ECT Tet and IP: so what's the bottom line, really?

[Right Divider]

It proves who is doing the judging, and there is no mention of the apostles doing any of it. Revelation says nothing about it either.

And yet Jesus said that they would. Do you think that Jesus is wrong?

There is only one throne in Heaven. The Jews/Israel are going to be judged the same as anyone else, as are the apostles.

What does that have to do with Jesus and the TWELVE thrones for the TWELVE apostles?

You have a really hard time staying on the subject. You're jumping around trying to worm out of the clear teaching of Christ to His disciples.

Jesus has two bodies?

No, He has a nation and a body.

He has an earthly kingdom with Israel and a heavenly kingdom with His body.

I believe that was general statement including Barnabas because he was with Paul, not because he was an literal apostle. The "credentials" for an apostle are laid out in Acts 1. Barnabas does not qualify. Only Paul was added by the Lord Himself, specifically.

Acts 13:1
Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.

That's a very twisted "interpretation" for a verse that CLEARLY calls BOTH Barnabas and Paul APOSTLES.

Acts 13:2 (AKJV/PCE)​

(13:2) As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. ​

How are going to twist that one?

BTW, Paul did NOT qualify for the Act 1 "credentials" either!

All of the apostles were chosen to go to the Jews and the Gentiles. Jesus said it to all them, which is recorded not once, but at least three times - Matt 28, Mark 16, and Acts 1. Peter himself, said he was sent to the Gentiles.

Then why Paul at all?

You are the one who questioned that some of the the apostles doubted at Jesus' ascension. I was providing proof that there were doubters present.

No, I was NOT. I was pointing out that the DBR was NOT something that the twelve were preaching as part of the gospel of the kingdom, since they did NOT know anything about it.

 

[Interplanner]

And yet Jesus said that they would. Do you think that Jesus is wrong?


What does that have to do with Jesus and the TWELVE thrones for the TWELVE apostles?

You have a really hard time staying on the subject. You're jumping around trying to worm out of the clear teaching of Chris to His disciples.


No, He has a nation and a body.

He has an earthly kingdom with Israel and a heavenly kingdom with His body.


That's a very twisted "interpretation" for a verse that CLEARLY calls BOTH Barnabas and Paul APOSTLES.

Acts 13:2 (AKJV/PCE)​

(13:2) As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. ​

How are going to twist that one?

BTW, Paul did NOT qualify for the Act 1 "credentials" either!


Then why Paul at all?


No, I was NOT. I was pointing out that the DBR was NOT something that the twelve were preaching as part of the gospel of the kingdom, since they did NOT know anything about it.

They did know about it, but could not bring themselves to realize it, to show that it took the Spirit's work in God's time--the Lord's work in the Lord's way--to realize it.

The thrones of the apostles are their leadership of the church, just as in the temple image in Revelation where they are walls or foundations.

There are not two programs running incoherently with each other in the Bible. No 2P2P.

At a church tonight, there was a great presentation using the Bible Project to show that all four items called covenants from Noah to David where meant to bless the whole world, all families. Then after this was shown, the speaker tried to say that Israel still needed to be in its land (in the future) instead of the meager 10% of the square miles of Solomon's time (I have never heard these figures before). It was a complete departure from the 4 covenants, and I don't know how people miss the direction that Jesus tried to get his people to go, with Paul, especially in Rom 10, and with the decimated system of Judaism and its city. It is entirely obvious.

Another example of 2P2P gone wild.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

They did know about it, but could not bring themselves to realize it, to show that it took the Spirit's work in God's time--the Lord's work in the Lord's way--to realize it.

The thrones of the apostles are their leadership of the church, just as in the temple image in Revelation where they are walls or foundations.

There are not two programs running incoherently with each other in the Bible. No 2P2P.

At a church tonight, there was a great presentation using the Bible Project to show that all four items called covenants from Noah to David where meant to bless the whole world, all families. Then after this was shown, the speaker tried to say that Israel still needed to be in its land (in the future) instead of the meager 10% of the square miles of Solomon's time (I have never heard these figures before). It was a complete departure from the 4 covenants, and I don't know how people miss the direction that Jesus tried to get his people to go, with Paul, especially in Rom 10, and with the decimated system of Judaism and its city. It is entirely obvious.

Another example of 2P2P gone wild.

:chuckle:

 

[Interplanner]

:chuckle:

So what is the "literal" meaning of a building-- a 1400 mile cube-- in which the foundation is the apostles? There's just no symbolism there, is there?

And besides, wasn't the topic of 1400 mile cubic buildings just in the NYT the other day? Just something everyone today would know exactly? Yes, of course, as common as popcorn.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

So what is the "literal" meaning of a building-- a 1400 mile cube-- in which the foundation is the apostles? There's just no symbolism there, is there?

