The Other Sheep;

[twinc]

Catholics understand that the Pope is also fallible and able to make mistakes except when he's speaking ex-cathedra or as part of the magesterium.
But when is he NOT speaking as part of the magesterium? The pope is still the pope. Every word that comes out of his mouth is worth listening to.
Catholics claim no doctrine has been changed. Yet remarrieds are receiving communion, and worse---no need to get into this very complicated subject, although I'd be willing but this doesn't seem like the proper place for it.

Acts 1:8 is not addressed to us. Correct. But why did Jesus tell them to wait in Jerusalem? So the Holy Spirit could give them the power they needed to go and preach and teach and witness. Do we also not need this power? Yes. We do. So Jesus was also speaking to us. There are verses in the N.T. which DO refer ONLY to the Apostles, for instance when He gives them the power to heal or confess. We do not all of us have these powers. Otherwise, everything Jesus said is for everyone.

There are persons right here on this forum that believe NOTHING Jesus said pertains to us today because He had not gone to the cross yet. This is one of the most nonsensical things I've ever heard. Did He just waste His time for over 3 years???!!!

I still don't really understand your position on reincarnation. What does this mean?:

reincarnation was the only way seeking for a or the way until it found it in Jesus and the Resurrection

I think I now understand what you mean by others having to be born again as Chrisitians. OK. If you mean what I've understood then you're right.

All persons who want to be saved, live eternally with God, MUST be born again of the spirit of God. They must have the spirit of God to be with God. Is this what you mean? That would go for gentiles, Jews, "Christians" in name only, etc.

it is easily forgotten or not readily recalled or remembered that 'whatsoever' means whatsoever the Church binds or loosens can be bound or loosened by the Church but the Church may not and does not loosen what has been bound by God - why Pentecost is not really grasped or understood as a unique one off affair is the cause of much misunderstanding and misinterpreting - truly the Apostles and early Christians needed the Holy Spirit more so than we do or else we disregard what Christ preached and taught and why the Holy Spirit was necessary and what He did and achieved viz we have the Bible and the Church to guide us they did not - imho over the centuries and even now confusion has been added to confusion by applying to and for ourselves what does not apply and who decides what does or does not apply - twinc

 

[bbyrd009]

that is only so now -men did die in the past and reincarnated - twinc

ah--well for that matter spirits are likely reincarnating right now for all we know, right

 

[bbyrd009]

No. I'm talking about the Church.
Jesus meant to set up a Kingdom, not a church.
Although that is also necessary, IMO.

The Kingdom on earth is the Church.

Let's say you want to join some club or other.
You'd have to fill out an application.

Let's say you want to join the Kingdom of God here on earth.
You have to fill out an application
AND
follow all the rules.

See bb, no matter what you think or anybody here, the truth is the truth. If you read the NT very carefully, you'll find that not just anyone could join the Christian club -- you have to qualify and you have to follow the rules.

It's not up to me,
It's already been determined before the beginning of time how this would happen, what the rules would be, and the necessary requirements to join.

you might see here that men set up "the church," the club that the Good Samaritan would decline to join, its inevitability notwithstanding. Either that or you have to hold that the GS is still "lost," and is only being cited as an example of correct behavior, as i have heard some do, Pentecostals.

 

[Angelina]

you might see here that men set up "the church," the club that the Good Samaritan would decline to join, its inevitability notwithstanding. Either that or you have to hold that the GS is still "lost," and is only being cited as an example of correct behavior, as i have heard some do, Pentecostals.

Well I'm a Pentecostal and I don't know why you are citing them as promoting the GS a certain way. It was never about behavior but rather about compassion toward our fellow man. Love should go beyond the boundaries of doctrine, culture, race, values, customs and laws. Love fulfills the Law which is in Christ.

 

[bbyrd009]

Well I'm a Pentecostal and I don't know why you are citing them as promoting the GS a certain way.

well i doubt it is universal or anything, but a popular Pentecostal doctrine seems to be that the GS was still lost, and was only being cited as a good example of what to do in a situation. Which btw i cannot prove wrong, not that i am trying either. Dunno if you post on AFF, this is argued by some pastors there. And i am not condemning it, either, ok, even though i did back then.

it is a perspective, that invokes a certain response, a decision, yes, and i happen to fall on your side response-wise, but i guess some others do not, and don't feel the need to be defended there either. So, while i get your response, i wanna say that i am not judging them for this anymore, either--or at least trying really hard not to. And that was the harder lesson to learn, imo, as those who currently exclude the Good Samaritan will likely mellow and get more inclusive as they mature anyway, i guess most people do.

 

[bbyrd009]

It was never about behavior but rather about compassion toward our fellow man.

hmm. guess it depends upon how one defines compassion there; compassion without behavior is just sympathy, seems to me. The whole parable might be perceived as one about behavior, i guess.

Granted, that does break down at a certain point, i would not expect an unaccompanied woman to behave in the same manner as the GS, but i would hope they would manifest compassion there some kind of way, so i guess i agree with you, too.

