Titus

[Alan]

[Genevanpreacher]

On 9/17/2015, 7:25:04, Covenanter said:

Hi bjshuf,

Excellent question. I've read Alan's answer & consider it to be incorrect. 

Jesus in Matthew 24, Mark 13 & Luke 21 is giving signs relating to the AD 70 destruction, so that believers in Jerusalem & Judea would know when to flee the city before the destruction.

Luke 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. 21 Then let them which are in Judæa flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

Jesus lists a variety of events that are NOT signs of the end - all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. 

We have discussed at length in the debate section the interpretation of the 70 weeks of Daniel 9. Simply understood it predicts the saving work of Jesus at Calvary, & the consequential destruction of Jerusalem & those who rejected their Messiah. The prophecy is fulfilled. Jesus second coming will be for resurrection & judgement, not for a complicated "end times" scenario. 

We must of course be concerned for our unsaved family members & contacts - our end times beliefs do not change the Gospel imperative - NOW is the day of salvation. 

Another time of a good point here Ian.

As usual Alan will always slam the truth compared to his opinion, and then smooth it over with his own type of apology without really being sorry.

Thanks for being here for a while to stand for truth. Sorry you aren't here now to continue.

[Alan]

Brethren,

The above post by genevanpreacher is uncalled for, trying to stir a pot of trouble   and I plan to ignore it    read my bible   get some rest  .

Alan

 

 

 

 

[trapperhoney]

8 hours ago, Alan said:

Brethren,

The above post by genevanpreacher is uncalled for, trying to stir a pot of trouble   and I plan to ignore it    read my bible   get some rest  .

Alan

 

 

 

 

Amen, brother.

[Genevanpreacher]

On 11/10/2015 at 11:38 PM, Alan said:

Brethren,

The above post by genevanpreacher is uncalled for, trying to stir a pot of trouble   and I plan to ignore it    read my bible   get some rest  .

Alan

Yes, Alan, evidently I must've been. I should have made a softer answer, but can't change the past.

I try to stand for accuracy, and unless I am just ignorant on a subject, I try to keep my mouth shut. If I have, what I think would be helpful information, I try to say it with authority, and try not to look like a fool. Sometimes I fail. Sometimes I don't - some here just view it as a failure.

But you know WAY back when you stated that Paul replaced Judas as the twelfth 'apostle', you lost any resemblance of being knowledgeable enough to state other things with authority. Yet, that doesn't mean, in my eyes, that you are a failure, you just look like one by that statement.

Sometimes we say things, mistakenly, and don't see the error till later. Hopefully, unless I missed seeing it in this thread, you see the error of the statement that Paul replaced Judas, as that teaches error about how the Lord already replaced Judas with Matthias.

As a man of God, are you humble enough to proclaim God's word more accurate than your stated opinion?

No where do the Holy Scriptures state that Paul's name would be on the foundation of the city of gold. It states "the twelve apostles of the Lamb" - just like when Jesus himself stated "And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." and compared to "Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations. And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

The Lord Jesus was speaking to them that were there, and not to, or about, Paul. Yet Judas fell as the Lord knew he would - "And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled."

The scripture was fulfilled, and Peter and the other apostle's replaced him, in Acts 1 - "For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take. Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

Paul does not fulfill the needs of this position at all.

Edited January 28, 2017 by Genevanpreacher

[weary warrior]

1 hour ago, Genevanpreacher said:

Yes, Alan, evidently I must've been. I should have made a softer answer, but can't change the past.

I try to stand for accuracy, and unless I am just ignorant on a subject, I try to keep my mouth shut. If I have, what I think would be helpful information, I try to say it with authority, and try not to look like a fool. Sometimes I fail. Sometimes I don't - some here just view it as a failure.

But you know WAY back when you stated that Paul replaced Judas as the twelfth 'apostle', you lost any resemblance of being knowledgeable enough to state other things with authority. Yet, that doesn't mean, in my eyes, that you are a failure, you just look like one by that statement.

Sometimes we say things, mistakenly, and don't see the error till later. Hopefully, unless I missed seeing it in this thread, you see the error of the statement that Paul replaced Judas, as that teaches error about how the Lord already replaced Judas with Matthias.

As a man of God, are you humble enough to proclaim God's word more accurate than your stated opinion?

No where do the Holy Scriptures state that Paul's name would be on the foundation of the city of gold. It states "the twelve apostles of the Lamb" - just like when Jesus himself stated "And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." and compared to "Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations. And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

The Lord Jesus was speaking to them that were there, and not to, or about, Paul. Yet Judas fell as the Lord knew he would - "And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled."

The scripture was fulfilled, and Peter and the other apostle's replaced him, in Acts 1 - "For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take. Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

Paul does not fulfill the needs of this position at all.

