Myer:


You mean there is no difference between the old and the new testament?

Myer:


It's been aeons. I had feared you have been caught up in the spirit and translated to Sambisa to convert Shekau and his cohorts.lol

hoopernikao:


Absolutely a continuation. All that is written in New is taken directly from the Old. No new revelation. Until you see the scriptures as a whole and start reading and understanding it as such there are alot that won't be understood.

Note
No writer of the new testament has a Bible study beyond reading the old. When you read the word scriptures in New Testament, that solely refer to the OT (Genesis - Malachi) in their time not 4 gospels or epistles, yet they communicated all you read today in NT from it.

Paul read OT and taught salvation, faith in Christ. Jesus read OT and taught redemption, grace and God's mercy. Same as other writers. Their teaching is from old.

So, until you start seeing what they saw in OT and start understanding what those who heard them understood, you will not have full appreciation of the whole scripture one.

hoopernikao:


There are more work on ground than online Sir, especially in silencing the voice and influence of the pandemic.

Am sure you have been good.

Myer:


On this we certainly agree.
So much noise online.
The world yearns for the word of life, not words of argument and egomania as is common on here.lol

Your absence was truly felt. Hope you brought a fresh doze of anointing like the Apostle Paul after his return from Arabia.

hoopernikao:


And then be persecuted like Paul

Myer:


What does the phrase New testament mean?
Let me rather answer you with scriptures.

HEBREWS 8:6-13
But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.

For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord.

For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”

In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.


John 13:34
A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another.

Myer:


How else can a Christian share in the glory of Christ except through persecution? Lol.

The challenge is we have seen God continue to prosper nominal Christians that devout Christians start to question if the persecution route is worth it.
Trust me, there was a time I was ready to go to Okija Shine, Sambisa forest and even outside the shores of Nigeria just to be propagate the gospel and even be martyred for his name sake.

But with time I realised I was no different from an extremist Muslim who is likewise prepared to be blown up to further the Islamic cause.

hoopernikao:



Observe properly, that the word covenant was not used loosely as we use it this days.

When that word is used as New/Old in the Bible it is always explained.

Observe the verse you quoted.

HEBREWS 8:6-13
But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.

Verse 6 used the word promises. That means we must trace what that means. When, how, where did God made his promises. At what point in time? Was it an event or a writing or both.

There are two key events in OT that defines God's promises

1. To Abraham
2. To Israelite.

And this promises were firstly seen in events and documented as scriptures. So when the scriptures speaks about old promises, that won't refer to a writings but an event in time that was now documented in writings (scriptures).

E.g The promise to Abraham cannot be called the Book of Genesis but that promise was documented in the book of Genesis, but the book is not a covenant as much as the promise to Abraham was a covenant.


Observe the next verse

For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord.

This explains when and what is the covenant. He said the Old covenant was made: to who?

To fathers of the house of Israel and Judah

Where? Observe what he said below:

day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt.

Very specific.
The covenant as in an event. We can see this events documented in Exodus, Deuteronomy. Note that there is different between documentation of the events and the events itself. He called the events in those period (exodus from Egypt) a covenant. In fact this events wasn't in Genesis, It was documented in Exodus-Deut.

So, the old covenant has a recipient - Those coming from Egypt. In fact it is clear from above that God didn't make the covenant with everyone but specifically "their fathers".


So what is called the new covenant in the scriptures?
Now observe next verse.

For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”

He didn't say New scriptures. A new covenant, not a writing but a promise, an event of actions and plans. What we have as scriptures will be the explanation of these events


So, Genesis to Malachi documented this covenant, a promise of God made during the Exodus. The documentation which is what we called now the Old Testament (Scriptures) is not the covenant made, but gives us the explanation of what transpired to learn from. The covenant is a promise.

Note that God firstly made a covenant to Abraham. You can't called that covenant book of Genesis just because it was documented in Genesis. The covenant with Abraham is an event, a promise which we can read and learn from Genesis. Same with the promise he made to Israel, it's a covenant, now documented in the books we called OT today.

Lastly observe the verse below.

In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

So what is the new covenant? It's not Mathew to Revelation but the covenant of the Spirit in Christ Jesus.

Where can we find this documented? All through the scriptures, not just what we called NT

When was it fulfilled? In the events of his death, burial, resurrection and the giving of the Spirit.

Where is this event documented for us to read? In Matthew to Revelation.

So you must know the distinction between events called covenant and the writings that documented the events.

---

So going back to where we stated.

The word covenant was never used loosely in the scriptures and was never used to mean the writings of the scriptures. The idea of calling a part of the scriptures Old Testament was influenced by translators who trying to help in reading of the Bible decided to demarcate into two and called one Old and another New. It was never from the scriptures and this have not helped many in proper bible study and understanding.

