Which nation has never heard of the Bible/Jesus ??

[johnjanuary1984]

" This gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come." Matthew 24:14

The internet has severely accelerated the spread of the Gospel. The end must be very near because of that fact. Do you agree? How many nations have never heard of the Bible or Jesus? Do any of you believe Jesus 2nd coming is still far off ?

 

[HTacianas]

" This gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come." Matthew 24:14

The internet has severely accelerated the spread of the Gospel. The end must be very near because of that fact. Do you agree? How many nations have never heard of the Bible or Jesus? Do any of you believe Jesus 2nd coming is still far off ?

There's a few of those un-contacted tribes here and there in the world. But the language used, "the whole world", is not what we would consider the entire world. Writers of the time referred to "the inhabitable world" as the whole world, and sometimes used it to describe only their small part of the world. Paul uses the same language in writing to the Colossians:

Col 1:23 if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister.

 

[mama2one]

Joshua Project



"Unreached groups lack enough followers of Christ and resources to evangelize their own people"


An overview of the people groups of the world
People Groups:17,443
Unreached Groups:7,406
% Unreached Groups:42.5%
Population:7.83 Billion
Popl in Unreached:3.28 Billion
% Popl in Unreached:41.8%

 

[Carl Emerson]

" This gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come." Matthew 24:14

The internet has severely accelerated the spread of the Gospel. The end must be very near because of that fact. Do you agree? How many nations have never heard of the Bible or Jesus? Do any of you believe Jesus 2nd coming is still far off ?

Last time I heard there were 1500 odd languages in Papua New Guinea and many not yet reached with bible translations. Every language is specified in scripture.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

" This gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come." Matthew 24:14

The internet has severely accelerated the spread of the Gospel. The end must be very near because of that fact. Do you agree? How many nations have never heard of the Bible or Jesus? Do any of you believe Jesus 2nd coming is still far off ?

Matthew 24 describes the end of Temple Judaism. What occurred in 70AD.
I belive Jesus was speaking about the end of "their" age , the age of Temple Judaism. He was specifically asked about the temple. Jesus was not talking about His second comming as the Apostels could not comprehend that He was going to leave them , so how could they ask Him about His second comming? They were not. They were asking about the Temple.
The Apostles had no real understanding of His, death,ressurection and ascension until the very end.
Matthew 17
"The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men. They will kill him, and after three days he will rise." But they did not understand what he meant and were afraid to ask him about it.

 

[Ed Parenteau]

" This gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come." Matthew 24:14

The internet has severely accelerated the spread of the Gospel. The end must be very near because of that fact. Do you agree? How many nations have never heard of the Bible or Jesus? Do any of you believe Jesus 2nd coming is still far off ?

In the following verses, we learn that Paul unequivocally received the gospel directly from Jesus Christ.
Galatians 1:11For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel. 12For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

So, what proof do people have that Paul was talking about something different than Jesus was in the following verses.
Romans 1:8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed in all the world.
Here Paul quotes Psalms 19:4
Romans 10: 17So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
18But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have, for
“Their voice has gone out to all the earth,
and their words to the ends of the world.”

Colossians 1: 6that has come to you. All over the world this gospel is bearing fruit and growing, just as it has been doing among you since the day you heard it and truly understood the grace of God.

1:23if indeed you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope of the gospel you heard, which has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.
Keep in mind, that the apostles specifically were given the "great commission" to be His "eye witnesses" in all the world. The only end the bible talks about is the end of "old covenant Israel" as prophesied by Moses Deuteronomy 32

 

[trophy33]

" This gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come." Matthew 24:14

The internet has severely accelerated the spread of the Gospel. The end must be very near because of that fact. Do you agree? How many nations have never heard of the Bible or Jesus? Do any of you believe Jesus 2nd coming is still far off ?

He meant the kown nations of the empire. The end has come in 70 AD.

"... gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery.... has been made known to all the nations"
R 16:26

 

[eclipsenow]

" This gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come." Matthew 24:14

I don't see this as a timing or prediction thing, but primarily a mission statement.
EG: In Acts 1 Jesus said:

7 He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

What happens throughout Acts? They do precisely that - they go to Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and to the ends of the (known then) earth. Basically by the time the gospel reached Rome, it was pretty much 'mission accomplished.'

In Colossians 1 Paul says " In the same way, the gospel is bearing fruit and growing throughout the whole world."

Also, Matthew 24 is very complex. It switches between when "These things" that are going to be destroyed in that generation, which is THAT temple they can see before their very eyes. Not a hypothetical temple to be built in thousands of years. THAT temple - the very one the disciples were wondering and asking about.

