Matthew 22:7-9 seems to teach that the gospel was only preached to the Gentiles after the destruction of the temple, interpreting verse 7 as the metaphorical destruction of the temple, and verse 8 as the preaching to the Gentiles happening *after* the destruction of the temple. But this seems to contradict history as described in the Book of Acts where the gospel is preached to the gentiles *long before* the destruction of the temple.

This is intended to be a question of general applicability, but in all honesty, I'm asking inspired by concrete YouTube channels that promote atheism and skepticism, most notably, [CosmicSkeptic](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7kIy8fZavEni8Gzl8NLjOQ) and [RationalityRules](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqZMgLgGlYAWvSU8lZ9xiVg) . These are examples of a special category of atheists that stand out for their remarkable understanding of philosophy, logical thinking, and skepticism, as well as their outstanding debating skills, even against renowned Christian apologists. Just to give you an idea, Alex O'Connor, the founder of CosmicSkeptic, has debated [William Lane Craig](https://youtu.be/eOfVBqGPwi0) , [Frank Turek](https://youtu.be/b5a3MxIqZOs) , [Jonathan McLatchie](https://youtu.be/woqy13ZkeqM) , [Trent Horn](https://youtu.be/5PF1JgXOKDQ) and several other defenders of the faith. When it comes to atheists of this caliber, I see no possible way of evangelizing them through purely intellectual/argumentative means. Not even the best apologists have managed to do so. If I were asked my honest opinion, I would say that the only thing that can turn them around would be a supernatural, "road to Damascus" kind of experience. I see no other way. But leaving my personal opinions aside, I would like to know if there are any denominations that provide official advice on how to evangelize highly intellectual and well-spoken atheists and skeptics. What recommendations do they give to win strong atheists for Christ? Or is this category of atheists simply a lost cause and the only thing that we can do is to throw up our hands, leave them alone and hope for the best?

Reflecting on Matthew 9:38, Matthew 10:1-42, and Luke 10:2, who is the Lord of the Harvest, God the Father or God the Son? Or both together along with the Holy Spirit due to the nature of the Trinity? Jesus in Matthew 9 says to pray to the Lord of the Harvest to send workers out into the harvest. In the Lord’s Prayer, Jesus had instructed his believers to pray to the Father. Then in Matthew 10, Jesus sends his disciples out into the harvest. This would seem to indicate that Jesus is the Lord of the Harvest, as he is answering this prayer and doing the sending. Was Jesus in an indirect way in Matthew 9 asking his disciples to pray to him? Or is the Father the Lord of the Harvest, who made the decision to send out laborers, told Jesus, and Jesus is merely revealing the Father’s decision? Please cite Reformed sources.

As an outsider, I am under the impression that at the current time, Catholicism would generally be considered a "low-demand" religion. However, I'm wondering if they emphasize a duty to evangelize, as many Protestant Churches do.

One core reason of the "KJV-only" tenet that I often encounter when speaking to its proponents is their insistence that the original-language textual basis for the NT **MUST BE the *[Textus Receptus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus)*** as opposed to the [*Nestle-Aland*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_Testamentum_Graece) . An example they often give is that the latter text is more susceptible to Trinitarian and Christological heresies because the textual basis for both doctrines is "weaker". There are also other doctrines that could be affected, not relevant to the question here. As far as I know, they are fine with the common use of *Masoretic Hebrew* text for the OT translation. The obvious question is what to do with evangelism. **Is it okay to do Bible translations to Chinese Mandarin (to use an example) when using *Textus Receptus* as the basis for NT while using KJV 1611/1769 for translation guidance?** Otherwise, evangelism would necessarily involve teaching them English *first*, although I can foresee how they would spread the gospel in Mandarin first. But would they insist that proper Bible study can only be done in English using KJV 1769? **Can Bible Study by people who have low proficiency in English be done, in principle, with non-English translations that has been "certified" as faithful to *Textus Receptus*?** Or Bible studies using those Bible translations will forever be deemed as having a "second class citizen" status? Or do they adopt the position of most evangelicals today, that proper Bible study should be done by consulting the original texts (thus studying Greek & Hebrew in seminary) although lay Bible readers can profit from reading a translation? **P.S.** From reading [*Wikipedia*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Only_movement#Variations) it turns out there are 5 variations of this movement (by apologist James White). It would be helpful for the one answering this question to identify which group's perspective they are answering from. This question is primarily interested in the answers coming from either the "*Textus Receptus* Only" group or "The Inspired KJV Group".