Infact, it is funny how translator called Matthew - John New Testament, when the scriptures shows clearly that there cant be a new testament when the testator is still alive. Jesus was with humanity in all the 4 gospels, so why is it called Old? But the reality is this is not even the issue, the Bible was never referred to as old in any part or in full.

Doesnt the bible contains the documentation of the events of the old covenant? Yes
Is any part of the bible now become old covenant or testament? No.

The scriptures are scriptures, in its completeness we find God's work in Christ for man, in man and through man.
So, that means, no part of this must be treated as old or new, as the word of God are always new and abide forever.

Myer:


I find your writings very well articulated and presented.
However, it does not cloud my judgment not to see the truth or lies in them.

At this point, I really wish to understand your point, and i hope you won't disappoint. (just couldn't resist the rhyme.lol)
You seem to disagree with the writer in Hebrews if your submission is that there is no difference between the old and the new testament/covenant.
Regardless of the documentation, do you believe there was an old testament after which Christ ushered in a new testament?

I ask cos it would seem that the whole purpose of the birth, death and resurrection of Christ wasn't even necessary since the old covenant is to be continued.

I believe you need to be less closed-minded in order to both acknowledge and appreciate that the birth, death and resurrection of Christ paved the way for a new covenant. The more pertinent question is whether the old covenant was abolished or parts of it yet remains in the new.

hoopernikao:

So, in conclusion,
When you read or see the word covenant in the Bible, it's just part of the dealings of God with man to save and redeem man. It's not referring to writing of the Bible. If you observe the said covenant is always associated to events and explained in events when used.


So you must try to keep your mind away from thinking the Bible is talking about the books of the Bible when you read/hear Old Testament/Covenant or New Testament/Covenant.


You may not agree with the following but it's the truth:
that your (our) knowledge of calling a part of the scriptures old and another part new was actually influenced by translators' segmentation of the Bible into two. If you haven't heard or seen that word before, you will never have such notion nor see it intended in the scriptures if you are given a whole Bible to read. All the texts of the scriptures are clear.

Myer:


First let me start by reminding you that the present book called the bible was canonised.
However it was canonised to reflect to a great degree the timeline and journey from the Old to the new covenant (testament).

Those who canonised the bible did their research before separating the bibke into Old testament and New testament.

Saying new testament/covenant is no differential from the Old means not only did Jesus' death achieve nothing, but also the early Christians (apostles of the new covenant) were persecuted and martyred by the Jews (custodians of the old covenant).

One major difference between the old testament and the new testament is the Laws of Moses being replaced by the Law of the Spirit.
In fact Apostle Paul in His epistles condemns any bekiever who still practises the laws. He called such accursed. Galatians 3:1-14

At this juncture i believe you should explain what you understand by the new covenant to help me better understand your position cos I really don't see it.

Myer:


First let me start by reminding you that the present book called the bible was canonised.
However it was canonised to reflect to a great degree the timeline and journey from the Old to the new covenant (testament).

Those who canonised the bible did their research before separating the bibke into Old testament and New testament.

Saying new testament/covenant is no differential from the Old means not only did Jesus' death achieve nothing, but also the early Christians (apostles of the new covenant) were persecuted and martyred by the Jews (custodians of the old covenant).

One major difference between the old testament and the new testament is the Laws of Moses being replaced by the Law of the Spirit.
In fact Apostle Paul in His epistles condemns any bekiever who still practises the laws. He called such accursed. Galatians 3:1-14

At this juncture i believe you should explain what you understand by the new covenant to help me better understand your position cos I really don't see it.

hoopernikao:



Can i ask you,

When Jesus died and rose, there was not single book of what we called New Testament is written then, So please, what covenant was in operation then, since the New Covenant is not available and the Old is now Old (going by your explanation that books are the covenants)? If you take the writings as the covenant, so were they still under Old covenant even after Jesus resurrection? Bear in mind that the first book of the NT is written 50 years after. So was the covenant suspended within that period that no one has penned down all the events as scriptures?


The scriptures is not a covenant, it is a documents that shows you God's dealing with man. It only documents the covenants which you read today to learn and to know God's purpose for man: Christ.

I am avoiding having to write a long explanation on this,

Myer:


Let me share an illustration;

Take Nigeria for example, our traditional/indigenous religions had their own laws and practices, they had been living by for ages.

Let's say suddenly an educated traditionalist decides to document these practices iand write them in a book that was published in the year 2020.

