I don't think I've seen you mess up your signature before lol
ECT WHY DID PAUL HAVE AND UNTIMELY BIRTH , 1 COR 15:8 ?
- Thread starter DAN P
- Start date
I don't think I've seen you mess up your signature before lol
Hi and that is the first mistake I have made , JUST ask my wife !!
Just in a hurry as I am on 4 forms !!
dan p
Derf
Well-known member
Thanks Dan! But notice that neither of those words are how they are translated--those words are the things needing to be translated. And both are in the Greek in that verse:
Rom 15:16 εἰς τὸ εἶναί με λειτουργὸν (leitourgos) Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ εἰς τὰ ἔθνη ἱερουργοῦντα (hierourgeō) τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ θεοῦ ἵνα γένηται ἡ προσφορὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν εὐπρόσδεκτος ἡγιασμένη ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ
Both the NIV AND the NASB translate the second word as relating to a priest in some way:
NIV:
to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles. He gave me the priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.
NASB:
to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, ministering as a priest the gospel of God, so that my offering of the Gentiles may become acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.
"Priestly duty" and "ministering as a priest" come from, according to Strong's, "a compound of ἱερόν" meaning temple, "and the base of ἔργον" meaning works. Together Strong's says it carries the connotation of "to be a temple-worker, i.e. officiate as a priest (figuratively)".
The KJV just translates both words with the same thing "minister"/"ministering". You have to wonder why, since the two are distinct words--as you pointed out. Could it be that King James' translators didn't want to have the word "priest" associated with Paul, because he was not very big on the Catholic ideal that priests carried a special authority from God? But he was very comfortable with Peter's use of the word, which in his eyes promoted the non-priests (those not in authority in the church) to priestly status.
I'm speculating here, but if true, then it shows at least one instance where the system drove the interpretation, even for the "authorized" version.
There are other sources we can check. Luther used the German word "priesterlich" in his translation. You can see he agreed with the NASB and NIV. Wycliffe agreed with King James'. The oldest Dutch and Italian versions used words like "sacred service".
I also agree with [MENTION=15338]Right Divider[/MENTION] that Paul is not talking about priests, but he did refer to the idea of a priest (the word is obviously in Paul's writings, and it talks about temple works, which is a function of priests, and that he was performing a priest-like service. Whether this was supposed to be a Jewish or a Gentile priest comparison, I know not.
Derf
Well-known member
I'm still not getting your point here. You say Paul is saying something other than what he's saying, but you won't tell me what it is. But I'm willing to drop it, if you're not interested in divulging your secrets.
Until you offer something instead of the more obvious direct interpretation, I'm going to stick with the obvious.
Peter says he is writing to those that have received a faith that is like his: [2Pe 1:1 NASB] Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ:
Peter says this is the same group that he wrote to before, assuming he's referring to 1 Peter:
[2Pe 3:1 NASB] This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you in which I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder,
And Peter says that Paul wrote to these same people:
[2Pe 3:15 NASB] and regard the patience of our Lord [as] salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,
And Peter says that Paul wrote about the same things the Peter was writing about:
[2Pe 3:16 NASB] as also in all [his] letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as [they do] also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
I'm trying to figure out why you brought Peter into this discussion. I apologize for misunderstanding your point. What is your point about Peter in a discussion about Paul's untimely birth?
Jesus conquered as a sheep:
[Isa 53:7 NASB] He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He did not open His mouth; Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, So He did not open His mouth.
Why can't we conquer as sheep?
Jesus said He had other sheep out there:
[Jhn 10:16 NASB] "I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock [with] one shepherd. ----->remember this reference to "shepherd" for later
He obviously wasn't talking about Israelites, because they were all supposed to be there for the feast of booths.
So who were these other sheep? Do you not want to be one of Jesus' sheep? Paul doesn't have to call us sheep for us to be sheep.
But even if that's the only place Paul speaks of sheep, it's not the only place he speaks of the idea of sheep. [Eph 4:11 NASB] And He gave some [as] apostles, and some [as] prophets, and some [as] evangelists, and some [as] pastors and teachers,
The word for "pastors" there is the same Greek word (pluralized) as was used in John 10:16 for "shepherd" above.