You should study a little deeper. Study every instance the word apostle and apostles appear in the New Testament. You may learn something

1. Paul called himself an apostle - 1Co 4:9  For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men.

2. 1Co 15:9  For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

3. James, the Lord's brother, is now called an apostle. - Gal 1:19  But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

The book of Acts is just that, a book of the "Actions of the Apostles". It is history, good and bad, not doctrine. Jesus told Peter and the apostles to go and wait at Jerusalem. Nothing else. Don't act, don't make decisions until you have the Spirit. Just wait. But Peter was Peter, and Peter did what Peter was always doing, he got impatient, jumped up and started running his mouth. And acting. Without God. Couldn't be still. They cast lots, which they were not told to do, they picked replacements, which they were not told to do, and they acted without the leading of the Holy Spirit, which they were told NOT to do. Your quote that you italicized, bolded and underlined so proudly at the bottom of your post was Peter speaking in all of his Spirit-less carnality, and his (see what I did there?) definition of what an apostle should be. There is much more scripture supporting Paul as God's choice for Judas' replacement than there is the erstwhile Matthias. At what point was Matthias at the last supper, as you state must have happened? Only the 12 were there, so by your own standards, NO ONE would be qualified to replace Judas. Not even Matthias. Consider thoughtfully 1Co 15:8  And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

Alan did speak with authority, and with thoughtful study, and with correct understanding of the scripture, coupled with gentleness and humility, as he always does.

[Genevanpreacher]

2 hours ago, weary warrior said:

You should study a little deeper. Study every instance the word apostle and apostles appear in the New Testament. You may learn something

1. Paul called himself an apostle - 1Co 4:9  For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men.

2. 1Co 15:9  For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

3. James, the Lord's brother, is now called an apostle. - Gal 1:19  But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

The book of Acts is just that, a book of the "Actions of the Apostles". It is history, good and bad, not doctrine. Jesus told Peter and the apostles to go and wait at Jerusalem. Nothing else. Don't act, don't make decisions until you have the Spirit. Just wait. But Peter was Peter, and Peter did what Peter was always doing, he got impatient, jumped up and started running his mouth. And acting. Without God. Couldn't be still. They cast lots, which they were not told to do, they picked replacements, which they were not told to do, and they acted without the leading of the Holy Spirit, which they were told NOT to do. Your quote that you italicized, bolded and underlined so proudly at the bottom of your post was Peter speaking in all of his Spirit-less carnality, and his (see what I did there?) definition of what an apostle should be. There is much more scripture supporting Paul as God's choice for Judas' replacement than there is the erstwhile Matthias. At what point was Matthias at the last supper, as you state must have happened? Only the 12 were there, so by your own standards, NO ONE would be qualified to replace Judas. Not even Matthias. Consider thoughtfully 1Co 15:8  And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

Alan did speak with authority, and with thoughtful study, and with correct understanding of the scripture, coupled with gentleness and humility, as he always does.

This is just your opinion with no support at all in the scriptures. Matthias was the replacement for Judas, regardless of when the Holy Spirit showed up at Pentecost. The Spirit showed up, not for giving wisdom on who would replace Judas, but for the wisdom on what to say to spread the gospel to all those in Jerusalem on that day.

As for your comment about Peter "speaking in all of his Spirit-less carnality" - that is just plain not true. If it had been before the Lord showed himself after his death, I would possibly agree, but Peter had been converted after he saw Jesus Christ alive. As for the Holy Spirit being the reason for your comment, I assume you think the 'baptism of the Holy Ghost' was their point of conversion, which is not true. When they saw The Lord Jesus alive after he died, they truly did believe he was the Christ for sure! That is where conversion occurs - in true full belief in Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the Living God!

Excuses for twisting the scripture are just as blasphemous as cursing God.

The 11 Apostles were lead by God's Spirit to replace Judas as the scriptures said must be done...and they did it...and nobody can change that.

One good example of NOT studying this subject is your reference above from 1 Corinthians 4, where you miss the point of the term 'apostles' - observe the highlighted words please -

9  For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men.

10  We are fools for Christ's sake, but ye are wise in Christ; we are weak, but ye are strong; ye are honourable, but we are despised.

11  Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwelling place;

12  And labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it:

13  Being defamed, we intreat: we are made as the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of all things unto this day.

Notice the words "we both"? Paul and who? The 11 other apostle's?

No.

Who was the other apostle with Paul?

Barnabas was.

Barnabas was the 13th apostle? Not the kind of apostle you would think, but he was. We are all apostles, just not of the original 12 that were chosen by God, which included Matthias. 

Making up a silly 'doctrine' about Matthias not being the 12th apostle is just that...silly.

Edited January 28, 2017 by Genevanpreacher

[weary warrior]

7 minutes ago, Genevanpreacher said:

This is just your opinion with no support at all in the scriptures. Matthias was the replacement for Judas, regardless of when the Holy Spirit showed up at Pentecost. The Spirit showed up, not for giving wisdom on who would replace Judas, but for the wisdom on what to say to spread the gospel to all those in Jerusalem on that day.