When I read John 5:24-29 (CSB) > 24 "Truly I tell you, anyone who hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not come under judgment but has passed from death to life. > > 25 "Truly I tell you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. For just as the Father has life in himself, so also he has granted to the Son to have life in himself. And he has granted him the right to pass judgment, because he is the Son of Man. 28 Do not be amazed at this, because a time is coming when all who are in the graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done good things, to the resurrection of life, but those who have done wicked things, to the resurrection of condemnation. it seems clear that Jesus will evangelize the dead who hasn't heard the gospel, and that there *is* an element of consideration of how one conducts one's life before death. Restrictivism can be defined as: "God does not provide salvation to those who fail to hear of Jesus and come to faith in him before they die." How would those who believe Restrictivism (see sample adherents in the chart below) interpret that verse? (*Source of the chart*: [What About Those Who Have Never Heard? Three Views on the Destiny of the Unevangelized](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/0830816062))

**Triune Godhead** It goes without saying that Christianity is based on the concept of a Triune Godhead, a Trinity, a Tri-unity. But those theological words do not make it any easier for the lay person, or the seeker, to understand the whole idea of a God that is 3-in-1. So, drawing from Catholicism, Orthodoxy, or Protestantism in the history of Christianity, what illustrations have been used to demonstrate such a mysterious concept? Which of them comes closest to accurately describing this Christian God? Or, per chance, is such a concept beyond comprehension, and falling short of illustrations, so that believers must accept it as a mystery, belonging only to the realm where Eternity exists? **Note**: The OP intent is not to dredge up systematic theology dissertations to prove the concept of the Trinity. This doctrine is stipulated and acknowledged. Rather, since Jesus---and Church Fathers---did not hesitate to use illustrations (and parables) to portray important biblical doctrines, the intent here is to also seek out good illustrations about the Trinity so that ***the plough boy in the realm*** can appreciate and exult in it! **The quest here is not "which one is the best", but which illustrations are available that have been effective and productive while presenting the Gospel to the non-theologians?** Again, do not mistake this as a substitution for presenting the Gospel, but just a way of illustrating the Gospel in terms that people outside the seminary can understand. Remember that *the common people heard Him gladly.* And this wasn't because Jesus was an eloquent pedantic theologian! Neither did He compromise the Gospel of the Kingdom...He was just a good illustrator.

>Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. [Matthew 28:16 KJV] The eleven had a specific appointment and at that appointment they were instructed : >And Jesus came and spake unto them [Matthew 28:18 KJV] Jesus spake unto *them*, that is to say, to the eleven. >And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. [Matthew 28:18 KJ] Because all power in heaven and in earth has been given to Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, therefore he says to the eleven : >Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: [Matthew 28:19 KJV] These words were uttered to the eleven and later another was called, specifically and particularly, by Jesus Christ's audible words, namely Saul of Tarsus, thereafter called Paul. To him was also given like commandment 'he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel'. Thereafter a ministry became evident, such as John Mark, Silvanus, Epaphras, Timothy and Titus. Not of the eleven but marked out as a ministry sent to the whole church (not to any specific location) and to propagate the gospel throughout the known world. Paul writes three epistles to this ongoing, next-generation ministry, instructing them in doctrine and in church government. These men, and only these men, may appoint elders. Here is a definite structure dependent upon the calling, directly, of Jesus Christ. Without that calling, generation by generation, there will be none to 'teach and baptise' among the nations. One cannot self-appoint oneself to the vocation or to the task. I can see no evidence here for a 'Great Commission' uttered to the entire church as though the congregations themselves had a 'commandment' as such from the risen and all-powerful Christ. Quite the opposite, the content of the epistles conveys a godly humility, household-centred Christianity and a very local influence among the parochial populace. To say 'the Great Commission' is to the entire body of the congregations, to my mind belittles the Ministry - that of teaching and preaching (to the assemblies and also to the whole earth) as a definite vocation to singularly called persons. Where did this idea come from of a 'Great Commission' which is generic to the entire body of Christ ? I cannot find such words in my bible. I am asking this question specifically of Trinitarian Protestants as it seems to me that the concept has generated from within that part of Christendom. ---------------------------------- The other matter which complicates this issue is what J N Darby called 'the notion of a clergyman ; sin against the Holy Spirit' that is to say the denial of a ministry sent to the entire church and the notion that each local assembly should have its own, private, appointed, salaried clergyman. But I shall ask another question on that second complication. ----------------------------------------- EDIT AFTER COMMENTS : I suggest that there are two aspects. One's local life, home life, church life; and there is the gospel being preached to all creation which is beyond the abilities or capacities of common believers and is the province of the especially called. Both are true. Both are immediate. Both are essential. Neither should be neglected. And one should not diminish the other.

When engaging with non-believers, including atheists, agnostics, apatheists, pagans, and others, two distinct approaches come to light: The first is the **Apologetics** approach, involving the presentation of a rational case for the truth of Christianity via intellectual arguments and evidence. Noteworthy examples include: - [*Five Proofs of the Existence of God*](https://www.amazon.com/Five-Proofs-Existence-Edward-Feser/dp/1621641333) , by Edward Feser - [*Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries That Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe*](https://www.amazon.com/Return-God-Hypothesis-Compelling-Scientific/dp/0062071505/) , by Stephen C. Meyer - [*A Mousetrap for Darwin: Michael J. Behe Answers His Critics*](https://www.amazon.com/Mousetrap-Darwin-Michael-Answers-Critics/dp/1936599910) , by Michael J. Behe - [*I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist*](https://www.amazon.com/Dont-Have-Enough-Faith-Atheist/dp/1581345615) , by Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek - [*Answering Atheism: How to Make the Case for God with Logic and Charity*](https://www.amazon.com/Answering-Atheism-Make-Logic-Charity/dp/1938983432) , by Trent Horn - [*Mere Christianity*](https://www.amazon.com/Mere-Christianity-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652926) , by C. S. Lewis - [*Warranted Christian Belief*](https://www.amazon.com/Warranted-Christian-Belief-Alvin-Plantinga/dp/0195131932) , by Alvin Plantinga - [*The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus*](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001QOGJY0/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i0) , by Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona - [*Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts*](https://www.amazon.com/Miracles-Credibility-New-Testament-Accounts/dp/0801039525) , by Craig S. Keener The second approach is **Evangelism**, with Spirit and power. The Apostle Paul advocates for this approach in 1 Corinthians 2:1-5: >**1** And I, brethren, when I came to you, did not come with excellence of speech or of wisdom declaring to you the testimony of God. **2** For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. **3** I was with you in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling. **4** **And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power**, **5** **that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God**. Considering these two approaches to proselytizing, my question is as follows: Are there established and widely recognized principles in Christianity that guide the decision of when to prioritize the approach of evangelism over apologetics, or vice versa? More specifically, is the preaching of the gospel with Spirit and power in evangelism always the preferred method, relegating the use of sophisticated philosophical arguments often associated with apologetics to a secondary and complementary role?

I have seen testimonies of converts from America describing they raised their hands when the preacher asked "who wants to accept Jesus as their Lord?" or something like that. Which churches have this practice on a regular Sunday service? If so, do these churches always have new visitors, or some of the regular members themselves raise hands in these altar calls?

