ECT WHY DID PAUL HAVE AND UNTIMELY BIRTH , 1 COR 15:8 ?

[Derf]

Christ will sit on a throne in Jerusalem. It will be visible, but you think that the other twelve thrones will be invisible. You've given no legitimate reason why the twelve thrones cannot be sat upon.

I've given several reasons, and just because you don't agree with them doesn't make them any less legitimate.

Christ might sit on an actual throne--that's up to Him. But don't you agree it is more important that we enthrone Him in our hearts and over our actions?

The apostles might sit on actual thrones--that's up to Jesus and them. But don't you think it's more important that we listen to what they say and incorporate it into our lives?

If the apostles are ruling over us today, bear with me in this, should we then say their words are not for us? If Peter tells us how to act as leaders in the church, is it right for us to say--that only applies to Jews?

The idea that we can disregard the words of Peter because they are only meant for someone else is an act of "dethroning" Peter. And if Jesus established Peter in some kind of authority position, where his words need to be followed, we are really dethroning Jesus.

 

[Derf]

Hi and all the 7 assemblies are not GENTILE ASSEMBLIES and in verse 6 these assemblies will be KINGS and PRIESTS unto to God and this is not the Body of Christ as we are a new Creation unto Christ , gAL 3:28 !!

Can you explain what Gal 3:28 really means ??

danp

How do you know they are not Gentile Assemblies? When was the text written? Are you saying in 60-100 AD those churches were not mostly Gentile? How do you know this, since it seems to conflict with historical knowledge of those churches, and especially conflicts with Paul's writings.

Did those churches suddenly revert to mostly Jewish, with Gentile proselytes, after Paul died? I've never heard of this idea, and I'm curious where you're getting it from?

 

[Right Divider]

I've given several reasons, and just because you don't agree with them doesn't make them any less legitimate.

Perhaps you think that you did. You went to many other tangents, but never actually discussed the passage in question.

Christ might sit on an actual throne--that's up to Him.

Might? Up to Him? What saith the scripture?

But don't you agree it is more important that we enthrone Him in our hearts and over our actions?

Churchianity 101

The apostles might sit on actual thrones--that's up to Jesus and them.

What saith the scripture?

But don't you think it's more important that we listen to what they say and incorporate it into our lives?

Churchianity 101

If the apostles are ruling over us today, bear with me in this, should we then say their words are not for us?

IF?.... the apostles are NOT "ruling over us today". The TWELVE apostles will sit on TWELVE thrones judging the TWELVE tribes of Israel. Why don't you take scripture seriously?

If Peter tells us how to act as leaders in the church, is it right for us to say--that only applies to Jews?

Please show us how Peter is telling you how to act within the TWELVE tribes.

The idea that we can disregard the words of Peter because they are only meant for someone else is an act of "dethroning" Peter.

Continuing to babble Churchianity.

And if Jesus established Peter in some kind of authority position, where his words need to be followed, we are really dethroning Jesus.

Rightly divide my friend.... rightly divide.

Are you in the body of Christ or are you one of the twelve tribes of Israel? (or perhaps a proselyte to Israel).

 

[glorydaz]

The apostles might sit on actual thrones--that's up to Jesus and them. But don't you think it's more important that we listen to what they say and incorporate it into our lives?

If the apostles are ruling over us today, bear with me in this, should we then say their words are not for us? If Peter tells us how to act as leaders in the church, is it right for us to say--that only applies to Jews?

The idea that we can disregard the words of Peter because they are only meant for someone else is an act of "dethroning" Peter. And if Jesus established Peter in some kind of authority position, where his words need to be followed, we are really dethroning Jesus.

That would be fine if they preached the same thing Paul did. But they don't.

You can try to make their messages mesh, but you'll run into a Y in the road as you travel along.

A little bit of this and a little bit of that makes quite a goulash, but is that where we are to go?

 

[Danoh]

I've given several reasons, and just because you don't agree with them doesn't make them any less legitimate.

Christ might sit on an actual throne--that's up to Him. But don't you agree it is more important that we enthrone Him in our hearts and over our actions?

