PDA

View Full Version : Are protestants real christians?



seekhisface
Oct 1st 2008, 07:17 PM
Afterall, they do not practice everything that Jesus taught. Plus, there are over 30,000 protestant denominations. When Jesus spoke to Peter and said that his faith would be the foundations of his church, he didn't wait for 1900 years later to establish it ya know. It was established right then and there, after all, he is the word, and what he speaks comes to pass.

so what do you think?

Tanya~
Oct 1st 2008, 07:24 PM
Hi Seekhisface,

That's a good question! Maybe something Jesus said will help:

Matt 7:21-23
"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' 23 And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'
NKJV


It doesn't matter what one calls oneself. It doesn't even matter what one calls Jesus. A Christian is a follower of Christ (Christ did the will of the Father and we follow Him by doing that as well).


This thread has been moved to Bible Chat. Christians Answer is the forum for non-Christians to ask questions about our faith. :)

keck553
Oct 1st 2008, 07:31 PM
It doesn't even matter what one calls Jesus.

If you say so Julie.....

Tanya~
Oct 1st 2008, 07:35 PM
:rolleyes: What I mean is that if a person calls Jesus LORD it will not help them. They can even do it twice: LORD LORD! And that still won't make them a Christian.

uric3
Oct 1st 2008, 07:53 PM
Afterall, they do not practice everything that Jesus taught. Plus, there are over 30,000 protestant denominations. When Jesus spoke to Peter and said that his faith would be the foundations of his church, he didn't wait for 1900 years later to establish it ya know. It was established right then and there, after all, he is the word, and what he speaks comes to pass.

so what do you think?

This is a excellent question and TanyaP pretty much hit the nail on the head with Matt 7:21-23

There are so many churches that claim to preach and teach Jesus, however their worship and teachings prove otherwise.

Rather than serving Christ they have made it a social activity to eat and be with friends, play sports and watch football games.

In all honesty in my community I have seen one church not have services on SuperBowl Sunday and have a SuperBowl party instead of worship services.

Then another church I saw on their changeable sign state "come join the social club of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Its amazing how far off base some of these churches are... we can read and study the Bible and it states X is sinful and wrong and then we see a church that states that X is ok.

There will be many on that day that will have thought they wore the name of Christ and did his will and will be turned away because of it, because they served their own bellies.

keck553
Oct 1st 2008, 08:43 PM
:rolleyes: What I mean is that if a person calls Jesus LORD it will not help them. They can even do it twice: LORD LORD! And that still won't make them a Christian.

Amen to that.

Mat 7:22 On that Day, many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord! Didn't we prophesy in your name? Didn't we expel demons in your name? Didn't we perform many miracles in your name?'
Mat 7:23 Then I will tell them to their faces, 'I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness!'

Richard H
Oct 1st 2008, 09:10 PM
The Protestant Reformation started in Europe in 1517. (not a hundred years ago)

Martin Luther had no desire to leave the church.
He wanted to change the errors in doctrine which went against Scripture.

Richard

kf4zmt
Oct 1st 2008, 09:11 PM
SeekHisFace,
Do you have any specifics in mind when you say that protestants don't practice everything that Jesus taught?

What practices are being left out?

chal
Oct 1st 2008, 09:34 PM
Afterall, they do not practice everything that Jesus taught. Plus, there are over 30,000 protestant denominations. When Jesus spoke to Peter and said that his faith would be the foundations of his church, he didn't wait for 1900 years later to establish it ya know. It was established right then and there, after all, he is the word, and what he speaks comes to pass.

so what do you think?

chal>
I think that you should offer proof of; "they do not practice everything that Jesus taught," by first expounding on your personal opinion of what Jesus taught as opposed to what "they," taught and perhaps narrow down who "they," are. Do you mean every single protestant that has ever existed since the reformation?"

I think that you should post the scripture that states "When Jesus spoke to Peter and said that his faith would be the foundations of his church," and explain why it should be interpreted the way you have presented it.

I think "he didn't wait for 1900 years later to establish it ya know," sounds a bit condescending.

I think there is a possibility that you are trying to promote Roman Catholic doctrine.

keck553
Oct 1st 2008, 09:36 PM
SeekHisFace,
Do you have any specifics in mind when you say that protestants don't practice everything that Jesus taught?

What practices are being left out?


Shabbat sticks out like a sore thumb.

Before anyone says Yeshua didn't verbalize the command, rememeber that one of God's ways of teaching is by example.

matt_sonn
Oct 1st 2008, 10:36 PM
I don't think which church your attending will have anything to do with whether or not your a real Christian, I think it has to do more with your heart, and what you actually believe, I have bounced around several churches, I am currently rotating between three, and I see no major difference between the different denominations, they all use the same Bible, and they all preach very similar messages. Some denominations may be different, but they are all very similar in there message, the biggest difference is the format in worship. That is my view on this subject anyways.

apothanein kerdos
Oct 1st 2008, 10:53 PM
Did Christ teach that we would be one in every single matter, or was it just on the fact that He is the Son of God, crucified for our sins?

If it is the former, than even the Catholic Church is in trouble as the modern Catholic Church does not match up with the older Catholic Church or even 3rd century Catholic Church.

If it is the latter, then we have some leeway. The truth would remain regardless of denominational name, but would manifest itself in different ways throughout time, while the essence would remain intact and unchanged.

Help make sense?

Enoch365
Oct 1st 2008, 11:15 PM
Ethiopia: The Truth Presents itself?

The Day is near when the World Powers and the International Community would say: In
the name of Ethiopianness or Ethiopiawinnet, let us today embrace Ethiopia as the true
Garden of Eden, location of the Tree of Life, where original sin occurred, and where we
must go to seek redemption for our sins and those of our ancestors. Let us unite all nations
of the Earth and defeat the demonic forces plaguing the Garden and guarantee our names
in the Book of Life by fighting against the criminality and corruption in Ethiopia and
restore the reign of the Kingdom of God to these humble people.

ENGLISH

Creed of the Ethiopians in English
http://ethkogserv.org/faith/Creed%20of%20the%20Ethiopians%20in%20English.pdf
The Testimonial of the Ethiopians on the Holy Covenant in English
http://ethkogserv.org/faith/The%20Testimonial%20of%20the%20Ethiopians%20on%20t he%20Holy%20Covenant%20in%20English.pdf
Prayer of Ethiopians in Glorification of The Lord in English
http://ethkogserv.org/faith/Prayer%20of%20Ethiopians%20in%20Glorification%20of %20The%20Lord%20in%20English.pdf
Prayer of Ethiopians in Exaltation of The Holy Mother in English
http://ethkogserv.org/faith/Prayer%20of%20Ethiopians%20in%20Exaltation%20of%20 The%20Holy%20Mother%20in%20English.pdf

My heart's Desire
Oct 2nd 2008, 12:12 AM
Afterall, they do not practice everything that Jesus taught. Plus, there are over 30,000 protestant denominations. When Jesus spoke to Peter and said that his faith would be the foundations of his church, he didn't wait for 1900 years later to establish it ya know. It was established right then and there, after all, he is the word, and what he speaks comes to pass.

so what do you think?
humm, is that like are Methodists, Catholics, Lutherans etc real Christians?
A real Christian is one who accepts salvation because of God's grace through faith in Christ Jesus, not by practice, but by fruit. Love, Joy, Peace etc etc.

livingword26
Oct 2nd 2008, 12:49 AM
SeekHisFace,
Do you have any specifics in mind when you say that protestants don't practice everything that Jesus taught?

What practices are being left out?

I'll second that. What exactly are your accusations?

Ashley274
Oct 2nd 2008, 01:03 AM
Catholics, Protestants....non denominations etc all if they BELEIVE in Christ Jesus all are Christians....they will follow Him because they are His sheep .....

Ethnikos
Oct 2nd 2008, 02:20 AM
Afterall, they do not practice everything that Jesus taught. Plus, there are over 30,000 protestant denominations. When Jesus spoke to Peter and said that his faith would be the foundations of his church...
How about calling these 30,000 whatevers, churches? The wording of this statement shows me that you have already come up with an opinion. You could prove me wrong by making another post and use a little less of a non-committal word than "denomination".
Please allow me to offer as an example of what I imagine you are trying to allude to by your saying that Protestants do not practice everything that Jesus taught, something that was written to me by an enthusiastic supporter of the Catholic Church. My statement was, "We are to do this (drink wine and eat bread) in Remembrance of Jesus." His response was:

No you are wrong. Jesus did not say drink wine and eat bread, but that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. At the Last Supper, after the blessing and consecration of the bread and wine He said "This is my body, this is my blood. Do this in memory of me." He had prepared the disciples some time previously by telling them that they would eat His flesh and drink His blood. On hearing this some objected and rejected what He had to say, and left His discipleship. He did not call them back to say that He was only speaking figuratively.
Some Protestant churches believe in this catholic understanding of the literal nature of the Eucharist, and some do not.
As for the authority and preeminence of Rome, you may have given the answer in your own statement, "...his faith would be the foundations...". Jesus said it did not come from anything in this world but came from God. This was what Jesus was talking about that would be the basis for the Church.

Toymom
Oct 2nd 2008, 02:34 PM
Afterall, they do not practice everything that Jesus taught. Plus, there are over 30,000 protestant denominations. When Jesus spoke to Peter and said that his faith would be the foundations of his church, he didn't wait for 1900 years later to establish it ya know. It was established right then and there, after all, he is the word, and what he speaks comes to pass.

so what do you think?
I think that there have been real followers of Christ since He was here.
I don't think that any one religion has all the correct practices, but there are born again believers found inside and outside of all the Christian religions just as there are false believers found both inside and outside of all of the Christian religions.
It is not practices that make us Christians.
What makes one a Christian is having Christ living in him or her.
The church is the Body of Christ. It is not a religion or an organization of man. There are members of the church found within and outside of almost all of the Christian religions and groups.

theBelovedDisciple
Oct 2nd 2008, 07:45 PM
A question....

If you were taken into Heaven and shown things... would you find Lutherans over there.. Baptists over on that side... Catholics in that corner... AG in the middle.... Methodists way over there?????

Would you find 'divisions' in Heaven? Is not Christ's Body one Body with different parts the Head, Feet, Eyes etc....? According to Paul.. Christ is 'not' divided... I find it no where in the Canon of Scripture where it says 'Christs' body is divided into 'denominations'... religion is religion and its man made....

What you would find in Heaven are 'BLOOD BOUGHT SAINTS'.. those who have placed their Trust in the God of Abraham Issac and Jacob.. believed on the Atoning and Sacraficial Work of the Cross and the Second Person of the Godhead.. Jesus the Christ.. who is God manifested in the flesh... You will find those in Heaven who'm God has chosen as His own.. and those He has 'known' since the foundation of the world....... there are no labels or denominational 'tags' in Heaven.... in fact God says He is going to give His children a 'new name'......

And to be honest.. I think one would be suprised who one would 'find' in Heaven as far as the 'saints' are concerned.. are they 'saint's ' according to mans interpretation thru religion or organized religion...... or are they 'saints' according to the foreknowledge and 'will' of God....



I believe the latter to be the most correct... as He is the author and finisher of His children's faith and walk with Him... period..

chal
Oct 2nd 2008, 08:42 PM
A question....

If you were taken into Heaven and shown things... would you find Lutherans over there.. Baptists over on that side... Catholics in that corner... AG in the middle.... Methodists way over there?????