 

[H. Richard]

All I did was point out that your declaration or conclusion was not as ironclad or obvious as you seemed to think. I wasn't there to hear him with understanding physical ears. I have never read the original writings nor could I read them in the original languages. God has not spoken to me to tell me for certain who was or was not included in the "other sheep".

What you or I would have done in English cannot be used to determine what Jesus would have done in the language He did speak.

I am not saying your understanding or interpretation is wrong, but to say it is right without any doubt is also something I could not say. You may believe it, but you have not established it... not for me.

***

I have established it as a matter of fact at the time it was said by Jesus. Believe it or not the choice is yours. Obviously I made my choice.

 

[bbyrd009]

***

I have established it as a matter of fact at the time it was said by Jesus. Believe it or not the choice is yours. Obviously I made my choice.

i would say a problem there is that you might now have blinded yourself to any other possibilities, having decided upon some "facts" here, that you must now defend as "truth," when there is likely more truth to be learned.

 

[H. Richard]

It is common sense to understand that the Bible is written in a historical order. A state or condition in which everything is in its right place and functioning properly.
Deut 29:29
29 "The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.
NKJV
To understand it a person has to see that things recorded in the past are, in many cases, replaced by new revelations. Many time this is shown by using the word “””BUT””. which indicates that what was mentioned before has been replaced. The word that usualt follows is but now or but God.

This is the reason that a person can not understand the scriptures if they mix (blend) them all together.

When I said the other sheep were those that Jesus had at the time he said it was the ones before Abraham that meant the gentiles before Abraham. Even Abraham was a Gentile. The Jewish race did not start until Abraham was given the PROMISED child.

If a person thinks that Jesus was talking about those under grace don’t you think He would have told His disciples. No He couldn’t because it was outside of His Mandate to the Jews only. Peter did not know that any Gentiles would be included until Jesus sent him a dream that made him (Peter) go to the house of a Gentile.

Why didn’t Jesus inform them? Because. As He said, in two places, He only came to the lost sheep of Israel and that did not include the Gentiles.

Now there were Gentile proselytes during this time but they were required to keep the Jewish law. Perhaps you can find away to say they are some of the Other Sheep too.

What I see on this thread are those going ahead to the gospel that was given to Paul and finding all the places where the word sheep is seen and taking them out of there context to show and wanting people to believe about other sheep. That is mixing up the word of God to conform to a religious theology.

 

[GodsGrace]

It is common sense to understand that the Bible is written in a historical order. A state or condition in which everything is in its right place and functioning properly.
Deut 29:29
29 "The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.
NKJV
To understand it a person has to see that things recorded in the past are, in many cases, replaced by new revelations. Many time this is shown by using the word “””BUT””. which indicates that what was mentioned before has been replaced. The word that usualt follows is but now or but God.

This is the reason that a person can not understand the scriptures if they mix (blend) them all together.

When I said the other sheep were those that Jesus had at the time he said it was the ones before Abraham that meant the gentiles before Abraham. Even Abraham was a Gentile. The Jewish race did not start until Abraham was given the PROMISED child.

If a person thinks that Jesus was talking about those under grace don’t you think He would have told His disciples. No He couldn’t because it was outside of His Mandate to the Jews only. Peter did not know that any Gentiles would be included until Jesus sent him a dream that made him (Peter) go to the house of a Gentile.

Why didn’t Jesus inform them? Because. As He said, in two places, He only came to the lost sheep of Israel and that did not include the Gentiles.

Now there were Gentile proselytes during this time but they were required to keep the Jewish law. Perhaps you can find away to say they are some of the Other Sheep too.

What I see on this thread are those going ahead to the gospel that was given to Paul and finding all the places where the word sheep is seen and taking them out of there context to show and wanting people to believe about other sheep. That is mixing up the word of God to conform to a religious theology.

The bible is written in a historical order???

Think again.

 

[GodsGrace]

It is common sense to understand that the Bible is written in a historical order. A state or condition in which everything is in its right place and functioning properly.
Deut 29:29
29 "The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.
NKJV
To understand it a person has to see that things recorded in the past are, in many cases, replaced by new revelations. Many time this is shown by using the word “””BUT””. which indicates that what was mentioned before has been replaced. The word that usualt follows is but now or but God.

This is the reason that a person can not understand the scriptures if they mix (blend) them all together.

When I said the other sheep were those that Jesus had at the time he said it was the ones before Abraham that meant the gentiles before Abraham. Even Abraham was a Gentile. The Jewish race did not start until Abraham was given the PROMISED child.

If a person thinks that Jesus was talking about those under grace don’t you think He would have told His disciples. No He couldn’t because it was outside of His Mandate to the Jews only. Peter did not know that any Gentiles would be included until Jesus sent him a dream that made him (Peter) go to the house of a Gentile.

Why didn’t Jesus inform them? Because. As He said, in two places, He only came to the lost sheep of Israel and that did not include the Gentiles.

Now there were Gentile proselytes during this time but they were required to keep the Jewish law. Perhaps you can find away to say they are some of the Other Sheep too.

What I see on this thread are those going ahead to the gospel that was given to Paul and finding all the places where the word sheep is seen and taking them out of there context to show and wanting people to believe about other sheep. That is mixing up the word of God to conform to a religious theology.

