A Simple Question

[Rhema]

You'll see. People who do not want to experience all the crap that's going to hit the fan, they just want to run away from it all. And it's been preached for years, I mean years, that the Christians won't have to go through it

Yet the scripture shows otherwise in all of the examples.

And the enemy that sowed them, is the devil. But the harvest is the end of the world. And the reapers are the angels. Even as cockle therefore is gathered up, and burnt with fire: so shall it be at the end of the world. The Son of man shall send his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all scandals, and them that work iniquity.​

(Matthew 13:39-41 DRB)

I'm not one of those who thinks they shall disappear.
Rhema

 

[Rhema]

in vs 18 Jesus adressed Peter (Πέτρος, ου, ὁ Petros pet’-ros english: stone) and repeats his previous statement that on this rock (Jesus) will be built the foundation of the church.

Interesting.

Upon this rock (the revelation by the Father of whom Jesus is) will be built the foundation.

The fondation of the congregation (CHURCH) are the 12 Apostles not just Peter, who according to scriptural record was never accorded authority over the other Apostles

So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.​

(John 21:15-17 KJV)

I believe in the importance of assuring myself that ALL of the scriptures are in agreement with each other before deciding...

You might be waiting a long time.

Kindly,
Rhema

I admit I'm not sure what your point is here.
But, I have seen a number of interpretations on this text. Even though I have some notion of it's meaning I have not yet assembled the context sufficiently to make a informed decision.

One cannot make an accurate interpretation if one has a wrong translation.

My point was.... There is a world of difference between guaranteeing a divine endorsement of Peter's actions and promising that his actions, when guided by the Holy Spirit, will be in accord with the Heavenly pattern!

 

[Bill]

Sorry Bill, I thought you had a sense of humor. (That was a joke...)
But my bad, next time I'll try to add in the little yellow round things.


Me? When I know nothing?
When have I ever condemned Catholics here?
Are you off your meds.?

Rhema
Oh, right...

Hey, lol,

 

[Bill]

And the enemy that sowed them, is the devil. But the harvest is the end of the world. And the reapers are the angels. Even as cockle therefore is gathered up, and burnt with fire: so shall it be at the end of the world. The Son of man shall send his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all scandals, and them that work iniquity.​

(Matthew 13:39-41 DRB)

I'm not one of those who thinks they shall disappear.
Rhema

At the End of the World, Exactly

 

[Rhema]

At the End of the World, Exactly

Well I only see one end of the world. There are, however, people who see two ends of the world, two second comings and even two resurrections.

Even others who preach two gospels and two salvations (one to the Jew and one to the Greek).

I won't pretend that I can wrap my head around that dysfunction. I just note it.

Rhema

 

[Bill]

Well I only see one end of the world. There are, however, people who see two ends of the world, two second comings and even two resurrections.

Even others who preach two gospels and two salvations (one to the Jew and one to the Greek).

I won't pretend that I can wrap my head around that dysfunction. I just note it.

Rhema

I'm interested to read backandforth's response to my questions. But I highly doubt he's going to actually answer them

 

[Rhema]

I'm interested to read backandforth's response to my questions. But I highly doubt he's going to actually answer them

(I don't see him in this thread at all....)

 

[Bill]

(I don't see him in this thread at all....)

He's in a different thread with us

 

[AntonGoldnagel]

Interesting.

Upon this rock (the revelation by the Father of whom Jesus is) will be built the foundation.

So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.​

(John 21:15-17 KJV)


You might be waiting a long time.

Kindly,
Rhema


One cannot make an accurate interpretation if one has a wrong translation.

My point was.... There is a world of difference between guaranteeing a divine endorsement of Peter's actions and promising that his actions, when guided by the Holy Spirit, will be in accord with the Heavenly pattern!

The sheeps and the lamb were not the other Apostles .
Mar 14:27 ...will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered abroad.

In the first century the Apostle were the sheherds, the disciples were the sheep.
Consider who was scattered, the shepherds or the sheep ?

 

[Rhema]

Mar 14:27 ...will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered abroad.

Anton, consider the scriptures...

I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.​

(John 10:11 KJV)

I rather think Jesus was talking about himself. Shepherd is singular.

I am the good shepherd; and I know mine own, and mine own know me,​

(John 10:14 RV)

And again, Jesus... about himself. Shepherd is singular.

The sheeps and the lamb were not the other Apostles .