And besides, wasn't the topic of 1400 mile cubic buildings just in the NYT the other day? Just something everyone today would know exactly? Yes, of course, as common as popcorn.

"I go and prepare a place for you..."

 

[Interplanner]

"I go and prepare a place for you..."

Is that what the average person in Judea and the mid 1st century with all its awful circumstances would warm up to as 'a place for you'? Funny how the same enormous structure isn't mentioned in the NHNE.

Try again: what does it mean for a 'building' to have 'foundations' of the apostles...?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Is that what the average person in Judea and the mid 1st century with all its awful circumstances would warm up to as 'a place for you'? Funny how the same enormous structure isn't mentioned in the NHNE.

Who cares what they thought, humanist?

Abraham looked for a city.

Read Genesis, take note of the rivers and the building materials present. Who do you think was supposed to build this city?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Rev 21:24 (KJV)

May as well believe it, thou skeptic.

I do.

 

[Right Divider]

They did know about it, but could not bring themselves to realize it, to show that it took the Spirit's work in God's time--the Lord's work in the Lord's way--to realize it.

I'm always fascinated with people attempts to get around what the scripture CLEARLY says.

Luke 18:32-34 (AKJV/PCE)​

(18:32) For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on: (18:33) And they shall scourge [him], and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again. (18:34) And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken. ​

Just how much MORE plainly do you want God to put it?

• they understood none of these things
• this saying was hid from them
• neither knew they the things which were spoken

God repeats the SAME thing in THREE different ways, and yet you deny it.

The thrones of the apostles are their leadership of the church, just as in the temple image in Revelation where they are walls or foundations.

AGAIN... you twist it!

The thrones will be positions of AUTHORITY TO JUDGE the twelve tribes of Israel.

There are not two programs running incoherently with each other in the Bible. No 2P2P.

You're correct on thing; they are completely COHERENT.

At a church tonight, there was a great presentation using the Bible Project to show that all four items called covenants from Noah to David where meant to bless the whole world, all families. Then after this was shown, the speaker tried to say that Israel still needed to be in its land (in the future) instead of the meager 10% of the square miles of Solomon's time (I have never heard these figures before). It was a complete departure from the 4 covenants, and I don't know how people miss the direction that Jesus tried to get his people to go, with Paul, especially in Rom 10, and with the decimated system of Judaism and its city. It is entirely obvious.

Another example of 2P2P gone wild.

Blah...blah...blah....

 

[Right Divider]

Who cares what they thought, humanist?

Abraham looked for a city.

Read Genesis, take note of the rivers and the building materials present. Who do you think was supposed to build this city?

IP prefers the idea that we have to interpret the Bible based on human opinions about that it should mean.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

IP prefers the idea that we have to interpret the Bible based on human opinions about that it should mean.

He tries to figure out "what it really means" instead of just believing it. Intellectual unbelief.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Luke 18:31-34 (KJV)


IP: "They did know about it, but could not bring themselves to realize it,"


:chuckle:

IP's rationalization trumps belief of the word, again.

 

[Right Divider]

Luke 18:31-34 (KJV)

IP: "They did know about it, but could not bring themselves to realize it,"

:chuckle:

IP's rationalization trumps belief of the word, again.

Yep: http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...-line-really&p=4829737&viewfull=1#post4829737

 

[Interplanner]

Yep: http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...-line-really&p=4829737&viewfull=1#post4829737

What Jewish person involved in Judaism would miss 'look, the Lamb of God.' But it is quite another thing to realize the person is going to die. Do you think Is 53 and Dan 9 were completely lost to them?

Even if they did not understand what you think they should have, that is not proof that there was another offer. That's silly. That is confusing the delusion of Judaism with the Gospel. John 12:34 straightens that one out. The crowds of Judaism thought from the law that the Christ would reign forever from that point on.

Do you actually think Christ had said nothing by that point about being totally different from the world they grew up in, up to and including the loss of their lives? How early was it that they were told to bear 'his' cross (meaning, Christ's cross as a belief, right? What sense would it make for an apostle to bear his own while being offered a 'millenial' kingdom?)?

You're amateurs at reconstructing the issues there.

 

[Right Divider]

What Jewish person involved in Judaism would miss 'look, the Lamb of God.' But it is quite another thing to realize the person is going to die. Do you think Is 53 and Dan 9 were completely lost to them?

Even if they did not understand what you think they should have, that is not proof that there was another offer. That's silly. That is confusing the delusion of Judaism with the Gospel. John 12:34 straightens that one out. The crowds of Judaism thought from the law that the Christ would reign forever from that point on.

Do you actually think Christ had said nothing by that point about being totally different from the world they grew up in, up to and including the loss of their lives? How early was it that they were told to bear 'his' cross (meaning, Christ's cross as a belief, right? What sense would it make for an apostle to bear his own while being offered a 'millenial' kingdom?)?