The apostles might sit on actual thrones--that's up to Jesus and them. But don't you think it's more important that we listen to what they say and incorporate it into our lives?

If the apostles are ruling over us today, bear with me in this, should we then say their words are not for us? If Peter tells us how to act as leaders in the church, is it right for us to say--that only applies to Jews?

The idea that we can disregard the words of Peter because they are only meant for someone else is an act of "dethroning" Peter. And if Jesus established Peter in some kind of authority position, where his words need to be followed, we are really dethroning Jesus.

Where an operating principle applies in within our present economy or dispensation, no problem, regardless of where it is found in Scripture.

Where it does not apply within our present economy, or applies differently in theirs, no.

Case in point, under the Old, "righteousness under the law" required keeping "the Law for righteousness."

In contrast, within our present economy, keeping "the law for righteousness" is a transgression - of grace.

So, it depends on what operating principle is being emphasized by one writer or another, whether or not it applies, if not in a different way, if at all.

A passage like the following makes it obvious that there are competing operating principles in Scripture - due to a difference in each's respective economy.

Romans 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

Romans 5:6-8

 

[Derf]

Where an operating principle applies in within our present economy or dispensation, no problem, regardless of where it is found in Scripture.

Where it does not apply within our present economy, or applies differently in theirs, no.

Case in point, under the Old, "righteousness under the law" required keeping "the Law for righteousness."

In contrast, within our present economy, keeping "the law for righteousness" is a transgression - of grace.

So, it depends on what operating principle is being emphasized by one writer or another, whether or not it applies, if not in a different way, if at all.

A passage like the following makes it obvious that there are competing operating principles in Scripture - due to a difference in each's respective economy.

Romans 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

Romans 5:6-8

I understand what you're saying, but it is a thing to be cautious about, because we want to make sure the operating principle is coming from Christ, and not from us. For instance, when we say we are not under the law, it doesn't mean that the law has nothing good to say to us, as Paul points out by repeatedly listing things we shouldn't be doing. Is he giving us a "new" law to replace the old one? Is he giving us the old law we can ignore? Or is he explaining how grace, when operating on us, will produce these fruits in us without our help?

Most would say that last one applies. If that is so, then what is the purpose of Paul's repeated lists of things to avoid? Why list things that will be produced without effort on our part? The only purpose, if not for us to "obey" such law, would be for someone else to see if we are really obeying. in that case, Paul is telling us to judge our fellow believers, or, worse, he's writing to unbelievers to check believers for consistency vs hypocrisy.

Rom 6:14 is both a promise and an admonition. You can defeat sin--it doesn't keep you in bondage anymore. But if we are continuing sinning, we ARE in bondage, as Rom 6:16, two verses later, points out to us: Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

But Paul says to "examine yourselves" (2 Cor 13:5), and that means we need to compare what we do with some kind of standard. Paul gives us that standard in his lists, not as a list of boxes to check off, but explaining what righteousness looks like. [Rom 6:18 KJV] Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

 

[Derf]

That would be fine if they preached the same thing Paul did. But they don't.

You can try to make their messages mesh, but you'll run into a Y in the road as you travel along.

A little bit of this and a little bit of that makes quite a goulash, but is that where we are to go?

Isn't it worse to pick out things that should apply to us and say they don't? There's value in understanding who is being addressed in the text, surely. But the letters were passed around, too, so that a letter to the Corinthians would also end up in Ephesus, and a letter to the twelve tribes would also end up in Ephesus.

"When this letter is read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans," (Colossians 4:16).

"I adjure you by the Lord to have this letter read to all the brethren," (1 Thessalonians 5:27).

So when Peter talks of Paul's writings, he isn't just saying they make entertaining reading--those epistles were written to the same people Peter was writing to.

[2Pe 3:15 KJV] And account [that] the longsuffering of our Lord [is] salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
[2Pe 3:16 KJV] As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

And based on these writings of Paul, where he list things that they were not to do, Peter confirms that his readers are supposed to be following what Paul wrote:
[2Pe 3:17 KJV] Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know [these things] before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

Finally summarizing with Paul's favorite word:
[2Pe 3:18 KJV] But grow in grace, and [in] the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him [be] glory both now and for ever. Amen.

