Who was the first missionary in the bible?
In the strictest sense of the word, the very first missionary mentioned in the Bible is Abram. God calls him out of Ur and into a new place, forcing him to depend on God's provision. Abram's life is a model for our own story of learning to trust God. As his faith increases, God entrusts resources to him not for his own good, but so that through him all nations would be blessed. See Genesis 12 and The Circumstances Surrounding the Call of Abram . (Joshua 24:2-3; Acts 7:2-5). Moses did not give us all the background needed to properly grasp the significance of the call of Abram, but it has been recorded for us in the Bible. Stephen clarifies the time that Abram was first called of God. It was not in Haran, as a casual reading of Genesis 12 might incline us to believe, but in Ur. As Stephen stood before his unbelieving Jewish brethren, he recounted the history of God’s chosen people, beginning with the call of Abraham: And he said, ‘Hear me, brethren and fathers! The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran and said to him, “Depart from your country and your relatives, and come into the land that I will show you”’ (Acts 7:2-3). Note: The Christian faith has always been a missionary faith. The word "missionary" means someone who is sent on a mission. It's the same word from which we get the New Testament office of apostle.
Shouldn't the New Testament be titled "The Book Of Paul?"?
If you read ALL the Old Testament and NOT just the "Torah", you will find that God speaks of a new covenant. Before Christ came men were under the law, which is found in the Torah. After Christ came, men were under Grace! Men no longer had to do all the things that were required of them in the Old Testament. I also have to disagree with your percentage there. Although a lot of the new testament was written by Paul, there were many other writers too. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all were credited for writing their own books in the New Testament. The book of Acts is widely understood to be written by the same author as the book of Luke. You can read about this on Wikipedia. Most of the Epistles were written by Paul. These were letters to different churches mostly although we know some were letters to Timothy and Titus. The author of the Book of Hebrews is anonymous. Some say it was Paul, but this has never been proven. It is said to have been written by someone else and then handed to Paul. Peter is assumed to have written I Peter and 2 Peter. James wrote the book of James and John also wrote the book of Revelations. I would find it very hard to say that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Hebrews, James, I and II Peter, I, II, and III John, Jude, and Revelation only make up 10 percent of the new testament!!! So, no, it's NOT called the book of Paul.. it's the New Testament. It is written to help christians who have received the Holy Ghost after salvation! People of the Old Testament didn't have the Holy Ghost nor did they have Salvation as we know it today as Christ had not come yet. Therefore they had certain laws they had to obey. I still believe the Jews are Gods chosen people, and God tells us in the New Testament that they will have a chance to accept the Christ that came so many years ago... I hope this clarifies your questions. I know you may argue my points, but I am honestly just trying to answer your question. I hope it has been beneficial to you in some way.
Mormons, are the Old Testament, New Testament, and Book of Mormon of equal importance?
If the scriptures were to be compared to a buffet dinner, and I'm sure this analogy has been used somewhere before, wouldn't it seem strange that people would keep returning just to eat one kind of food over and over again, when they could try other kinds as well. But at the same time, you can have a favorite kind of food and simply prefer to eat that more than any other kind of food. So even though I would say, none of the compiled books of scriptures has more importance as a whole than any other, that really as spiritual food they may have a somewhat different flavor, and it's up to us to try them and digest them and see why God would give us a larger variety to learn from. I may prefer to read the Book of Mormon, because its "flavor" appeals to me more often than the others' flavors. That's just me, as an individual having read all of them through. The more I study, the less worried I am about contradictions. Usually, if you go back to more of the original meanings with their etymology and all the cultural references, things make more and more sense. I can't think of anything off the top of my head that a modern-day prophet said which completely eliminated something an earlier prophet said, but I'm sure there's something somewhere. Maybe you are referring to the Manifesto in 1890, for example? It's kind of like when you learn the basics of math. At first you learn you cannot subtract a larger number from a smaller number. But then later on you learn about negative numbers and imaginary numbers and all kinds of terms which might seem contradictory to an elementary student, but they make a ton of sense to advanced students. Hope this helps. Have a happy day and I send you a virtual gummy bear.
How many missionary trips did Saul take? ?
3 Saint Paul (Saul) made three great successive journeys which covered a big part of Anatolia and Greece. Finally, after his third missionary trip, he was arrested in Jerusalem. Since he wanted to appeal to Ceaser, he was taken to Rome. After two years imprisonment in Rome, he was found innocent and was freed. Paul and Peter were arrested after the great fire of Rome which they were blamed for. Peter was crucified up side down on the capitol hill where there is the great church of Vatican now. As to Paul, since he was a Roman citizen he was beheaded near Ostia gate in Rome.
Who was the intended audience for the New Testament?
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are kingdom teaching. After Christ was rejected and poured his blood out for the remission of sins, God was then able to change the way he dealt with man. In mid Acts is where Paul met Jesus (on a spiritual plane) and it all changed. For the first time God extended his grace to everybody, Jews and Gentiles alike. The eras changed from kingdom into the grace era. We are now redeemed by grace alone. So, mid Acts, Romans, Colossians, Thessalonians, all the way to Titus is for EVERYBODY. Now, after the rapture of the grace age people called The Church, it will go back to the way it was beginning in Hebrews until Revelations. To better answer the question, Paul's books are what you need to be concerned with because that's where our salvation lies. The rest of the entire Bible is strictly for the earthly kingdom that will come for the Jews. Our promises our heavenly. Hope that made sense. The act of knowing how to rightly divide the bible is found in 2 Timothy and is called dispensationalism. If you don't know what books are to whom you'll be insanely confused.
In a simple word , No. The New Testament is the letters of pastors of the Cheistian community to each other about problems and triumphs in the community. The Gsopels are sermons about the life of Jesus. The book of Acts is a continuation of the book of Luke. Revealation is a Dream.The Hebrew Bible is not the same order as the Chrstian Old Testament which was reordrered so that Malicahi “behold I sent my messenger” is fulfilled for Chrsitians by John the Baptist. The Hebrew Tenach is the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings which ends with Chronicles and the reconstruction of the Temple. They are not the same book in intent.The Jews do not believe in the New Testament, they are not Christians, they do not believe in Jesus as Messiah (the annointed King of the Jews) so no they do not believe in the New Testament.
Saul was not. Saul was a Christian hating Hewish Sanhedrin, Jewish religious police who persecuted and executed Jews converted to Christianity. When he met the Lord on the road to Damascus and himself became an convert and became Paul ne became Gods chosen apostle to tge gentiles and Gods chosen founder of His church among gentiles.Your link is foolish and pointless because its wiki which not only belongs to an inveterate anti-Christian athiest bigot, but anything on it can be written by and altered by anyone. So that post is guaranteed ti have bern written by anti-Christian athiest bigots who have no clue and live to decry anything about Christianity.Paul was Gods personal choice to take His word to the Gentiles. Period. He was there mfore an apostles chosen oersonally by GOD.
Why do the Mormon leaders/prophets quote the New Testament more than the Book of Mormon?
The Bible is still the preeminent scripture of Christianity and even though we are taught to use the Book of Mormon in all of our missionary efforts, and to study it profoundly as it will lead us back to Heavenly Father, we need to relate to all Christianity and the messages of the Bible are not to be discounted. The Book of Mormon supports the Bible, it is another testimony of Jesus Christ. When I teach, I use both, as well as the D&C and the PofGP depending upon what the spirit brings to my mind at the moment. I would not have thought to count which scripture was quoted most. I would have thought that the numbers would have been a bit more even. It appears that the message of the New Testament is highly regarded. This is not a bad thing.