Would you find 'divisions' in Heaven? Is not Christ's Body one Body with different parts the Head, Feet, Eyes etc....? According to Paul.. Christ is 'not' divided... I find it no where in the Canon of Scripture where it says 'Christs' body is divided into 'denominations'... religion is religion and its man made....

What you would find in Heaven are 'BLOOD BOUGHT SAINTS'.. those who have placed their Trust in the God of Abraham Issac and Jacob.. believed on the Atoning and Sacraficial Work of the Cross and the Second Person of the Godhead.. Jesus the Christ.. who is God manifested in the flesh... You will find those in Heaven who'm God has chosen as His own.. and those He has 'known' since the foundation of the world....... there are no labels or denominational 'tags' in Heaven.... in fact God says He is going to give His children a 'new name'......

And to be honest.. I think one would be suprised who one would 'find' in Heaven as far as the 'saints' are concerned.. are they 'saint's ' according to mans interpretation thru religion or organized religion...... or are they 'saints' according to the foreknowledge and 'will' of God....



I believe the latter to be the most correct... as He is the author and finisher of His children's faith and walk with Him... period..

"Is not Christ's Body one Body with different parts the Head, Feet, Eyes" etc...

chal> By the same token, Is not Christianity one faith with different parts (denominations)? I'm not talking about those who claim to be a Christian denomination, yet veer from the fundamentals of Christianity, but bona fide Christians.

I doubt that God wants a bunch of clone-like people bumping into one another because they are all trying to do the same thing at the same time. People on the other hand sometimes think that everyone should be exactly like themselves. Carnal thinking in religious drag is nonetheless carnal. That would be such a disaster in reality. God in His wisdom gave different gifts to different people without separating them from the body of Christ. We can see it in the rhtym of creation. No two fingerprints are alike. Denominations are not separations, they are classifications. Look it up. The word does not mean what you are ascribing to it, nor does the reality it points to.

The ones doing the dividing are the ones who forsake the hand because it isn't the foot and try (unsuccessfully) to claim that it isn't a part of the body.

If I have a five dollar bill and a ten dollar bill, they are different denominations, but are nevertheless both money. They are classifications of money, not something separating one of them from the classification of money. It's really not that hard of a concept to grasp if you don't already have your mind set against it. God has been working in many denominations for quite some time now, yet some just can't see it. The proof is in the pudding. Sowing the seed of divisiveness, is not fruitful.

In heaven, quite a few things will be different. The hands will certainly not reject the feet.

Emanate
Oct 2nd 2008, 08:56 PM
I'm not talking about those who claim to be a Christian denomination, yet veer from the fundamentals of Christianity, but bona fide Christians.

What makes a person a "bonafide" Christian? Theology? Lack of Error? Correct Interpretation of Scripture? Being a Fundamentalist? Not Being Liberal? Holding to Christian Creeds?

chal
Oct 2nd 2008, 09:04 PM
What makes a person a "bonafide" Christian? Theology? Lack of Error? Correct Interpretation of Scripture? Being a Fundamentalist? Not Being Liberal? Holding to Christian Creeds?

chal> Following Christ. Being Christlike. Certainly not sowing seeds of division between Christian denominations.

RevLogos
Oct 3rd 2008, 03:11 AM
I don't think any denomination has a monopoly on the truth. But, most of the differences are minor and typically liturgical.

There are however a number of teachings which I believe are false. I found an excellent essay on this titled "American Idol: Another Jesus". There is a link below. The gist of it is that many Christian churches claim to follow Jesus, but they have invented a Jesus that doesn't exist. Not the Jesus of the Bible, but a westernized Jesus that fits within the secular post-moderm fast paced society.

The American Jesus says you are saved by grace, so go ahead and sin, after all you can't be perfect.

The American Jesus will save you from any persecution. He'll even come twice.

The American Jesus wants you to prosper and be wealthy.

The American Jesus doesn't talk about repentance, just believe and you're saved.

The American Jesus doesn't talk about hell. After all, we don't want to offend anybody.

The American Jesus just wants you once a week for an hour.

-- Rev

At the link, scroll down about mid-page to find the article.

http://chrisfahey.wordpress.com/

faithfulfriend
Oct 3rd 2008, 03:44 AM
I don't think any denomination has a monopoly on the truth. But, most of the differences are minor and typically liturgical.

There are however a number of teachings which I believe are false. I found an excellent essay on this titled "American Idol: Another Jesus". There is a link below. The gist of it is that many Christian churches claim to follow Jesus, but they have invented a Jesus that doesn't exist. Not the Jesus of the Bible, but a westernized Jesus that fits within the secular post-moderm fast paced society.

The American Jesus says you are saved by grace, so go ahead and sin, after all you can't be perfect.

The American Jesus will save you from any persecution. He'll even come twice.

The American Jesus wants you to prosper and be wealthy.

The American Jesus doesn't talk about repentance, just believe and you're saved.

The American Jesus doesn't talk about hell. After all, we don't want to offend anybody.

The American Jesus just wants you once a week for an hour.

-- Rev

At the link, scroll down about mid-page to find the article.

http://chrisfahey.wordpress.com/

Just curious to see our response to this scripture:

You say that nobody will have a "monopoly" of truth. I'm interpreting that as you saying that nobody will ever know "all" of the truth. How then does this scripture apply to your assumption there?

Joh 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

HisLeast
Oct 3rd 2008, 03:55 AM
Afterall, they do not practice everything that Jesus taught. Plus, there are over 30,000 protestant denominations. When Jesus spoke to Peter and said that his faith would be the foundations of his church, he didn't wait for 1900 years later to establish it ya know. It was established right then and there, after all, he is the word, and what he speaks comes to pass.

so what do you think?

I think I'm damned (in the theological sense) if I do and damned if I don't.

I think Jesus was talking about the universal church, as the sum of all those who confessed His name, and not a brick & mortar institution... but I've been wrong before.

I think real foundational truth is, through our own actions, completely invisible to us and lost forever. I think Christianity is divided on every single question it encounters, regardless of denomination. I think anyone who finds that exact permutation of doctrines and actions to finally and satisfactorily be called a Christian has done so by sheer blind luck.

But most of all, I think I'll be sick if I open one more thread advising me that my confession of Christ is a sham.

IPet2_9
Oct 3rd 2008, 04:50 AM
The biggest problem I see with the OP question (whether protestants are true Christians) is that the rules of this board preclude balanced discussion on the matter. No can actually say, "No, Protestants are not true Christians, they are going to hell." It is the position of this board that this is a Christian board and a Protestant board. Do I disagree with that? No, of course not...I'm here, aren't I? But as I see it, this whole thread has to be taken with a grain of salt. To really have a lively discussion, let the Catholics chime in (been there, done that...mopped the blood up).

RevLogos
Oct 3rd 2008, 05:03 AM
Just curious to see our response to this scripture:

You say that nobody will have a "monopoly" of truth. I'm interpreting that as you saying that nobody will ever know "all" of the truth. How then does this scripture apply to your assumption there?

Joh 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

I can only give my opinion on this. I look at it two ways. First, what is “all truth” and second, do we follow this guidance?

This is in the Farewell Discourse, where Jesus tells His apostles that he is leaving soon, but the Advocate will come to guide them in all truth, so that they can spread the Gospel. Note the verse right in front of this one:

Joh 16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

The apostles received the Holy Spirit, and were given the truth, but not all at once. It was some years for example, before Peter was given the vision to spread the Gospel to the Gentiles. It was years later still that John was given the revelation of things to come. The apostles were not only given everything they needed to lead a spirit driven life, but also were given everything needed to spread the gospel. A teacher needs to know more than his students. They didn’t have the scriptures to draw on. They wrote the scriptures. We now have both the scriptures and the Holy Spirit to draw on.

Today the Holy Spirit guides us in our walk with the Lord. But are we given ALL truth? No, we are given what we need to walk according to the spirit, not according to the flesh. Paul explains this in detail in Romans 8. We are given everything we need for our sanctification. Outside of that, we debate constantly. I suspect that when the time comes, we will be given more.

This scripture says the Holy Spirit guides us. There is a secular saying: “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.” The Holy Spirit guides us, but do we really listen? Often a person’s pre-conceived notions and prejudices are more powerful than the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Consider for example the days when people argued for and against slavery. People actually used Biblical verses to advocate slavery, which today we see as an abomination. Their flesh driven desires and motives washed out what the Holy Spirit told them. Most of the differences I see today in basic teachings I believe come from men and women listening more to the wants of the flesh than the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

We should each always ask ourselves: Am I really listening? Or am I hearing what I want to hear.

That’s my two cents.

Tanya~
Oct 3rd 2008, 05:17 AM
To really have a lively discussion, let the Catholics chime in (been there, done that...mopped the blood up).

Yes, the blood... which is precisely why the board doesn't go there. ;)

Toymom
Oct 3rd 2008, 01:22 PM
What makes a person a "bonafide" Christian? Theology? Lack of Error? Correct Interpretation of Scripture? Being a Fundamentalist? Not Being Liberal? Holding to Christian Creeds?


chal> Following Christ. Being Christlike. Certainly not sowing seeds of division between Christian denominations.
What makes a person a Christian is Christ living in that person. That is what being born again means. It means that we have another life living within us which is the Life of the Lord. It is Christ in me the hope of glory. It is no longer I, but Christ who lives in me.

Once we have Christ in us, we are Christian. It is not a matter of our practices or our actions. It is a matter of the life in us.

When we are born again we have Christ in us. And we also still have our self in us - our old man, which as we follow Christ and pray to Him and read His word and fellowship with other Christians is being transformed into His image. But none of us are fully transformed yet into His image. We have the choice day by day and moment by moment which life we will chose to live by, who we will follow. Will we act on our own, following our self and our own opinions, or will we turn our hearts to the Lord and follow Him.

Those who are sowing seeds of division are not following Christ in that action. But that does not necessarily mean that they are not Christians. It just means that they are not yet perfected and they are following their opinions rather than following Christ.

Butch5
Oct 3rd 2008, 07:00 PM
Just curious to see our response to this scripture:

You say that nobody will have a "monopoly" of truth. I'm interpreting that as you saying that nobody will ever know "all" of the truth. How then does this scripture apply to your assumption there?

Joh 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.


I believe that verse refers to the Apostles, and not the whole church.

livingword26
Oct 3rd 2008, 09:03 PM
I believe that verse refers to the Apostles, and not the whole church.

So you don't think that you have, or will receive the Holy Spirit, or you just think you have a different one.

chal
Oct 3rd 2008, 09:42 PM
What makes a person a Christian is Christ living in that person. That is what being born again means. It means that we have another life living within us which is the Life of the Lord. It is Christ in me the hope of glory. It is no longer I, but Christ who lives in me.

chal> I think following Christ will do just fine. If you want to describe it a different way, I'm cool with that. Following Christ means first you must pick up your cross. If that doesn't allow for Christ to live in you, I'm not sure what does.


Once we have Christ in us, we are Christian. It is not a matter t makes a person a Christian is Christ living in that person. That is what being born again means. It means that we have another life living within us which is the Life of the Lord. It is Christ in me the hope of glory. It is no longer I, but Christ who lives in me.

chal> To my understanding of the scriptures, "born again," means to be "born from above," i.e a spiritual birth. Again if that doesn't allow for Christ to live in us...


Once we have Christ in us, we are Christian. It is not a matter of our practices or our actions. It is a matter of the life in us.

chal> I don't subscribe to OSAS, if that's where this is headed. We will be known by our fruit. The life in us will not rebel against Himself and sow seeds of division in His own body.