Does that mean that traditional religion started in year 2020?
Cos from your explanation, that because the books of the new testament were written 50 years after Christ does not make them new covenant right?


How then do you explain the message of what was documented informing us that the death of Chris ushered in both a new covenant and the Holyspirit dispensation which were not in the old covenant.

Jesus Christ brought the new covenant. John 1:17.
Whether it was documented 1000 years after him, doesn't negate the fact that a new covenant was given through him.

I asked you a question, what does the new covenant mean to you cos I believe your answer to this question will settle this confusion.

hoopernikao:


Good morning
You are contradicting yourself now.

Firstly, a covenant is not a tradition or culture. A covenant is an agreement. This can result into cultural modification, likewise a tradition can evolve from it. But note this word again. A COVENANT IS AN AGREEMENT. A covenant is not a process, it's a promise, and agreement which can them take process to fulfil or achieve.

You seems not to get the meaning of that word right.

Let me ask you this:

The covenant God had with Noah is it Old or New?

The covenant God had with Abraham is it Old or New?

Myer:


I asked you a question, what does the new covenant mean to you cos I believe your answer to this question will settle this confusion.

Myer:
The whole idea of Christianity is all about how Christians are to be identifiable by the grace of God upon them, their relationship with the Holyspirit and living in victory over enemies and challenges through faith in Christ.

I have been a Christian but this was not my reality. Which made me question the bible.

Recently a christian pastor murdered his own wife just like an unbeliever could. Which makes me question, is there even any difference between a Christian and others?

Myer:
The whole idea of Christianity is all about how Christians are to be identifiable by the grace of God upon them, their relationship with the Holyspirit and living in victory over enemies and challenges through faith in Christ.
I have been a Christian but this was not my reality. Which made me question the bible.
Recently a christian pastor murdered his own wife just like an unbeliever could. Which makes me question, is there even any difference between a Christian and others?

MaxInDHouse:
The group name "Christians" was borrowed from the mouth of observers in Antioch {Act 11:26} what quantifies a person to be a Christian is the ability to humble oneself and be prepared to forgo whatever it may cost to become one of those practicing pure worship!

Where most people got it wrong is thinking a Christian must have the characters of Jesus, but that's a misconception a Christian only humbles himself for knowledge and his transformation is a gradual process, contrary to a none Christian who feels he's ok as long as he is better in behaviour than others around him.

A Christian may have dubious characters but one thing makes the difference he acknowledges that God wants him to improve and he's interested in the one and only form of teaching that can help in transforming him into whatever God approves! Luke 19:2-10

AkinwaleJJ:


Sorry Sir, but no one is forcing this down your throat, neither can you format it from those who believe it by force. So if you're not mature enough to chat respectfully like an adult that doesn't give you the audacity to insult or disrespect others, you're free to hold onto whatever you wish.

Fvckyouall:


The answer is nothing, christains aren't better or worse than an unbeliver. Any evil an average person commits a Christian can also commit. I always say this in the right conditions everyone has the probability of being a killer, thief, rapist, even a Hitler, we just pray we never get to be in that condition.
We would be surprised when God comes he may pick chronic unbelivers instead of some christains so no one is better than anyy

hoopernikao:


I have actually answers this severally in my write up.

New Covenant as called by the Scriptures, is the covenant of God in Christ. And it simply means THE GIVING OF THE SPIRIT.

Note that calling it New is not about the time frame but because there exist old that was compromised (the covenant of God with Israel) by the recipient: Israel. Hence, the word Old and New is in relation to that.

Gal 3:14

14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

Notice that the word there is MIGHT RECEIVE THE PROMISED SPIRIT not promise of the spirit.

Genesis 12:1-3

1 Now the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee: 2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing. 3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

This is the same thing promised to Abraham.
Notice verse 3.

In thee shall families of the earth be blessed

This is what Paul called Abraham blessing in Galatians 3:14 (the spirit).

Observe that when God gave Abraham this covenant he wasn't a Jew or Israelite. So that statement "in the shall the families of the earth be blessed" will refer to

1. Israel as the chosen executor of the covenant
2. All Gentile nations.

Hence everyone is captured under Abraham's blessing and covenant.

So, it's in Abraham that the whole world (Gentiles included now) is blessed and this is not talking about land or cars or houses. But the Spirit.

Hence, the covenant fulfilled in Christ is what God promised Abraham which is to happen through Israel, to be executed by Israel. Israel failed in this hence, that agreement of God with Israel has to be terminated. This is what you called Old.

That same covenant with Abraham now has a new mediator, executor, which is Jesus Christ.
This is why it's called the New Covenant. Because the Old was done away with.