This is certainly valuable. And I would say most references Jesus made about sheep are referring to the people of Israel. Does that mean all are? Of that I'm not so sure.
So when Peter talks of Paul writing to the same folks he was writing to "in all [his] letters", who you say are the remnant of Israel, Paul wasn't using the scriptures literally? Why wouldn't he use them literally for the remnant of Israel?
Spoken like a good Calvinist.
Dan P showed you it IS in the text, despite his fumbled attempt at describing it. See my reply to him here.
So, are these "sheep" and "goats" of the "nations" of the Gentiles? Or is Jesus merely separating Jews from Jews?
The kingdom the verse talks about was one prepared from the foundation of the world. Is that the same as the Jewish kingdom? Was that the whole plan from the very beginning--that there would be a people that God took for Himself in exclusion of other families on earth, where the one nation is served by all the others? Maybe it is. But it seems like it isn't very compatible with open theism, which I believe you ascribe to. I would think that for it to be compatible with open theism, that kingdom, prepared from the foundation of the world, would be one that was more inclusive rather than less. Just my opinion.
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
Paul uses some scripture quote to express a meaning that is SIMILAR but not IDENTICAL to its literal meaning. This is clear based on many things that you will not even consider. You're stuck with a fairy tale that you will not move from.
No kidding. Peter is continuing the faith that Israel was to have and writes to the same. Wow, what a revelation!
Wow, Peter continues to write to the twelve tribes scattered abroad. Earth shaking news!
Peter ALSO says that there is some wisdom that was given to Paul Note that he is singling out Paul in that statement. Peter does NOT say the wisdom given to US.
No, that is just your extreme BIAS showing. Peter is simply calling some of Paul's writings scripture.
Because Peter's birth was NOT untimely.
That does NOT say that Jesus conquered "as a sheep".
The other sheep are..... wait for it.... the twelve tribes SCATTERED ABROAD. See Jeremiah 23.
Jer 23:1-3 KJV Woe be unto the pastors that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture! saith the LORD. (2) Therefore thus saith the LORD God of Israel against the pastors that feed my people; Ye have scattered my flock, and driven them away, and have not visited them: behold, I will visit upon you the evil of your doings, saith the LORD. (3) And I will gather the remnant of my flock out of all countries whither I have driven them, and will bring them again to their folds; and they shall be fruitful and increase.
Psa 100:3 KJV Know ye that the LORD he is God: it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves; we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture.
All wishful thinking based on a fairy tale and not rightly dividing the Word of Truth.
See the OT to understand the gather of the sheep scattered abroad.
You are REALLY stretching to try to protect your cherished "story". It is much simpler and better to just accept the truth.
That because you are trying to perpetuate the myth at all costs.
:dizzy:
Don't make false accusations.
:juggle:
Indeed, the sheep and goats in THAT example are the gentiles nations.
The "throne of His glory" is the throne of His father David.
Luk 1:32-33 KJV He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: (33) And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
Just believe all that scripture says and you'll be better off.
Last edited:
Hey derf, hope all is well with you and yours.
You're right regarding this sheep / flock distinction. Because it refers to a concept not (as I'm sure you well know) to actual sheep.
As such, it applies to both the Believing Remnant of God and to members of the Body of Christ.
The Believing Remnant as a flock:
Luke 12:32 Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom.
The Believing Remnant as a flock warned of wolves disguised as sheep members of the Believing Remnant attempting to come in among them and lead them astray
Matthew 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
The Body of Christ as a flock warned of wolves coming in among the Body in a manner similar to the false prophets as wolves described in Matthew 7:15 herein above:
Acts 20:24 But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God. 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 20:30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
The concept in both is that of what their spirit as Believers is to be in the world - that of humility - this here:
Matthew 10:16 Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.
Luke 10:3 Go your ways: behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves.
Which is the same as this here:
Romans 8:36 As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.
Ephesians 4:1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, 4:2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; 4:3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
And so on...
