User Tag List

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345
Results 61 to 67 of 67

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

  1. #61
    Gold level Subscriber JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    7,372
    Thanks
    23,937
    Thanked 6,774 Times in 4,255 Posts

    Mentioned
    48 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147602
    Quote Originally Posted by DAN P View Post
    san p
    I don't think I've seen you mess up your signature before lol

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to JudgeRightly For Your Post:

    glorydaz (November 8th, 2018),Right Divider (November 8th, 2018),Tambora (Yesterday)

  3. #62
    Over 6000 post club
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    L.A.
    Posts
    6,160
    Thanks
    59
    Thanked 1,005 Times in 735 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    300287
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    I don't think I've seen you mess up your signature before lol
    Hi and that is the first mistake I have made , JUST ask my wife !!

    Just in a hurry as I am on 4 forms !!

    dan p

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DAN P For Your Post:

    glorydaz (November 8th, 2018),JudgeRightly (November 8th, 2018)

  5. #63
    Over 1500 post club Derf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,875
    Thanks
    456
    Thanked 844 Times in 584 Posts

    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    233328
    Quote Originally Posted by DAN P View Post
    HI and checked several translations and they translated minister as LIEROURGEO and HEIROURGEO differently !!

    NIV translated it LIEROURGEO and the NASB translates it HIEROURGEO !!

    If you look at all the verses where MINISTER is used , Paul is NOT TALKING ABOUT PRIESTS

    I agree with Right Divider and not all should realize that translation are NOT INSPIRED and need to check the Greek Text !!

    san p
    Thanks Dan! But notice that neither of those words are how they are translated--those words are the things needing to be translated. And both are in the Greek in that verse:

    Rom 15:16 εἰς τὸ εἶναί με λειτουργὸν (leitourgos) Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ εἰς τὰ ἔθνη ἱερουργοῦντα (hierourgeō) τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ θεοῦ ἵνα γένηται ἡ προσφορὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν εὐπρόσδεκτος ἡγιασμένη ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ

    Both the NIV AND the NASB translate the second word as relating to a priest in some way:

    NIV:
    to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles. He gave me the priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

    NASB:
    to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, ministering as a priest the gospel of God, so that my offering of the Gentiles may become acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

    "Priestly duty" and "ministering as a priest" come from, according to Strong's, "a compound of ἱερόν" meaning temple, "and the base of ἔργον" meaning works. Together Strong's says it carries the connotation of "to be a temple-worker, i.e. officiate as a priest (figuratively)".

    The KJV just translates both words with the same thing "minister"/"ministering". You have to wonder why, since the two are distinct words--as you pointed out. Could it be that King James' translators didn't want to have the word "priest" associated with Paul, because he was not very big on the Catholic ideal that priests carried a special authority from God? But he was very comfortable with Peter's use of the word, which in his eyes promoted the non-priests (those not in authority in the church) to priestly status.

    I'm speculating here, but if true, then it shows at least one instance where the system drove the interpretation, even for the "authorized" version.

    There are other sources we can check. Luther used the German word "priesterlich" in his translation. You can see he agreed with the NASB and NIV. Wycliffe agreed with King James'. The oldest Dutch and Italian versions used words like "sacred service".

    I also agree with @Right Divider that Paul is not talking about priests, but he did refer to the idea of a priest (the word is obviously in Paul's writings, and it talks about temple works, which is a function of priests, and that he was performing a priest-like service. Whether this was supposed to be a Jewish or a Gentile priest comparison, I know not.

  6. #64
    Over 1500 post club Derf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    1,875
    Thanks
    456
    Thanked 844 Times in 584 Posts

    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    233328
    Quote Originally Posted by Right Divider View Post
    Once again, Paul is using a quote from the OT as an EXAMPLE of something and not the LITERAL thing.
    I'm still not getting your point here. You say Paul is saying something other than what he's saying, but you won't tell me what it is. But I'm willing to drop it, if you're not interested in divulging your secrets.

    Until you offer something instead of the more obvious direct interpretation, I'm going to stick with the obvious.


    Peter is writing SPECIFICALLY to the REMNANT in his epistles. Paul never, ever describes Jesus as our shepherd nor bishop.
    Peter says he is writing to those that have received a faith that is like his: [2Pe 1:1 NASB] Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ:

    Peter says this is the same group that he wrote to before, assuming he's referring to 1 Peter:
    [2Pe 3:1 NASB] This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you in which I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder,

    And Peter says that Paul wrote to these same people:
    [2Pe 3:15 NASB] and regard the patience of our Lord [as] salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,

    And Peter says that Paul wrote about the same things the Peter was writing about:
    [2Pe 3:16 NASB] as also in all [his] letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as [they do] also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

    Note well that I NEVER said that Peter was trying to gather the remnant in his EPISTLES, but in his ACTIONS described by Luke in the early chapters of the book of Acts. Peter disappears about half way through the book of Acts.
    I'm trying to figure out why you brought Peter into this discussion. I apologize for misunderstanding your point. What is your point about Peter in a discussion about Paul's untimely birth?