So in reality, there is only one covenant in the Bible per say and that's the promise of God to Abraham, which is the promised spirit, the receiving of the spirit even unto Gentiles.

When the Bible use the word Old or New Covenant it is actually in relation to the executors which are Israel (Old because it failed and terminated), Jesus (New because there was a former, that was terminated).

Ezek 36:26-27
26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. 28 And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God.

The promised spirit. Same.

Heb 8:7-9

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. 8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: 9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

Observe that it affirms to you the reason for the New Covenant. It's because the first was faulty.


Joel 2:28
And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:


In Acts 2, Peter quoted the same on the day of Pentecost when the spirit was given.


Hence, firstly, if you see the promise in the covenant beyond the giving of the Spirit, you are going to have issues with understanding the covenant.

Secondly, if you see the covenant given to Israel as different from that given to Abraham or that we have in Christ now, then there is also an issue. The singular plan of God for humanity is the giving of the Spirit, the Spirit of God. That is why in all OT you will find the word, My Spirit, God's Spirit, Spirit of God has a promise to man. This refer to the same thing in NT that is now called Spirit of Christ, Spirit of the Son etc why? The Son fulfilled the promised Spirit for man.

---

Observe, you will see the this happened (the giving, supply of the spirit) in OT as temporary act.

Prophets of Old only gave God's utterance when the spirit descend on them, but temporal.

Numbers 11:16
16 The Lord answered Moses, “Bring Me 70 men from Israel known to you as elders and officers of the people. Take them to the tent of meeting and have them stand there with you. 17 Then I will come down and speak with you there. I will take some of the Spirit who is on you and put the Spirit on them They will help you bear the burden of the people, so that you do not have to bear it by yourself.

Observe that, a temporal act to remind Moses of God's covenant of the spirit.

Read on
24 Moses went out and told the people the words of the Lord. He brought 70 men from the elders of the people and had them stand around the tent. 25 Then the Lord descended in the cloud and spoke to him. [i]He took some of the Spirit that was on Moses and placed the Spirit on the 70 elders. As the Spirit rested on them, they prophesied, but they never did it again. [/i]

They receive the Spirit, they prophesied.


Now note what happened after

26 Two men had remained in the camp, one named Eldad and the other Medad; the Spirit rested on them—they were among those listed, but had not gone out to the tent—and they prophesied in the camp. 27 A young man ran and reported to Moses, “Eldad and Medad are prophesying in the camp.”

Two men not part of those outside.


[b]28[/b] Joshua son of Nun, assistant to Moses since his youth,[j] responded, “Moses, my lord, stop them!”


Please observe Moses response.

29 But Moses asked him, “Are you jealous on my account? If only all the Lord’s people were prophets and the Lord would place His Spirit on them! ” 30 Then Moses returned to the camp along with the elders of Israel.

Moses spoke the Lord's mind: that the mind of God is for all of his people receive the Spirit. This is the covenant and this is what is fulfilled in Christ. This is the mind and plan of God.

So, Old covenant is not referring to writing of the scriptures but Israel failure to work in God's agreement. That is what makes it Old. The writings of the scriptures is what shows us all that transpired within those period. So in it I will see the Old covenant events and also in it I will see Christ explained.

Notice that all of the Apostles teaching were from the writings you called Old.

John 5:39
39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and [b]they are they which testify of me [/b]
Like o told you before, when ever you read the word SCRIPTURES from the Bible it simply means the OT writings, no NT writings then. Jesus said, his testimony are in the OT writings. So, can we find the New Covenant in OT writings? Yes but as a promises.


Jesus and his Apostle preached solely from the OT and they preached the following:

- Christ redemption from OT
- Christ death and resurrection from OT
- Spirit of Adoption from OT
- Gift of the Spirit from OT
-Philip preached Christ to the Ethiopian Eunuch from OT alone.
Etc.

Are this not new Covenant realities? Yet preached from OT.

Hence, does the OT still relevant to Christianity today? Yes. Absolutely. You can't even understand the scriptures without the understanding of OT.

Therefore, books in OT must be read as much as those in NT but all in the light of the New Covenant, the Spirit of Christ.

MaxInDHouse:
The group name "Christians" was borrowed from the mouth of observers in Antioch {Act 11:26} what quantifies a person to be a Christian is the ability to humble oneself and be prepared to forgo whatever it may cost to become one of those practicing pure worship!

Where most people got it wrong is thinking a Christian must have the characters of Jesus, but that's a misconception a Christian only humbles himself for knowledge and his transformation is a gradual process, contrary to a none Christian who feels he's ok as long as he is better in behaviour than others around him.