When we are born again we have Christ in us. And we also still have our self in us - our old man, which as we follow Christ and pray to Him and read His word and fellowship with other Christians is being transformed into His image. But none of us are fully transformed yet into His image. We have the choice day by day and moment by moment which life we will chose to live by, who we will follow. Will we act on our own, following our self and our own opinions, or will we turn our hearts to the Lord and follow Him. of our practices or our actions. It is a matter of the life in us.

]When we are born again we have Christ in us. And we also still have our self in us - our old man, which as we follow Christ and pray to Him and read His word and fellowship with other Christians is being transformed into His image. But none of us are fully transformed yet into His image. We have the choice day by day and moment by moment which life we will chose to live by, who we will follow. Will we act on our own, following our self and our own opinions, or will we turn our hearts to the Lord and follow Him.

Those who are sowing seeds of division are not following Christ in that action. But that does not necessarily mean that they are not Christians. It just means that they are not yet perfected and they are following their opinions rather than following Christ

chal> I didn't claim that one has to be perfect to follow Christ, or make any claim about anyone's faith in Christ. This is what I actually said;

In response to this ;


Originally Posted by Emanate> What makes a person a "bonafide" Christian?

I said;


chal> Following Christ. Being Christlike. Certainly not sowing seeds of division between Christian denominations.

chal> Sowing seeds of division will not make you a Christian. Following Christ will make you a Christian. That's my story and I'm sticking to it, unless someone can show me a scripture which states that sowing seeds of division between bona fide Christian denominations will make someone a Christian.

I think perhaps you read something into my post that isn't there.

Richard H
Oct 3rd 2008, 10:09 PM
<snip>
chal> To my understanding of the scriptures, "born again," means to be "born from above," i.e a spiritual birth. Again if that doesn't allow for Christ to live in us...

<snip>
If you'll allow me to butt in where I don't belong: :rolleyes:
I thought we were in Christ.

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
2Co 5:17
(1Cor 1:3/8:6)(2Cor 1:12)(Eph 2:6)(1John 5:20)

OK there is:
To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:
Col 1:27

But is that the glory we hope for? :hmm:

chal
Oct 3rd 2008, 11:49 PM
If you'll allow me to butt in where I don't belong: :rolleyes:
I thought we were in Christ.

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
2Co 5:17
(1Cor 1:3/8:6)(2Cor 1:12)(Eph 2:6)(1John 5:20)

OK there is:
To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:
Col 1:27

But is that the glory we hope for? :hmm:


chal> I originally said that "following Christ and being Christlike, is what makes one a Christian." I said that in response to the question;


Originally Posted by Emanate> What makes a person a "bonafide" Christian?

The post you quoted was a response to this;


Originally Posted by Toymom View Post
What makes a person a Christian is Christ living in that person.

To which I responded;


chal> I think following Christ will do just fine. If you want to describe it a different way, I'm cool with that. Following Christ means first you must pick up your cross. If that doesn't allow for Christ to live in you, I'm not sure what does.

Christ in me. Me in Christ. IMO, we're splitting hairs here. It's what you're going to do with it that counts. Following Him means being like Him.

Phillipians Chapter 2
1 Then if there is any comfort in Christ, if any consolation of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any tendernesses and compassions,
2 fulfill my joy, that you think the same, having the same love, one in soul, minding the one thing,
3 doing nothing according to party spirit or self-glory, but in humility, esteeming one another to surpass themselves;
4 each not looking at their own things, but each also at the things of others.
* 5 For let this mind be in you which also was in Christ Jesus,*

The glory I hope for is not my own glory, but His. I seek to glorify Him.

Toymom
Oct 4th 2008, 05:02 AM
When we are born again, we are in Christ

Gal. 3:28 There cannot be Jew nor Greek, there cannot be slave nor free man, there cannot be male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

and He is in us.

Romans 8:10 But if Christ is in you,...
2 Cor 13:5 Test yourselves whether you are in the faith; prove yourselves. Or do you not realize about yourselves that Jesus Christ is in you, unless you are disapproved?
Gal. 2:20 I am crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live in faith, the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.
Gal. 4:19 My children, with whom I travail again in birth until Christ is formed in you,

To have Christ formed in us is to have Christ fully grown in us. First, Christ was born into us at the time we repented and believed in Him, then He lives in us in our Christian life, and, finally, He will be formed in us at our maturity.

He is our life.
It is not merely being "like" Christ, but having Christ Himself as our life in us.

In order to live Christ we must go to the cross and put our own self and opinions there and let them die and only follow Christ both inwardly and outwardly.

Richard H
Oct 4th 2008, 05:15 AM
chal> I originally said that "following Christ and being Christlike, is what makes one a Christian." I said that in response to the question;

<snip>

Christ in me. Me in Christ. IMO, we're splitting hairs here.

<snip>

The glory I hope for is not my own glory, but His. I seek to glorify Him.

You're right, I was spltting hairs. :yes:
Thanks for the detailed reponse! :)

Richard

chal
Oct 4th 2008, 09:19 AM
When we are born again, we are in Christ

Gal. 3:28 There cannot be Jew nor Greek, there cannot be slave nor free man, there cannot be male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

and He is in us.

Romans 8:10 But if Christ is in you,...
2 Cor 13:5 Test yourselves whether you are in the faith; prove yourselves. Or do you not realize about yourselves that Jesus Christ is in you, unless you are disapproved?
Gal. 2:20 I am crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live in faith, the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.
Gal. 4:19 My children, with whom I travail again in birth until Christ is formed in you,

To have Christ formed in us is to have Christ fully grown in us. First, Christ was born into us at the time we repented and believed in Him, then He lives in us in our Christian life, and, finally, He will be formed in us at our maturity.

He is our life.
It is not merely being "like" Christ, but having Christ Himself as our life in us.

In order to live Christ we must go to the cross and put our own self and opinions there and let them die and only follow Christ both inwardly and outwardly.

chal> I don't see how having Christ formed in you and living in you can result in anything less than being Christlike. That is the end result, which in context of the thread topic and the point at which I said it was more relevant than a technicality of exactly how that came to be and details that were not relevant to the discussion or the point that was being made when I said it.

Again, this is what I was responding to;


What makes a person a "bonafide" Christian? Theology? Lack of Error? Correct Interpretation of Scripture? Being a Fundamentalist? Not Being Liberal? Holding to Christian Creeds?

We were discussing whether or not Protestants are "real," Christians in the context of how we could determine this, not presenting a detailed description of how it began or writing a step by step manual for becoming a Christian. If Christ is living in you, then you will act in a Christlike manner and it will be apparent to a spiritual minded person. If you find yourself doing otherwise than behaving in a Christlike manner, you can repent and change that non-Christlike behavior into Christlike behavior, but you can't cover your own sin with the excuse that "no one is perfect" and you can't be double minded about it. It has absolutely nothing to do with denominations whatsoever. It has to do with fruit.

The point I was making, is that sowing seeds of separation, by going on a full scale witch-hunt on true Christian denominations, does not equal Christlike behavior, which is a theme I see running through this thread (and I don't mean from you Toymom). IMO, that spirit of division, that tries (unsuccessfully) to equate classification (denomination) with separation and relies not on any solid argument, but only repetition and saturation of any available media, is itself a divisive tactic and needs to be repented of and not covered with anything but the blood of Christ.

chal
Oct 4th 2008, 09:25 AM
You're right, I was spltting hairs. :yes:
Thanks for the detailed reponse! :)

Richard

chal> You're welcome. We all fall prey to hair splitting at times. It's better than having no hairs to split eh?:)

Butch5
Oct 4th 2008, 01:57 PM
So you don't think that you have, or will receive the Holy Spirit, or you just think you have a different one.

I think I have the Holy Spirit, I meant that I think the Holy Spirit guiding them in all truth refers to the Apostles. Jesus told the apostles the Holy Spirit would guide them in all truth. Where in Scripture do we see this being applied to all believers?

livingword26
Oct 4th 2008, 03:09 PM
I think I have the Holy Spirit, I meant that I think the Holy Spirit guiding them in all truth refers to the Apostles. Jesus told the apostles the Holy Spirit would guide them in all truth. Where in Scripture do we see this being applied to all believers?

Where does it say that they Holy Spirit has different roles in different people? Am I only to be led into partial truth, or no truth at all for me?

chal
Oct 4th 2008, 04:23 PM
I think I have the Holy Spirit, I meant that I think the Holy Spirit guiding them in all truth refers to the Apostles. Jesus told the apostles the Holy Spirit would guide them in all truth. Where in Scripture do we see this being applied to all believers?

1st Corinthians 2:6 But we speak wisdom among the perfect, but not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, those being brought to nothing.
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, having been hidden, which God predetermined before the ages for our glory,
8 which none of the rulers of this age has known. For if they had known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory;
9 according as it has been written,

"Eye has not seen, and ear has not heard," nor has it risen up into the heart of man, the things which God has prepared

for those that love Him. Isa. 64:4

10 But God revealed them to us by His Spirit, for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God.

chal> Who is "us," in the scripture above? Only the Apostles?

11 For who among men knows the things of a man, except the spirit of a man within him? So also no one has known the things of God except the Spirit of God.
12 But we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit from God, so that we might know the things that are freely given to us by God.
13 Which things we also speak, not in words taught in human wisdom, but in words taught of the Holy Spirit, comparing spiritual things with spiritual things .

chal> He draws a contrast here between those who recieve the things of the Spirit of God and those who don't. It isn't a contrast between the Apostles and everyone else.

14 But a natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he is not able to know them , because they are spiritually discerned.

chal> It's a contrast between the natural man and the spiritual man;

15 But the spiritual one discerns all things, but he is discerned by no one.

16 For "who has known the mind of the Lord?" "Who will teach Him?" But we have the mind of Christ.

chal> He didn't suddenly change subjects or who he was addressing. There are only two groups described here, natural and spiritual men. The spiritual men can discern truth because;

" for the Spirit searches all things,"

and

"God revealed them to us by His Spirit"

The "we," who have "the mind of Christ," are the same "us," who can say
"God revealed them (all things) to us by His Spirit"

chal> If this is addressed to the Apostles only, then no one but the Apostles can receive the things of the spirit of God, because they are the only ones who love Him and everyone else is a natural man with no hope of even understanding anything about God, because "he is not able to know them,"

John 14:20 In that day you shall know that I am in My Father, and you are in Me, and I am in you.
21 He that has My commandments and keeps them, it is that one who loves Me; and the one that loves Me shall be loved by My Father, and I shall love him and will reveal Myself to him.

1st Corinthians 2:9 "Eye has not seen, and ear has not heard," nor has it risen up into the heart of man, the things which God has prepared

for those that love Him. Isa. 64:4

RevLogos
Oct 4th 2008, 04:32 PM
Where does it say that they Holy Spirit has different roles in different people? Am I only to be led into partial truth, or no truth at all for me?

We are ALL given all of the truth needed to live a spirit filled life pleasing to God. That’s the baseline. We may not all listen to it. We may allow our preconceived notions and prejudices speak louder than the Holy Spirit, but we are all given that truth.

Beyond that baseline, the Holy Spirit works differently in different people.

1Co 12:4 Now there are different gifts, but the same Spirit.
1Co 12:5 And there are different ministries, but the same Lord.
1Co 12:6 And there are different results, but the same God who produces all of them in everyone.
1Co 12:7 To each person the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the benefit of all.
1Co 12:8 For one person is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, and another the message of knowledge according to the same Spirit,
1Co 12:9 to another faith by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit,
1Co 12:10 to another performance of miracles, to another prophecy, and to another discernment of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues.
1Co 12:11 It is one and the same Spirit, distributing as he decides to each person, who produces all these things.

