Robert's Gospel According to the Apostle Paul

[George Affleck]

John seems to think ALL is ok...in that He was from heaven ABOVE ALL...

John’s disciples were correct all eventually will kneel and confess...the irony

How about “for God so loved the world”...does that mean da jews only?

“That whosoever” or just jews...

or lifted up He will draw only jews to Himself?...

Or how about a personal favorite of mine:

Sabbath was made for man...to you that’s just da jews?

The irony as it is the ONLY commandment that INCLUDES goyim

Those MAD are so busy avoiding and ignoring the Sabbath that they forget it is the ONLY COMMANDMENT which reminds the world that the OT was ALWAYS FOR GOYIM TOO...

ONE LAW for native and goyim...

Never TWO houses before the cross in the OT...and STILL NOT two houses after the cross...or Israel and the BOC...one tree we are grafted into to replace jews rejected...

THE CHURCH OF THE WILDERNESS said Stephen and died for it...

IN HIM the jew and goyim are together again as it was intended...His house being a house of prayer for ALL nations...

And to pray to HIM not their own idols and ideas...

ONE TREE not two...

The jewish god HAS NO SON...they worship an abomination...having killed Him their husband this marriage convenant is cancelled on account of death having parted them...

“I am the door”...there is no other way than “the Way” follow Me...

You have proven to me that you have no real interest in finding or knowing truth.

 

[George Affleck]

Not really. You cannot take ANY one verse in isolation. The verse numbering is not "God breathed".

You call reading the very next verse "investigation"? "But" is a continuation words, meaning that you clearly cannot take the previous verse alone.


Indeed, verse 21 cannot be taken without verse 22. "And" is also a continuation word.

Yes.

And Matt 24:22KJV is a continuation of Jesus' answer regarding the questions asked of Him about the destruction of Jerusalem and what they incorrectly thought was the end of the world.

 

[clefty]

You have proven to me that you have no real interest in finding or knowing truth.

“He that saith I know Him and keepeth NOT His commandments is a liar and the truth is not in him”

Written to goyim...

 

[Robert Pate]

I have been wrongfully accused of teaching heresy. I do not teach heresy, I teach what the Bible says, I believe the same Gospel that the apostle Paul preached. I do not attend or support any religious denomination. Those that have accused me of teaching heresy were never able to support their claims with scripture. Just because someone calls you a devil, a wolf, a deceiver does not mean that it is so.

Paul taught that we are justified by faith, Romans 5:1, apart from the works of the law, Romans 3:20. The law is any religious thing that one might do, there is nothing that we can do that will justify us, because we are justified by faith, which also means that we are justified by Christ.

"To declare, I say, at this time HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS: that he might be just and the JUSTIFIER of him that believes in Jesus" Romans 3:26.

There it is right before you. Jesus justifies the UNGODLY by faith alone.

"But to him that does no works, but believes on him that JUSTIFIES THE UNGODLY, his faith is counted for righteousness" Romans 4:5.

This is the same thing that I believe. If you don't like it take it up with Paul. I am just telling you what Paul said. I believe Paul 100%, does that make me a deceiver, a wolf, a devil or whatever else you want to call me?

Not only does Jesus justify us, Jesus also reconciles us to God the Father. Paul strongly taught this and so do I, it is part of the Gospel.

"And all things are of God, who has reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ and has given unto us the ministry of reconciliation" 2 Corinthians 5:18.

"To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation" 2 Corinthians 5:19.

This is what I teach and believe. Does this sound like heresy to you? After reading this do you still believe that I am a devil?

Now, do you believe that God has reconciled us and the world unto himself by Jesus Christ? Did Jesus make us holy so that we could be reconciled unto God by our good works and our piety? The scripture plainly says that Jesus justifies "THE UNGODLY" If you don't see yourself as ungodly then you may not qualify to be reconciled to God.

Jesus has come into the world as the last Adam or the new Adam to do for us that which we cannot do for ourselves. Can you fulfill every jot and tittle of God's Holy Law? Matthew 5:18. Can you atone for your sins and the sins of the whole world? 1 John 2:2. Of course you can't, because you are a sinner in need of a savior.