A Christian may have dubious characters but one thing makes the difference he acknowledges that God wants him to improve and he's interested in the one and only form of teaching that can help in transforming him into whatever God approves! Luke 19:2-10

Myer:


Our disagreement on this issue is not whether or not the new covenant was already prophesied ibefore Christ. That's obvious.
It is simply that you do not agree that there's a difference in the old covenant and the new.

First there are conditions that followed the old covenant viz;
-being a Jew
-becoming circumcised.
-only priests could enter the inner courts.
-the Laws of Moses and the sacrifices that follow.
-tithes,
-Judgment by the hands of elders.
-An eye for an eye, etc

In the new covenant after the promise was fulfilled, all these were scrapped.
-Everyone including Gentiles and Jews are God's people.
-No circumcision needed. Only circumcision of the heart (broken spirit).
-Everyone is a royal priesthood and there's no more physical holy of holies.
-Law of the Spirit only and Christ paid the ultimate sacrifice once and for all.
-Cheerful giving.
-Judgment is of God.
-Forgiveness, etc

Just to mention few.
So the old testament is a background to the new testament. A shadow of what now is in the new covenant. The difference is i.portant that here's how Jesus explained it to Nicodemus and used the great John the baptist of the old covenant to the least in this new covenant.

Matthew 11:11
Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

John 3:3-6
Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is nborn oagain2 he cannot psee the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born qof water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 rThat which is born of the flesh is sflesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

The differences are so much it makes one wonder if it is the same God of Old testament that is in New testament?

If you still don't see these differences, then we can only agree to disagree.

Myer:

This is true of any one devoted to any religion. Not Christianity alone. Muslims, Jews, Traditionalists and even Chinese Monks.

I've met devout Muslims who are more pious than most pastors, whose humility and generosity and hospitality leaves one speechless.

Biblically, a Christian should manifest the life of Christ both in speech, conduct, spiritual gifts and fruit of the spirit. However we observe this is hardly so.

In fact some business owners don't even want to hire Christians because some Christians profess righteousness only to end up embezzling the company funds. Cos they believe all they have to do is ask for forgiveness in the name of Jesus.lol

hoopernikao:


Good evening and trust you are good.
If I may ask, do you believe in the scriptures (Christianity)?

Myer:

This is true of any one devoted to any religion. Not Christianity alone. Muslims, Jews, Traditionalists and even Chinese Monks.

I've met devout Muslims who are more pious than most pastors, whose humility and generosity and hospitality leaves one speechless.

Biblically, a Christian should manifest the life of Christ both in speech, conduct, spiritual gifts and fruit of the spirit. However we observe this is hardly so.

In fact some business owners don't even want to hire Christians because some Christians profess righteousness only to end up embezzling the company funds. Cos they believe all they have to do is ask for forgiveness in the name of Jesus.lol

MaxInDHouse:
You didn't get my point!
We are not talking about manners that's preached in virtually all religions, if that is what you are looking for then you can't differentiate Christians from other religions.
Just take a deep breath and think 'it was in the city of Antioch where Jesus' disciples were first addressed as CHRISTIANS {Act 11:26} please ask yourself ©was it that people living in Antioch weren't hospitable, humble and generous that made the Christians to stand out so that they were given that tag? Are we saying there are no such virtuous people around that makes Jesus' followers unique? The answer is "NO!" Jesus' disciples are known with the duty their Master assigned to them, they must go from house to house in their neighbourhood to PREACH and TEACH just as their leader who claims to be the Christ always do during his lifetime! Matthew 28:19-20; Act 1:8

Whether a member is fast catching up with the laid down principles their leader taught them or not each Christians knew quite well that what keeps him constantly in Jesus' sight spiritually speaking is the duty assigned to the group, note Jesus' concluding words found @ Matthew 28:20 after telling them what they must continue doing he said "I am with you always until the end of the world"

So no matter how chaste anyone may prove to be the only means of becoming a child of Jesus' God is taking up the responsibility to go out for the preaching and teaching work Jesus assigned to his disciples. One may ask "but what about other nice and kind people in other religions who aren't doing this? Will God destroy them simply because they're not going out to preach? What about many among Jesus' followers who aren't virtuous? Will God just spare them simply because they're following Jesus' group to preach?"

If you want to know the answers to all these questions just ask and i will oblige! Matthew 7:7-8

May you have PEACE!

Myer:

You mean evangelism is what differentiates a Christian from others? Jesus did not say it is by evangelism that people will identify his disciples. Rather he said by Loving one another will people know who are his disciples.

Evangelism is one of the many responsibilities of a Christian. But that is not why the people of Antioch called the followers of Christ Christians. Rather it was their manner of living.