You're amateurs at reconstructing the issues there.

Please feel free to show us where the twelve were preaching the CROSS when they spread the gospel of the kingdom ONLY to Israel.

You seem to be allergic to the truth. You better have that looked at.

 

[Interplanner]

Please feel free to show us where the twelve were preaching the CROSS when they spread the gospel of the kingdom ONLY to Israel.

You seem to be allergic to the truth. You better have that looked at.

You didnt answer any of those questions. They are not rhetorical. They are the most vital questions.

What is the point of Mk 8:34 without a background in the cross--even if they don't get it? And do you think he meant they all had to be martyrs? No!!! They all, however, had to preach that cross--HIS cross.

They sure 'AS HELL' didn't offer a kingdom. They said a kingdom was upon them (Israel) and taking over. You've missed that point too. This is explained in the parables, especially the miniature of the Bible in the vineyard. The kingdom is taken from the nation and given to a real 'nation'--those who believe and work in it. That's the new reality of the new covenant.

What they did preach is the Lamb of God, the grace of God, the authority of the Son to forgive.

You do realize that the 'they didn't understand' is not in Mark, don't you? That's the earliest, closest to the Aramaic source. Instead we see that they knew enough to argue with him, 8:32. Cp. 8:12. Mark doesn't add it there either.

So the later accounts add the non-understanding to complete the picture; it was not automatic. Mark decided not to add that detail. But he did add that Peter (about the Trans) didn't know what to say. At least he included their puzzlement that way.

You are simply glomming 2P2P on to things where you can, and it is artificial and foreign.

 

[Right Divider]

You didnt answer any of those questions. They are not rhetorical. They are the most vital questions.

What is the point of Mk 8:34 without a background in the cross--even if they don't get it? And do you think he meant they all had to be martyrs? No!!! They all, however, had to preach that cross--HIS cross.

Once again..... over and over and over.... I've asked YOU do explain how the TWELVE could preach the gospel of the kingdom to ISRAEL and NOT preach the CROSS.

Mark 8:34 was spoken by the ONE that knows the then END from the BEGINNING. He was NOT one of the TWELVE sent out to preach the gospel of the kingdom to ISRAEL. Peter, on the day of Pentecost (a lawfully required feast day for Israel), did NOT preach the CROSS as GOOD NEWS. He preached it as a WICKED thing that Israel had done... a murder indictment.

They sure 'AS HELL' didn't offer a kingdom. They said a kingdom was upon them (Israel) and taking over. You've missed that point too. This is explained in the parables, especially the miniature of the Bible in the vineyard. The kingdom is taken from the nation and given to a real 'nation'--those who believe and work in it. That's the new reality of the new covenant.

This does NOT mean that the LORD's plans for an earthly kingdom have been abandoned or were only pretend. Read Isaiah 60 to see how the gentiles nations will serve Israel and then compare with Revelation 21.

What they did preach is the Lamb of God, the grace of God, the authority of the Son to forgive.

Feel free to show them (the TWELVE apostle for the TWELVE tribes) preaching the gospel of the grace of God (i.e., "to him that worketh not, but believes").

You do realize that the 'they didn't understand' is not in Mark, don't you? That's the earliest, closest to the Aramaic source. Instead we see that they knew enough to argue with him, 8:32. Cp. 8:12. Mark doesn't add it there either.

LOL, more man-made mumbo jumbo. So now some book have more weight because of the assumed age. You are a riot!

So the later accounts add the non-understanding to complete the picture; it was not automatic. Mark decided not to add that detail. But he did add that Peter (about the Trans) didn't know what to say. At least he included their puzzlement that way.

Once again, you're trying to force your "outside knowledge" to determine what the scripture means, instead of believing what it clearly says.

You are simply glomming 2P2P on to things where you can, and it is artificial and foreign.

I guess that I should remind you that BOTH God's earthly kingdom and His heavenly one allow ALL PEOPLE in. There is NO separate plan for Israel and Gentiles.

Israel has a special place in God's earthly kingdom. It's too bad that this gives you heartburn.

 

[TweetyBird]

And yet Jesus said that they would. Do you think that Jesus is wrong?

I think the apostles are allegorical of the saints, because of the Scripts I posted.

What does that have to do with Jesus and the TWELVE thrones for the TWELVE apostles?

There is only one throne in Heaven, not 13 of them.

No, He has a nation and a body.

He has an earthly kingdom with Israel and a heavenly kingdom with His body.

The nation of Christ and His body are one and same thing. There is only one entity that belong to Jesus Christ >>> those who believe in Him. All who are in Him are citizens of Heaven and have been translated in His Kingdom. We are His chosen people - Jew and Gentile alike. There is no difference in Christ.

