The Normal Christian Life

[Dennis1209]

I understand it this way. According to Roman law, Paul was born a Roman citizen and used that to his advantage. Before Paul’s conversion, he was a highly educated religious zealot, probably well-to-do financially. Being a high-ranking zealous Pharisee educated under the renowned Gamaliel himself, Paul was better educated in the Law and OT than any doctorate from Princeton or Dallas Theological Seminary.

Undoubtedly, Professor Gamaliel knew Paul personally or at least knew of him being a student. That makes me wonder if that was why the influential Gamaliel spoke up on Paul’s behalf. By Gamaliel’s words and example, he left the door open for proof.

As Paul admitted he was the chiefest of sinners, he also gave the reason. He persecuted the church. Unlike Moses, the apostle to the Gentiles was a great orator and communicator. It is fascinating the method he used to reason and spread the Gospel by first finding common ground to begin a discussion. Christians should emulate this to talk to others about Jesus and our testimony.

Paul himself stated he was the late apostle. Here is a Bible trivia question, as I briefly alluded to in a previous post on Who and how Paul got educated in the Gospel of Christ.

What is the “one” absolute requirement for the disciples to have been commissioned, appointed, and anointed apostles? How and where in the Bible could Paul have met this requirement(s)?

Two hints:

·         Mt. Sinai

·       All other disciples were mentored and tutored for about three years, save Judas and Matthias.

One other question I have pondered? The replacement for Judas (Matthias) brought the number of apostles back to twelve. The addition of the apostles to the Gentiles makes thirteen. Ever wonder about this?

Revelation 21:14 (KJV) And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. [emphasis added]

[Alive]

And Paul goes on in Romans 8 to explain in detail…..

[Space_Karen]

9 minutes ago, AdHoc said:

 

12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: ... 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. 15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead,... 17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) 18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. (Ro 5:12–19)

I'm inclined to let scripture speak for itself, but the matter is complicated by the closeness of two different precepts. Romans uses the word "sin" (singular) to depict this inherited nature we speak of. But the fruits of the sin-nature are "sins" (plural). I do not propose to change translation, but the Old Testament contrasts these two better by using the word "trespasses" instead of "sins". We commit trespasses because we have the sin-nature.

 

Romans 5:12 there parallels the following.

 

Quote

Wisdom is better than weapons of war, but one sinner destroys much good.

Ecclesiastes 9:18

 

To be clear, do people sin due to their own choices.

Or is it Adam's choices, which are directly responsible for decisions people make today which lead to sin.

I think that is the fulcrum point of the discussion. 

Some claim that Adam is responsible for every poor choice they ever made in life.

I prefer to believe that poor choice I have made were my own.

[AdHoc]

4 minutes ago, Space_Karen said:

 

I inherit nothing from Adam.

My choices are my own.

You had no choice. In Genesis 1:11-12 God sets forth the Law of "Kinds". Every living creature with its seed within itself will bring forth the same KIND. The terrible consequences of Adam's sin are seen in Genesis 5. 

1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; 2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. 3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:

If Adam had not sinned Seth would have been in the likeness and image of God. But something disastrous had happened to Adam. He brought forth a "modified KIND" - a son in "his OWN likeness". And God has made ALL men from this one man.

 26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation

Only our Lord Jesus escaped this curse. A Man did not cover Mary. This made Him sinless - for in Romans 5 we see that it is the male that continues the Adamic nature.

[Space_Karen]

Just now, AdHoc said:

You had no choice. In Genesis 1:11-12 God sets forth the Law of "Kinds". Every living creature with its seed within itself will bring forth the same KIND. The terrible consequences of Adam's sin are seen in Genesis 5. 

1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; 2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. 3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:

If Adam had not sinned Seth would have been in the likeness and image of God. But something disastrous had happened to Adam. He brought forth a "modified KIND" - a son in "his OWN likeness". And God has made ALL men from this one man.

 26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation

Only our Lord Jesus escaped this curse. A Man did not cover Mary. This made Him sinless - for in Romans 5 we see that it is the male that continues the Adamic nature.

 

To be clear, if I consciously choose to pee on an electric fence and electrocute myself.

This is not due to me having free will and making decisions.

Its the end result of a cycle that began with Adam. Where I am a mere unfortunate victim of Adam's poor choices.

[AdHoc]

1 minute ago, Space_Karen said:

 

To be clear, if I consciously choose to pee on an electric fence and electrocute myself.

This is not due to me having free will and making decisions.

Its the end result of a cycle that began with Adam. Where I am a mere unfortunate victim of Adam's poor choices.

I would use another analogy, but I also respect your argument.

How about we use Romans Chapter 7 where we cannot do what we want to because of an INDWELLING LAW which, despite our best intentions and our free will, causes us to sin?

[Alive]

4 minutes ago, AdHoc said:

I would use another analogy, but I also respect your argument.

How about we use Romans Chapter 7 where we cannot do what we want to because of an INDWELLING LAW which, despite our best intentions and our free will, causes us to sin?

Amen. And in Christ we now do have a choice, Rom 8.

