The word apostle is sent one. Apostle is not a New Testament principle any more than the church is founded and established in old (Genisis ) .
Ok, now I can see where you're going. This is more clear to me now, and I thank you for that.
If you don't mind, I would ask that you show to me where Genesis says that Abel was a "sent one" of the caliber of Paul, or John, or Peter...et al. Now, if this is simply a matter of what you wish to think and believe, then you have that right. I'm not here to challenge that. What I do challenge is your saying these things as if they are verifiable facts that the rest of us should be able to read, and therefore believe. At least, that's how I take what you said since you stated it all as an emphatic, stand-alone truth. Had you said, "This is what I personally believe...," that would be different.
Please show us the evidence.
Abel is the first mentioned to receive favor/grace as a member of the church .
The Church did not exist until Acts 2, so please show to us where Genesis makes any stated reference to the "Church." If this is yet another of the items you choose to inject into the Genesis text because you want to believe it, that's one thing, but to state it as an emphatic truth that's verifiable by anyone else reading the text, that's another matter entirely. Please show to us the evidence, if you have any.
It was the first mention of anyone being put to death for the gospel. Cain plowed Abel under to set up the pagan foundation .Out of sight out of mind. As we can see it was not hid from God. Satan a murdering from that beginning. Satan is behind all murders .Most doctrine have their foundation in Genesis .
Yet again, I must ask about you making claim that it was for the sake of the Gospel that Abel was slain. The Gospel is a specific message, and is one that the prophets of old could never quite understand nor see, even though they desired to look into it and understand it. Please show to us where Genesis ever referenced and/or defined the Gospel to those people back then.
Some would have the church or bride of Christ that began in Genesis disappear and reappear.
Some even say mankind did not have the Holy Spirit until Acts 2. Making the foundation of the bride of Christ without effect.
Garee, now, let's keep our feet on the ground, here. I can't take dizzying heights too well. I need this in manageable morsels. Can you show to us where any OT book ever even suggested the in-filling of Holy Spirit, as opposed to the Spirit being "upon" people before Acts 2. Please provide an explanation of details rather than sporadic imagery. I need for my mind to be fruitful in understanding this rather than to spiritualize it so far out into the ether that none of us can grasp it. That's how I feel when speaking to a Hindu or a Buddhist. We should be able to speak of biblical things plainly and directly to the scriptures, so please elaborate.
I did not say I am not a follower of any branch of Covenant theology I simply follow the instruction of 1 John 2:27 ,My faith is not built on what the eyes see .Parables teach us how to walk by faith the unseen without parables Christ spoke not.
When Jesus was pointing out to the Pharisees and Scribes what a den of vipers they were, He was not speaking in parables. It was a comparative language rebuke. When Jesus revealed His second coming in Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 23, He was not speaking in parables. The imagery is quite clear. I'm not teaching you about this, I'm simply stating what is clear to not only myself, but also to many others here as well.
Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and
let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
The Lord created reason, so why would we ever shun it? He made us rational being who are unified with the spiritual and the physical...triune beings, so to speak. Why do you think the Lord would keep His Gospel on a spiritual level at the exclusion of the rational? How could we ever preach the Gospel to the lost if they were never able to understand it until after being saved and reborn?
Garee, the Church did not replace Israel. When did the Lord ever call the Church the house of David, and when did the Lord ever destroy the nations that came against the Church? No, those can only be spoken in relation to the Jews. We were grafted into the Vine, which is Christ Jesus. We were not grafted into Israel, but into Christ. Though the Lord Lord cut off the natural branch, that branch can be grafted back in. It's nothing but pure, sinful, human pride to think that we replaced Israel. Otherwise, God would not be a God of His word.
So, please give evidence to any claims to the contrary.
MM