As for your other point, in 2 Peter 3's reference to Paul, Peter is basically saying that the things he has written in that chapter about the Lord having delayed His return to Israel (which Peter had preached unto Israel in Acts 3) in his longsuffering, are not only explained by Paul, in his writings (compare Romans 9: 22 and Romans 11:25, with Peter's words about a delay, as one example) but also, they are not easily understood by those who were obviously unskilled in properly sorting such things out - so much so, that they were misinterpreting them, just as such had done regarding His first Advent.
Peter is writing to remind them of whats' become of the Prophetic aspect of all that, that is their Promise, but which has been delayed.
At which point, he basically reminds them that they have copies of Paul's writings for more background on said delay.
Hope that clears that up.
If not, well then, just rejoice in Romans 5:6-8 - in each our stead!
Derf
Well-known member
Hey derf, hope all is well with you and yours.
You're right regarding this sheep / flock distinction. Because it refers to a concept not (as I'm sure you well know) to actual sheep.
As such, it applies to both the Believing Remnant of God and to members of the Body of Christ.
The Believing Remnant as a flock:
Luke 12:32 Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom.
The Believing Remnant as a flock warned of wolves disguised as sheep members of the Believing Remnant attempting to come in among them and lead them astray
Matthew 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
The Body of Christ as a flock warned of wolves coming in among the Body in a manner similar to the false prophets as wolves described in Matthew 7:15 herein above:
Acts 20:24 But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God. 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 20:30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
The concept in both is that of what their spirit as Believers is to be in the world - that of humility - this here:
Matthew 10:16 Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.
Luke 10:3 Go your ways: behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves.
Which is the same as this here:
Romans 8:36 As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.
Ephesians 4:1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, 4:2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; 4:3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
And so on...
As for your other point, in 2 Peter 3's reference to Paul, Peter is basically saying that the things he has written in that chapter about the Lord having delayed His return to Israel (which Peter had preached unto Israel in Acts 3) in his longsuffering, are not only explained by Paul, in his writings (compare Romans 9: 22 and Romans 11:25, with Peter's words about a delay, as one example) but also, they are not easily understood by those who were obviously unskilled in properly sorting such things out - so much so, that they were misinterpreting them, just as such had done regarding His first Advent.
Peter is writing to remind them of whats' become of the Prophetic aspect of all that, that is their Promise, but which has been delayed.
At which point, he basically reminds them that they have copies of Paul's writings for more background on said delay.
Hope that clears that up.
If not, well then, just rejoice in Romans 5:6-8 - in each our stead!
Hi Danoh! Good to hear from you.
Your explanation makes plenty of sense on the sheep theme, as well as on the appeal to Paul's letters, but both also seem to diminish the distinction between the body of Christ and the Kingdom of God, as Paul seemed wont to do also:
[Rom 14:17 KJV] For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
[1Co 4:20 KJV] For the kingdom of God [is] not in word, but in power.
[1Co 6:9 KJV] Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
[1Co 6:10 KJV] Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
[Eph 5:5 KJV] For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
[Col 1:13 KJV] Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated [us] into the kingdom of his dear Son:
[1Th 2:12 KJV] That ye would walk worthy of God, who hath called you unto his kingdom and glory.
[2Th 1:5 KJV] [Which is] a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God, that ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which ye also suffer:
If Paul was writing these things to the body of Christ, seeming to offer them hope for the kingdom, and Peter was saying these things apply to the Jewish believers, too, how then do we see any distinction between the two groups?
In His grace,
Derf
Derf
Well-known member
Point #1
Point #2
Let's go back and review point #1
Danoh (thank you, Danoh!) provided clear evidence that Paul spoke about the church as sheep:
This was late in Paul's life, since he was not expecting to ever see the Ephesians again:
[Act 20:25 KJV] And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more.
Now, what was your point about Gentiles never being called sheep? Why does that matter to you? Is it merely to give traction to the idea that Peter was only speaking to Jews? My point, if you'll hear it, was that even if Peter was mainly speaking to Jews, his words are also applicable to Christians, just as Paul's words, mainly spoken to Gentiles, were recommended by Peter to the Jews.
Paul didn't seem to distinguish, as he pointed out that the Ephesian church was made up of both Jews and Gentiles:
[Act 20:20 KJV] [And] how I kept back nothing that was profitable [unto you], but have shewed you, and have taught you publickly, and from house to house,
[Act 20:21 KJV] Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.
