A typical SD invention. Who ever said anything remotely akin to this statement?
Have you met Havoc? And his cronies?
He holds that Peter could not have been in Rome because only Paul was sent to the Gentiles. All of the rest of the Apostles were only to preach to Jews.
This is his "proof" that Peter was not in Rome, therefore could not be the Bishop of Rome. Could you provide one or more references which indicates the "house of Israel" doesn't refer to the Lost Tribes? Thanks.
Sure. How about Psalm 118:
1 Give thanks to the LORD, who is good, whose love endures forever.
2 Let the house of Israel say: God's love endures forever.
3 Let the house of Aaron say, God's love endures forever.
The House of Israel is one of the tribes. Specifically, it was the one tribe of the Southern kingdom, that was not carried off to Babylon.
SD
(Reg) A typical SD invention. Who ever said anything remotely akin to this statement?
Have you met Havoc? And his cronies?
He holds that Peter could not have been in Rome because only Paul was sent to the Gentiles. All of the rest of the Apostles were only to preach to Jews.
This is his "proof" that Peter was not in Rome, therefore could not be the Bishop of Rome.
Maybe if I posted your statement again, and this time I insisted you not ramble around like a drunken sailor, you would address the question.
(SD) To read this text as Jesus prohibiting the Apostles from ever, ever, going out to the nations is contrary not only to the later charge Jesus gives, but also to history, which is replete with far flung Churches established by Apostles.
(Reg) Do you think you can answer the question I asked?
(Reg) Could you provide one or more references which indicates the "house of Israel" doesn't refer to the Lost Tribes? Thanks.
Sure. How about Psalm 118:
1 Give thanks to the LORD, who is good, whose love endures forever.
2 Let the house of Israel say: God's love endures forever.
3 Let the house of Aaron say, God's love endures forever.
The House of Israel is one of the tribes. Specifically, it was the one tribe of the Southern kingdom, that was not carried off to Babylon.
That's nice but it has absoloutely no correspondence to my question. How in the world does your Psalm passage prove anything?
Not to hurt your feelings, but I don't consider you as a qualified historical reference.
You have made a statement that the "House of Israel" in no way references the Lost Tribes of Israel. I have posted one reference which states the opposite and am prepared to offer more.
Can you do the same?
The Kingdom of Israel was the northern kingdom, formed of the 10 tribes. The southern Kingdom of Judah was made up the tribe of Judah (predominantly) along with Benjamin and some Levites. Many from the northern kingdom fled south and mixed with the population of Judah. By the first century C.E., there was no real tribal distinction remaining with the exception of the priestly class.
The question is whether in Mathew 10:6 "but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Jesus is referring to the 10 lost tribes, or as SD and ventana believe, is limited to the land of Israel and excludes the lost tribes.
As quoted by SD: "The Lost Tribes are not the "lost sheep." The lost sheep are the ones in Israel at the time, the Jews who had fallen away, the ones that Jesus came to call to repent.
The Lost Tribes are in faraway lands, if known at all. Certainly the Apostles did not go to visit them while JEsus was on earth. "