But it's confusing, because it jumps back and forth between "These things" (that they can see) and "That day" (when the Lord returns).

In this passage and others, Jesus warns them that around the end of the temple there will be trouble - such as earthquakes, wars, and false Messiahs. False Messiahs stirred up the Jews and led revolts, which is precisely what brought the might of Rome against Jerusalem and ultimately destroyed the temple! So no wonder Jesus warned them against going out 'into the desert' to chase after these military types - spreading the gospel and giving the church a chance was vastly more important.

There's also a compare and contrast going on here.

"These things" - the destruction of the temple = predictable, local, so avoidable.

"That Day" - the Return of Jesus and end of this world = unpredictable, universal, and unavoidable. So don't fall for false imitations of the real thing! It's the end of the temple - but not the end of the world - even if it feels like it!

So does the gospel go out before the end of the world, or the end of the temple?

4 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. 15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17 Let no one on the housetop go down to take anything out of the house. 18 Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak. 19 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 20 Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. 21 For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again.

This is typical Jewish hyperbole - but maybe to them the end of the temple would have felt like the worst thing that had ever happened. But here's the bottom line. It's not the end of the world because it is predictable, local, and avoidable. You can escape it. When the Romans come, RUN! But it's hard if you're pregnant or nursing. The fall of Jerusalem was brutal. But it's done and dusted thousands of years ago.

Basically, as far as I can tell, the New Testament considered that by the end of Acts the gospel HAD gone out into all the world. The temple was destroyed by AD70. What does this mean for indigenous people's not yet discovered by 'the west'? That's God's business. But as far as the bible is concerned, the gospel DID go out into the world, the end (of the temple) DID come, and so Jesus can now return at any moment - and could have for the last few thousand years. Or not. God is gracious. The game is over, God has won, but we're allowed a little overtime to play for even more points.

 

[Timtofly]

Matthew 24 describes the end of Temple Judaism. What occurred in 70AD.
I belive Jesus was speaking about the end of "their" age , the age of Temple Judaism. He was specifically asked about the temple. Jesus was not talking about His second comming as the Apostels could not comprehend that He was going to leave them , so how could they ask Him about His second comming? They were not. They were asking about the Temple.
The Apostles had no real understanding of His, death,ressurection and ascension until the very end.
Matthew 17
"The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men. They will kill him, and after three days he will rise." But they did not understand what he meant and were afraid to ask him about it.

Jesus did not answer them according to their understanding. Jesus answered them with the knowledge they needed to know, once they did understand the whole Gospel truth.

I keep reading from posters it was not the end of the world, yet none of you agree on what ended or even when whatever ended, even ended. So your answers are based on their conceived lack of knowledge, which means your answers lack the same knowledge they lacked. So much for presenting their state of mind, cause you nailed that, and the answer Jesus gave was not their state of mind. Since most here base their interpretation of the chapter on their state of mind, that is not Jesus' answers, because Jesus never gave them their state of mind. They already knew what was in their minds. Jesus gave them the information they did not even know they needed. That is what makes most arguments here wrong, especially of you base your interpretation on their state of mind. Most here point out they were wrong, because they did not know the truth. Yet the interpretation of the chapter is based on what they knew, while the claim is that they lacked that same understanding. So people are going to have decide if Jesus gave them the answers they did not know, thus it was not about them and that generation, and it was about the last generation to live in Adam's flesh and blood.

Which Coming was Jesus referring to?

"And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?"

Because the Cross was the end of their world. God brought a complete stop to their world in 30AD. The Atonement for all time happened within hours of Jesus' answer and Jesus was already there sitting on the Mt. Of Olives. The Temple was symbolically destroyed, Jesus had come as Messiah and was about to be cut off. But it was a new heaven and earth for all the OT redeemed. They left Abraham's bosom and entered Paradise. If that was not a new heaven and earth for them, then nothing could ever be for any one. Yet most posters declare that nonsense, and are still waiting for a Coming and "end of the world" scenario in one breath, and declared it was over in the first century with another breath. Then deny they have a conundrum, because the truth to them is as foreign as the mind set of those disciples sitting on the Mt. Of Olives hearing Jesus answer their questions, they did not even know they needed answered.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Jesus did not answer them according to their understanding. Jesus answered them with the knowledge they needed to know, once they did understand the whole Gospel truth.