None of this lessens the importance of the earthly kingdom, but it might (hopefully) help us to understand better what that earthly kingdom is about, just as the Jews in Jesus' day were not understanding what it was supposed to be.
Point #2
Let's go back and review point #1
Danoh (thank you, Danoh!) provided clear evidence that Paul spoke about the church as sheep:
Paul spoke these things to the elders of the church of Ephesus: [Act 20:17 KJV] And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.
This was late in Paul's life, since he was not expecting to ever see the Ephesians again:
[Act 20:25 KJV] And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more.
Now, what was your point about Gentiles never being called sheep? Why does that matter to you? Is it merely to give traction to the idea that Peter was only speaking to Jews? My point, if you'll hear it, was that even if Peter was mainly speaking to Jews, his words are also applicable to Christians, just as Paul's words, mainly spoken to Gentiles, were recommended by Peter to the Jews.
Paul didn't seem to distinguish, as he pointed out that the Ephesian church was made up of both Jews and Gentiles:
[Act 20:20 KJV] [And] how I kept back nothing that was profitable [unto you], but have shewed you, and have taught you publickly, and from house to house,
[Act 20:21 KJV] Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.
None of this lessens the importance of the earthly kingdom, but it might (hopefully) help us to understand better what that earthly kingdom is about, just as the Jews in Jesus' day were not understanding what it was supposed to be.
Hi and in 1 Tim 1:15 is says that Paul was PROTO and it means FIRST !!
Read Gal 1:15 Paul was called by GRACE !!
Prove that the 12 apostles were saved by GRACE and give a verse ??
Read Luke 22:32 is proof how Peter was saved !!
Can you explain how you were saved , and should have at least 1 Tim 1:16 Paul is the PATTERN , so what is the PATTERN ??
Then Acts 16:14 !!
Then Rom 10:9 !!
And 1 Cor 12:3 !!
dan p
Read Gal 1:15 Paul was called by GRACE !!
Prove that the 12 apostles were saved by GRACE and give a verse ??
Read Luke 22:32 is proof how Peter was saved !!
Can you explain how you were saved , and should have at least 1 Tim 1:16 Paul is the PATTERN , so what is the PATTERN ??
Then Acts 16:14 !!
Then Rom 10:9 !!
And 1 Cor 12:3 !!
dan p
I'll address one or two of the passages you posted, as what I have to say about them, applies to the others as well.
In Romans 14:17, the Apostle Paul relates that "the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost."
In other words, in the Apostle Paul's God-given BODY's version of the Kingdom of God, said Kingdom is Literal, BUT SPIRITUAL - and we are said to have been translated there the moment we believed.
And this Present Possession differs from Paul's assertion that the lost "shall not inherit the Kingdom of God."
Thus, his "Such shall NOT - but ye ARE..."
In other words, in contrast to the Believing BODY MEMBER - who NOW PRESENTLY possesses the Kingdom of God, is NOW PRESENTLY a Partaker of said Kingdom - the lost person is not a Partaker of, does not have this inheritance, this PRESENT Possession of the Kingdom of God.
1 Corinthians 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
It appears the inheritance is yet future. But it is not. It is the Body Member's PRESENT Possession...
Colossians 1:12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: 1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son.
In contrast to that, we read that Israel's Promised Kingdom - which is also Literal - is PHYSICAL.
Luke 22:29 And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; 22:30 That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
And not only is Israel's Kingdom PHYSICAL, it is NOT their Present Possession...
Acts 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? 1:7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.
Which comes full circle to the very issue that Peter is addressing in 2 Peter 3 - what has become of the Lord's Promised Return to restore AGAIN the Kingdom to ISRAEL that Peter preached unto THEM in Acts 3?
While I'm at it, Peter and their converts (the Elven's converts) were the Believing Remnant of Israel.
Paul mentions them here and there in his writings, which is what Peter means by his reminding THEM that Paul has written unto THEM according to the grace given him concerning the delay in the Lord's return unto THEM, in 2 Peter 3.