KATA_LOUKAN
Oct 4th 2008, 04:59 PM
Afterall, they do not practice everything that Jesus taught. Plus, there are over 30,000 protestant denominations. When Jesus spoke to Peter and said that his faith would be the foundations of his church, he didn't wait for 1900 years later to establish it ya know. It was established right then and there, after all, he is the word, and what he speaks comes to pass.

so what do you think?

Looks like another Catholic hit and run.

True Christians (TM) are part of the institutional Catholic church, mirite?

Butch5
Oct 4th 2008, 05:44 PM
Where does it say that they Holy Spirit has different roles in different people? Am I only to be led into partial truth, or no truth at all for me?

Well, if all Christians get all truth, then why is there so many denominations and so much division with in the Church. Jesus prayed that we would be one. The early church up until about the year 300 was in agreement, if we had all truth wouldn't the church have continued in agreement?

Look at what Jesus said,

John 16:7-15 ( KJV ) 7Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. 8And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 9Of sin, because they believe not on me; 10Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; 11Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. 12I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. 13Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come. 14He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you. 15All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall show it unto you.

Jesus said He had many things to say to the apostles but they were not yet able to bear them. Therefore the Holy Spirit would guide them in all truth. This statement is made directly to the apostles, what evidence is there that this statement should apply to anyone else? We know that Jesus opened the Scriptures to the apostles and to Paul by direct revelation, we know what happened to the apostles at Pentecost. Where in Scripture do we have evidence that this is to happen to every Christian?

livingword26
Oct 4th 2008, 05:44 PM
We are ALL given all of the truth needed to live a spirit filled life pleasing to God. That’s the baseline. We may not all listen to it. We may allow our preconceived notions and prejudices speak louder than the Holy Spirit, but we are all given that truth.

Beyond that baseline, the Holy Spirit works differently in different people.

1Co 12:4 Now there are different gifts, but the same Spirit.
1Co 12:5 And there are different ministries, but the same Lord.
1Co 12:6 And there are different results, but the same God who produces all of them in everyone.
1Co 12:7 To each person the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the benefit of all.
1Co 12:8 For one person is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, and another the message of knowledge according to the same Spirit,
1Co 12:9 to another faith by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit,
1Co 12:10 to another performance of miracles, to another prophecy, and to another discernment of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues.
1Co 12:11 It is one and the same Spirit, distributing as he decides to each person, who produces all these things.

Agreed
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

livingword26
Oct 4th 2008, 05:48 PM
Well, if all Christians get all truth, then why is there so many denominations and so much division with in the Church. Jesus prayed that we would be one. The early church up until about the year 300 was in agreement, if we had all truth would the church have continued in agreement?

Look at what Jesus said,

John 16:7-15 ( KJV ) 7Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. 8And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 9Of sin, because they believe not on me; 10Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; 11Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. 12I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. 13Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come. 14He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you. 15All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall show it unto you.

Jesus said He had many things to say to the apostles but they were not yet able to bear them. Therefore the Holy Spirit would guide them in all truth. This statement is made directly to the apostles, what evidence is there that this statement should apply to anyone else? We know that Jesus opened the Scriptures to the apostles and to Paul by direct revelation, we know what happened to the apostles at Pentecost. Where in Scripture do we have evidence that this is to happen to every Christian?


Almost every word in the bible is spoken to someone. Is the entire bible only for who it was originally spoken to? Of course not. If you want to deny parts of the bible apply to anyone, it is your responsibility to prove it. Otherwise:

2Ti 3:16-17
(16) All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
(17) That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Butch5
Oct 4th 2008, 06:05 PM
1st Corinthians 2:6 But we speak wisdom among the perfect, but not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, those being brought to nothing.
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, having been hidden, which God predetermined before the ages for our glory,
8 which none of the rulers of this age has known. For if they had known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory;
9 according as it has been written,

"Eye has not seen, and ear has not heard," nor has it risen up into the heart of man, the things which God has prepared

for those that love Him. Isa. 64:4

10 But God revealed them to us by His Spirit, for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God.

chal> Who is "us," in the scripture above? Only the Apostles?

11 For who among men knows the things of a man, except the spirit of a man within him? So also no one has known the things of God except the Spirit of God.
12 But we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit from God, so that we might know the things that are freely given to us by God.
13 Which things we also speak, not in words taught in human wisdom, but in words taught of the Holy Spirit, comparing spiritual things with spiritual things .

chal> He draws a contrast here between those who recieve the things of the Spirit of God and those who don't. It isn't a contrast between the Apostles and everyone else.

14 But a natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he is not able to know them , because they are spiritually discerned.

chal> It's a contrast between the natural man and the spiritual man;

15 But the spiritual one discerns all things, but he is discerned by no one.

16 For "who has known the mind of the Lord?" "Who will teach Him?" But we have the mind of Christ.

chal> He didn't suddenly change subjects or who he was addressing. There are only two groups described here, natural and spiritual men. The spiritual men can discern truth because;

" for the Spirit searches all things,"

and

"God revealed them to us by His Spirit"

The "we," who have "the mind of Christ," are the same "us," who can say
"God revealed them (all things) to us by His Spirit"

chal> If this is addressed to the Apostles only, then no one but the Apostles can receive the things of the spirit of God, because they are the only ones who love Him and everyone else is a natural man with no hope of even understanding anything about God, because "he is not able to know them,"

John 14:20 In that day you shall know that I am in My Father, and you are in Me, and I am in you.
21 He that has My commandments and keeps them, it is that one who loves Me; and the one that loves Me shall be loved by My Father, and I shall love him and will reveal Myself to him.

1st Corinthians 2:9 "Eye has not seen, and ear has not heard," nor has it risen up into the heart of man, the things which God has prepared

for those that love Him. Isa. 64:4

You should have continued reading,


1 Corinthians 3:1-4 ( KJV ) 1And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. 2I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. 3For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? 4For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?

I don't think they had all truth since the natural man cannot understand the things of God. So to answer your question, yes, the us is probably a reference to the apostles.

Butch5
Oct 4th 2008, 06:22 PM
Almost every word in the bible is spoken to someone. Is the entire bible only for who it was originally spoken to? Of course not. If you want to deny parts of the bible apply to anyone, it is your responsibility to prove it. Otherwise:

2Ti 3:16-17
(16) All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
(17) That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

OK, you want proof, no problem.


Matthew 15:24 ( KJV ) 24But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.


Matthew 10:5-6 ( KJV ) 5These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: 6But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Jesus came only to the Jews, He states this clearly. When He sent His disciples out the first time He told them to only go to the Jews. So, if Christ's teachings apply to anyone outside of the Jews there must be Scripture to state this, and there is,


Matthew 28:18-20 ( KJV ) 18And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20Teaching 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.

Jesus told the disciples to teach all nations, or gentiles, all things whatso ever He commanded them. This is how Jesus commands become applicable to those outside of the Jews. So, where is there Scripture where Jesus taught that the Holy Spirit would lead all Christians in all truth? Jesus told the disciples that the Holy Spirit would lead THEM into all truth. He said that they were not yet able to bear all that He had to tell them.

LadyinWaiting
Oct 4th 2008, 07:11 PM
The American Jesus says you are saved by grace, so go ahead and sin, after all you can't be perfect.

The American Jesus will save you from any persecution. He'll even come twice.

The American Jesus wants you to prosper and be wealthy.

The American Jesus doesn't talk about repentance, just believe and you're saved.

The American Jesus doesn't talk about hell. After all, we don't want to offend anybody.

The American Jesus just wants you once a week for an hour.

-- Rev

I wish people wouldn't paint with such a broad brush...
1) Saved by grace to go and sin no more. That's what taught in my church. We also don't act delusional to think we WON'T ever sin again. The point is to not willingly sin (even Paul said what he wanted to do he didn't do and he did what he didn't want to do).

2) I was raised to believe that if God brings to you it, He'll take you through it (whether it be by saving you from it, helping you through it, or calling you home).

3) I was raise to reject the "prosperity gospel" since we're called to live simplistic lives within our means so as to better be able to serve God without extra ties to "stuff".

4) We just finished a sermon series that reminded the congregation that even SATAN "believes" in Christ and God, but he's condemned eternally. Without repentence, there can be no salvation.

5) Funny, I've always been told hell was real and even had studies on the descriptions thereof.

6) Again, I've been raised at my church to believe daily prayer, Bible reading was essential (while I'm an admitted slacker on the Bible reading, I'm struggling with that right now) and that filling a pew is nothing more than checking off a to-do list and means 0.



And I'm at the same Southern Baptist church I've always attended. At one point, our SBC president was my former pastor.

I don't know of any reasons why someone in a protestant denomination (brought about by the apparent corruption in the Catholic church at the time) couldn't be a true Christian. It's all a matter of whether you believe in truth or not.

livingword26
Oct 4th 2008, 08:29 PM
Jesus told the disciples to teach all nations, or gentiles, all things whatso ever He commanded them. This is how Jesus commands become applicable to those outside of the Jews. So, where is there Scripture where Jesus taught that the Holy Spirit would lead all Christians in all truth? Jesus told the disciples that the Holy Spirit would lead THEM into all truth. He said that they were not yet able to bear all that He had to tell them.

So, since the "the Apostles" have all died, I guess that we have no hope of obtaining all truth

Butch5
Oct 4th 2008, 10:03 PM
So, since the "the Apostles" have all died, I guess that we have no hope of obtaining all truth

Well, I don't know. What I do know is that there is so much division in the church that I find it hard to believe the Holy Spirit has given "all truth" to every Christian. If we have all truth why would we need the Scriptures?

livingword26
Oct 4th 2008, 10:46 PM
Well, I don't know. What I do know is that there is so much division in the church that I find it hard to believe the Holy Spirit has given "all truth" to every Christian. If we have all truth why would we need the Scriptures.

Thank God He has given us the scriptures. I also thank Him for His Spirit, without which I would understand none of it. In my uneducated opinion, it is mans pride that keeps the church divided. Each want to put forth a doctrine that is not completely true. Each wants his doctrine to be the correct one, and each wants his church to be the correct one. Every single doctrine that is put forth, such as Calvinism, Arminianism, legalism, universalism, amillennialism, dispensationalsim, and so on, all have conflicts within scripture. Yet man continues to put them forth, because he wants to be right, to be different. The Spirit is always speaking the truth, we just ain't listening. When we put all this baloney down, we will be unified. I pray that the Lord brings this forth in His Church.


1Co 2:2
(2) For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

Butch5
Oct 5th 2008, 01:54 AM
Thank God He has given us the scriptures. I also thank Him for His Spirit, without which I would understand none of it. In my uneducated opinion, it is mans pride that keeps the church divided. Each want to put forth a doctrine that is not completely true. Each wants his doctrine to be the correct one, and each wants his church to be the correct one. Every single doctrine that is put forth, such as Calvinism, Arminianism, legalism, universalism, amillennialism, dispensationalsim, and so on, all have conflicts within scripture. Yet man continues to put them forth, because he wants to be right, to be different. The Spirit is always speaking the truth, we just ain't listening. When we put all this baloney down, we will be unified. I pray that the Lord brings this forth in His Church.


