THE CHURCH IS NOT THE BRIDE OF CHRIST

[Idolater]

Duh. I never said otherwise.

Well done... two covenants. Not the old and the new covenants.

Yes, that is what I'm telling you. The NEW covenant (as scripture CLEARLY and UNAMBIGUOUSLY shows) is between the SAME TWO parties as the OLD covenant.

You are being idiotic and ridiculous... just READ the scripture.

That passage is so simple that a sixth grader can understand it. But not those drowning in false religion.

If you don't know what "the house of Israel" is, just ask. We'll explain it to you.

"Jer 31:31-33 KJV Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant ONLY with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah ONLY: (32) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: (33) But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel ONLY; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in ONLY their inward parts, and write it ONLY in ONLY their hearts; and will be their God, and they ALONE shall be my people. "

 

[Right Divider]

"Jer 31:31-33 KJV Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant ONLY with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah ONLY: (32) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: (33) But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel ONLY; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in ONLY their inward parts, and write it ONLY in ONLY their hearts; and will be their God, and they ALONE shall be my people. "

You are truly sick and need help.

When I alluded to drowning in false religion, I was incorrect. You are drunk on false religion.

 

[Idolater]

You are truly sick and need help.

When I alluded to drowning in false religion, I was incorrect. You are drunk on false religion.

he is the head of the body, the church

 

[Right Divider]

he is the head of the body, the church

Another misdirection.
Nobody said otherwise.
Note the none of the 12 apostles calls him the head of the body. For them He is the king of Israel.

 

[Idolater]

...none of the 12 apostles calls him the head of the body. For them He is the king of Israel.

That's nice. Argument from silence and all.

22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, 23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant,​

Your idea---Dispensationalism's idea---is that this "general assembly and church" is not the Church, "he is the head of the body, the church". Your idea is that it's a different church, your idea is that it's the Acts 7:38 church, which literally was Old Covenant, and this "general assembly and church" is clearly and unambiguously, literally New Covenant.

these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. 25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. 26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. 27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. 28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. 29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. 30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.​

There's two covenants here, there's "the one from the mount Sinai", which is the Old Covenant (Acts 7:38 church in other words), and there's another one, that Paul doesn't say is the New Covenant, anymore than he says "the one from the mount Sinai" is the Old Covenant. We know that "Jerusalem which is above" is associated with whatever this other covenant is, and boy, does that sound a lot like "the heavenly Jerusalem" in Hebrews 12:22---doesn't it?

 

[Right Divider]

That's nice. Argument from silence and all.

No, it's not. It's comparing scripture with scripture. Paul tells us that there is a difference between how WE (the body of Christ) know Christ and Israel knows Christ. You are blind to these facts of the Bible because you are married to a false religion.

2Co 5:16-17 KJV Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. (17) Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

The "new creature" is NOT new covenant Israel. It is THE BODY OF CHRIST.

22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, 23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant,​

Your idea---Dispensationalism's idea---is that this "general assembly and church" is not the Church, "he is the head of the body, the church". Your idea is that it's a different church, your idea is that it's the Acts 7:38 church, which literally was Old Covenant, and this "general assembly and church" is clearly and unambiguously, literally New Covenant.

And they are BOTH LITERALLY .... ISRAEL and not the BODY OF CHRIST.

these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. 25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. 26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. 27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. 28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. 29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. 30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.​

There's two covenants here, there's "the one from the mount Sinai", which is the Old Covenant (Acts 7:38 church in other words), and there's another one, that Paul doesn't say is the New Covenant, anymore than he says "the one from the mount Sinai" is the Old Covenant. We know that "Jerusalem which is above" is associated with whatever this other covenant is, and boy, does that sound a lot like "the heavenly Jerusalem" in Hebrews 12:22---doesn't it?

The other covenant is NOT the NEW covenant ... Paul calls it "the promise" and apparently you do not know what that is.

Come out of your false religion and believe the truth.

 

[Idolater]

No, it's not. It's comparing scripture with scripture. Paul tells us that there is a difference between how WE (the body of Christ) know Christ and Israel knows Christ. You are blind to these facts of the Bible because you are married to a false religion.

That's always entirely possible, really for any of us. The trouble with Dispensationalism---well, it is manifold---but here, the trouble is that no one in history ever had the same idea as you, not a single soul, until like 1800.

I know you'll say that this is a logical fallacy, to even mention it, but that doesn't discount the fact that your story is inconsistent with the evidence, unless your story also necessarily includes that literally no one, all throughout history, but also right in Paul's lifetime, and immediately thereafter, and no other time either, did anyone ever think Dispensational.

Not a single Dispensational thing was ever written down. No historian can locate the Dispensational idea about the Church (Col1:18 Church) at any time or in any place. Until like 1800.

The "new creature" is NOT new covenant Israel. It is THE BODY OF CHRIST.

How do you know? Which passage says this specific thing? And I want the New Testament scripture that says it. I want to see specifically from the Scripture something approaching "the 'new creature' is NOT new covenant Israel, the Church (the Body of Christ) is NOT new covenant Israel". I want to see that. Show it to me.