I gave you many verses, and I showed you how that your own logic, verses and "proof" proved your own self wrong. You said the replacement HAD to be at the last supper.  "The Lord Jesus was speaking to them that were there, and not to, or about, Paul. (Then he wasn't speaking to or about Matthias either) Yet Judas fell as the Lord knew he would - "And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled."

That was YOUR verse and statement. Matthias was NOT there.  You can't answer one of the verses I gave, and can't hold up the ones you gave yourself. I gave a lot of verses. You've refuted none of them. In fact, you never even gave a verse to support you silly statement regarding such a limiting view on the work of the Holy Spirit when it came upon the Apostles. You never gave an answer regarding Peter's disobedience (again) of Christ's command to go to Jerusalem and "wait", nor for the verses I gave where Paul called himself an apostle actually numbered and listed himself with the 12. To say that my answer was just my opinion and that I gave no support at all in scripture...? 

You're in rare form today, GP. I expect better from you. 

 

[Genevanpreacher]

5 minutes ago, weary warrior said:

I gave you many verses, and I showed you how that your own logic, verses and "proof" proved your own self wrong. You said the replacement HAD to be at the last supper.  "The Lord Jesus was speaking to them that were there, and not to, or about, Paul. (Then he wasn't speaking to or about Matthias either) Yet Judas fell as the Lord knew he would - "And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled."

That was YOUR verse and statement. Matthias was NOT there.  You can't answer one of the verses I gave, and can't hold up the ones you gave yourself. I gave a lot of verses. You've refuted none of them. In fact, you never even gave a verse to support you silly statement regarding such a limiting view on the work of the Holy Spirit when it came upon the Apostles. You never gave an answer regarding Peter's disobedience (again) of Christ's command to go to Jerusalem and "wait", nor for the verses I gave where Paul called himself an apostle actually numbered and listed himself with the 12. To say that my answer was just my opinion and that I gave no support at all in scripture...? 

You're in rare form today, GP. I expect better from you. 

Read my last post please.

And when did I say that - "You said the replacement HAD to be at the last supper".

[weary warrior]

8 minutes ago, Genevanpreacher said:

Read my last post please.

And when did I say that - "You said the replacement HAD to be at the last supper".

Oh good grief. I quoted it, highlighted it and referred to it twice. Do you not even know what you are saying when you spit this nonsense out?

And blasphemy? Really? Blasphemy? I interpret a scripture different than you do, not even scripture about doctrine, and you pull out "blasphemy"?!? You must be a real blessing behind a pulpit.

That's the GP I've come know, though. Sometimes you are like talking to a Mormon woman, with some of the weirdest mixture of the most feminine and circular logic imaginable.

I think I'm gonna move on for a while. You're getting me a short, and I don't want go there. It's not worth it.

 

[No Nicolaitans]

1 Corinthians 15:5-8

5  And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

 6  After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

 7  After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

 8  And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

Paul differentiated himself and named himself as separate from "the twelve". Judas Iscariot didn't see the risen Christ, but he was seen by "the twelve" and seen lastly by Paul.

[Invicta]

3 hours ago, weary warrior said:

The book of Acts is just that, a book of the "Actions of the Apostles".

I would say it is the Acts of the Holy Spirit.

[weary warrior]

1 hour ago, Invicta said:

I would say it is the Acts of the Holy Spirit.

Except the Bible says it is "The Acts of The Apostles". 

[Alan]

Genevanpreacher,

As I taught very clearly, and as the scriptures very clearly state, Paul was an Apostle and as the scripture clearly state there are only twelve apostles.

Also, as you very well know, I closed this study on Titus as I was finished, and the comments that you wrote are not worthy of consideration. If you would like to publicly admit your mistakes and apologize for your erroneous beliefs, than I would accept those comments from you; nothing else.

No Nicolaitans and Wearywarrior,

Thank you very much for your comments and scriptural integrity. I do appreciate your posts very much.

Recent OnLine Baptist Brethren,

If some of the newer brethren here on OnIine Baptist have comments they have to make on Titus, then I would enjoy hearing them.

Alan

[Genevanpreacher]

5 hours ago, weary warrior said:

Oh good grief. I quoted it, highlighted it and referred to it twice. Do you not even know what you are saying when you spit this nonsense out?

And blasphemy? Really? Blasphemy? I interpret a scripture different than you do, not even scripture about doctrine, and you pull out "blasphemy"?!? You must be a real blessing behind a pulpit.

That's the GP I've come know, though. Sometimes you are like talking to a Mormon woman, with some of the weirdest mixture of the most feminine and circular logic imaginable.

I think I'm gonna move on for a while. You're getting me a short, and I don't want go there. It's not worth it.

Well here's another great 'christian' attitude.

Edited January 29, 2017 by Genevanpreacher