that point you could argue with any expert about what the Bible means when the term 'grace' is used. For the day of the lord it will show that there is a connection between the passages and there are many more passages that need to be read before the clearest picture is available. The words are already there, read and use the brush to add that detail to the picture.

All of Daniel could be taken to be a parable and a private chat, as could most of the other prophetic books. That the history is in such detail helps the reader decide if the cross was an actual event or not. That makes the whole book literal or figurative, it can't be both. Revelation would be the 'private teaching that Daniel missed'. If people don't seen an opportunity there they aren't really looking for God all that hard.

So who was there to explain to Peter or the disciples after Jesus was gone, after he was put to death. That is why you see so much confusion in their messages. They had to be put away and eventually that too came to pass. All the 12 disciples and Paul were put to death.

1Th:5:21:
Prove all things;
hold fast that which is good.

Joh:7:39:
(But this spake he of the Spirit,
which they that believe on him should receive:
for the Holy Ghost was not yet given;
because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

Joh:14:16:
And I will pray the Father,
and he shall give you another Comforter,
that he may abide with you for ever;

Joh:14:26:
But the Comforter,
which is the Holy Ghost,
whom the Father will send in my name,
he shall teach you all things,
and bring all things to your remembrance,
whatsoever I have said unto you.

Joh:15:26:
But when the Comforter is come,
whom I will send unto you from the Father,
even the Spirit of truth,
which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

Joh:16:7:
Nevertheless I tell you the truth;
It is expedient for you that I go away:
for if I go not away,
the Comforter will not come unto you;
but if I depart,
I will send him unto you.

 

[Motar]

Christ became saviour when he died or when he rose?

Does any Christian know the answer?

Who is Christ and what do you mean by the designation "savior", Lib?

 

[Blackleaf]

I watched The Passion of the Christ for the second time last night, after the football. It's actually a surprisingly good and historically accurate film for one directed by Mel Gibson (and for Hollywood in general), and is completely in Aramaic, Latin and Hebrew.

 

[MHz]

Proverb:30:4:
Who hath ascended up into heaven,
or descended?
who hath gathered the wind in his fists?
who hath bound the waters in a garment?
who hath established all the ends of the earth?
what is his name,
and what is his son's name,
if thou canst tell?

Did you get the part where it was Mary and Martha that got past the guards the morning of the arrest and it was Mary who brought Peter in. That is why the RCC was in hysterics and that point was deflected by other trivial matters. Much like they do today.
(that you felt the need to place it after football is something that is between you and God)

Who is Christ and what do you mean by the designation "savior", Lib?

First representative of the Kingdom of God that can turn words into reality. That would be Christ and the day would be the day the 7th trump sounds.

1Co:4:20:
For the kingdom of God is not in word,
but in power.

Heb:10:31:
It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Zec:13:8:
And it shall come to pass,
that in all the land,
saith the LORD,
two parts therein shall be cut off and die;
but the third shall be left therein.
Zec:13:9:
And I will bring the third part through the fire,
and will refine them as silver is refined,
and will try them as gold is tried:
they shall call on my name,
and I will hear them:
I will say,
It is my people:
and they shall say,
The LORD is my God.

 

[Motar]

First representative of the Kingdom of God that can turn words into reality. That would be Christ and the day would be the day the 7th trump sounds.

1Co:4:20:
For the kingdom of God is not in word,
but in power.

Heb:10:31:
It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Zec:13:8:
And it shall come to pass,
that in all the land,
saith the LORD,
two parts therein shall be cut off and die;
but the third shall be left therein.
Zec:13:9:
And I will bring the third part through the fire,
and will refine them as silver is refined,
and will try them as gold is tried:
they shall call on my name,
and I will hear them:
I will say,
It is my people:
and they shall say,
The LORD is my God.

Thanks, MHz. If I may ask, what is your denominational background?

I am also interested in Liberalman's perspective on this : ) From what does Christ save?