I keep reading from posters it was not the end of the world, yet none of you agree on what ended or even when whatever ended, even ended. So your answers are based on their conceived lack of knowledge, which means your answers lack the same knowledge they lacked. So much for presenting their state of mind, cause you nailed that, and the answer Jesus gave was not their state of mind. Since most here base their interpretation of the chapter on their state of mind, that is not Jesus' answers, because Jesus never gave them their state of mind. They already knew what was in their minds. Jesus gave them the information they did not even know they needed. That is what makes most arguments here wrong, especially of you base your interpretation on their state of mind. Most here point out they were wrong, because they did not know the truth. Yet the interpretation of the chapter is based on what they knew, while the claim is that they lacked that same understanding. So people are going to have decide if Jesus gave them the answers they did not know, thus it was not about them and that generation, and it was about the last generation to live in Adam's flesh and blood.

Which Coming was Jesus referring to?

"And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?"

Because the Cross was the end of their world. God brought a complete stop to their world in 30AD. The Atonement for all time happened within hours of Jesus' answer and Jesus was already there sitting on the Mt. Of Olives. The Temple was symbolically destroyed, Jesus had come as Messiah and was about to be cut off. But it was a new heaven and earth for all the OT redeemed. They left Abraham's bosom and entered Paradise. If that was not a new heaven and earth for them, then nothing could ever be for any one. Yet most posters declare that nonsense, and are still waiting for a Coming and "end of the world" scenario in one breath, and declared it was over in the first century with another breath. Then deny they have a conundrum, because the truth to them is as foreign as the mind set of those disciples sitting on the Mt. Of Olives hearing Jesus answer their questions, they did not even know they needed answered.

Well it depends on the " lens". I am not a Dispensational futurist but rather a partial Preterist. Then how we apply, whether literal or symbolic then of course whether its their generation or some future generation is a huge consideration.

 

[Rachel20]

Even though preaching the gospel was the commission of the church, what in scripture requires it's completion by the church? I believe the fulfillment is seen in Rev 14:6 during the 70th week -

And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people

 

[Timtofly]

Well it depends on the " lens". I am not a Dispensational futurist but rather a partial Preterist. Then how we apply, whether literal or symbolic then of course whether its their generation or some future generation is a huge consideration.

Those on the Mt. Of Olives that day were "none of the above". So the only "lens" is the one posters in this forum project from their own mind on to those first century hearers of Jesus' words.

 

[Ed Parenteau]

Those on the Mt. Of Olives that day were "none of the above". So the only "lens" is the one posters in this forum project from their own mind on to those first century hearers of Jesus' words.

That's an awfully broad accusation. It seems to me, if you're going to bring accusations against the brethren, then it needs to be specific with how and why it's "from their own mind". My post is #6, so start with me. I'm always willing to be wrong if one can prove it.

 

[Timtofly]

That's an awfully broad accusation. It seems to me, if you're going to bring accusations against the brethren, then it needs to be specific with how and why it's "from their own mind". My post is #6, so start with me. I'm always willing to be wrong if one can prove it.

Because dispensational futurist and partial preterist did not exist in 30AD. Most of our eschatological belief structure happened in the last 100 years. Modern imaginations of over thinking humans. Then some try to make us think the early church fathers had the same modern beliefs we do.

I doubt any of the early church fathers knew we would still be here almost 2,000 years after the Cross.

 

[eclipsenow]

Because dispensational futurist and partial preterist did not exist in 30AD. Most of our eschatological belief structure happened in the last 100 years. Modern imaginations of over thinking humans. Then some try to make us think the early church fathers had the same modern beliefs we do.

I doubt any of the early church fathers knew we would still be here almost 2,000 years after the Cross.

Now this is where we agree.

 

[parousia70]

" This gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come." Matthew 24:14

The internet has severely accelerated the spread of the Gospel. The end must be very near because of that fact. Do you agree?

I do not.

As Long as babies are Born, there will be people who have yet to hear the gospel. when Humans stop giving birth for about 12-15 years, THEN everyone alive will have a chance to hear and repent and the Gospel will be able to be literally "preached to all the world"... Until then, It can't be. (unless of course you don't take that passage literally?)

How many nations have never heard of the Bible or Jesus?

Here's one:
This Island Hasn’t Been Touched By Modern Civilization For 55,000 Years, And Here’s Why You Don’t Want To Visit It

Do any of you believe Jesus 2nd coming is still far off ?

What do terms like "far off" and "very Near" mean to you?

All of the apostles claimed it was "Very near, Soon, about to take place, must shortly come to pass, in a very little while, without delay, for the time was at hand" nearly 2000 years ago.... were they wrong? or do the terms "very near" and "far off" mean exactly the same thing and are therefore interchangable?

If 2000 years away is "very near"... how long is "far off"? 10,000? a Million? More?