But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.​

(Matthew 23:8 KJV)

I rather think "ye are brethren" included the apostles and all the sheep.

In the first century the Apostle were the sheherds, the disciples were the sheep.
Consider who was scattered, the shepherds or the sheep ?

As we've seen, there is one shepherd. But about the sheep, to whom was Jesus talking?

And Jesus saith unto them, All ye shall be scandalized because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered.​

(Mark 14:27 KJV~)

Who was the "them" to which Jesus saith? The Twelve. Shepherd is singular, sheep is plural.

"Because of me this night." Not... some time later with shepherds plural. Please, let's read the entire passage:

And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives. And Jesus saith unto them, All ye shall be scandalized because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered. But after that I am risen, I will go before you into Galilee. But Peter said unto him, Although all shall be scandalized, yet will not I. And Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this day, even in this night, before the **** crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. But he spake the more vehemently, If I should die with thee, I will not deny thee in any wise. Likewise also said they all.​

(Mark 14:26-31 KJV~)

Jesus, the good shepherd was smitten (struck down, crucified).

Did the sheep scatter?

But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled. ​

(Matthew 26:56 KJV)

And they all forsook him, and fled.​

(Mark 14:50 KJV)

The Shepherd was smitten, and the sheep scattered. (They ALL forsook him and FLED.)

But after that I am risen, I will go before you into Galilee.​

(Mark 14:28 KJV)

After that, ... after the shepherd was smitten and the sheep fled, then "I am risen, I will go before you into Galilee."

Anton, you don't need to look further. That prophecy in Mark 14:27 was fulfilled that very night when the Twelve scattered and fled.

Kindly,
Rhema

 

[AntonGoldnagel]

Anton, consider the scriptures...
I am the good shepherd; and I know mine own, and mine own know me,
(John 10:14 RV)

And again, Jesus... about himself. Shepherd is singular.

AntonGoldnagel said:

I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.​

(John 10:11 KJV)

I rather think Jesus was talking about himself. Shepherd is singular.

I am the good shepherd; and I know mine own, and mine own know me,​

(John 10:14 RV)

And again, Jesus... about himself. Shepherd is singular.

But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.​

(Matthew 23:8 KJV)

I rather think "ye are brethren" included the apostles and all the sheep.


As we've seen, there is one shepherd. But about the sheep, to whom was Jesus talking?

And Jesus saith unto them, All ye shall be scandalized because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered.​

(Mark 14:27 KJV~)

Who was the "them" to which Jesus saith? The Twelve. Shepherd is singular, sheep is plural.

"Because of me this night." Not... some time later with shepherds plural. Please, let's read the entire passage:

And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives. And Jesus saith unto them, All ye shall be scandalized because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered. But after that I am risen, I will go before you into Galilee. But Peter said unto him, Although all shall be scandalized, yet will not I. And Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this day, even in this night, before the **** crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. But he spake the more vehemently, If I should die with thee, I will not deny thee in any wise. Likewise also said they all.​

(Mark 14:26-31 KJV~)

Jesus, the good shepherd was smitten (struck down, crucified).

Did the sheep scatter?

But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled. ​

(Matthew 26:56 KJV)

And they all forsook him, and fled.​

(Mark 14:50 KJV)

The Shepherd was smitten, and the sheep scattered. (They ALL forsook him and FLED.)

But after that I am risen, I will go before you into Galilee.​

(Mark 14:28 KJV)


After that, ... after the shepherd was smitten and the sheep fled, then "I am risen, I will go before you into Galilee."

Anton, you don't need to look further. That prophecy in Mark 14:27 was fulfilled that very night when the Twelve scattered and fled.

Kindly,
Rhema

The point is there is a difference between shepherds and sheeps, Peter was a Shepherd, an underspherd (under Christ) as were all the other Apostles.
Using the command to feed the sheeps and lamb as a proof that Peter as master over the other shepherds does not hold scrutiny, and is just anther ploy from the leaders to maintain their heaship over their brothers.
Their is only one spiritual leader Christ. Although I am repeatedly told i am wrong, nobody has shown me scriptures that give me reason to believe otherwise, feeble attempts to prove that man has been given authority to rule over others faith, such as the proof of Joh 21:17 , have proven prevarications at best.