Once again, I believe all that Paul wrote. It is not heresy, I am not a devil, nor am I a wolf or a deceiver. I believe God's word to be true.

 

[john w]

This is what I teach and believe. Does this sound like heresy to you? After reading this do you still believe that I am a devil?]

No, you reject that Christ died for our sins-the devil child never cites that, the gospel of Christ, in 1 Cor. 15:1-4 KJV-never. And why is that? He cannot, as sin is the transgression of the law, and if there is no law, to define sin, there is no sin/sin debt/transgression, for which Christ might die.

This is what you believe, liar:

Pate asserts that Christ did not die for his/anyone's sins, 2000+ years ago, as they were all in the future, by definition, as He did not die to pay for his/anyone's sin debt, penalty, IOU, which IS INCURRED BY BREAKING GOD'S OWN EXISTING LAW, by definition, as there is no law defining the transgression/offense/sin, and resulting penalty, for which He might die, and Christ did not take his/anyone's place, in judgment, condemnation, AS HIS/OUR SUBSTITUTE, taking that judgment/condemnation/wrath, in our place, as there is no law, to bring about judgment, condemnation, wrath. He denies that Christ died for our sins, and denies the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, asserting that God's "solution" is to destroy the law, so that there is no sin debt incurred, or judgment/condemnation possible. Thus, the LORD God could have destroyed His own law, from the third heaven, not needing to send His Christ to die. And devil child Pate cannot give us one scripture, as to how the Lord Jesus Christ's destroying of the law affects justice, as Pate perverts God's justice, as no scripture testifies to how destroying the law maintains, affirms the justice of God-he made it up. The scripture does testify as to why the Saviour need die, by blood, in our place.........propitiation, reconciliation, identification, substitution.....Justice served.


Pate rejects all of that, in his wicked perverting the gospel of Christ, as a pawn, shill of the devil.

Once again, I believe all that Paul wrote. It is not heresy, I am not a devil, nor am I a wolf or a deceiver.

No, you believe in your satanic interpretation of what Paul wrote, and, on record, assert that Paul is a liar, when He asserts that the law is not void. You say it is, demon.

I believe God's word to be true.

No, you don't, as you delete 3/4 of it, replace words, add words, corrupt the meaning of words, and on record, assert that the OT is worthless. You hate what is left of the word of God, most of which you throw in the trash, evil one.

 

[Robert Pate]

No, you reject that Christ died for our sins-the devil child never cites that, the gospel of Christ, in 1 Cor. 15:1-4 KJV-never. And why is that? He cannot, as sin is the transgression of the law, and if there is no law, to define sin, there is no sin/sin debt/transgression, for which Christ might die.

This is what you believe, liar:

Pate asserts that Christ did not die for his/anyone's sins, 2000+ years ago, as they were all in the future, by definition, as He did not die to pay for his/anyone's sin debt, penalty, IOU, which IS INCURRED BY BREAKING GOD'S OWN EXISTING LAW, by definition, as there is no law defining the transgression/offense/sin, and resulting penalty, for which He might die, and Christ did not take his/anyone's place, in judgment, condemnation, AS HIS/OUR SUBSTITUTE, taking that judgment/condemnation/wrath, in our place, as there is no law, to bring about judgment, condemnation, wrath. He denies that Christ died for our sins, and denies the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, asserting that God's "solution" is to destroy the law, so that there is no sin debt incurred, or judgment/condemnation possible. Thus, the LORD God could have destroyed His own law, from the third heaven, not needing to send His Christ to die. And devil child Pate cannot give us one scripture, as to how the Lord Jesus Christ's destroying of the law affects justice, as Pate perverts God's justice, as no scripture testifies to how destroying the law maintains, affirms the justice of God-he made it up. The scripture does testify as to why the Saviour need die, by blood, in our place.........propitiation, reconciliation, identification, substitution.....Justice served.


Pate rejects all of that, in his wicked perverting the gospel of Christ, as a pawn, shill of the devil.



No, you believe in your satanic interpretation of what Paul wrote, and, on record, assert that Paul is a liar, when He asserts that the law is not void. You say it is, demon.