1Co 2:2
(2) For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

I agree with a lot of what you say. That is why I have rejected the doctrines of men. I subject all opinions to the Scriptures. I used to be a Calvinist until I realized the doctrines went against Scripture. Now any time someone says something I compare it to Scripture. I am not even saying that you are wrong, I only said I believe that verse referred to the apostles and said why. If there is Scripture that says Christians are given this truth then I accept it. I however have not found anything that says this.

chal
Oct 5th 2008, 11:27 AM
You should have continued reading,


1 Corinthians 3:1-4 ( KJV ) 1And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. 2I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. 3For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? 4For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?

I don't think they had all truth since the natural man cannot understand the things of God. So to answer your question, yes, the us is probably a reference to the apostles.

chal> Umm, actually I did continue reading. I just don't agree that because he was speaking to the Apostles, that what he said was meant for their ears only. If a math teacher addresses a class teaching that 2+2=4, it doesn't follow that this fact is only true for that class, or that they are being addressed on that matter exclusively. I outlined in the post you quoted why I disagree that it was for the Apostles. I suppose I should have added "only," or "exclusively," but I thought it was evident to anyone who had read the text and tried to show that it wasn't a comparison between Apostles and other people, but between two different kind of men, spiritual and natural (carnal). This is not a comparison between sheep and goats, that is two different groups of people, but two modes that every man has and struggles between, that is, the inner spiritual man and the outer carnal, fleshly or natural man. I really don't see how it can be construed to be addressing the Apostles exclusively, when this is true of every human.

Apparently you read the scripture in it's entirety, but didn't read, or perhaps didn't comprehend my post entirely. I understand that you may still disagree, but perhaps now you will be aware of exactly what you are disagreeing with. If you still don't understand what I'm saying, then I will probably just let it go so the topic can be served better. IMO, you have done nothing to prove or even explain adequately why Protestants are not "real" Christians. It sounds like the same old rhetoric the "non-denominational," denomination has been spouting off for a long time now.

Butch5
Oct 5th 2008, 07:17 PM
chal> Umm, actually I did continue reading. I just don't agree that because he was speaking to the Apostles, that what he said was meant for their ears only. If a math teacher addresses a class teaching that 2+2=4, it doesn't follow that this fact is only true for that class, or that they are being addressed on that matter exclusively. I outlined in the post you quoted why I disagree that it was for the Apostles. I suppose I should have added "only," or "exclusively," but I thought it was evident to anyone who had read the text and tried to show that it wasn't a comparison between Apostles and other people, but between two different kind of men, spiritual and natural (carnal). This is not a comparison between sheep and goats, that is two different groups of people, but two modes that every man has and struggles between, that is, the inner spiritual man and the outer carnal, fleshly or natural man. I really don't see how it can be construed to be addressing the Apostles exclusively, when this is true of every human.

Apparently you read the scripture in it's entirety, but didn't read, or perhaps didn't comprehend my post entirely. I understand that you may still disagree, but perhaps now you will be aware of exactly what you are disagreeing with. If you still don't understand what I'm saying, then I will probably just let it go so the topic can be served better. IMO, you have done nothing to prove or even explain adequately why Protestants are not "real" Christians. It sounds like the same old rhetoric the "non-denominational," denomination has been spouting off for a long time now.

I never said Protestants were not real Christians. All I did was answer a question. The question was, how do you interpret this verse? I said that I thought it was written to the apostles. How do you understand that I made any statement about Protestants?

So how then do you make the statement applicable to all Christians?

chal
Oct 5th 2008, 07:37 PM
I never said Protestants were not real Christians. All I did was answer a question. The question was, how do you interpret this verse? I said that I thought it was written to the apostles. How do you understand that I made any statement about Protestants?

So how then do you make the statement applicable to all Christians?

chal> Sorry my bad about the Protestant thing. I just figured that if you were arguing that they (Protestants) were not guided in truth by the Holy Spirit, then they were not "real Christians." Kinda hard to be a Christian if you don't know the truth. The topic of the the thread concerns Protestants.

Not sure what you mean by this;


So how then do you make the statement applicable to all Christians????

Butch5
Oct 5th 2008, 08:25 PM
chal> Sorry my bad about the Protestant thing. I just figured that if you were arguing that they (Protestants) were not guided in truth by the Holy Spirit, then they were not "real Christians." Kinda hard to be a Christian if you don't know the truth. The topic of the the thread concerns Protestants.

Not sure what you mean by this;

???

I was just answering a queston.

The other question, if you believe that Jesus was making a statement applicable to all Christians, 'the Holy Spirit will guide you in all truth' how do you make that apllicable to all Christians since Jesus said He had only come to the Jews?

chal
Oct 5th 2008, 08:39 PM
I was just answering a queston.

The other question, if you believe that Jesus was making a statement applicable to all Christians, 'the Holy Spirit will guide you in all truth' how do you make that apllicable to all Christians since Jesus said He had only come to the Jews?

I don't have to "make," it applicable. It already is. Jesus ministry was to the Lost sheep of the House of Israel. That doesn't mean that nothing He said was applicable to anyone else. Good thing for anyone who Isn't Jewish.

Butch5
Oct 6th 2008, 01:39 AM
I don't have to "make," it applicable. It already is. Jesus ministry was to the Lost sheep of the House of Israel. That doesn't mean that nothing He said was applicable to anyone else. Good thing for anyone who Isn't Jewish.

"It already is", well, that's a good theologically based argument.
Then you have no Scriptural basis for your application of this verse to anyone outside of the Jews? You claim it is applicable to everyone, yet Jesus said that He had only come to the Jews, therefore whatever He said or taught was only applicable to the Jews, unless there is Scripture saying otherwise.

livingword26
Oct 6th 2008, 03:05 AM
You claim it is applicable to everyone, yet Jesus said that He had only come to the Jews, therefore whatever He said or taught was only applicable to the Jews, unless there is Scripture saying otherwise.

Virtually everything Jesus said, that is recorded in the bible, was spoken to Jews. So are you saying that we all have mistakenly accepted His words as though they were meant for us?

Joh 6:35
(35) And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

Joh 6:29
(29) Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Joh 8:24
(24) I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

Joh 14:1-3
(1) Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.
(2) In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
(3) And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

Joh 17:20-21
(20) Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
(21) That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.


According to your doctrine, none of the above verses apply to me.

chal
Oct 6th 2008, 08:03 AM
"It already is", well, that's a good theologically based argument.
Then you have no Scriptural basis for your application of this verse to anyone outside of the Jews? You claim it is applicable to everyone, yet Jesus said that He had only come to the Jews, therefore whatever He said or taught was only applicable to the Jews, unless there is Scripture saying otherwise.

chal> Yes, it already is, as in I have already explained it using scripture and an explanation earlier in the thread. Just because you either don't comprehend what I posted, or simply disagree, doesn't imply that it isn't a good argument. It's just as likely that you can't understand it. On the other hand, you keep revolving around something that has already been addressed. That's begging the question. Do you have an argument against what I posted or are you just going to keep repeating what has already been addressed? If you can't acknowledge what I have already posted and address the entire post as it relates to the topic, then I am going to stop responding to your posts and you can have the last word.

9Marksfan
Oct 6th 2008, 12:14 PM
"It already is", well, that's a good theologically based argument.
Then you have no Scriptural basis for your application of this verse to anyone outside of the Jews? You claim it is applicable to everyone, yet Jesus said that He had only come to the Jews, therefore whatever He said or taught was only applicable to the Jews, unless there is Scripture saying otherwise.

The Samaritan woman wasn't a Jew - so when Jesus pronounced that He had not seen faith like hers in all Israel - was He disobeying the Father's will by "interfacing" with her and commending her for her faith? What about the woman at the well? The centurion? etc etc

Richard H
Oct 6th 2008, 02:38 PM
Actually, Jesus said He was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.
They are the lost tribes of the northern kingdom dispersed to the nations.
Not the Jews – the tribe of Judah – the southern kingdom - who remained in the land.

People of that time would have understood this, but it confuses us, since this little tidbit is rarely taught or understood.

The division: 1 Kings11:26-39
The divorce: Jeremiah 3
The dispersion: 2 Kings 17:40

God never divorced Judah. Now we see His reconciliation with lost Israel through faith.
The result will be the “re-marriage” - the marriage supper of the Lamb.

PS: And 9Marksfan is right.
Samaritans were not jews - not even part of Israel.

Teke
Oct 6th 2008, 06:09 PM
"It already is", well, that's a good theologically based argument.
Then you have no Scriptural basis for your application of this verse to anyone outside of the Jews? You claim it is applicable to everyone, yet Jesus said that He had only come to the Jews, therefore whatever He said or taught was only applicable to the Jews, unless there is Scripture saying otherwise.

Jhn 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, [and] one shepherd.

Isa 56:7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices [shall be] accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people/nations.

:)

Teke
Oct 6th 2008, 06:33 PM
Samaritans were not jews - not even part of Israel.

Samaria was once the kingdom of Israel, when division occurred and there were two kingdoms, that of Israel, the other of Judah.

Samaritans were a mixed race and traditional enemies of the Jews. They worshiped the God of Israel and awaited a redeemer. They accepted only the first five books of the OT as their scriptures, They had built their own temple on Mt Gerizim which the Jews destroyed in 128 BC.
The history is alluded to in the Samaritan woman whom Jesus spoke with. Her husbands mean more than literal husbands, but also allude to the mix with Israel in Samaria (five nations mixed with Israel). Jhn 4:18 For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly.

For background history see 2 Kings 17, when Israel and Judah were two separate kingdoms, and Israel, then in Samaria, was captured by the Assyrians. Read the lions of Samaria story there. :)

Teke
Oct 6th 2008, 06:55 PM
To comment on the original post.

It makes as much sense as asking, "how many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop". :spin:

Richard H
Oct 6th 2008, 07:08 PM
Samaria was once the kingdom of Israel, when division occurred and there were two kingdoms, that of Israel, the other of Judah.

Samaritans were a mixed race and traditional enemies of the Jews. They worshiped the God of Israel and awaited a redeemer. They accepted only the first five books of the OT as their scriptures, They had built their own temple on Mt Gerizim which the Jews destroyed in 128 BC.
The history is alluded to in the Samaritan woman whom Jesus spoke with. Her husbands mean more than literal husbands, but also allude to the mix with Israel in Samaria (five nations mixed with Israel). Jhn 4:18 For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly.

For background history see 2 Kings 17, when Israel and Judah were two separate kingdoms, and Israel, then in Samaria, was captured by the Assyrians. Read the lions of Samaria story there. :)
Hi Teke,
I was referring to this:

2Ki 17:24 And the king of Assyria brought people from Babylon, Cuthah, Avva, Hamath, and Sepharvaim, and placed them in the cities of Samaria instead of the people of Israel. And they took possession of Samaria and lived in its cities.

Richard H
Oct 6th 2008, 07:24 PM
Hi again Teke, :)
But yer right in that eventually Judah mixed in the land with them. But I don't think there was inter-marriage.

The king of Assyria sent some Levites to teach the people "the law of the god of the land" - so lions would stop attacking. 17:26,27

Teke
Oct 6th 2008, 07:32 PM
Hi Teke,
I was referring to this:

2Ki 17:24 And the king of Assyria brought people from Babylon, Cuthah, Avva, Hamath, and Sepharvaim, and placed them in the cities of Samaria instead of the people of Israel. And they took possession of Samaria and lived in its cities.