 

[Garee]

The point is there is a difference between shepherds and sheeps, Peter was a Shepherd, an underspherd (under Christ) as were all the other Apostles.
Using the command to feed the sheeps and lamb as a proof that Peter as master over the other shepherds does not hold scrutiny, and is just anther ploy from the leaders to maintain their heaship over their brothers.
Their is only one spiritual leader Christ. Although I am repeatedly told i am wrong, nobody has shown me scriptures that give me reason to believe otherwise, feeble attempts to prove that man has been given authority to rule over others faith, such as the proof of Joh 21:17 , have proven prevarications at best.

I would offer.

Yes, all the others to include the chief apostle/prophet the Son of man, Jesus ..

The Son of man Jesus prophesying the will of the invisible father below.

Mathew 16:15;He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? (Invisible)

Simon Peter our brother in the Lord was given the power from the Father to believe God .He at first gave glory to the Father.

Then Satan the spirit of the antichrists in false pride through false prophecy gave words to Peter as one of the many anti-christs (false prophecy false apostles ) deceiving Peter to believe he is master over the other shepherds and not Jesus the Son of man the chief apostle

Then father of lies enticed Peter to rebuke the lord of glory our invisible Holy Father and forbid the Son of man Jesus from doing the will of the invisible father .

The lord of heaven and earth informed Satan to walk by faith the power of God after the unseen things of God get behind him not seen not Peter seen not those of dying mankind oral traditons of the church .

Satan the spirit of antichrists trying to deceive all the nations of the world that God is a Jewish man dying mankind. . Peter Kings of kings

Mathew 16:16-20 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.;And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.;And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.(Gods power) And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.;Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.. .( Christ as eternal God working in the Son of man. Jesus) No power coming from the Son of man Jesus

Mathew 16: 22Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.;But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me,( Invisible ) Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

2 Corinthians 5:7 We live by what we believe will happen, not by what we can see.

Peter the serial denier the third time in John 21 just reinstated. then said Jesus follow me. But Peter in his jealousy of John.( Jealousy false pride blinds the mind and desired stack sides . He went to town and stared another of the many oral traditons of dying mankind

.In false pride Peter spreading the lie declared John world not die ..Jesus rebuked him and informs us that is if every time our Holy Father would dismiss the lies of oral traditions .we would need a bigger planet to store the volumes upon volumes .

One warning not to add to sola scriptura with the oral tradition of dying mankind law of fathers should be enough


John 21:17-25A third time Jesus said, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was sad because Jesus asked him three times, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know everything. You know that I love you!” Jesus said to him, “Take care of my sheep. The truth is, when you were young, you tied your own belt and went where you wanted. But when you are old, you will put out your hands, and someone else will tie your belt. They will lead you where you don’t want to go.” (Jesus said this to show how Peter would die to give glory to God.) Then he said to Peter, “Follow me! ”Peter turned and saw the follower Jesus loved very much walking behind them. (This was the follower who had leaned against Jesus at the supper and said, “Lord, who is it that will hand you over?”) When Peter saw him behind them, he asked Jesus, “Lord, what about him?” Jesus answered, “Maybe I want him to live until I come. That should not matter to you. You follow me!”So a story spread among the followers of Jesus. They were saying that this follower would not die. But Jesus did not say he would not die. He only said, “Maybe I want him to live until I come. That should not matter to you. "That follower is the one who is telling these things. He is the one who has now written them all down. We know that what he says is true. There are many other things that Jesus did. If every one of them were written down, I think the whole world would not be big enough for all the books that would be written

 

[Rhema]

The point is there is a difference between shepherds and sheeps, Peter was a Shepherd, an underspherd (under Christ) as were all the other Apostles.

The point is Anton, you messed up when applying the words of Jesus to some other event than that for which they were intended, and when clearly shown in the scriptures that the SHEEP SCATTERED when their shepherd was smitten, BUT AFTER ... you decided you couldn't admit that you were wrong, and doubled down into creating nonsense words like "UNDERSHEPHERD."

The point is there is only one shepherd. Period.

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.​

(John 10:16 KJV)

Peter was a Shepherd

Please post the scripture that says this. If you can't, then you're like the rest, making up religious fiction to suit your own ideas.

Just let me know that you reject the words of Jesus here, and we can be done.

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.​

(John 10:16 KJV)

One shepherd, not many. So No. Commanding Peter to feed the sheep did not make him a shepherd. But it did confer a responsibility of leadership to Peter.