Let's not be the ones Peter is talking about, who wrest... scriptures, unto [our] own destruction.

 

[Right Divider]

Isn't it worse to pick out things that should apply to us and say they don't? There's value in understanding who is being addressed in the text, surely. But the letters were passed around, too, so that a letter to the Corinthians would also end up in Ephesus, and a letter to the twelve tribes would also end up in Ephesus.

Your logic has problems. A letter TO the TWELVE TRIBES does not apply to the body of Christ where there is NEITHER Jew NOR Greek.

Learn from it.... you should.... apply it to yourself.... big mistake.

 

[Derf]

Your logic has problems. A letter TO the TWELVE TRIBES does not apply to the body of Christ where there is NEITHER Jew NOR Greek.

Learn from it.... you should.... apply it to yourself.... big mistake.

Well, if you had read the whole post, you would see that I was applying Paul's letters to the Jews Peter was writing to, assuming "twelve tribes" only applies to the Jews.

But still, which part of Peter's letter were you wanting to shield me from?

 

[Right Divider]

Well, if you had read the whole post, you would see that I was applying Paul's letters to the Jews Peter was writing to, assuming "twelve tribes" only applies to the Jews.

Paul writes to neither Jew nor Greek.... the body of Christ.

But still, which part of Peter's letter were you wanting to shield me from?

The part that makes you think that you are "a royal priesthood and a holy nation". etc. etc. etc.

 

[Derf]

Paul writes to neither Jew nor Greek.... the body of Christ.


The part that makes you think that you are "a royal priesthood and a holy nation". etc. etc. etc.

Then are you wanting to shield me from Paul, too? Who seems to think it a bad thing for Gentiles to be separated from Israel, but fortunately we are brought near to the commonwealth of Israel:
[Eph 2:12 KJV] That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
[Eph 2:13 KJV] But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

But instead, it is good that
[Eph 2:19 KJV] Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

"Fellowcitizens with the saints"! We're citizens of the commonwealth of Israel, according to Paul.

Is it bad to be a holy nation of royal priests? Are we not of the "seed" of Christ, or at least brothers and sisters of His, who performed the ultimate function of the high priest? As in Adam, all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive. (1 Cor 15:22)

Can we be "in Christ" without partaking of His holiness and other characteristics?

[Gal 3:26 KJV] For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

[Gal 3:29 KJV] And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

"Heirs" of what? And what "promise"? Why should we celebrate to inherit the promises of Abraham, but not want to be priests of God?

 

[Right Divider]

Then are you wanting to shield me from Paul, too?

Must you constantly make false accusations? Do you learn that from Paul's epistles for those to the twelve tribes?

Who seems to think it a bad thing for Gentiles to be separated from Israel, but fortunately we are brought near to the commonwealth of Israel:
[Eph 2:12 KJV] That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
[Eph 2:13 KJV] But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

Once AGAIN, you FAIL to understand what Paul means in his epistles. THIS "bringing" near is not about being a part of Israel nor joining with Israel, it is being near to GOD by CHRIST.

But instead, it is good that
[Eph 2:19 KJV] Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

"Fellowcitizens with the saints"! We're citizens of the commonwealth of Israel, according to Paul.

Once AGAIN, citizens WITH believing Israel in the household of God and NOT a part of the nation of Israel in ANY earthly sense.

Is it bad to be a holy nation of royal priests? Are we not of the "seed" of Christ, or at least brothers and sisters of His, who performed the ultimate function of the high priest? As in Adam, all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive. (1 Cor 15:22)

You CONFLATE so many things, it's impossible to communication with you.

The NATION is Israel. The body of Christ is never spoken of as a NATION.

Can we be "in Christ" without partaking of His holiness and other characteristics?

[Gal 3:26 KJV] For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

[Gal 3:29 KJV] And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

"Heirs" of what? And what "promise"? Why should we celebrate to inherit the promises of Abraham, but not want to be priests of God?