When Peter, Paul, James, John, etc.. said it was "Very near" 2000 years ago and you say it is "very near" today, who should I believe is correct?

You and the aposltes can't both be right.

Unless, again, the terms "Very Near" and "Far Off" are interchangable, and therefore meaningless....

 

[eclipsenow]

It depends.
Some things that were 'soon' or 'very near' - like the Roman persecution John was writing about in Revelation - were actually just about to take place. Then at other points they talk about the Lord's salvation being 'soon' - as in his deliverance of his people on the Last Day. From the perspective of a persecuted church they were either martyred for the Lord - and so experienced his salvation immediately - or lived long lives which Paul describes as a 'little while' compared to eternal glory. In that sense it really was 'soon' as well. However, when Daniel asked about the timing of God's final judgement in Daniel 12 - the angel just says "Go your way Daniel." Get on with living your life for God and stop worrying about things not in your department.

Many futurists here need to heed this encouragement.

 

[Ed Parenteau]

Because dispensational futurist and partial preterist did not exist in 30AD. Most of our eschatological belief structure happened in the last 100 years. Modern imaginations of over thinking humans. Then some try to make us think the early church fathers had the same modern beliefs we do.

I doubt any of the early church fathers knew we would still be here almost 2,000 years after the Cross.

I copied these statements from a couple of different sites:

The Epistle of Barnabas sets forth the common view held by the early Church that the seventieth week of Daniel ended with the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, as Messiah’s Day dawned and Christ’s Church was born. Barnabas writes, “For it is written, ‘And it shall come to pass, when the week is completed, the temple of God shall be built…in the name of the Lord.’ I find…that a temple does exist. Having received the forgiveness of sins…in our habitation God dwells in us….This is the spiritual temple built for the Lord.” (EOB, 16:6)
a. 225AD Origen "The weeks of years, also, which the prophet Daniel had predicted, extending to the leadership of Christ, have been fulfilled" (Principles, 4:1:5). (On the Seventy Weeks of Daniel)
b. 160AD Clement of Alexandria (On Daniel 9:24-27
" That the temple accordingly was built in seven weeks, is evident; for it is written in Esdras. And thus Christ became King of the Jews, reigning in Jerusalem in the fulfilment of the seven weeks. And in the sixty and two weeks the whole of Judaea was quiet, and without wars. And Christ our Lord, "the Holy of Holies," having come and fulfilled the vision and the prophecy, was anointed in His flesh by the Holy Spirit of His Father. In those "sixty and two weeks," as the prophet said, and "in the one week," was He Lord. The half of the week Nero held sway, and in the holy city Jerusalem placed the abomination; and in the half of the week he was taken away, and Otho, and Galba, and Vitellius. And Vespasian rose to the supreme power, and destroyed Jerusalem, and desolated the holy place. And that such are the facts of the case, is clear to him that is able to understand, as the prophet said.
c. 160AD Tertullian "Vespasian, in the first year of his empire, subdues the Jews in war; and there are made lii years, vi months. For he reigned xi years. And thus, in the day of their storming, the Jews fulfilled the lxx(70) hebdomads predicted in Daniel ." (An Answer to the Jews 8.) (On the Seventy Weeks of Daniel)
ATHANASIUS
Athanasius was bishop of Alexandria from 326 to 373 AD. Like the early Church fathers before him, he also taught that the 70 weeks of Daniel culminated and the Jewish Age ended in 70 AD: “Jerusalem is to stand till His coming (Daniel’s reference to Messiah’s appearing in His First Advent), and thenceforth, prophet and vision cease in Israel (the end of the Old Covenant or Jewish Age). This is why Jerusalem stood till then…that they might be exercised in the types as a preparation for the reality…but from that time forth all prophecy is sealed and the city and Temple taken” (INC, XXXIX:3-XV:8).

On the other hand
Irenaeus was a contemporary of Clement of Alexandrea whose widely held view we dealt with above. Irenaeus and his pupil Hippolytus are the only two writers from the early Church period who believed in a still-future fulfillment of Daniel’s 70th week. They both placed the 70th week at the end of the gospel age and so are the first interpreters to postulate a gap between the 69th and 70th weeks (AG, V). Both predicted a specific date for the second coming that has long since come and gone.

But their belief in a future 70th week was never widely accepted! St. Jerome specifically pointed out that the number of years in their system did not coincide with the historical events they purported to cover. He wrote, “If by any chance those of future generations should not see these predictions of his (Irenaeus) fulfilled at the time he (Irenaeus) set, then they will be forced to seek for some other solution and to convict the teacher himself (Irenaeus) of erroneous interpretation” (CID).