Their is only one spiritual leader Christ. Although I am repeatedly told i am wrong

By saying that the Apostles were shepherds (spiritual leaders) you told yourself that you were wrong. Maybe something got lost in translation here somewhere, but how is a Shepherd NOT a Spiritual Leader? If there is only one spiritual leader, then there is only one shepherd.

And I posted scripture agreeing with you that there is only one spiritual leader right here.

But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.​

(Matthew 23:8 KJV)

But I'm not the one promoting that the Apostles were Shepherds. That actually sounds very Catholic.

God bless,
Rhema

 

[Garee]

But I'm not the one promoting that the Apostles were Shepherds. That actually sounds very Catholic.

I would offer .How beautiful are the feet of the sent messenger (apostles) shod with the gospel of peace (sola scriptura)

Apostles. . . . . Christ's Pony Express, Western Union , UPS, Amazon, Uber etc . My self an apostle of my wife her little old errand boy off on mission to the supermarket. returning the atles reward tow home made eanut butter cookies and a cd glass of milk .

Passed down from the Pharisees with Sadaucesss as a law of the father oral tradition of dying mankind. Catholiscim have changed the inspired meaning of the word apostle "sent messengers" into highly venerable ones that lord it over the faith (understanding) of the non-venerable .

The first century reformation (Hebrews 9) has come destroying all the kingdoms of dying mankind . . . . restoring the invisible kingdom of God. Christ reigning from heaven yoked with his children of light

Like other words they should of gave the English translation "sent messenger" .the Greek and cause confusion with a few words like that obscuring the true. The Greek word Sabbath the same way a fake understanding Changing the word rest (sabbath) non-time sensitive word into the word week time sensitive.

 

[Bill]

I would offer .How beautiful are the feet of the sent messenger (apostles) shod with the gospel of peace (sola scriptura)

Apostles. . . . . Christ's Pony Express, Western Union , UPS, Amazon, Uber etc . My self an apostle of my wife her little old errand boy off on mission to the supermarket. returning the atles reward tow home made eanut butter cookies and a cd glass of milk .

Passed down from the Pharisees with Sadaucesss as a law of the father oral tradition of dying mankind. Catholiscim have changed the inspired meaning of the word apostle "sent messengers" into highly venerable ones that lord it over the faith (understanding) of the non-venerable .

The first century reformation (Hebrews 9) has come destroying all the kingdoms of dying mankind . . . . restoring the invisible kingdom of God. Christ reigning from heaven yoked with his children of light

Like other words they should of gave the English translation "sent messenger" .the Greek and cause confusion with a few words like that obscuring the true. The Greek word Sabbath the same way a fake understanding Changing the word rest (sabbath) non-time sensitive word into the word week time sensitive.

May the Lord's Peace fill you.

Could you clarify this last sentence please " Changing the word rest (sabbath) non-time sensitive word into the word week time sensitive. "

I have no clue what you are saying in it

Thanks bill

 

[AntonGoldnagel]

The point is Anton, you messed up when applying the words of Jesus to some other event than that for which they were intended, and when clearly shown in the scriptures that the SHEEP SCATTERED when their shepherd was smitten, BUT AFTER ... you decided you couldn't admit that you were wrong, and doubled down into creating nonsense words like "UNDERSHEPHERD."

The point is there is only one shepherd. Period.

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.​

(John 10:16 KJV)


Please post the scripture that says this. If you can't, then you're like the rest, making up religious fiction to suit your own ideas.

Just let me know that you reject the words of Jesus here, and we can be done.

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.​

(John 10:16 KJV)

One shepherd, not many. So No. Commanding Peter to feed the sheep did not make him a shepherd. But it did confer a responsibility of leadership to Peter.


By saying that the Apostles were shepherds (spiritual leaders) you told yourself that you were wrong. Maybe something got lost in translation here somewhere, but how is a Shepherd NOT a Spiritual Leader? If there is only one spiritual leader, then there is only one shepherd.

And I posted scripture agreeing with you that there is only one spiritual leader right here.

But I'm not the one promoting that the Apostles were Shepherds. That actually sounds very Catholic.

God bless,
Rhema

Hello Rhema
Thank you for your reply.

If I understand correctly you seem to have some perturbance with how I explain my views regarding who a shepherd is.
I think it best not to cause more stress by pushing the issue.
Nonetheless I will do you the courtesy of answering the specific question you asked me. I'm sorry if they conflict with your convictions.