We are no longer slaves to the dictates of sinful flesh and have the opportunity, if you will, to walk rather by and in the Spirit.

[AdHoc]

52 minutes ago, Dennis1209 said:

I understand it this way. According to Roman law, Paul was born a Roman citizen and used that to his advantage. Before Paul’s conversion, he was a highly educated religious zealot, probably well-to-do financially. Being a high-ranking zealous Pharisee educated under the renowned Gamaliel himself, Paul was better educated in the Law and OT than any doctorate from Princeton or Dallas Theological Seminary.

Undoubtedly, Professor Gamaliel knew Paul personally or at least knew of him being a student. That makes me wonder if that was why the influential Gamaliel spoke up on Paul’s behalf. By Gamaliel’s words and example, he left the door open for proof.

As Paul admitted he was the chiefest of sinners, he also gave the reason. He persecuted the church. Unlike Moses, the apostle to the Gentiles was a great orator and communicator. It is fascinating the method he used to reason and spread the Gospel by first finding common ground to begin a discussion. Christians should emulate this to talk to others about Jesus and our testimony.

Paul himself stated he was the late apostle. Here is a Bible trivia question, as I briefly alluded to in a previous post on Who and how Paul got educated in the Gospel of Christ.

What is the “one” absolute requirement for the disciples to have been commissioned, appointed, and anointed apostles? How and where in the Bible could Paul have met this requirement(s)?

Two hints:

·         Mt. Sinai

·       All other disciples were mentored and tutored for about three years, save Judas and Matthias.

One other question I have pondered? The replacement for Judas (Matthias) brought the number of apostles back to twelve. The addition of the apostles to the Gentiles makes thirteen. Ever wonder about this?

Revelation 21:14 (KJV) And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. [emphasis added]

I try to answer that which seems to be a question.

The requirement for the 12 Apostles that walked with Christ in the flesh was for 12 kings to judge the 12 Tribes in the Millennium. That is why they replaced Judas. He had a "Bishopric". The hierarchy in Israel in the Messianic Kingdom will be (i) Jesus Christ, Son of David via Covenant, (ii) David as second in command (Jer.30:9), and (iii) the Twelve Apostles over the 12 Tribes. These positions are special as 2nd Corinthians 3 shows. These all are Christians. But they will rule a Nation under a Covenant of Law (Jer.31:31-33). That is, they will "administer Law" but not be subject to it themselves. I judge that the Lord picked Israelites for this touchy job.

Paul is born out of time and although schooled like no other, is sent to the Gentiles. I find no reason in scripture to indicate that God changes Paul's calling. I cannot tell what position he will hold in the Millennium, any more than I can tell you what position Moses and Elijah will hold. Paul's education was basically the same as the Twelve, except it was more extensive. In Galatians Chapter 1 and 2 we learn that Paul was not trained by other Apostles. He was whisked off into the wilderness for years and was taught personally by the resurrected Jesus. His revelation was greater than the 12 - as Peter admitted (2nd Pet.3.16).

Paul has no place with the 12. But I speculate that he will be in charge of the millions of Gentiles who flow through Jerusalem in the Millennium. Pure speculation - don't quote me!

[Dennis1209]

7 hours ago, AdHoc said:

I try to answer that which seems to be a question.

The requirement for the 12 Apostles that walked with Christ in the flesh was for 12 kings to judge the 12 Tribes in the Millennium. That is why they replaced Judas. He had a "Bishopric". The hierarchy in Israel in the Messianic Kingdom will be (i) Jesus Christ, Son of David via Covenant, (ii) David as second in command (Jer.30:9), and (iii) the Twelve Apostles over the 12 Tribes. These positions are special as 2nd Corinthians 3 shows. These all are Christians. But they will rule a Nation under a Covenant of Law (Jer.31:31-33). That is, they will "administer Law" but not be subject to it themselves. I judge that the Lord picked Israelites for this touchy job.

Paul is born out of time and although schooled like no other, is sent to the Gentiles. I find no reason in scripture to indicate that God changes Paul's calling. I cannot tell what position he will hold in the Millennium, any more than I can tell you what position Moses and Elijah will hold. Paul's education was basically the same as the Twelve, except it was more extensive. In Galatians Chapter 1 and 2 we learn that Paul was not trained by other Apostles. He was whisked off into the wilderness for years and was taught personally by the resurrected Jesus. His revelation was greater than the 12 - as Peter admitted (2nd Pet.3.16).

Paul has no place with the 12. But I speculate that he will be in charge of the millions of Gentiles who flow through Jerusalem in the Millennium. Pure speculation - don't quote me!

Your first paragraph is interesting. I will mention my thoughts on this below, but if so, what are King David’s duties, responsibilities, and role in the millennium? First, as an aside, all the disciples asked and wanted to be the greatest in the Kingdom of Jesus, then Jesus responded. I assume ‘Peter’ will be the greatest, as he is always listed first and was the appointed leader (feed my sheep).

As you said, I also believe as reigning and ruling King David will be #2, Jesus’s right-hand man. I suspect Peter will have a key major role in the millennium, such as worshipping God where heaven is now on earth. What a day that is going to be!