No, you don't, as you delete 3/4 of it, replace words, add words, corrupt the meaning of words, and on record, assert that the OT is worthless. You hate what is left of the word of God, most of which you throw in the trash, evil one.

You are a false accuser. This is very typical of one that is a heretic or is a religious reprobate.

 

[john w]

You are a false accuser. This is very typical of one that is a heretic or is a religious reprobate.

=spam, and you continue to lie to me, lie to most of TOL, lie to the mods, you habitual liar, as I quoted your own words, demon.

This is what I teach and believe. Does this sound like heresy to you? After reading this do you still believe that I am a devil?]

No, you reject that Christ died for our sins-the devil child never cites that, the gospel of Christ, in 1 Cor. 15:1-4 KJV-never. And why is that? He cannot, as sin is the transgression of the law, and if there is no law, to define sin, there is no sin/sin debt/transgression, for which Christ might die.

This is what you believe, liar:

Pate asserts that Christ did not die for his/anyone's sins, 2000+ years ago, as they were all in the future, by definition, as He did not die to pay for his/anyone's sin debt, penalty, IOU, which IS INCURRED BY BREAKING GOD'S OWN EXISTING LAW, by definition, as there is no law defining the transgression/offense/sin, and resulting penalty, for which He might die, and Christ did not take his/anyone's place, in judgment, condemnation, AS HIS/OUR SUBSTITUTE, taking that judgment/condemnation/wrath, in our place, as there is no law, to bring about judgment, condemnation, wrath. He denies that Christ died for our sins, and denies the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, asserting that God's "solution" is to destroy the law, so that there is no sin debt incurred, or judgment/condemnation possible. Thus, the LORD God could have destroyed His own law, from the third heaven, not needing to send His Christ to die. And devil child Pate cannot give us one scripture, as to how the Lord Jesus Christ's destroying of the law affects justice, as Pate perverts God's justice, as no scripture testifies to how destroying the law maintains, affirms the justice of God-he made it up. The scripture does testify as to why the Saviour need die, by blood, in our place.........propitiation, reconciliation, identification, substitution.....Justice served.


Pate rejects all of that, in his wicked perverting the gospel of Christ, as a pawn, shill of the devil.

Once again, I believe all that Paul wrote. It is not heresy, I am not a devil, nor am I a wolf or a deceiver.

No, you believe in your satanic interpretation of what Paul wrote, and, on record, assert that Paul is a liar, when He asserts that the law is not void. You say it is, demon.

I believe God's word to be true.

No, you don't, as you delete 3/4 of it, replace words, add words, corrupt the meaning of words, and on record, assert that the OT is worthless. You hate what is left of the word of God, most of which you throw in the trash, evil one.

 

[Robert Pate]

=spam, and you continue to lie to me, lie to most of TOL, lie to the mods, you habitual liar, as I quoted your own words, demon.




No, you reject that Christ died for our sins-the devil child never cites that, the gospel of Christ, in 1 Cor. 15:1-4 KJV-never. And why is that? He cannot, as sin is the transgression of the law, and if there is no law, to define sin, there is no sin/sin debt/transgression, for which Christ might die.

This is what you believe, liar:

Pate asserts that Christ did not die for his/anyone's sins, 2000+ years ago, as they were all in the future, by definition, as He did not die to pay for his/anyone's sin debt, penalty, IOU, which IS INCURRED BY BREAKING GOD'S OWN EXISTING LAW, by definition, as there is no law defining the transgression/offense/sin, and resulting penalty, for which He might die, and Christ did not take his/anyone's place, in judgment, condemnation, AS HIS/OUR SUBSTITUTE, taking that judgment/condemnation/wrath, in our place, as there is no law, to bring about judgment, condemnation, wrath. He denies that Christ died for our sins, and denies the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, asserting that God's "solution" is to destroy the law, so that there is no sin debt incurred, or judgment/condemnation possible. Thus, the LORD God could have destroyed His own law, from the third heaven, not needing to send His Christ to die. And devil child Pate cannot give us one scripture, as to how the Lord Jesus Christ's destroying of the law affects justice, as Pate perverts God's justice, as no scripture testifies to how destroying the law maintains, affirms the justice of God-he made it up. The scripture does testify as to why the Saviour need die, by blood, in our place.........propitiation, reconciliation, identification, substitution.....Justice served.