The body of Christ is not a priesthood.... we are ambassadors. You are hopeless with regards to actually all that scripture says.

 

[Danoh]

I understand what you're saying, but it is a thing to be cautious about, because we want to make sure the operating principle is coming from Christ, and not from us. For instance, when we say we are not under the law, it doesn't mean that the law has nothing good to say to us, as Paul points out by repeatedly listing things we shouldn't be doing. Is he giving us a "new" law to replace the old one? Is he giving us the old law we can ignore? Or is he explaining how grace, when operating on us, will produce these fruits in us without our help?

Most would say that last one applies. If that is so, then what is the purpose of Paul's repeated lists of things to avoid? Why list things that will be produced without effort on our part? The only purpose, if not for us to "obey" such law, would be for someone else to see if we are really obeying. in that case, Paul is telling us to judge our fellow believers, or, worse, he's writing to unbelievers to check believers for consistency vs hypocrisy.

Rom 6:14 is both a promise and an admonition. You can defeat sin--it doesn't keep you in bondage anymore. But if we are continuing sinning, we ARE in bondage, as Rom 6:16, two verses later, points out to us: Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

But Paul says to "examine yourselves" (2 Cor 13:5), and that means we need to compare what we do with some kind of standard. Paul gives us that standard in his lists, not as a list of boxes to check off, but explaining what righteousness looks like. [Rom 6:18 KJV] Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

Again, where an operating principle applies within our present economy or dispensation, no problem, regardless of where it is found in Scripture.

Rom. 5:6-8.

 

[Derf]

Again, where an operating principle applies within our present economy or dispensation, no problem, regardless of where it is found in Scripture.

Rom. 5:6-8.

Again, that's good, as long as we don't decide what the operating principles are or should be based on our theological system.

 

[Derf]

Must you constantly make false accusations? Do you learn that from Paul's epistles for those to the twelve tribes?


Once AGAIN, you FAIL to understand what Paul means in his epistles. THIS "bringing" near is not about being a part of Israel nor joining with Israel, it is being near to GOD by CHRIST.


Once AGAIN, citizens WITH believing Israel in the household of God and NOT a part of the nation of Israel in ANY earthly sense.


You CONFLATE so many things, it's impossible to communication with you.

The NATION is Israel. The body of Christ is never spoken of as a NATION.


The body of Christ is not a priesthood.... we are ambassadors. You are hopeless with regards to actually all that scripture says.

And Christ is the shepherd, and the door to the sheepfold, as well as the way, the truth, and the life, and the bread which came down from heaven.... If Christ can be more than one thing, in the parlance of metaphors, surely the body of Christ is metaphorically flexible, too.

It's not that I'm failing to understand. It's that you are failing to convince me. But if it makes you feel better to consider yourself the sufficient explainer, and myself as clueless, that's up to you, I suppose.

 

[Danoh]

Again, that's good, as long as we don't decide what the operating principles are or should be based on our theological system.

Exactly what you have been doing, due to your "one size fits all."

This is why there is no reasoning with your kind - due to your failure to see that yours is a "one size fits all" approach to the Scripture.

Might as well just pick any one of the DIFFERENT instructions in Scripture, and run with it.

Come on over to my house - we'll be building an Ark over the next year or so - in obedience to God in Genesis 6.

Yo, cousin, let's get married, per Numbers 36.

What say you, we track down those twelve tribes said to be scattered abroad, per Acts 8's persecution, who James begins his letter to, in James 1, what say you we go and join them in their Prophesied trying of their faith - we're all Israel, remember?

Not to worry - Scripture is a "one size fits all."

Like I said, there is no reasoning with those who hold to a "one size fits all" in disregard of the things that differ, in Scripture.

Nevertheless, Romans 5:6-8 - in each, our stead.

 

[glorydaz]

Isn't it worse to pick out things that should apply to us and say they don't? There's value in understanding who is being addressed in the text, surely. But the letters were passed around, too, so that a letter to the Corinthians would also end up in Ephesus, and a letter to the twelve tribes would also end up in Ephesus.