The **Testimony of the Apostles** concerning the ministry, miraculous deeds, and alleged Resurrection, was fantastic, way out of the ordinary, revolutionary, and mind-boggling! The message they proclaimed was not ordinary 5 o'clock news material! It would pique everyone's interest that heard it. And not only did they proclaim it, but they challenged everyone to **dedicate their lives to it**! They expected people to believe it and even "lay their lives down" for it. And today in modernity, preachers of this same message---based on the Apostles' witness---seek disciples who will be wholly dedicated to it. These preachers (pastors, evangelists) are convinced that the **original testimony** of the Apostles was true...is true. But on what do they base this unswerving confidence? What convinces modern ministers and scholarly theologians that the Witness of the Apostles is Credible, Reliable, and Substantial for dedicating their lives to it?

Not too long ago we had a question here that raised the issues of bribery, cultural "destruction," and use of harsh language against nonbelievers during evangelization efforts in developing countries. There is actually a Wikipedia article on Rice Christians . It offers a quote from Mahatma Gandhi's autobiography, *The Story of My Experiments with Truth*: >Only Christianity was at that time an exception. I developed a sort of dislike for it. And for a reason. In those days Christian missionaries used to stand in a corner near the high school and hold forth, pouring abuse on Hindus and their gods. I could not endure this. I must have stood there to hear them once only, but that was enough to dissuade me from repeating the experiment. About the same time, I heard of a well known Hindu having been converted to Christianity. It was the talk of the town that, when he was baptized, he had to eat beef and drink liquor, that he also had to change his clothes, and that thenceforth he began to go about in European costume including a hat. These things got on my nerves. Surely, thought I, a religion that compelled one to eat beef, drink liquor, and change one's own clothes did not deserve the name. I also heard that the new convert had already begun abusing the religion of his ancestors, their customs and their country. All these things created in me a dislike for Christianity. From this quote, we see that issues of cultural extinction, harsh language, and use of bribery in evangelization is an ongoing problem, from Gandhi's 100 year old testimony to the prior question of last week. My question is to what extent have evangelism-training leaders (or great evangelists) already noted these problems, and what words or scriptural references (or church-fathers-quotes) have they given as caution?

I have seen people resort to arguments such as "if there is no afterlife, why be good (or religious)?". Counterarguments to living in sin during this life include final judgment and the infinite duration of eternity (which also form the basis of Pascal's Wager ), which I find compelling, but are there more reasons to be good than these? What Christian denominations advance an argument that is persuasive in favor of doing good in this life even if one thinks there is no afterlife, and what are those arguments?

The verb for evangelizing occurs 135 times in the N.T. while the word for pastoring (shepherding) occurs 15 times. Yet the preponderance of time it is translated as "preach" conjuring up a robed (or three pieced suited ) minister behind a pulpit with a choir behind him, exhorting a congregation. But it seems that the N.T. pictured the evangelist as a type of gumshoe minister who walked the streets and meandered the marketplace in search of lost sheep, distraught souls, and wayward men and women. And these ministers were greatly valued because the spread of the fledgling church depended upon them. And "they did turn the world upside down." - And they (the apostles) went through the towns "evangelizing" and healing everywhere. (Lu. 9:6) - And daily in the Temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and "evangelize concerning Jesus. (Acts 5:42) - Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and "evangelizes" him concerning Jesus. (Acts 8:36) - For though I "evangelize" I have nothing to boast about, for necessity is laid upon me, woe is me if I did not "evangelize." (1 Cor. 9:16) In light of the vast amount of "evangelizing" by the Early Church and its importance, did Paul wish to be considered one of those Evangelist-- as well as an Apostle-- by using this word to describe his ministry in the cities he went to? (See 1 Corinthians 9:16, in the Greek)

In viewing and scanning theological literature and commentaries of the past centuries, the four disciples who wrote the Gospels were called "evangelists", the "Four Evangelists". Why were they given this appellation then but not now? Did it have more significance than just "authors" or "disciples then"? Why not the "Four Disciples"? And why do we not see this emphasis or usage of this word to describe them, in very modern Study Bibles and commentaries? Has there been a shift in theology and practice toward "Pastoral Ministry" or "Academic Theology" in recent times? {Additional research in "When was the 'Evangelist' title first applied to the Gospel authors?" *and* "What are the 'gospels' in the Gospels?" }

A friend told me that "bad people" are limited when it comes to spreading the Word of God. According to scripture, how, and in what way, does sin hinder one's ability to spread the Word of God?