Hi Richard, my only point was that Israel had a part. There is no way for us to know who was who in the mixed marriages. Only God could tell such a thing if it mattered. And in all truth, when studied from the beginning, everyone is related in one way or another. It's all a story about holy wars in the lands of the east. It begins to become more clear (in relation to land) with Abraham who was also considered a prince of Babylon. ;)

Teke
Oct 6th 2008, 07:40 PM
Hi again Teke, :)
But yer right in that eventually Judah mixed in the land with them. But I don't think there was inter-marriage.

The king of Assyria sent some Levites to teach the people "the law of the god of the land" - so lions would stop attacking. 17:26,27

Inter marrying aside, the laws of Israel resembled the laws of Khummarabi (Babylon). In relation to war in the land, whomever won the land had to deal with the land (the reason why the Assyrians gathered people there to populate the land). Foreigners were not as well skilled at dealing with the land as the natives were. And in those times if the land was not handled well it went wild, as the instance with the lions of Samaria (they had multiplied beyond the usual norm).

Richard H
Oct 6th 2008, 07:50 PM
Hi Richard, my only point was that Israel had a part. There is no way for us to know who was who in the mixed marriages. Only God could tell such a thing if it mattered. And in all truth, when studied from the beginning, everyone is related in one way or another. It's all a story about holy wars in the lands of the east. It begins to become more clear (in relation to land) with Abraham who was also considered a prince of Babylon. ;)
I think of as like this: :)
Jesus didn’t usually speak plainly to people.
When speaking of the lost sheep from the house of Israel, He wasn't really talking about actual populations in actual towns. His words carried a higher meaning.

The lost sheep were lost many hundreds of years before that time.
He was talking about a portion of the elect which actually could not be located, since they lost their identity as the house of Israel.
He was alluding to those who are now grafted in through faith. Us. :saint:
We who have been “chosen” by His grace to be called His people.

Richard

Teke
Oct 6th 2008, 08:10 PM
I think of as like this: :)
Jesus didn’t usually speak plainly to people.
When speaking of the lost sheep from the house of Israel, He wasn't really talking about actual populations in actual towns. His words carried a higher meaning.

The lost sheep were lost many hundreds of years before that time.
He was talking about a portion of the elect which actually could not be located, since they lost their identity as the house of Israel.
He was alluding to those who are now grafted in through faith. Us. :saint:
We who have been “chosen” by His grace to be called His people.

Richard

:amen: I agree.
Israel means "contender" or "soldier of God".

Jud 1:3 ¶ Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort [you] that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

chal
Oct 10th 2008, 09:46 AM
To comment on the original post.

It makes as much sense as asking, "how many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop". :spin:

chal>
Are red tootsie pops "real," candy? After all, they do not taste or feel like my understanding of the definition of candy, or like the other flavors. Plus, there are over five different flavors. None taste exactly alike! When Tom Tootsie spoke to Rocky Roll and said that this new candy would be the foundations of his company, he didn't wait till all five flavors were developed to establish it ya know. It was established right then and there, after all, he is the inventor of toosie pops as well as many other candies, and what he speaks concerning candiness and it's role (no pun intended) in the stock market always comes to pass. Indeed all modern candy has questionable validity, since they all lack the plain vanilla packaging of the first generation candies. -chal's Encylopedia of Theological Implications of Candiness in Ancient Times

so what do you think?

chal> Me, Ah like me some red tootsie pops (TP Rouge, as we call em' don on de buy-o! I wanna told ya'll, Ah guar-rawn-tee!

Teke
Oct 10th 2008, 04:16 PM
chal>
so what do you think?

chal> Me, Ah like me some red tootsie pops (TP Rouge, as we call em' don on de buy-o! I wanna told ya'll, Ah guar-rawn-tee!

Hey ma boo chal! Das a good intrail from yer cyclopediac. :lol:

Da answer to dat question be, "the world may never know". A lil lagniappe for dem whit der beaucoup. It's da mystere.

Dat bring to ma mine a bon Boudreaux histoire.

Boudreaux alway done had some mess wit Clarence across the buy-o. One day Boudreaux tell him wife Marie, he gonna go o'er dare and file' Clarence. But Boudreaux shrimp boat be broke, so he tak da road to da bridge. When he done got to da bridge he sawd a yella sign dat say, "Clearance 10 feet". Boudreaux turned himsef round went home and tell Marie he done changed his mind, cuz Clarence look smaller from da oder side da buy-o.

Das one mystere to Boudreaux. :D

"to make all [men] see what [is] the fellowship of the mystery," :hug:

Jerome1
Oct 11th 2008, 03:06 AM
The Samaritan woman wasn't a Jew - so when Jesus pronounced that He had not seen faith like hers in all Israel - was He disobeying the Father's will by "interfacing" with her and commending her for her faith? What about the woman at the well? The centurion? etc etc

I think the Samaritans have a tenuous ancestral link to the Israelites. It was the Roman centurion's faith who Jesus commended to the Jews.

9Marksfan
Oct 11th 2008, 02:44 PM
I think the Samaritans have a tenuous ancestral link to the Israelites. It was the Roman centurion's faith who Jesus commended to the Jews.

But the thing was, he was a Gentile. The point I am making is that the phrase "lost sheep of the house of Israel" cannot mean exclusively literal, physical Jews - or He would have been disobeying His Father's command by responding to a plea for help from a Gentile. And teke's verse is great too - there were "other sheep" that Christ had to bring into the fold. I think what it means is that Christ's principal mission was to the Jews - that is seen in His apparently dismissive approach to the Samaritan woman - yet He always planned (through the apostles - Paul in particular) for the gospel to go to the Gentiles too. That was no "Plan B".

Richard H
Oct 11th 2008, 02:56 PM
... That was no "Plan B".Amen!

But still...:rofl:

Butch5
Oct 11th 2008, 07:22 PM
chal> Yes, it already is, as in I have already explained it using scripture and an explanation earlier in the thread. Just because you either don't comprehend what I posted, or simply disagree, doesn't imply that it isn't a good argument. It's just as likely that you can't understand it. On the other hand, you keep revolving around something that has already been addressed. That's begging the question. Do you have an argument against what I posted or are you just going to keep repeating what has already been addressed? If you can't acknowledge what I have already posted and address the entire post as it relates to the topic, then I am going to stop responding to your posts and you can have the last word.

I am not revolving around the same issue, You may have addressed it but you didn't answer it. If choose to apply it to all Christians that is your choice, but you have not shown form Scripture how it applies to all Christians.

Butch5
Oct 11th 2008, 07:28 PM
The Samaritan woman wasn't a Jew - so when Jesus pronounced that He had not seen faith like hers in all Israel - was He disobeying the Father's will by "interfacing" with her and commending her for her faith? What about the woman at the well? The centurion? etc etc

What about them? Did Jesus say I can only interface with Jews? Are you going to deny Jesus statement? Just because His mission was to the Jews doesn't mean He could not speak to anyone but Jews.

Richard H
Oct 11th 2008, 07:32 PM
What about them? Did Jesus say I can only interface with Jews? Are you going to deny Jesus statement? Just because His mission was to the Jews doesn't mean He could not speak to anyone but Jews.
I dunno, but it looks to me like yer both on the same side.
Both saying the same thing.

:)

Butch5
Oct 11th 2008, 07:33 PM
But the thing was, he was a Gentile. The point I am making is that the phrase "lost sheep of the house of Israel" cannot mean exclusively literal, physical Jews - or He would have been disobeying His Father's command by responding to a plea for help from a Gentile. And teke's verse is great too - there were "other sheep" that Christ had to bring into the fold. I think what it means is that Christ's principal mission was to the Jews - that is seen in His apparently dismissive approach to the Samaritan woman - yet He always planned (through the apostles - Paul in particular) for the gospel to go to the Gentiles too. That was no "Plan B".

Nigel,

How do you draw these conclusions? Where in Scripture does anything remotely suggest that Christ would be disobeying the Father's command by helping someone other than a Jew. If someone tells me to go out and pickup the newspaper and bring it in, and I do so, yet while doing so I also get the mail have I disobeyed? If so how?

Butch5
Oct 11th 2008, 07:41 PM
Jhn 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, [and] one shepherd.

Isa 56:7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices [shall be] accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people/nations.

:)


Who are the other sheep?

Richard H
Oct 11th 2008, 07:53 PM
'Stickin' my nose in... :)

‘Seems to me this is what is being said:
IF God had sent Jesus only to the Hebrews, then and only then it might it have been wrong to address a gentile.

BUT if we interpret “lost sheep" to be more than the Hebrews, then it would be OK.

Since Jesus did do this, we can interpret “lost sheep” to not be exclusive to Jews.

... God did NOT command that Jesus speak only to Jews.

chal
Oct 11th 2008, 08:05 PM
I am not revolving around the same issue, You may have addressed it but you didn't answer it. If choose to apply it to all Christians that is your choice, but you have not shown form Scripture how it applies to all Christians.

chal> You simply repeated your question after it has been answered. The post # 54 is there whether you like the answer or not. You have not refuted it, in fact you didn't even try. You just repeated the same question that had already been addressed. Sounds like you have dust on the needle.

Butch5
Oct 11th 2008, 09:10 PM
'Stickin' my nose in... :)

‘Seems to me this is what is being said:
IF God had sent Jesus only to the Hebrews, then and only then it might it have been wrong to address a gentile.

BUT if we interpret “lost sheep" to be more than the Hebrews, then it would be OK.

Since Jesus did do this, we can interpret “lost sheep” to not be exclusive to Jews.

... God did NOT command that Jesus speak only to Jews.

I didn't say that Jesus was only sent to address the Hebrews. I said that He had come to the Hebrews. I don't know what the the discussion is about. Jesus said,

Matthew 15:24 ( KJV ) 24But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Seems this would exclude everyone but the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

9Marksfan
Oct 11th 2008, 11:22 PM
What about them? Did Jesus say I can only interface with Jews? Are you going to deny Jesus statement? Just because His mission was to the Jews doesn't mean He could not speak to anyone but Jews.

What is your point about the "sent ONLY to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" idea? The point I am making is that He MINISTERED to non-Jews in His ministry - the centurion is the most obvious example. Luke tells us that Jesus was not just healing the (presumably Jewish) servant but was blessing the centurion: "the one for whom He should do this was deserving" Lk 7:4b NKJV

9Marksfan
Oct 11th 2008, 11:34 PM
I am not revolving around the same issue, You may have addressed it but you didn't answer it. If choose to apply it to all Christians that is your choice, but you have not shown form Scripture how it applies to all Christians.

I'm stickin 'my nose in as well! Surely this passage shows that we who have the Spirit (ie all Christians - Rom 8:9) have spiritual discernment to understand the Bible:-

Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God. These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. For “who has known the mind of the LORD that he may instruct Him?” But we have the mind of Christ. 1 Cor 2:12-16 NKJV

I'm anticipating that you will say that the "we" here can only refer to the apostles - but even if that is the case (and I think it is a very awkward interpretation of the text), "he who is spiritual" has to apply to all Christians (or at least the mature ones) - certainly more than just the apostles!

Richard H
Oct 12th 2008, 12:06 AM
I didn't say that Jesus was only sent to address the Hebrews. I said that He had come to the Hebrews. I don't know what the the discussion is about. Jesus said,

Matthew 15:24 ( KJV ) 24But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Seems this would exclude everyone but the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Hi Butch,
The “lost tribes of the house of Israel” was a term the people of the day would have been familiar with.
The tribes were lost 750 years before Jesus began His ministry.
IOW: They no longer existed – and the people of Judah understood that.

Specifically, He was not speaking of the Jews - the house of Judah.
Although the good news was preached to them (Jews) first.