THEIR'S is ISRAEL'S PROMISED, PHYSICAL Kingdom.
Paul's mention of THEM is in passages like...
Romans 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? 3:2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. 3:3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?
Which complements...
Romans 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. 11:7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.
And so on...
While, in contrast to that, Jews in the Body are comprised of formerly LOST Jews saved AFTER the FIRST LOST Jew SAVED INTO the Body - the Apostle Paul - began his EVERY MAN ministry...
Acts 26:15 And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. 26:16 But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; 26:17 Delivering thee FROM THE PEOPLE, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, 26:18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me. 26:19 Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision: 26:20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.
Now, if that doesn't suit ya, well, then, rejoice in Romans 5:6-8 - in each - our stead!
Hi and I am with RIGHT DIVIDER and in Acts 20:28 the Greek word for FLOCK / POIMNION can also be called a GROUP OF BELIEVERS , or maybe , known as a FLOCK OF GEESE and do you see any SHEEPHERDERS , NO but you do see ELDERS / EPISKOPOS and can be called OVERSEERS , BISHOPS , ELDERS , or called SUPERINTENDENTS !!
We are called the BODY OF CHRIST , A NEW CREATION and NEVER , VINES , BRANCHES or an OLIVE TREE !!
And another reason we are not called SHEEP is because Paul is not part of Israel and the 12 apostles are called the LITTLE FLOCK !!
dan p
Last edited:
Derf
Well-known member
You're coming to the conclusion of restating your premise. That's called begging the question. Flocks can certainly be other things, but it's pretty obviously used as a reference to the most flock-ish thing around--sheep--no matter how hard you want to deny it. Especially when he talks about wolves coming in. Are your geese really that worried about wolves?
Right Divider
Body part
You're funny. You ASSUME that Paul is calling them sheep and then use flock to confirm your premise. And you talk about begging the question.
Hi and I should have placed this passage , before , and that in 1 Cor 15:8 Paul was an UNTIMELY BIRTH and SEPARATE FROM THE 12 APOSTLES , CALLED THE LITTLE FLOCK and give you the KINGDOM , so where is that KINGDOM , as written in Luke 12:32 !!
You are the GEESE as you are anti-Paul and we are a NEW CREATION in Christ !!
And this is why in Rom 1:1 Paul was APHRIOZO / LIMITED TO ONLY PREACH the gospel of God !!
dan p
Derf
Well-known member
I don't understand your question. Where is what kingdom, and how does that kingdom apply to the conversation about Paul born out of time.
Peter and the 11 received the kingdom, in a sense. They judged the twelve tribes, in a sense. Certainly Peter and the apostles were leaders of the church during the early-Acts time-frame--so much so that they couldn't take the time to wait tables (Acts 6:2). If the church they were head of was made up of representatives from the 12 tribes, then indeed there was a kingdom aspect that was received. It was a fledgling (how's that for bird references?) kingdom, not fully mature nor established, and they struggled to go beyond the bounds of Judaism, though they did somewhat.
And you didn't address the wolf reference that went with the flock reference.
I'm certainly not anti-Paul. I read and enjoy, apply and employ his writings all the time. He didn't consider "the kingdom" to be something unrelated to "the church" or "the body of Christ".
What is your point about Paul being "aphriozo"? What are you saying he was limited from? And can you give scriptural references for your opinion?
Derf
Well-known member
Are geese really that worried about wolves?
Right Divider
Body part
In nature, sure.
Hasn't come about yet, because of Israel rejecting her God and King.
God was originally planning to have a nation be "His people" and another group of people that are separate from that nation.
When God put Israel's plan on hold in Acts 9, He needed someone to enact the other half of His plans for the second group.
So, in that sense, in that Paul was chosen to do this task, he was born out of his time.
Except they didn't.
The kingdom has yet to come, per Revelation 20.
They didn't have thrones.
:idunno:
Not what they were promised.
They were promised 12 thrones on which to rule over Israel.
Derf
Well-known member
Are the "thrones" that literal? They might be, but then Jesus is constantly "seated" at the right hand of God. Maybe that's ok for a spirit, but with Him having a human body, seems like 2000 years is a long time to stay seated.