    Paul's NAY belongs to ALL of that, including his quote about sheep to the slaughter. This is clear in what he says immediately thereafter "we are more than conquerors". That definitely CANNOT be speaking about sheep. And, once again, that is the SOLE instance of Paul using the word "sheep" in ALL of his epistles. Therefore it is clear that the body of Christ is NOT sheep.
    Jesus conquered as a sheep:
    [Isa 53:7 NASB] He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He did not open His mouth; Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, So He did not open His mouth.
    Why can't we conquer as sheep?

    Jesus said He had other sheep out there:
    [Jhn 10:16 NASB] "I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock [with] one shepherd. ----->remember this reference to "shepherd" for later

    He obviously wasn't talking about Israelites, because they were all supposed to be there for the feast of booths.

    So who were these other sheep? Do you not want to be one of Jesus' sheep? Paul doesn't have to call us sheep for us to be sheep.

    But even if that's the only place Paul speaks of sheep, it's not the only place he speaks of the idea of sheep. [Eph 4:11 NASB] And He gave some [as] apostles, and some [as] prophets, and some [as] evangelists, and some [as] pastors and teachers,
    The word for "pastors" there is the same Greek word (pluralized) as was used in John 10:16 for "shepherd" above.

    If you really want to understand Jesus' references to sheep and the good shepherd, see Ezekiel 34.
    This is certainly valuable. And I would say most references Jesus made about sheep are referring to the people of Israel. Does that mean all are? Of that I'm not so sure.


    And what? It is once again CLEAR that Paul is NOT literally applying those scripture to the body of Christ but is using them as a SPIRITUAL LESSON.
    So when Peter talks of Paul writing to the same folks he was writing to "in all [his] letters", who you say are the remnant of Israel, Paul wasn't using the scriptures literally? Why wouldn't he use them literally for the remnant of Israel?

    You must think that Jesus is made of wood (John 10:7)
    Spoken like a good Calvinist.


    I don't care what those bogus translations say. The word is just not there.


    The word in not in the Greek text.
    Dan P showed you it IS in the text, despite his fumbled attempt at describing it. See my reply to him here.




    Christ is not reigning in the earthly kingdom YET. He will when He returns.

    Mat 25:31-34 KJV When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: (32) And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: (33) And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. (34) Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

    Note how it is at THAT time that "ye blessed of my Father" inherit the kingdom.


    So, are these "sheep" and "goats" of the "nations" of the Gentiles? Or is Jesus merely separating Jews from Jews?

    The kingdom the verse talks about was one prepared from the foundation of the world. Is that the same as the Jewish kingdom? Was that the whole plan from the very beginning--that there would be a people that God took for Himself in exclusion of other families on earth, where the one nation is served by all the others? Maybe it is. But it seems like it isn't very compatible with open theism, which I believe you ascribe to. I would think that for it to be compatible with open theism, that kingdom, prepared from the foundation of the world, would be one that was more inclusive rather than less. Just my opinion.

  7. #65
    Over 6000 post club
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    L.A.
    Posts
    6,160
    Thanks
    59
    Thanked 1,005 Times in 735 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    300287
    [QUOTE=Derf;5287145]
    So, are these "sheep" and "goats" of the "nations" of the Gentiles? Or is Jesus merely separating Jews from Jews?/QUOTE]

    Hi and in Matt 25:31-32 He will gather all BATIONS / ENTHNOS and in verse 33 they are SHEEP and GOATS !!

    The SHEEP nations are those that helped Israel during then GREAT TRIBULATION in Matt 25:35-40 and will go into the Millennium !!

    the GOATS NATIONS / ALSO GENTILES that did not protect Israel , Matt 41_46 will go into Everlasting Punishment , verse 46 !!

    dan p

    So we see 3 groups here JEWS , SHEEP GENTILES and GOATS GENTILES

  8. #66
    Body part Right Divider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    13,730
    Thanks
    11,262
    Thanked 19,177 Times in 10,801 Posts

    Blog Entries
    5
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147683

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    I'm still not getting your point here. You say Paul is saying something other than what he's saying, but you won't tell me what it is. But I'm willing to drop it, if you're not interested in divulging your secrets.

    Until you offer something instead of the more obvious direct interpretation, I'm going to stick with the obvious.
    Paul uses some scripture quote to express a meaning that is SIMILAR but not IDENTICAL to its literal meaning. This is clear based on many things that you will not even consider. You're stuck with a fairy tale that you will not move from.

    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    Peter says he is writing to those that have received a faith that is like his: [2Pe 1:1 NASB] Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ:
    No kidding. Peter is continuing the faith that Israel was to have and writes to the same. Wow, what a revelation!