This development in German universities in the 1800s is not to be confused with today’s “Critical Theory” (just in case anyone reading the 1990 quote below thinks they are akin.) This question deals with a new approach to Scripture – examining the text critically, scientifically even, as all other ancient texts should be treated. It was at total odds with the venerable Dean Burgon who declared, > “The Bible is none other than the Word of God: not some part of it, > more, some part less; but all alike, the utterance of Him who sits > upon the Throne; - absolute, faultless, unerring, supreme.” J.W. > Burgon, *Inspiration and Interpretation, Seven Sermons before the > University of Oxford in 1860-61*, p.89 Although today’s “Critical Theory” does impact on the Church, it is political, not theological, being a German idea started in Germany in 1923 that is a mixture of Marxism and postmodernism being fronted as ‘social justice’. Having cleared that up, ***here now is the quote that my question is based upon:*** > “In its own eyes, historical-critical theology wants to lend > assistance to the proclamation of the gospel through an interpretation > of the Bible that is scientifically reliable and objective. There is, > however, a monstrous contradiction between what it says it wants to > do, on the one hand, and what it actually does, on the other. It does > not further the proclamation of the gospel – in fact, it actually > prevents it.” Eta Linnemann, 1990 Dr. Linnemann was a ‘follower’ of Rudolph Bultmann and a teacher of higher criticism in the university system of West Germany but I cannot find the book she wrote which this quote apparently comes from (which is in a translation of: *Historical Criticism of the Bible*) **Can anyone** pad this quote out to **give reasons for such a drastic reversal? In what ways would Higher Criticism prevent the proclamation of the biblical gospel, as claimed? What is “this monstrous contradiction”** Dr. Linnemann hints at?

The 10/40 window term is used by Christian missionaries to loosely define areas of the world with the "highest level of socioeconomic challenges and least access to the Christian message and Christian resources on the planet" (Source: Wikipedia entry ["10/40 window"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10/40_window)) . However, is the 10/40 window term sort of quaint and grossly oversimplified? The reason for asking the said question is because apart from the glaring error of the 10/40 window not including the nation with the highest population of Muslims which is Indonesia, it also does not include very poor Central American and some South American nations. Furthermore, the computer internet technology advancements that started around 1995 have led to smartphones and rapid growth of the internet so a lot of poor nations even have access to the internet. Finally, it really seems like is it a gross oversimplification because a lot of European nations that are culturally Christian like France, Sweden, Germany, Norway, Denmark, Eastern European nations, etc. have a lot of nominal Christians and atheists but said nations are not in the 10/40 window.

I have an ESL student in Japan. His parent wants him to go to Excel Christian School in Sparks, Nevada but he knows nothing about Christianity not even that Christmas comes from Jesus Christ's birth. He has a standard Japanese schooling so he can speak English only a little. Is there a good source to teach the extreme basics of Christianity for the ESL unaffiliated? I don't think he knows anything about any religion.

I belong to a third world country where the official religion is fascist, irrational and unequal. Those who try to convert to other religions are harassed and marginalized. But when I compare my society to Europe, Europe has some problems but it believes in egalitarianism, monotheism, and equality of all people before God irrespective of race, creed, status, or education. I have heard in the news that in Europe people are not forced to follow God unlike in my country. If in my country I denounce God, I would be jailed and my social life would be over. I would be labelled as mad. Jesus Christ is mocked by various names in my country by godmen [*sic*]. ### Question: I want to know what nice and good things Jesus did in his life on earth that he is loved by so many people in the world despite there being no compulsion to follow him in those countries? I shall be grateful for any information you give me on the works Jesus did in his life!