That's a very twisted "interpretation" for a verse that CLEARLY calls BOTH Barnabas and Paul APOSTLES.

Acts 13:2 (AKJV/PCE)​

(13:2) As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. ​

How are going to twist that one?

BTW, Paul did NOT qualify for the Act 1 "credentials" either!

I already stated that Barnabas did not qualify per Acts 1 and therefore could not be an apostle. I also stated that Paul was specifically, specially, and uniquely chosen as an apostle by Jesus Christ Himself.

Romans 1:1
Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,

2 Corinthians 1:1
Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God,

1 Corinthians 1:1
Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God,

Galatians 1:1
Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead


Ephesians 1:1
Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:

Colossians 1:1
Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God,

1 Timothy 1:1
Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;

2 Timothy 1:1
Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus,

Titus 1:1
Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God’s elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;

No, I was NOT. I was pointing out that the DBR was NOT something that the twelve were preaching as part of the gospel of the kingdom, since they did NOT know anything about it.

Post #235:
Originally Posted by TweetyBird
["What about the fact that some of the apostles doubted Christ had risen AT HIS ASCENSION?"]

RD:
["Please quote some scripture for that one!

Perhaps you're confusing resurrection and ascension."]



I then posted these verses, which you are now denying that you requested:

Matt 28
16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. 17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Mark 16
14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. 15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.[/QUOTE]

 

[Right Divider]

I think the apostles are allegorical of the saints, because of the Scripts I posted.

Whatever that means....

There is only one throne in Heaven, not 13 of them.

So, once again, you think that Jesus was wrong when He told them that they would sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel?

Matt 19:28 (AKJV/PCE)​

(19:28) And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. ​

The nation of Christ and His body are one and same thing. There is only one entity that belong to Jesus Christ >>> those who believe in Him. All who are in Him are citizens of Heaven and have been translated in His Kingdom. We are His chosen people - Jew and Gentile alike. There is no difference in Christ.

That's a real nice OPINION that you have there. Too bad that it does not match with scripture.

I already stated that Barnabas did not qualify per Acts 1 and therefore could not be an apostle.

Paul did NOT quality by the Acts 1 qualifications either. That was a requirement to be ONE OF THE TWELVE apostles for the TWELVE tribes.

But the scripture STILL calls Barnabas an APOSTLE. The fact that you disagree with the BIBLE is your problem.

Acts 14:14 (AKJV/PCE)​

(14:14) [Which] when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard [of], they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out, ​

​

Don't try to fight against the Word of God, you lose.

I also stated that Paul was specifically, specially, and uniquely chosen as an apostle by Jesus Christ Himself.

And who is disagreeing with you here?

I then posted these verses, which you are now denying that you requested:

Matt 28
16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. 17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Mark 16
14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. 15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

No, I still don't see what your problem is with these verses.

The gospel of the kingdom is the good news that the KINGDOM IS AT HAND. It's just that simple, but you try to make it over complicate it.

 

[TweetyBird]

Whatever that means....

Allegorical? Are you not sure of the definition?

So, once again, you think that Jesus was wrong when He told them that they would sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel?

Matt 19:28 (AKJV/PCE)​

(19:28) And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. ​

There is only one throne in Heaven, not 13 of them. So Jesus must not have been speaking literally, but as the other verses show, that the saints will judge - the apostles are also saints.

That's a real nice OPINION that you have there. Too bad that it does not match with scripture.

What part is not Scriptural? That we are not citizens of Heaven? That we have not been translated into His Kingdom? That Jew and Gentile are not alike in Christ Jesus?

Paul did NOT quality by the Acts 1 qualifications either. That was a requirement to be ONE OF THE TWELVE apostles for the TWELVE tribes.

No, that is not recorded anywhere in Scripture that the 12 twelve apostles represent each of the 12 tribes. There were not twelve tribes - there were actually 14 tribes.

Paul did not have to qualify per Acts 1, because Jesus chose Him specifically and uniquely Himself, as I showed you in numerous texts.

But the scripture STILL calls Barnabas an APOSTLE. The fact that you disagree with the BIBLE is your problem.

Acts 14:14 (AKJV/PCE)​

(14:14) [Which] when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard [of], they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out, ​

​

Don't try to fight against the Word of God, you lose.

I am not fighting the Word of God. Per Acts 1, an apostle had to be witness of Christ's resurrection and with Him during the days before Pentecost. Paul does not have to be part of those qualifications because he was singled out by Christ Himself.

And who is disagreeing with you here?


No, I still don't see what your problem is with these verses.

The gospel of the kingdom is the good news that the KINGDOM IS AT HAND. It's just that simple, but you try to make it over complicate it.

You are obfuscating. Once again, you objected to me stating that some of the apostles doubted that Jesus arose at His ascension, so I posted Matt and Mark to prove to you that some doubted at His ascension. I even quoted YOUR post word for word.