Pate rejects all of that, in his wicked perverting the gospel of Christ, as a pawn, shill of the devil.



No, you believe in your satanic interpretation of what Paul wrote, and, on record, assert that Paul is a liar, when He asserts that the law is not void. You say it is, demon.


No, you don't, as you delete 3/4 of it, replace words, add words, corrupt the meaning of words, and on record, assert that the OT is worthless. You hate what is left of the word of God, most of which you throw in the trash, evil one.

No doubt about it, you need the law.

"Knowing this, that the law is NOT MADE FOR A RIGHTEOUS MAN, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murders of fathers and murders of mothers, for manslayers" 1 Timothy 1:9.

Yep, you need the law.

 

[john w]

No doubt about it, you need the law.

"Knowing this, that the law is NOT MADE FOR A RIGHTEOUS MAN, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murders of fathers and murders of mothers, for manslayers" 1 Timothy 1:9.

Yep, you need the law.

=spam=if the law exists, you are under it.

You wicked, dementia ridden demon-you can't even think straight.


"and for sinners,"

I am a sinner...I sin...

Pate admits he is under the law.






TELL ALL OF TOL, you demon:

Did Paul assert that the law was made void?


Yes, or no, devil child?


He won't touch that. Watch the spam, or dementia induced "logic" forthcoming.


Tell us how Christ can die for your sins, demon, if the law that defines them, was eliminated, destroyed, 2000+ years ago, before you ever committed any sins.


Go ahead, Pate.

Pate's changing the words of scripture:


"Knowing this, that the law is NOT MADE FOR A RIGHTEOUS MAN, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murders of fathers and murders of mothers, for manslayers, and therefore, it no longer exists, was made void."- 1 Pate 6:66


You wicked perverter, hating the LORD God, and his forever holy, good, spiritual, not void law, as you spit at it.

 

[Rosenritter]

Yes.

These were the days of vengeance. Luk 21:22KJV.
Had this campaign continued, as was normal with conquering armies, the surrounding areas and towns, even the hill country would have been greatly affected. In order to protect the growing group of Jews converted to Christianity from death and preserve the elect, God arranged events such that the areas they had fled to were safe for them.

God did not allow this to be an ethnic cleansing. If it had been, the apostles, disciples and the whole fledgling Christian church throughout Palestine would have been in great danger. Jesus was telling His disciples that the countryside would not be wholly overrun and desolated. This is why He told them to flee into the mountain country for safety.

The Jewish countryside is not "all flesh" but had Jesus meant that, could he not have used another phrase such as "all Israel" or "all the house of Israel" or

Matthew 15:24 KJV
(24) But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Acts 2:36 KJV
(36) Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Just noting that there are terms used that specify Israel when it is meant to distinguish them from other people. "All flesh" would indicate "all flesh."

 

[Rosenritter]

It is extremely important that what is said is adhered to very precisely.
The text does not say that the whole world saw the sign of the Son of man in heaven. It says only that the sign would appear. The next word "then" tells us that this would set the stage for and make possible what comes next.

But this was not a sign in the heavens of the Son of man. It was a sign of "the Son of man in heaven", or, a sign from the Son of man who was seated in heaven. It was a sign that Jesus had reached heaven and that He was ruling the affairs of men from there. Luk 22:69KJV It was a sign, specifically to the Jews and, to the whole world, that He was accomplishing the works He said He would. Mat 24:2KJV He would destroy the temple and the city and complete the days of vengeance Luk 21:22KJV within that same generation that crucified Him. The destruction of Jerusalem according to His prophecy was the sign which appeared from the Son of man in heaven.

What comes next is the realization, by the 12 tribes of earthly Israel, of what they have lost - the Shekhina glory, the temple, the holy city, the theocracy, their entire way of life. This sign to them was like death itself and produced the mourning. Some will mourn realizing Jesus was the Messiah, some will not; but they will all mourn their unspeakable loss, even thousands of years later.