David was not allowed to build the Temple because he had innocent blood on his hands, and he was the only man that the Lord said was “after His own heart.” For a long time, I wondered, with David’s checkered past, what was it the Lord loved about him? After studying and reading the Psalms, I found the answer to that question.

That leads me to a most interesting conversation between Jesus and Peter in the book of John. Bringing this up several times before, I’ve had little comment or thoughts about this conversation, and I look forward to your ideas.

The first time Jesus asks Simon, “Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these?” Feed my lambs. The following two are “Feed my sheep.”

When Jesus asks Peter three times, doest thou love me, Simon, son of Jonas.

Jesus uses not what He changed his name to, Peter (i.e., Jacob to Israel), but Peter’s officially recognized birth name, which is interesting. As you are aware, there are four Greek words and specific meanings for the root word of “love.” In this conversation, it is interesting to see the sudden switch in the word and definition of love. I can only figure out that Jesus met Peter on his own ground.

It seems this conversation is a restoration of Peter because he denied the Lord thrice; Peter lost something; what did he lose? Was it his discipleship – apostleship, Salvation, or both? Whatever it was, it was restored unto Peter, it seems.

It makes sense that Matthias rounding out the original twelve will be the foundation of the New Jerusalem. I think ‘Saul’ was redeemable because he honestly did not know any better in his heart, and Saul mistakenly believed he was in zealous service to the living God. Again, these are but thoughts I have interpreting scripture.

I will have to look it up again to verify this. Still, as I recall, a requirement for the twelve apostles was to have witnessed the glorified resurrected Jesus in person to receive their commission as apostles.

As mentioned above, Paul mysteriously disappeared to Arabia for around three years and returned. Not being educated by any other apostles leads to only one other conclusion. That being the case, no doubt Jesus personally trained him as he did the other eleven, save Matthias.

I look forward to your knowledgeable response.

[AdHoc]

18 minutes ago, Dennis1209 said:

Your first paragraph is interesting. I will mention my thoughts on this below, but if so, what are King David’s duties, responsibilities, and role in the millennium? First, as an aside, all the disciples asked and wanted to be the greatest in the Kingdom of Jesus, then Jesus responded. I assume ‘Peter’ will be the greatest, as he is always listed first and was the appointed leader (feed my sheep).

As you said, I also believe as reigning and ruling King David will be #2, Jesus’s right-hand man. I suspect Peter will have a key major role in the millennium, such as worshipping God where heaven is now on earth. What a day that is going to be!

David was not allowed to build the Temple because he had innocent blood on his hands, and he was the only man that the Lord said was “after His own heart.” For a long time, I wondered, with David’s checkered past, what was it the Lord loved about him? After studying and reading the Psalms, I found the answer to that question.

That leads me to a most interesting conversation between Jesus and Peter in the book of John. Bringing this up several times before, I’ve had little comment or thoughts about this conversation, and I look forward to your ideas.

The first time Jesus asks Simon, “Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these?” Feed my lambs. The following two are “Feed my sheep.”

When Jesus asks Peter three times, doest thou love me, Simon, son of Jonas.

Jesus uses not what He changed his name to, Peter (i.e., Jacob to Israel), but Peter’s officially recognized birth name, which is interesting. As you are aware, there are four Greek words and specific meanings for the root word of “love.” In this conversation, it is interesting to see the sudden switch in the word and definition of love. I can only figure out that Jesus met Peter on his own ground.

It seems this conversation is a restoration of Peter because he denied the Lord thrice; Peter lost something; what did he lose? Was it his discipleship – apostleship, Salvation, or both? Whatever it was, it was restored unto Peter, it seems.

It makes sense that Matthias rounding out the original twelve will be the foundation of the New Jerusalem. I think ‘Saul’ was redeemable because he honestly did not know any better in his heart, and Saul mistakenly believed he was in zealous service to the living God. Again, these are but thoughts I have interpreting scripture.

I will have to look it up again to verify this. Still, as I recall, a requirement for the twelve apostles was to have witnessed the glorified resurrected Jesus in person to receive their commission as apostles.

As mentioned above, Paul mysteriously disappeared to Arabia for around three years and returned. Not being educated by any other apostles leads to only one other conclusion. That being the case, no doubt Jesus personally trained him as he did the other eleven, save Matthias.

I look forward to your knowledgeable response.

I honestly can't find a point to disagree on. Maybe your appreciation on Peter can be discussed. Peter is promised a Tribe to judge (Matt.19:28). David is promised king of Israel (Jer.30:9). It is academic, but I think David tops Peter. However, who knows, the Lord did not entertain the squabbles among the Apostles for high office. My favorite is Moses and he is not even mentioned. Paul is crowned, but nothing more is said. Samuel is another top guy, not to mention Joseph of Egypt and Daniel - both making second in the most powerful nations on earth.

But maybe we should study the flops and be warned. How could Solomon be so unwise?

 13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. (Mt 7:12–14)

The passage above is addressed to His disciples (Matt.5:1-2)