 

[Harikrish]

Matthew is the book that is almost a duplicate of what Mark is. When 'doing deed' to literary works you always take a small part away from the bigger part rather than taking a small part and adding to it. To follow this it would be a question of did one jot get changed or is all the lip service simply the smoke to explain why we need professionals to explain the Bible to 'us'. If a e-bible is needed for one reader to cover all the text in learning mode then that just points to the book being written for a specific generation. It was 1500AD before we knew the world was round and that 3/4 of it was water. As I mentioned the Bible lets that out but nobody without a modern globe would be able to correctly connect the two to arrive at a 'common piece of truth'. When you can do that in many places it totally eliminates it as being a book of 'random thoughts' and it is s precise document that is written to cover God rather than it being needed for use to fully understand it before what it mentions 'comes our way'. I've been skipping posting the references and since I'm trying to convince you of certain thing it is only fair to fully share what led me to have my current view and you reading the same thing will spot anything I've missed, if I have missed something. The 70 weeks being completed takes about 10 references and about 10 sentences from me. The verses alone are of more value than my 'cheat-sheet'.


Lets say all were from the lower levels of society and paying taxes was about all the education they needed. Mary as being a daughter of Aaron seems to have been quite educated if you examine her talk with her cousin when both were with child. Being cousins if one was a daughter of Aaron then the other one was also. It is quite possible that because of Temple duties that they were in the 'could read' class. That would apply to any woman that was a Disciple of John the Baptist as well if they talked to the Temple staff about such things as purity of women.
What about after the Acts:2 event where all that were baptized in that fashion has the cure of the tower of Babel reversed and they could understand all men no matter what nation they were from. There is no reason to 'assume' it was spoken only and reading and writing was excluded. The point the bible makes is that they could not have written anything before that date, especially in a 'foreign language'. Parables are used to teach the 'newbies' and it uses symbolism, if Jesus used that method until after the cross the God used that same method in the OT and it would include 'private' being a party of one or a party of 13 as was the case in the time of Jesus.

Lu:10:39:
And she had a sister called Mary,
which also sat at Jesus' feet,
and heard his word.
Lu:10:40:
But Martha was cumbered about much serving,
and came to him,
and said,
Lord,
dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone?
bid her therefore that she help me.
Lu:10:41:
And Jesus answered and said unto her,
Martha,
Martha,
thou art careful and troubled about many things:
Lu:10:42:
But one thing is needful:
and Mary hath chosen that good part,
which shall not be taken away from her.


The talk between Elizabeth and Mary would show His mom was 'educated' and this letter from Mary shows she was the equal to any Apostle and she had more information because she was the first and the last as she lived longer than Andrew. That makes her the head of the Church in reality and Peter is the 2nd oldest. That is too much info for the Church to let out. They make a lot of money off the flock, is salvation was assured and it didn't matter if you learned about God or not it would kill the cash cow that exist for the Clergy when the false impression they maintain is that the bible is a very complicated books and even the Clergy has to study it 24/7 at Lawyers rates before a few lines can be understood.



Ac:2:11:
Cretes and Arabians,
we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
Ac:2:12:
And they were all amazed,
and were in doubt,
saying one to another,
What meaneth this?
Ac:2:13:
Others mocking said,
These men are full of new wine.
Ac:2:14:
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:


Take the mystery out of the Bible by reading the Bible. Most will not be clear but a part here and there will be and over time what wasn't clear will be clear because of what you already understand. 2Thess:2 start out with a few verses that build on an earlier topic mentioned. It add some details to a prophecy Jesus mentioned and that helps us understan that much more. The return cannot happen befopre two events take place. The 'falling away' was when the RCC changed from the Greek to the Latin in about 500AD, the 2nd part is a reference to the 7th trump so the first gathering cannot be a 'fact'. Given that Revelation is the prophecy and it wasn't written yet goes without saying. That is the same with dating Luke as being later than 33AD as the prophecy in Luke:21:12-24 is specific to the Apostles and the time they spend in Jerusalem after Stephen is killed and including the 70AD Temple incident. The Bible might appear sloppy but that is putting a prophecy as being written in hindsight. If that is impossible then the onlt alternative is the Gospel was being preached orally in Jerusalem but hard copies existed in Judea as that message was extended past Jerusalem by 70AD.