Q.
how is a Shepherd NOT a Spiritual Leader?
If there is only one spiritual leader, then there is only one shepherd.
A.
That depends on your definition of shepherd and spiritual leader.
In the first century the Jews had a very clear concept of what a shepherd did. A shepherd role was to care for the sheep, assure himself that they didn"t get lost or attacked by wild animals, make sure food was available, comfort them and nurture the sick or injured.
According to the account that was the work Jesus, the apostles and the (ep-is-kop-ay’s) elders did.
The servants (dee-ak’-on-os.) although not strictly labelled shepherds could nonetheless do the same labor of love.
What a shepherd in the first century NEVER did was to alter existing principles or precepts, not even the "chief shepherd" did that except in the framework of the New Covenant, otherwise he would generally point to the principles of the O.T. and make statements like "it is written", or "have you not read" ? but Jesus was the only one to determine what the new spiritual food consisted of.
The shepherds role was to teach (feed) the sheep the spiritual truth revealed by Christ.
Mat 10:6-7 ...go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7. And as ye go, preach, ...

The definition of a shepherd today is QUITE DIFFERENT and does not follow the pattern established in the first century,
shepherds today have arrogantly awarded themselve high sounding titles and are presuming to teach the sheep NEW doctrines by interpreting ambiguous scriptures to support their position.
This is the reason you are confused when I refer to "shepherds" without" qualifying the time frame.
Q.
Just let me know that you reject the words of
Jesus here, and we can be done.
A.
It is not Jesus words I am rejecting but your interpretation of it, more precisely it is the interpretation of your "teachers".
I have a difficult time understanding how a rational and knowleadgable person can extrapolate from the sentence "feed my sheep" a comission to lord it over his peer's become their commander in chief and then to hand down this entitlement to anyone in the future who decides that this priviledge applies to them.
Clearly endoctrination is a powerful force.

Rhemas comment
creating nonsense words like "UNDERSHEPHERD."
A.
Since christ is the "chief shepherd" it stands to reason that there are OTHER shepherds.
Just because it is not spelled out in black and white does not mean it's not true.
Although the word undershepherd is not in the Bible it is nonetheless a word that describes the point I wanted to make, to call it a nonsense word is needlessly critical and is a sign of unexplained animosity towards me. Or do you also verbally assault your Pastor when he uses unscriptural words like transubstantiation ?

A mature Christian should reason on the scritures and come to a understanding based on HIS personal studies on his own- and not have his faith handed down to him by professional theologians.
Getting upset because someone has a different opinion is a sign of an insecure conviction build on a weak foundation.
Mat 7:24-26 ...a wise man, built his house upon a rock: 25. And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, ...and it fell not"

I have no intention to interfere or to critize anothers mans conviction.
Nonetheless
I also have the right to express publicly my faith in harmony with Christ's directive regarless of the sensivity of those who cannot listen to different opinions without fearing that their conviction will fall apart and view those expressing them as their ennemies.

I wish you all the best

Anton

 

[Rhema]

If I understand correctly you seem to have some perturbance with how I explain my views regarding who a shepherd is.

No. I am not perturbed. I am puzzled, though, as to how a well educated person like yourself could make such a hash of the logic with regards to the plain application of "smite the shepherd" when Jesus himself explained what he meant.

I think it best not to cause more stress by pushing the issue.

I think it best that we clarify the basic truth about that passage in Mark rather than you imputing some emotional upset to me in order to avoid conversation. But if your emotions are too fragile to continue, then do what you think to be best for you.

But perhaps I should explain the formatting I use. Caps, italics, larger fonts have absolutely nothing to do with my emotional state. Unlike verbal interaction, though, mere words ... mere typed words, don't readily convey any particular focus or provide sufficient parsing of logical structures, which are typically communicated through "body language." (We're not in a true conversation here.) As such, I use emphatic formatting for making a point and identifying terminology, not conveying personal emotions. Now since I tend to speak mostly with Americans, please accept my apologies for what basically amounts to a formatting dialect. Since you interpret these as emotive, I shall try to do my best and craft my reply more to your sensibilities. (Sorry if I caused you concern over a seeming "discomposure.")