Refer back to posts 63-72 Post #63 has some reference for you to look up.

Richard J

Richard H
Oct 12th 2008, 12:15 AM
Oh yes… Paul’s letter to the Corinthians?... …was written to the church at Corinth.

How many Apostles were there at Corinth?
One - if Paul happened to be there.
Zero – if he was not and so had to write a letter rather than speak to the church there in person.

Richard

I could not help myself...:rolleyes:

Richard H
Oct 12th 2008, 12:29 AM
The Jews would have missed the meaning, because they did not understand Messiah.
We understand Messiah, but are unfamiliar with the phrase the “house of Israel” or even the “lost ____ of the house of Israel”.
Without both parts to the equation, it is difficult to find the solution.

Teke
Oct 12th 2008, 07:52 AM
Who are the other sheep?

Here are the Greek words for "other". "Allos" and "heteros" for "other" are debated in the John 10:16 verse because they are both used depending on which manuscript is referenced.


Appendix 124 (from the KJV Companion bible). THE SYNONYMOUS WORDS
FOR "OTHER", "ANOTHER".


1. allos = another of the same kind (denoting numerical distinction). The second of two where there may be more : e.g. Matt. 10:23; 25:16, 17, 20; 27:42, 61; 28:1. John 18:15, 16; 20:2-4. Rev. 17:10.

2. heteros = another of a different kind (usually denoting generic distinction). The "other" of two, where there are only two : e.g. Matt. 6:24; 11:3. Luke 5:7; 7:41; 14:31; 16:13, 18; 17:34, 35; 18:10; 23:40.

3. loipos = the remaining one. Pl. = those who are left.

4. tines = certain ones. 2Cor. 3:1

5. kakeinos = and that one there. Contraction of kai ekeinos, only translated "other" in Matt. 23:25 and Luke 11:42.

6. allotrios = not one's own, belonging to another, or others (Heb. 9:25). Hence a foreigner. See Luke 16:1


What do you think?

I wouldn't disagree that He was sent to Israel (lost sheep which dwelt in Israel an OT reference. see Jer. 50:6) first, as that is what the scriptures say. I would just disagree that He was only sent to them and no one else.

Zec 12:7 ¶ The LORD also shall save the tents of Judah first, that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem do not magnify [themselves] against Judah.

Butch5
Oct 12th 2008, 09:36 PM
Here are the Greek words for "other". "Allos" and "heteros" for "other" are debated in the John 10:16 verse because they are both used depending on which manuscript is referenced.


What do you think?

I wouldn't disagree that He was sent to Israel (lost sheep which dwelt in Israel an OT reference. see Jer. 50:6) first, as that is what the scriptures say. I would just disagree that He was only sent to them and no one else.

Zec 12:7 ¶ The LORD also shall save the tents of Judah first, that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem do not magnify [themselves] against Judah.

But who are the other sheep? Christ said He came to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, during His ministry on earth He told the disciples NOT to go to those outside of the lost sheep. I am not adding or taking anything from Scripture, that is what it says. If Christ came to someone else then it should be in Scripture, I have not seen any mention of Christ coming to anyone else. John says the same thing in John 1, He came to His own and they did not receive Him. When I read Scripture I read what it says. Now His teachings are for all men because He told the apostles to go and make disciples of "all nations" baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, And Holy Spirit, "teaching" them "all" that I have commanded you.

9Marksfan
Oct 12th 2008, 09:38 PM
But who are the other sheep? Christ said He came to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, during His ministry on earth He told the disciples NOT to go to those outside of the lost sheep. I am not adding or taking anything from Scripture, that is what it says. If Christ came to someone else then it should be in Scripture, I have not seen any mention of Christ coming to anyone else. John says the same thing in John 1, He came to His own and they did not receive Him. When I read Scripture I read what it says. Now His teachings are for all men because He told the apostles to go and make disciples of "all nations" baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, And Holy Spirit, "teaching" them "all" that I have commanded you.

It's Gentiles - Christ brings them by His Spirit.

Butch5
Oct 12th 2008, 09:52 PM
What is your point about the "sent ONLY to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" idea? The point I am making is that He MINISTERED to non-Jews in His ministry - the centurion is the most obvious example. Luke tells us that Jesus was not just healing the (presumably Jewish) servant but was blessing the centurion: "the one for whom He should do this was deserving" Lk 7:4b NKJV

My point is, a lot of people take every word that Jesus says and they apply it universally to all Christians. Jesus Himself said He was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, so what He says pertains to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, unless there is Scripture that states otherwise. There "is" Scripture that states that Jesus' teachings are for all Christians,

Matthew 28:18-20 ( KJV ) 18And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20Teaching 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.

This makes it Clear that Jesus' teachings are for Christians, however that does not mean that every word He spoke is applicable to all Christians. The verse in question is a statement that Jesus made to the apostles, it was not a teaching that He put forth.


John 16:12-13 ( KJV ) 12I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. 13Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come.

The Scripture in question is verse 13 "all truth." How does this apply to all Christians? The context is to the disciples and He says the Spirit will show you things to come. Does the Spirit show Christians things to come? We know that Holy Spirit did lead the apostles is "all truth" and we know that the Spirit showed them things to come. How does this apply to all Christians?

The questions are not to you, that is the what the discussion has been about.

Butch5
Oct 12th 2008, 09:58 PM
I'm stickin 'my nose in as well! Surely this passage shows that we who have the Spirit (ie all Christians - Rom 8:9) have spiritual discernment to understand the Bible:-

Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God. These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. For “who has known the mind of the LORD that he may instruct Him?” But we have the mind of Christ. 1 Cor 2:12-16 NKJV

I'm anticipating that you will say that the "we" here can only refer to the apostles - but even if that is the case (and I think it is a very awkward interpretation of the text), "he who is spiritual" has to apply to all Christians (or at least the mature ones) - certainly more than just the apostles!

No, I am not going to say the we is only the apostles, I agree we have the Spirit and I agree He guides us. My point was that we do not have "all truth." If we have all truth why do we need to study the Scriptures. If we have all truth shouldn't we be able to open the Scriptures and understand every word? My whole point was about the verse that says "all truth", I said that it was a reference to the apostles and not to all Christians.

Butch5
Oct 12th 2008, 10:15 PM
Hi Butch,
The “lost tribes of the house of Israel” was a term the people of the day would have been familiar with.
The tribes were lost 750 years before Jesus began His ministry.
IOW: They no longer existed – and the people of Judah understood that.

Specifically, He was not speaking of the Jews - the house of Judah.
Although the good news was preached to them (Jews) first.

Refer back to posts 63-72 Post #63 has some reference for you to look up.

Richard J

Hi Richard,

I have not looked up your references yet, however I have a question.

Why would Jesus tell the apostles to go to people who no longer existed?

According to Scripture they did exist because Jesus sent the disciples.

Matthew 10:5-7 ( KJV ) 5These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: 6But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Teke
Oct 12th 2008, 10:54 PM
But who are the other sheep? Christ said He came to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, during His ministry on earth He told the disciples NOT to go to those outside of the lost sheep. I am not adding or taking anything from Scripture, that is what it says. If Christ came to someone else then it should be in Scripture, I have not seen any mention of Christ coming to anyone else. John says the same thing in John 1, He came to His own and they did not receive Him. When I read Scripture I read what it says. Now His teachings are for all men because He told the apostles to go and make disciples of "all nations" baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, And Holy Spirit, "teaching" them "all" that I have commanded you.

Since He didn't specify who the "other" sheep were, how am I to know who they are.

Maybe I'm not making myself clear enough. The church is to understand the truth which the Apostles taught. IOW authentic apostolic teachings.

"teachings are for all men because He told the apostles to go and make disciples of "all nations" baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, And Holy Spirit, "teaching" them "all" that I have commanded you."

I absolutely agree with this.

However, Jesus Christ is "the promise" of God from the beginning to all men. Genesis teaches this truth. It is not a matter of national identity.

Richard H
Oct 12th 2008, 11:09 PM
Hi Richard,

I have not looked up your references yet, however I have a question.

Why would Jesus tell the apostles to go to people who no longer existed?

According to Scripture they did exist because Jesus sent the disciples.

Matthew 10:5-7 ( KJV ) 5These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: 6But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Hi Butch, :)
Jesus used words to make people think – IF they had ears to hear.
Contrary to the idea that Jesus used parables to illustrate His lessons, he spoke this way to obscure the meaning for those who did not want the meaning..

And He was saying, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear."
As soon as He was alone, His followers, along with the twelve, began asking Him about the parables.
And He was saying to them, "To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but those who are outside get everything in parables,
so that WHILE SEEING, THEY MAY SEE AND NOT PERCEIVE, AND WHILE HEARING, THEY MAY HEAR AND NOT UNDERSTAND, OTHERWISE THEY MIGHT RETURN AND BE FORGIVEN."
And He *said to them, "Do you not understand this parable? How will you understand all the parables?
Mar 4:12,13

His disciples had a hard time knowing what Jesus was saying.
He’d explain his meaning to the disciples.
A few times in the Gospels we catch only a glimpse of His doing this, but Jesus made sure His disciples knew what He meant.

And the disciples came and said to Him, "Why do You speak to them in parables?"
Jesus answered them, "To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted.
Mat 13:10,11

Then He left the crowds and went into the house. And His disciples came to Him and said, "Explain to us the parable of the tares of the field."
Mat 13:36

His disciples began questioning Him as to what this parable meant.
And He said, "To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to the rest it is in parables, so that SEEING THEY MAY NOT SEE, AND HEARING THEY MAY NOT UNDERSTAND.
Luk 8:8,10

The verse you pointed out does say that they were not to go to the Gentiles or Samaritans, but to this people who no longer exist.
Essentially, He was sending them to the lost – wherever they are – first to the Jew - those in the land of Israel - and then to the Gentile - somewhere among them were the people of the lost tribes.

In fact, you or I could be of the lost tribes, but we have no way of knowing it.

Richard

Butch5
Oct 13th 2008, 12:35 AM
It's Gentiles - Christ brings them by His Spirit.

Can you show me this from Scripture?

Butch5
Oct 13th 2008, 12:43 AM
Since He didn't specify who the "other" sheep were, how am I to know who they are.

Maybe I'm not making myself clear enough. The church is to understand the truth which the Apostles taught. IOW authentic apostolic teachings.

"teachings are for all men because He told the apostles to go and make disciples of "all nations" baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, And Holy Spirit, "teaching" them "all" that I have commanded you."

I absolutely agree with this.

However, Jesus Christ is "the promise" of God from the beginning to all men. Genesis teaches this truth. It is not a matter of national identity.

I agree Christ is for all men, however that doesn't necessitate that every word He spoke pertains to every Christian. Since Jesus didn't specify who the sheep were, anything we put forth is speculation. I do not deal with speculation as it has led me astray in the past. That is why I continue to ask for Scripture to support what anyone says. People read Scripture with preconceived biases and this clouds their understanding of Scripture. In order to avoid the bias I ask that everything be shown from Scripture.

Butch5
Oct 13th 2008, 12:49 AM
Hi Butch, :)
Jesus used words to make people think – IF they had ears to hear.
Contrary to the idea that Jesus used parables to illustrate His lessons, he spoke this way to obscure the meaning for those who did not want the meaning..