    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    Peter says this is the same group that he wrote to before, assuming he's referring to 1 Peter:
    [2Pe 3:1 NASB] This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you in which I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder,
    Wow, Peter continues to write to the twelve tribes scattered abroad. Earth shaking news!

    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    And Peter says that Paul wrote to these same people:
    [2Pe 3:15 NASB] and regard the patience of our Lord [as] salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,
    Peter ALSO says that there is some wisdom that was given to Paul Note that he is singling out Paul in that statement. Peter does NOT say the wisdom given to US.

    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    And Peter says that Paul wrote about the same things the Peter was writing about:
    [2Pe 3:16 NASB] as also in all [his] letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as [they do] also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
    No, that is just your extreme BIAS showing. Peter is simply calling some of Paul's writings scripture.

    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    I'm trying to figure out why you brought Peter into this discussion. I apologize for misunderstanding your point. What is your point about Peter in a discussion about Paul's untimely birth?
    Because Peter's birth was NOT untimely.

    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    Jesus conquered as a sheep:
    [Isa 53:7 NASB] He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He did not open His mouth; Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, So He did not open His mouth.
    Why can't we conquer as sheep?
    That does NOT say that Jesus conquered "as a sheep".

    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    Jesus said He had other sheep out there:
    [Jhn 10:16 NASB] "I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock [with] one shepherd. ----->remember this reference to "shepherd" for later
    The other sheep are..... wait for it.... the twelve tribes SCATTERED ABROAD. See Jeremiah 23.

    Jer 23:1-3 KJV Woe be unto the pastors that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture! saith the LORD. (2) Therefore thus saith the LORD God of Israel against the pastors that feed my people; Ye have scattered my flock, and driven them away, and have not visited them: behold, I will visit upon you the evil of your doings, saith the LORD. (3) And I will gather the remnant of my flock out of all countries whither I have driven them, and will bring them again to their folds; and they shall be fruitful and increase.

    Gentiles are never, I repeat NEVER, referred to as sheep in the Bible. Please study Ezekiel 34 (among others) to learn about the sheep the good shepherd.

    Psa 100:3 KJV Know ye that the LORD he is God: it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves; we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture.

    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    He obviously wasn't talking about Israelites, because they were all supposed to be there for the feast of booths.

    So who were these other sheep? Do you not want to be one of Jesus' sheep? Paul doesn't have to call us sheep for us to be sheep.
    All wishful thinking based on a fairy tale and not rightly dividing the Word of Truth.

    See the OT to understand the gather of the sheep scattered abroad.

    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    But even if that's the only place Paul speaks of sheep, it's not the only place he speaks of the idea of sheep. [Eph 4:11 NASB] And He gave some [as] apostles, and some [as] prophets, and some [as] evangelists, and some [as] pastors and teachers,
    The word for "pastors" there is the same Greek word (pluralized) as was used in John 10:16 for "shepherd" above.
    You are REALLY stretching to try to protect your cherished "story". It is much simpler and better to just accept the truth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    This is certainly valuable. And I would say most references Jesus made about sheep are referring to the people of Israel. Does that mean all are? Of that I'm not so sure.
    That because you are trying to perpetuate the myth at all costs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    So when Peter talks of Paul writing to the same folks he was writing to "in all [his] letters", who you say are the remnant of Israel, Paul wasn't using the scriptures literally? Why wouldn't he use them literally for the remnant of Israel?


    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    Spoken like a good Calvinist.
    Don't make false accusations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    Dan P showed you it IS in the text, despite his fumbled attempt at describing it. See my reply to him here.


    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    So, are these "sheep" and "goats" of the "nations" of the Gentiles? Or is Jesus merely separating Jews from Jews?
    Indeed, the sheep and goats in THAT example are the gentiles nations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    The kingdom the verse talks about was one prepared from the foundation of the world. Is that the same as the Jewish kingdom? Was that the whole plan from the very beginning--that there would be a people that God took for Himself in exclusion of other families on earth, where the one nation is served by all the others? Maybe it is. But it seems like it isn't very compatible with open theism, which I believe you ascribe to. I would think that for it to be compatible with open theism, that kingdom, prepared from the foundation of the world, would be one that was more inclusive rather than less. Just my opinion.
    The "throne of His glory" is the throne of His father David.

    Luk 1:32-33 KJV He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: (33) And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

    Just believe all that scripture says and you'll be better off.
    Last edited by Right Divider; Yesterday at 10:02 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Squeaky View Post
    That explains why your an idiot.
    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    You preach against me for preaching obedience to Christ for salvation.
    Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
    (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

    1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
    (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

    Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Right Divider For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (Yesterday),steko (Today)

  10. #67
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    15,250
    Thanks
    370
    Thanked 3,741 Times in 2,788 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1247753
    Quote Originally Posted by Derf View Post
    I'm still not getting your point here. You say Paul is saying something other than what he's saying, but you won't tell me what it is. But I'm willing to drop it, if you're not interested in divulging your secrets.