And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives. And Jesus saith unto them, All ye shall be scandalized because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered. But after that I am risen, I will go before you into Galilee. But Peter said unto him, Although all shall be scandalized, yet will not I. And Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this day, even in this night, before the **** crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. But he spake the more vehemently, If I should die with thee, I will not deny thee in any wise. Likewise also said they all.​

(Mark 14:26-31 KJV)

The prophecy in this passage is "smite the shepherd and the sheep shall be scattered." So how should this be understood? First, wasn't Jesus talking to the apostles? Not only was he talking to them he was talking about them. All y'all shall be scandalized this night. He said "This night," not another night years in the future, but that night, the very night in which he was betrayed, arrested and smitten. The implication is that they, the sheep, would be scattered. And indeed this happened, that very night as is recorded in verse 50 of the same chapter.

And they all forsook him, and fled.​

(Mark 14:50 KJV)

Jesus anticipated what would happen that night, the apostles, the sheep, did not. In essence, Jesus gave them a fair warning, because after he prayed, and after he was arrested, as verse 50 directly states, they all forsook him and fled. They all scattered.

But Jesus gave them hope. That they wouldn't stay scattered. "Smite the shepherd and the sheep shall be scattered, But after that I am risen, I will go before you into Galilee." After the sheep were scattered, Jesus would be risen, and then go to Galilee where the sheep were to regather -

And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted. And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.​

(Mark 16:5-7 KJV) also (Matthew 28:7, 10 KJV)

The sheeps and the lamb were not the other Apostles .
Mar 14:27 ...will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered abroad.

In the first century the Apostle were the sheherds, the disciples were the sheep.
Consider who was scattered, the shepherds or the sheep ?

I hope I've now provided a more competent presentation of why indeed Jesus was the shepherd and the apostles in Gethsemane were the sheep spoken of in the prophecy mentioned in Mark 14:27

In Peace,
Rhema
(As to the rest, I fear I've run out of time today, and shall need to address such tomorrow.)

 

[Garee]

May the Lord's Peace fill you.

Could you clarify this last sentence please " Changing the word rest (sabbath) non-time sensitive word into the word week time sensitive. "

I have no clue what you are saying in it

Thanks bill

Thanks sorry,

Like the word apostle "sent messenger" errand boys. The meaning was changed needing to create a oral traditons as a sign unto themselves. Venerable men that lord it over the faith or understanding of the non-venerable .

Sabbath literally meaning "rest" a non time senititive word. Its meaning in order to claim who has the superior claim of the day worship day. A works righteousness causing a division. Who is the top dog fighting over days of the years and not the word rest.

In all translations except a few .One, the Youngs Literal . The word sabbath "rest" is translated into week a time senititive word . A word not even coined until hundreds of year later .They used 7 days before that not designating what day,

AI Overview The word week was first recorded before the 900s. It comes from the Old English word wice, which is related to the Latin word vicis, meaning "turn".

Matthew 28 KJV In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

Matthew 28 YLT And on the eve of the sabbaths, at the dawn, toward the first of the sabbaths,(new era) came Mary the Magdalene, and the other Mary, to see the sepulchre,

Nine times the word Sabbath was changed into the work week . In the end making no biblical sense

Luke 18:11-12The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, (not Sabbath) I give tithes of all that I possess.

Not two different tithes on two different days (20%)

Using foreign unfamiliar language can be confusing and take away the spiritual understanding of faith

 

[B-A-C]

So not the Reformation churches then, since the faith WAS changed 500 years ago by Martin Luther.

Of course Protestants believe the Catholic church corrupted the doctrine of the Orthodox church over the centuries.
Luther simply "reformed" it back to the original.

But there has always been an Orthodox church, even before Luther.

 

[Rhema]

Of course Protestants believe the Catholic church corrupted the doctrine of the Orthodox church over the centuries.
Luther simply "reformed" it back to the original.

But there has always been an Orthodox church, even before Luther.

This kind of touches on my previous point (that seemed to be a diatribe) that Christians create this special church vocabulary that tends to veer left into the woods of fake doctrine... bear with me...

Orthodox? or orthodox?
Catholic? or catholic?

I'm not sure I can trust a reformer who purposely changed two verses in his German translation to support his epiphany. And Calvin was a genius turned lunatic.

Transubstantiation? Consubstantiation? Metaphorical elements as a memorial?

But there has always been an Orthodox church, even before Luther.

Eastern Orthodox? (you did capitalize Orthodox....)

The only church that can truly claim Apostolic lineage is the Church of the East, or the Thomas Christians in the Parthian empire. That church was established even before the proto-orthodox. That said, I don't think they themselves even remained pure to the Gospel that Jesus taught.

Blessings,
Rhema