And He was saying, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear."
As soon as He was alone, His followers, along with the twelve, began asking Him about the parables.
And He was saying to them, "To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but those who are outside get everything in parables,
so that WHILE SEEING, THEY MAY SEE AND NOT PERCEIVE, AND WHILE HEARING, THEY MAY HEAR AND NOT UNDERSTAND, OTHERWISE THEY MIGHT RETURN AND BE FORGIVEN."
And He *said to them, "Do you not understand this parable? How will you understand all the parables?
Mar 4:12,13

His disciples had a hard time knowing what Jesus was saying.
He’d explain his meaning to the disciples.
A few times in the Gospels we catch only a glimpse of His doing this, but Jesus made sure His disciples knew what He meant.

And the disciples came and said to Him, "Why do You speak to them in parables?"
Jesus answered them, "To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted.
Mat 13:10,11

Then He left the crowds and went into the house. And His disciples came to Him and said, "Explain to us the parable of the tares of the field."
Mat 13:36

His disciples began questioning Him as to what this parable meant.
And He said, "To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to the rest it is in parables, so that SEEING THEY MAY NOT SEE, AND HEARING THEY MAY NOT UNDERSTAND.
Luk 8:8,10

The verse you pointed out does say that they were not to go to the Gentiles or Samaritans, but to this people who no longer exist.
Essentially, He was sending them to the lost – wherever they are – first to the Jew - those in the land of Israel - and then to the Gentile - somewhere among them were the people of the lost tribes.

In fact, you or I could be of the lost tribes, but we have no way of knowing it.

Richard

Hi Richard,

While I agree that the parables were to hide the true meaning, I am not sure about the lost tribes. Surely the apostles would know who Jesus was sending them to. Why would He tell them to go to the lost tribes if they did not know who they were? How would they know who to go to? Also Jesus specifically tells them not to go to the gentiles or the Samaritans.

Teke
Oct 13th 2008, 01:21 AM
I agree Christ is for all men, however that doesn't necessitate that every word He spoke pertains to every Christian. Since Jesus didn't specify who the sheep were, anything we put forth is speculation. I do not deal with speculation as it has led me astray in the past. That is why I continue to ask for Scripture to support what anyone says. People read Scripture with preconceived biases and this clouds their understanding of Scripture. In order to avoid the bias I ask that everything be shown from Scripture.

OK, would you consider He did specify the sheep when He said, 'All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and [he] to whomsoever the Son will reveal [him]."

Does that include or exclude anyone?

Richard H
Oct 13th 2008, 02:10 AM
Hi Richard,

While I agree that the parables were to hide the true meaning, I am not sure about the lost tribes. Surely the apostles would know who Jesus was sending them to. Why would He tell them to go to the lost tribes if they did not know who they were? How would they know who to go to? Also Jesus specifically tells them not to go to the gentiles or the Samaritans.
Hi Butch,
You got me with a tough one. J

I wasn’t saying that Jesus was speaking in a parable, but He almost always spoke in somewhat cryptic language.
Unfortunately, the Gospels don’t always record the meanings He spoke privately to his disciples.

This He said, and after that He *said to them, "Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I go, so that I may awaken him out of sleep."
The disciples then said to Him, "Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will recover."
Now Jesus had spoken of his death, but they thought that He was speaking of literal sleep.
So Jesus then said to them plainly, "Lazarus is dead,
John 11:11-14

Let’s say that you had a brother, but he ran away from home many years ago and has not been heard from since.
You do have some other family members who still live at home.
You have a friend who does not speak plainly.
He gives you some cake and says go and give this cake to your lost brother, but don’t give any to your two neighbors whom your family does not get along with.

What will you do?

Go looking for your run-away brother? How would you find him?
Give it to your neighbors? No
Give it to the rest of your family? Of course.

Jesus was actually prophesying about the sheep the disciples did not yet know about. The Gentiles nations – where the lost tribes had been dispersed.
"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.
John 10:16

Do I think Jesus explained it to them? No.
At the time, they did not even understand that the Christ was to die and rise again. They would not have understood that the good news would be preached to the world.

"Let these words sink into your ears; for the Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men."
But they did not understand this statement, and it was concealed from them so that they would not perceive it; and they were afraid to ask Him about this statement.
Luke 9:44,45

Whether He said plainly: “just go to all your brothers in the land of Israel”
or they understood that the reference to “Israel” to mean their countrymen in the land of Israel - is unclear, but that is what they did.

And who did these other sheep turn out to be? Us. :)

That’s the best I can do, <whew> J
Richard

Butch5
Oct 13th 2008, 03:37 AM
OK, would you consider He did specify the sheep when He said, 'All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and [he] to whomsoever the Son will reveal [him]."

Does that include or exclude anyone?

I'm not sure what you mean, are you asking if anyone is included or excluded in His revealing?

Butch5
Oct 13th 2008, 03:50 AM
Hi Butch,
You got me with a tough one. J

I wasn’t saying that Jesus was speaking in a parable, but He almost always spoke in somewhat cryptic language.
Unfortunately, the Gospels don’t always record the meanings He spoke privately to his disciples.

This He said, and after that He *said to them, "Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I go, so that I may awaken him out of sleep."
The disciples then said to Him, "Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will recover."
Now Jesus had spoken of his death, but they thought that He was speaking of literal sleep.
So Jesus then said to them plainly, "Lazarus is dead,
John 11:11-14

Let’s say that you had a brother, but he ran away from home many years ago and has not been heard from since.
You do have some other family members who still live at home.
You have a friend who does not speak plainly.
He gives you some cake and says go and give this cake to your lost brother, but don’t give any to your two neighbors whom your family does not get along with.


What will you do?

Go looking for your run-away brother? How would you find him?
Give it to your neighbors? No
Give it to the rest of your family? Of course.
Jesus was actually prophesying about the sheep the disciples did not yet know about. The Gentiles nations – where the lost tribes had been dispersed.
"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.
John 10:16

Do I think Jesus explained it to them? No.
At the time, they did not even understand that the Christ was to die and rise again. They would not have understood that the good news would be preached to the world.

"Let these words sink into your ears; for the Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men."
But they did not understand this statement, and it was concealed from them so that they would not perceive it; and they were afraid to ask Him about this statement.
Luke 9:44,45

Whether He said plainly: “just go to all your brothers in the land of Israel”
or they understood that the reference to “Israel” to mean their countrymen in the land of Israel - is unclear, but that is what they did.

And who did these other sheep turn out to be? Us. :)

That’s the best I can do, <whew> J
Richard

I understand what you are saying, however how do you tie the lost tribes 750 years prior, to the gentiles at the time of Christ? Even if the lost tribes were dispersed among the gentiles, they themselves would not be gentiles, unless of coarse they intermingled.

I think as others do that the other sheep are probably gentiles, however there is no Scripture that I know of that states this, so it remains conjecture at best, unless some can show other wise from Scripture. As I said in the other post, I am not going to go on speculation. In the past I accepted doctrine built on speculation and inferences and was led astray, I will not accept it anymore.

Richard H
Oct 13th 2008, 05:50 AM
I understand what you are saying, however how do you tie the lost tribes 750 years prior, to the gentiles at the time of Christ? Even if the lost tribes were dispersed among the gentiles, they themselves would not be gentiles, unless of coarse they intermingled.

I think as others do that the other sheep are probably gentiles, however there is no Scripture that I know of that states this, so it remains conjecture at best, unless some can show other wise from Scripture. As I said in the other post, I am not going to go on speculation. In the past I accepted doctrine built on speculation and inferences and was led astray, I will not accept it anymore.

The ten tribes of Israel (the northern kingdom) were captured by Assyria.
Assyria then brought in a population to replace them in the land.
This was the Samaritans.

Assyria had the habit of doing that.
Once a nation was conquered, they’d take a bunch of the people they had captured from various places elsewhere and relocate them to this new area.
That way they would divide up peoples and destroy their national identity.
After Israel was captured the same thing happened to them.
They were divided up among many lands.
It’s thought that over many many years - they landed all over Europe and much of the Eastern Hemisphere mingling and inter-marrying over many generations.

My ancestors were from various places in Europe; I could be descendent from the lost tribes, but there’s just no way to tell.

To answer your question regarding that verse in particular - does require speculation, but there is no speculation as to who the lost sheep/tribes of Israel WERE.
It’s in your Bible if you look at those scripture references. Also there's some information you can google. Then you decide on what Jesus meant.

Richard

Teke
Oct 13th 2008, 04:40 PM
I'm not sure what you mean, are you asking if anyone is included or excluded in His revealing?

Tell you what, let's start at the beginning since the whole Israel thing seems to be messing you up on this. You need to see the bigger picture.

The whole bible is about God's plan to send His Son Jesus Christ. So it begins with Adam and Eve because that is the beginning of His human genealogy.
He is The Promise to all mankind.

The bible traces His genealogy from Adam to Mary and Joseph. The reason specific persons are pointed out in scripture is because of their relation to His human genealogy. If you study those genealogies you will find that gentiles are mixed into it by marriage ie. Ruth and Boaz etc.

Israel represents the sons of Jacob which later became a nation of priests. We recognize this priesthood because they were the keepers of The Promise. Not because of their national identity which is significant to them alone.

It is only fair that those who were the keepers of The Promise would be the first to receive Him. As St Simeon said, "the consolation of Israel". Hear His words for us all and understand.

And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name [was] Simeon; and the same man [was] just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him.

And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ.

And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law, Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said,


Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word:
For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people;
A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.
Luke 2:25-32

Does this help your understanding?

Butch5
Oct 14th 2008, 12:07 AM
Tell you what, let's start at the beginning since the whole Israel thing seems to be messing you up on this. You need to see the bigger picture.

The whole bible is about God's plan to send His Son Jesus Christ. So it begins with Adam and Eve because that is the beginning of His human genealogy.
He is The Promise to all mankind.

The bible traces His genealogy from Adam to Mary and Joseph. The reason specific persons are pointed out in scripture is because of their relation to His human genealogy. If you study those genealogies you will find that gentiles are mixed into it by marriage ie. Ruth and Boaz etc.

Israel represents the sons of Jacob which later became a nation of priests. We recognize this priesthood because they were the keepers of The Promise. Not because of their national identity which is significant to them alone.

It is only fair that those who were the keepers of The Promise would be the first to receive Him. As St Simeon said, "the consolation of Israel". Hear His words for us all and understand.

And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name [was] Simeon; and the same man [was] just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him.

And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ.

And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law, Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said,


Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word:
For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people;
A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.
Luke 2:25-32

Does this help your understanding?

Help my understanding of what? Christ said He came to the lost sheep of Israel, is that not what He meant? Yes, He is a light to the gentiles, however He said He came to the lost sheep. Did Jesus go and preach to the gentile nations?

Teke
Oct 14th 2008, 01:06 AM
Did Jesus go and preach to the gentile nations?

Nah, He just hung around Jerusalem and appointed apostles to do that.
Are you discrediting His teachings on those grounds?

Butch5
Oct 14th 2008, 01:12 AM
Nah, He just hung around Jerusalem and appointed apostles to do that.
Are you discrediting His teachings on those grounds?

I am not discrediting His teachings, I have said His teachings apply to all Christians and I gave the Scriptures that I think supports this.

Teke
Oct 14th 2008, 03:04 AM
I am not discrediting His teachings, I have said His teachings apply to all Christians and I gave the Scriptures that I think supports this.

Then what point are you trying to make.

Butch5
Oct 15th 2008, 02:28 AM
Then what point are you trying to make.

The point was that the statement Jesus made to the apostles does not apply to all Christians. Jesus said to the apostles that when the Spirit of truth comes He will lead them in all truth.