Even then what they learned was 'minimal' if they fell asleep 3 times on the last night He was alive. They all seemed more focused and clarity on the first communication would be 'gifts' that show a progression. If that is how they were gathered that is how we will be gathered, step by step by step and they will always be as far ahead as they are now.


We don't have a copy of those sermons, we are given that they took place. The one where He explauns all the OT prophecies that were about Him going back to Moses would have saved us a lot of time as we get to do that on our own and getting things right on the first go is not a trait we have. 24 places in the OT that use the phrase 'day of the lord', that is 24 steps closer to knowledge or 24 steps across the 'not stupid' line. An even better exercise is to search the NT for the term 'grace' and do a mental summation on what those verses mean. Then go to each of those references and see if your summation holds up or has reading the whole passage added some extra info. At that point you could argue with any expert about what the Bible means when the term 'grace' is used. For the day of the lord it will show that there is a connection between the passages and there are many more passages that need to be read before the clearest picture is available. The words are already there, read and use the brush to add that detail to the picture.

All of Daniel could be taken to be a parable and a private chat, as could most of the other prophetic books. That the history is in such detail helps the reader decide if the cross was an actual event or not. That makes the whole book literal or figurative, it can't be both. Revelation would be the 'private teaching that Daniel missed'. If people don't seen an opportunity there they aren't really looking for God all that hard.



1Th:5:21:
Prove all things;
hold fast that which is good.

Joh:7:39:
(But this spake he of the Spirit,
which they that believe on him should receive:
for the Holy Ghost was not yet given;
because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

Joh:14:16:
And I will pray the Father,
and he shall give you another Comforter,
that he may abide with you for ever;

Joh:14:26:
But the Comforter,
which is the Holy Ghost,
whom the Father will send in my name,
he shall teach you all things,
and bring all things to your remembrance,
whatsoever I have said unto you.

Joh:15:26:
But when the Comforter is come,
whom I will send unto you from the Father,
even the Spirit of truth,
which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

Joh:16:7:
Nevertheless I tell you the truth;
It is expedient for you that I go away:
for if I go not away,
the Comforter will not come unto you;
but if I depart,
I will send him unto you.

No Christian can claim to understand Jesus's teachings.

I list the verse first followed by the point I am making.

Mark 4:34 In fact, in his public ministry he never taught without using parables; but afterward, when he was alone with his disciples, he explained everything to them.

1. So unless you were his disciple. Jesus's teachings remain unexplained to the public.

Luke 18:31 Jesus took the Twelve aside and told them, "We are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written by the prophets about the Son of Man will be fulfilled.
32 He will be handed over to the Gentiles. They will mock him, insult him, spit on him, flog him and kill him.
33 On the third day he will rise again."
34 The disciples did not understand any of this. Its meaning was hidden from them, and they did not know what he was talking about.

2. Even the disciples did not understand and did not know what Jesus was talking about even after the resurrection. So Jesus never got over his bad habit of speaking in parables and remained inarticulate, incoherent.

Luke 8:10 He said, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that, "'though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand.

3. Now it is not Jesus's explanation that can reveal to the disciples, but God has to give them that knowledge. Because Jesus only speaks in parables.


John 16: 25 "Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father.


4. A time will come when Jesus will speak plainly, coherently. But unfortunately Jesus was put to death before he could. The time for Jesus speaking plainly has passed. Check point 2.

1 Corinthians 2:10 these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God.

5. Maybe it is the Spirit that can reveal all things. But we know the Spirit was not getting through to tbe disciples. They constantly complained they did not get what Jesus was saying. Are we in a conundrum??