"When this letter is read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans," (Colossians 4:16).

"I adjure you by the Lord to have this letter read to all the brethren," (1 Thessalonians 5:27).

So when Peter talks of Paul's writings, he isn't just saying they make entertaining reading--those epistles were written to the same people Peter was writing to.

[2Pe 3:15 KJV] And account [that] the longsuffering of our Lord [is] salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
[2Pe 3:16 KJV] As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

And based on these writings of Paul, where he list things that they were not to do, Peter confirms that his readers are supposed to be following what Paul wrote:
[2Pe 3:17 KJV] Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know [these things] before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

Finally summarizing with Paul's favorite word:
[2Pe 3:18 KJV] But grow in grace, and [in] the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him [be] glory both now and for ever. Amen.

Let's not be the ones Peter is talking about, who wrest... scriptures, unto [our] own destruction.

I already tried the scripture wresting, and I was left with too many unanswered questions. It wasn't until I realized that the message had changed and why it changed, that I was able to finally take those pieces off the shelf and put them where they belonged.

 

[DAN P]

How do you know they are not Gentile Assemblies? When was the text written? Are you saying in 60-100 AD those churches were not mostly Gentile? How do you know this, since it seems to conflict with historical knowledge of those churches, and especially conflicts with Paul's writings.

Did those churches suddenly revert to mostly Jewish, with Gentile proselytes, after Paul died? I've never heard of this idea, and I'm curious where you're getting it from?

Hi and these assemblies were is ASIA , VERSE rEV 1:4 !!

#2 23 God is going to kill with death in verse 23 !!

#3 , And in Rev 3:16 , your WORKS can cause God to SPUE you out of his mouth , DOES that sound like the God of the DISPENSATION of Grace ??

#4 Rev is written to JEWS ONLY !!

dan p

 

[Right Divider]

And Christ is the shepherd, and the door to the sheepfold, as well as the way, the truth, and the life, and the bread which came down from heaven....

These are mostly references to things related to ISRAEL!!

The "bread which came down from heaven" refers to the food (manna) that God gave to Israel to get them through the wilderness. When the Lord Jesus Christ returns, He will take Israel through the tribulation in the same way. This is EXACTLY why Jesus had THEM pray "give us this day our daily bread". He was preparing them for a time when they would not be able to buy or sell, hence the need for supernatural sustenance

Regarding the sheep and shepherd.... that is completely ISRAEL. It is so clear from the law and the prophets that it's hard to believe that Churchianity keeps repeating the confusion about it.

Jer 50:17 KJV Israel is a scattered sheep; the lions have driven him away: first the king of Assyria hath devoured him; and last this Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon hath broken his bones.​

​

Eze 34:30-31 KJV Thus shall they know that I the LORD their God am with them, and that they, even the house of Israel, are my people, saith the Lord GOD. (31) And ye my flock, the flock of my pasture, are men, and I am your God, saith the Lord GOD.​

If Christ can be more than one thing, in the parlance of metaphors, surely the body of Christ is metaphorically flexible, too.

Of course you say this, because you are trying to force a meaning that does not belong there.

It's not that I'm failing to understand. It's that you are failing to convince me.

That is YOUR fault and not mine.

But if it makes you feel better to consider yourself the sufficient explainer, and myself as clueless, that's up to you, I suppose.

I don't need to "feel better".

I can tell you that I used to believe a lot of the same silliness of "Churchianity" that you do. But I've studied enough to see it for what it is, a myth.

 

[glorydaz]

I don't need to "feel better".

I can tell you that I used to believe a lot of the same silliness of "Churchianity" that you do. But I've studied enough to see it for what it is, a myth.

It's a problem that comes with being wed to a particular doctrine.

I wasn't so wed that I didn't see holes in what I'd been told. And I wasn't so wed that I didn't FINALLY start to see why there were differences in what the Lord preached while on earth, and what He later revealed to the Apostle Paul. I would even take what He'd revealed while here among us over what Paul was preaching....until it dawned on me that Paul was preaching what the RISEN AND ASCENDED LORD had revealed to him. And why.