(Note: If someone can find the word "tribe" in the New Testament that does not refer to the 12 tribes of Israel, I will admit that it could refer to the whole world. If not, I must use the scriptural meaning of the word.)

And, as a people, they witnessed the rising of Christianity and the continuing, personal appearances of Christ to individual people, the increase of the Church of Jesus Christ; some Jews, some Gentiles. Mat 24:31KJV By His Spirit calling them to receive the gift of faith which is not of this world.
Mar 14:62KJV

It said "tribes of the earth" rather than "tribes of Israel." The word "tribes" is used in many locations to refer to Israel, but in all cases this is noted in that it says "tribes of Israel" or "twelve tribes" or "tribe of Aser" or in some other distinction to specify that it is Israel.

When it says "tribes of the earth' it is presumed to mean "tribes of the earth" rather than "tribes of Israel" as if the writer used the word for reason and accuracy.

Matthew 24:30 KJV
(30) And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Revelation 5:9 KJV
(9) And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

Revelation 14:6 KJV
(6) And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,

Same Greek word for tribes is used in Revelation as well. In some cases it specifies tribes of Israel or specific tribes, but when it does not have that designation it is used in the general sense which is inclusive of any type of tribe.

 

[tetelestai]

So for you "counting" is calculating?

(Rev 13:18) This calls for wisdom. Let the person who has insight calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man.[a] That number is 666.

How much wisdom does it take to count?

 

[tetelestai]

"All flesh" would indicate "all flesh."

(Matt 2:3 KJV) When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.

Was ALL of Jerusalem troubled at the birth of Christ?

Answer: No.

(Luke 2:25 KJV) And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him.

So, why does it say "ALL" of Jerusalem was troubled after Jesus was born, when we know that Simeon was in Jerusalem, and was not troubled after Jesus was born?

Maybe the word "all" shouldn't always be taken literally?

 

[Rosenritter]

You're not answering the question.

When God said He would destroy all flesh, did no flesh survive?

He destroyed all flesh, excepting that which he made special and stated exception,.

Genesis 6:17-19 KJV
(17) And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
(18) But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.
(19) And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

There are two qualifiers stated to "all flesh" including:

1) Wherein is the breath of life (he does not mean fish)
2) And those who specifically would board the ark.

But otherwise yes, he did destroy all flesh, and no flesh survived.

 

[Rosenritter]

Here's another question:

In Jhn 3:26KJV does this refer to all men throughout the entire earth who were alive at the time?
Including those in existence on other continents?

Or does this refer to a sub-set of all men?

What is the context of this statement of John's disciples? Is it in the reference of a prophecy from He who made the World and all that is in it of a cataclysm which can only be ended by the return of the Great God from heaven? or with reference to those that were in the area of "beyond Jordan?"

 

[Rosenritter]

What you are successfully showing here, by God's own admission, is that the words "all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth" does not mean what it seems on the surface of the words without further investigation.

And that is precisely the point with regard to Matt 24:22KJV

On that token, what is (are) the stated exception(s) for "all flesh" in Matthew 24:22? does it list any?

 

[Rosenritter]

Not really. You cannot take ANY one verse in isolation. The verse numbering is not "God breathed".

You call reading the very next verse "investigation"? "But" is a continuation words, meaning that you clearly cannot take the previous verse alone.

Indeed, verse 21 cannot be taken without verse 22. "And" is also a continuation word.

1. Why would you say that the verse numbering is not inspired? Do you say this based on specific evidence or assumption?

2. Do you likewise say that the canonization of the books of our bible are also uninspired? Again, is there specific evidence you would use for this determination (for or against) or is this assumption (you haven't given this specific thought before this?)

 

[Rosenritter]

(Matt 2:3 KJV) When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.

Was ALL of Jerusalem troubled at the birth of Christ?

Answer: No.

(Luke 2:25 KJV) And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him.

So, why does it say "ALL" of Jerusalem was troubled after Jesus was born, when we know that Simeon was in Jerusalem, and was not troubled after Jesus was born?

Maybe the word "all" shouldn't always be taken literally?

Considering that "Jerusalem" is used in the context of "Herod hearing these things" then Jerusalem is presumed to mean those who represent Jerusalem politically, within the reach and influence of Herod. I have no doubt that "all Jerusalem" was troubled in that context, whether it troubled them directly or indirectly.

