[ventana]

Thanks Trad.

Let's also not forget the context of the usage of the phrase "Lost Sheep of the House of Israel." That is how he defined his own ministry in Mat 15:24. The charge he laid on the 12 in Mat 10:6 was to preach to the very same people he was sent to.

Since few here (I hope) would argue that Jesus was sent to preach not to the local Jews, but to lost Jews elsewhere, neither can they argue that that was the charge he laid on his disciples.

The connotation that lost sheep means the extant, regional Jewish populace is clear. And so it is also clear that Jesus was not using the term "House of Israel" to distinguish it from the "House of Judah" but was employing its legitimate all-inclusive meaning.

I will reiterate endlessly that "Lost Tribes" does not appear in the Bible, not because I am unaware of the 10 tribes, but because of the baggage that phrase carries as well as its irrelevance to this discussion.

v.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

because of the baggage that phrase carries as well as its irrelevance to this discussion.

What baggage? That Peter possible didn't make it to rome? Ya, that would be some pretty big baggage to swallow.

[OLD REGGIE]

I will reiterate endlessly that "Lost Tribes" does not appear in the Bible, not because I am unaware of the 10 tribes, but because of the baggage that phrase carries as well as its irrelevance to this discussion.

You know what spin is don't you?

Whether you reject the "lost tribes" or not, the "lost sheep" belonged to them.

When you begin to play a semantics game you should make it clear it is semantics only.

I feel as if I had wasted much time because I took you seriously.