 

[Timtofly]

I copied these statements from a couple of different sites:

The Epistle of Barnabas sets forth the common view held by the early Church that the seventieth week of Daniel ended with the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, as Messiah’s Day dawned and Christ’s Church was born. Barnabas writes, “For it is written, ‘And it shall come to pass, when the week is completed, the temple of God shall be built…in the name of the Lord.’ I find…that a temple does exist. Having received the forgiveness of sins…in our habitation God dwells in us….This is the spiritual temple built for the Lord.” (EOB, 16:6)
a. 225AD Origen "The weeks of years, also, which the prophet Daniel had predicted, extending to the leadership of Christ, have been fulfilled" (Principles, 4:1:5). (On the Seventy Weeks of Daniel)
b. 160AD Clement of Alexandria (On Daniel 9:24-27
" That the temple accordingly was built in seven weeks, is evident; for it is written in Esdras. And thus Christ became King of the Jews, reigning in Jerusalem in the fulfilment of the seven weeks. And in the sixty and two weeks the whole of Judaea was quiet, and without wars. And Christ our Lord, "the Holy of Holies," having come and fulfilled the vision and the prophecy, was anointed in His flesh by the Holy Spirit of His Father. In those "sixty and two weeks," as the prophet said, and "in the one week," was He Lord. The half of the week Nero held sway, and in the holy city Jerusalem placed the abomination; and in the half of the week he was taken away, and Otho, and Galba, and Vitellius. And Vespasian rose to the supreme power, and destroyed Jerusalem, and desolated the holy place. And that such are the facts of the case, is clear to him that is able to understand, as the prophet said.
c. 160AD Tertullian "Vespasian, in the first year of his empire, subdues the Jews in war; and there are made lii years, vi months. For he reigned xi years. And thus, in the day of their storming, the Jews fulfilled the lxx(70) hebdomads predicted in Daniel ." (An Answer to the Jews 8.) (On the Seventy Weeks of Daniel)
ATHANASIUS
Athanasius was bishop of Alexandria from 326 to 373 AD. Like the early Church fathers before him, he also taught that the 70 weeks of Daniel culminated and the Jewish Age ended in 70 AD: “Jerusalem is to stand till His coming (Daniel’s reference to Messiah’s appearing in His First Advent), and thenceforth, prophet and vision cease in Israel (the end of the Old Covenant or Jewish Age). This is why Jerusalem stood till then…that they might be exercised in the types as a preparation for the reality…but from that time forth all prophecy is sealed and the city and Temple taken” (INC, XXXIX:3-XV:8).

On the other hand
Irenaeus was a contemporary of Clement of Alexandrea whose widely held view we dealt with above. Irenaeus and his pupil Hippolytus are the only two writers from the early Church period who believed in a still-future fulfillment of Daniel’s 70th week. They both placed the 70th week at the end of the gospel age and so are the first interpreters to postulate a gap between the 69th and 70th weeks (AG, V). Both predicted a specific date for the second coming that has long since come and gone.

But their belief in a future 70th week was never widely accepted! St. Jerome specifically pointed out that the number of years in their system did not coincide with the historical events they purported to cover. He wrote, “If by any chance those of future generations should not see these predictions of his (Irenaeus) fulfilled at the time he (Irenaeus) set, then they will be forced to seek for some other solution and to convict the teacher himself (Irenaeus) of erroneous interpretation” (CID).

You consider these to be dispensational futurist and partial preterist? None of their theology shows a partial preterist view, nor a futurist view. Predicting the Second Coming is not really futurist. It is just predicting.

They were wrong and guessing about it themselves. They did not call themselves preterist. You can call them that, but seems to be "begging the point".

If the point is to remove all gaps from the 70 weeks your point falls flat. 70AD is too far removed in time to be part of those 70 weeks.

Some are still wrong who claim the whole 70th week is still future. It is not. They may be called futurist, but still wrong. Some of these may be considered preterist, as they all claimed it was over. They were just as wrong then, as many are today.

 

[eclipsenow]

Predicting the Second Coming is not really futurist. It is just predicting.

Not true. My definition of futurist is a person who thinks they can map out various prophecies about NOW - what nation is doing what to whom, etc. Put up a crazy wall, tie red wool between your prophecies and today's events. Why are they futurist? Because they think parts of Daniel and Revelation are predicting future events that are to be decoded. Which is rubbish! They theologically describe the future certainty of the Lord's return - but are just not about today's world. Revelation is the gospel stated in picture language, the comic book of 2000 years ago. But the gospel it remains. And part of that is that the Lord will return. In 5 seconds or 50,000 years! We just don't know.