When Jesus says that the tribulation of the end times shall be so great that unless he intervenes no flesh should be saved alive, and it is in the context of "the beginning of the world to this time" and also after "the gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations" this context goes far beyond the fate of one rebellious city.

1) NOAH'S FLOOD had happened since the beginning of the world, and we are told that this danger to all flesh is greater than anything else (which would include NOAH'S FLOOD)

2) The gospel had certainly not been preached in all the world at the time of 70 A.D. and we are still working on that now.

3) Even if there was skepticism in former times as whether "all flesh" might be literal, it shouldn't take much faith today to recognize that "all flesh" being destroyed unless God intervenes (and not because God intervened, as per Noah) is a present reality.

 

[tetelestai]

Considering that "Jerusalem" is used in the context of "Herod hearing these things" then Jerusalem is presumed to mean those who represent Jerusalem politically, within the reach and influence of Herod.

Your above claim actually supports "all flesh" pertaining to the inhabitants of Jerusalem only.

When Jesus says that the tribulation of the end times shall be so great that unless he intervenes no flesh should be saved alive,

The only people the tribulation was to happen to were the unbelieving Jews.

Why would Jesus only warn those in Jerusalem to flee to the mountains, and those in the country, not to go to Jerusalem, if it was worldwide?

and it is in the context of "the beginning of the world to this time"

It's still true today.

No city has had as many people die than Jerusalem in 70AD. You can add the deaths from Hiroshima and Nagasaki together, and it's not even half the amount of people who died in Jerusalem in 70AD.

and also after "the gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations"

(Col 1:23)...This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.

1) NOAH'S FLOOD had happened since the beginning of the world, and we are told that this danger to all flesh is greater than anything else (which would include NOAH'S FLOOD)

We don't know how many people died from the flood. What makes you think it was more than the amount of people who died in Jerusalem?

2) The gospel had certainly not been preached in all the world at the time of 70 A.D. and we are still working on that now.

That's not what Paul said in Colossians 1:23

 

[George Affleck]

It said "tribes of the earth" rather than "tribes of Israel." The word "tribes" is used in many locations to refer to Israel, but in all cases this is noted in that it says "tribes of Israel" or "twelve tribes" or "tribe of Aser" or in some other distinction to specify that it is Israel.

When it says "tribes of the earth' it is presumed to mean "tribes of the earth" rather than "tribes of Israel" as if the writer used the word for reason and accuracy.

Matthew 24:30 KJV
(30) And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Revelation 5:9 KJV
(9) And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

Revelation 14:6 KJV
(6) And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,

Same Greek word for tribes is used in Revelation as well. In some cases it specifies tribes of Israel or specific tribes, but when it does not have that designation it is used in the general sense which is inclusive of any type of tribe.

I think I should yield to you on this. I said if someone could find a case where tribes is used which does not obviously mean the tribes of Israel, I would admit that it could mean those other than the tribes of Israel.

This does not mean that the above verses in Revelation cannot mean the tribes of Israel when it uses the word kindred; the phrase could mean that without changing anything whatsoever, but it is not obvious and that was my challenge. Because the sentences are, without doubt, all inclusive, it also means that the tribes of Israel are included somewhere in the list. The word φυλή can be rendered "tribes" or "kindred".

So, because it is not specified, I need to acknowledge that it is possible that Jesus did not mean the tribes of Israel at Matt 24:30KJV and that either interpretation would acceptable.

Having said that, I still feel that Jesus' meaning with regard to "all the tribes of the earth" refers to all those who trace their lineage through the twelve tribes. At Jerusalem, in Judea and Palestine, Egypt, Africa, Europe, etc. Acts 2 tells us there were Jewish settlements in every country in the known world and my belief is that His meaning was "all the tribes scattered on the earth" instead of "all the peoples in existence".

The other reason I lean this way is that, of all peoples, the Jews had the only reason to mourn. The Romans didn't care; theirs was a military exercise only. The Christians celebrated Christ's death because of the resurrection. The Jews lost everything and had every reason to mourn.