And you think the word BUT means that God is replacing a law?
So God made a mistake the first time around???

Think again.

 

[amadeus]

i would say a problem there is that you might now have blinded yourself to any other possibilities, having decided upon some "facts" here, that you must now defend as "truth," when there is likely more truth to be learned.

There is always more to be learned by those whose hearts and minds are still open. People like to find a level plateau and rest there as if there was no more of the mountain looming above them. Who knows God so well that there is nothing more to be found or revealed?

 

[H. Richard]

i would say a problem there is that you might now have blinded yourself to any other possibilities, having decided upon some "facts" here, that you must now defend as "truth," when there is likely more truth to be learned.

***
Perhaps you should heed your own warnings But I know you won't because you think you know more than I do.

The truth is Jesus. When He shed His blood on the cross it atoned, paid, for all the sins of the world. I believe, I have faith, I trust, I have confidence that that included mine. I don't ask God to forgive my sins of the flesh daily because He has already done that. I thank Jesus daily for what He did for me, a sinner, on the cross. That is because I believe it when it is said his blood atoned for, paid for all my sins. It has been shown to me that most do not share my faith in the work Jesus did, on their behalf nor do they understand that when He said, it is finished it meant He had redeemed mankind from the curse of sin. But this knowledge is not in the theology of the religious church.

The above is my belief and claim. But the religious say it is not enough. I must do as they do and put my trust in the works that they say I must do. Fat chance. The scriptures tell me that if I put my trust in men I am building a house on sand.

The religious may think that Jesus came just to set up another religious system, ran by men, that can be deceived by Satan, but He didn't. All a thinking person has to do is to note that it was the religious that persecuted the Prophets of old, had Jesus murdered, stoned Stephen to death and were always running after Paul's convert trying to get them under the Jewish law. This last thing is being continued by the religious today.

 

[H. Richard]

And you think the word BUT means that God is replacing a law?
So God made a mistake the first time around???

Think again.

***
Again you are putting your words in my mouth that I did not say just to get a response. Well the response is that you lie because I did not say that.

 

[bbyrd009]

Perhaps you should heed your own warnings But I know you won't because you think you know more than I do.

ha! i guess maybe it sounds like that, huh. But that is not what i meant, i go through the same contortions everyone else does there!

 

[bbyrd009]

I don't ask God to forgive my sins of the flesh daily because He has already done that.

could you rephrase this? ty

 

[amadeus]

It is common sense to understand that the Bible is written in a historical order. A state or condition in which everything is in its right place and functioning properly.

Many people seem to think that common sense is always a good thing, but common sense changes according to times and places and cultures, sometimes to the good and sometimes to the bad.

Actually I would say, rather that the Bible is written in God's order, which is NOT subject to time. Jesus made it clear in his response to the Jews that he and his Father were not bound by time. Carnal man is, but we should, I believe, with God's help be moving beyond such a limitation as we approach Him.

Deut 29:29
29 "The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.
NKJV
To understand it a person has to see that things recorded in the past are, in many cases, replaced by new revelations. Many time this is shown by using the word “””BUT””. which indicates that what was mentioned before has been replaced. The word that usualt follows is but now or but God.

I believe that God spoke His Word, all of it that we have, and it abides. The blessings and/or curses that man derives from that Word are NOT derived under some new set of rules or variations established by God at a different times, BUT they are derived directly from what has already spoken. Time here again is our problem and because we are in it we have trouble recognizing God for who and what He is at all times.

This is the reason that a person can not understand the scriptures if they mix (blend) them all together.

A person cannot understand the scriptures either because he cannot hear God or because he mixes the things that he does have from God with what is from the confusion that remains in his own heart/mind.

What I see on this thread are those going ahead to the gospel that was given to Paul and finding all the places where the word sheep is seen and taking them out of there context to show and wanting people to believe about other sheep. That is mixing up the word of God to conform to a religious theology.

Or perhaps there even may be some who are simply trying to understand what God wants them to understand. That would be the best goal for all of us, would it not?

 

[bbyrd009]

That is because I believe it when it is said his blood atoned for, paid for all my sins.

hmm. I don't see how, if you do not avail yourself with the remedy commanded, ie "confess your sins, one to another," but i see that we might be discussing "sins" that arise from guilt, where there is no injured party, too.

 

[bbyrd009]

It has been shown to me that most do not share my faith in the work Jesus did, on their behalf nor do they understand that when He said, it is finished it meant He had redeemed mankind from the curse of sin. But this knowledge is not in the theology of the religious church.

The above is my belief and claim. But the religious say it is not enough.

so you say, but this perspective strikes me as the prevalent one among church-goers, so i guess i am not understanding you there

 

[bbyrd009]

I must do as they do and put my trust in the works that they say I must do. Fat chance. The scriptures tell me that if I put my trust in men I am building a house on sand.

well, i agree there, yet nonetheless i don't think that works can then just be ignored, if we are to be judged by them. So this required some soul-searching at "works" for me, just what "works" exactly means, etc.