    Until you offer something instead of the more obvious direct interpretation, I'm going to stick with the obvious.


    Peter says he is writing to those that have received a faith that is like his: [2Pe 1:1 NASB] Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ:

    Peter says this is the same group that he wrote to before, assuming he's referring to 1 Peter:
    [2Pe 3:1 NASB] This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you in which I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder,

    And Peter says that Paul wrote to these same people:
    [2Pe 3:15 NASB] and regard the patience of our Lord [as] salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,

    And Peter says that Paul wrote about the same things the Peter was writing about:
    [2Pe 3:16 NASB] as also in all [his] letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as [they do] also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

    I'm trying to figure out why you brought Peter into this discussion. I apologize for misunderstanding your point. What is your point about Peter in a discussion about Paul's untimely birth?


    Jesus conquered as a sheep:
    [Isa 53:7 NASB] He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He did not open His mouth; Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, So He did not open His mouth.
    Why can't we conquer as sheep?

    Jesus said He had other sheep out there:
    [Jhn 10:16 NASB] "I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock [with] one shepherd. ----->remember this reference to "shepherd" for later

    He obviously wasn't talking about Israelites, because they were all supposed to be there for the feast of booths.

    So who were these other sheep? Do you not want to be one of Jesus' sheep? Paul doesn't have to call us sheep for us to be sheep.

    But even if that's the only place Paul speaks of sheep, it's not the only place he speaks of the idea of sheep. [Eph 4:11 NASB] And He gave some [as] apostles, and some [as] prophets, and some [as] evangelists, and some [as] pastors and teachers,
    The word for "pastors" there is the same Greek word (pluralized) as was used in John 10:16 for "shepherd" above.

    This is certainly valuable. And I would say most references Jesus made about sheep are referring to the people of Israel. Does that mean all are? Of that I'm not so sure.


    So when Peter talks of Paul writing to the same folks he was writing to "in all [his] letters", who you say are the remnant of Israel, Paul wasn't using the scriptures literally? Why wouldn't he use them literally for the remnant of Israel?

    Spoken like a good Calvinist.


    Dan P showed you it IS in the text, despite his fumbled attempt at describing it. See my reply to him here.





    So, are these "sheep" and "goats" of the "nations" of the Gentiles? Or is Jesus merely separating Jews from Jews?

    The kingdom the verse talks about was one prepared from the foundation of the world. Is that the same as the Jewish kingdom? Was that the whole plan from the very beginning--that there would be a people that God took for Himself in exclusion of other families on earth, where the one nation is served by all the others? Maybe it is. But it seems like it isn't very compatible with open theism, which I believe you ascribe to. I would think that for it to be compatible with open theism, that kingdom, prepared from the foundation of the world, would be one that was more inclusive rather than less. Just my opinion.
    Hey derf, hope all is well with you and yours.

    You're right regarding this sheep / flock distinction. Because it refers to a concept not (as I'm sure you well know) to actual sheep.

    As such, it applies to both the Believing Remnant of God and to members of the Body of Christ.

    The Believing Remnant as a flock:

    Luke 12:32 Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom.

    The Believing Remnant as a flock warned of wolves disguised as sheep members of the Believing Remnant attempting to come in among them and lead them astray

    Matthew 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

    The Body of Christ as a flock warned of wolves coming in among the Body in a manner similar to the false prophets as wolves described in Matthew 7:15 herein above:

    Acts 20:24 But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God. 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 20:30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

    The concept in both is that of what their spirit as Believers is to be in the world - that of humility - this here:

    Matthew 10:16 Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.

    Luke 10:3 Go your ways: behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves.

    Which is the same as this here:

    Romans 8:36 As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.

    Ephesians 4:1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, 4:2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; 4:3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

    And so on...

    As for your other point, in 2 Peter 3's reference to Paul, Peter is basically saying that the things he has written in that chapter about the Lord having delayed His return to Israel (which Peter had preached unto Israel in Acts 3) in his longsuffering, are not only explained by Paul, in his writings (compare Romans 9: 22 and Romans 11:25, with Peter's words about a delay, as one example) but also, they are not easily understood by those who were obviously unskilled in properly sorting such things out - so much so, that they were misinterpreting them, just as such had done regarding His first Advent.

    Peter is writing to remind them of whats' become of the Prophetic aspect of all that, that is their Promise, but which has been delayed.

    At which point, he basically reminds them that they have copies of Paul's writings for more background on said delay.

    Hope that clears that up.

    If not, well then, just rejoice in Romans 5:6-8 - in each our stead!


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us