And they are BOTH LITERALLY .... ISRAEL and not the BODY OF CHRIST.

Hebrews 12:22-24 says "church", "heavenly Jerusalem" and "new covenant".

Galatians says "Jerusalem which is above". That is "heavenly Jerusalem". "Jerusalem which is above", and "heavenly Jerusalem", are the same thing. That means Hebrews 12:22-24 and Galatians 4 are both talking about the same thing. You say that Galatians is talking about the Body of Christ, so that means Hebrews 12:22-24 is also talking about the Body of Christ. It even says the word Church. he is the head of the body, the church

The other covenant is NOT the NEW covenant ... Paul calls it "the promise" and apparently you do not know what that is.

Come out of your false religion and believe the truth.

Man, so you've got the Old Covenant, the New Covenant, and something called the Promise Covenant now? It must be called that, because Paul in Galatians 4 specifically says two covenants. But in Galatians 4 I'm just saying, that his two covenants, are the Old and the New, but you and yours shoehorn in this "Promise Covenant", quote-unquote.

 

[Right Divider]

That's always entirely possible, really for any of us. The trouble with Dispensationalism---well, it is manifold---but here, the trouble is that no one in history ever had the same idea as you, not a single soul, until like 1800.

This is a classic LIE. The apostle Paul was a dispensationalist 2000 years ago! See Ephesians 3

I know you'll say that this is a logical fallacy, to even mention it, but that doesn't discount the fact that your story is inconsistent with the evidence, unless your story also necessarily includes that literally no one, all throughout history, but also right in Paul's lifetime, and immediately thereafter, and no other time either, did anyone ever think Dispensational.

Lie, lie, lie... is that all that you can do?

Not a single Dispensational thing was ever written down. No historian can locate the Dispensational idea about the Church (Col1:18 Church) at any time or in any place. Until like 1800.

Lies will not become true because you repeat them over and over.

How do you know? Which passage says this specific thing? And I want the New Testament scripture that says it. I want to see specifically from the Scripture something approaching "the 'new creature' is NOT new covenant Israel, the Church (the Body of Christ) is NOT new covenant Israel". I want to see that. Show it to me.

It's ALL THROUGH Paul epistles. You are blind.

Hebrews 12:22-24 says "church", "heavenly Jerusalem" and "new covenant".

Galatians says "Jerusalem which is above". That is "heavenly Jerusalem". "Jerusalem which is above", and "heavenly Jerusalem", are the same thing. That means Hebrews 12:22-24 and Galatians 4 are both talking about the same thing. You say that Galatians is talking about the Body of Christ, so that means Hebrews 12:22-24 is also talking about the Body of Christ. It even says the word Church. he is the head of the body, the church

You are reading your ideas INTO the scripture. What is "the promise"?

Man, so you've got the Old Covenant, the New Covenant, and something called the Promise Covenant now?

Paul says "the promise".... what is it?

The body of Christ needs no covenant and has no covenant.

It must be called that, because Paul in Galatians 4 specifically says two covenants. But in Galatians 4 I'm just saying, that his two covenants, are the Old and the New, but you and yours shoehorn in this "Promise Covenant", quote-unquote.

The BODY OF CHRIST is not associated with ANY of ISRAEL's covenants.

 

[Idolater]

This is a classic LIE. The apostle Paul was a dispensationalist 2000 years ago! See Ephesians 3

Lie, lie, lie... is that all that you can do?

Lies will not become true because you repeat them over and over.

It's only a lie if Dispensationalism is true. You certainly don't demonstrate its truth, so this is all just begging the question.

It's ALL THROUGH Paul epistles.

NO ONE AGREES until like 1800.

You are blind.

You are reading your ideas INTO the scripture.

Not at all. The language in Hebrews 12:22-24 and the language in Galatians 4 is connected through "heavenly Jerusalem" and "Jerusalem which is above". Those are the same thing. That isn't my idea, that's Paul and the author of Hebrews talking about the same thing. I'm not "reading INTO" anything.

What is "the promise"?

Paul says "the promise".... what is it?

The body of Christ needs no covenant and has no covenant.

The BODY OF CHRIST is not associated with ANY of ISRAEL's covenants.

Then WHAT IS THE OTHER COVENANT in Galatians 4? We've already identified Gal4:24-25 is the Old Covenant.

What's the other one?

 

[Right Divider]

It's only a lie if Dispensationalism is true. You certainly don't demonstrate its truth, so this is all just begging the question.

Utter nonsense. I don't have to "demonstrate" it. It's totally clear in Paul's epistles. That you've shut your eyes and ears to the truth is your own personal problem.

NO ONE AGREES until like 1800.

Once again, for the spiritually stunted, PAUL was a dispensationalist. Paul lived TWO THOUSAND YEARS AGO.

Not at all. The language in Hebrews 12:22-24 and the language in Galatians 4 is connected through "heavenly Jerusalem" and "Jerusalem which is above". Those are the same thing. That isn't my idea, that's Paul and the author of Hebrews talking about the same thing. I'm not "reading INTO" anything.

The PROMISE came BEFORE the law. The new covenant will be established when Christ returns to establish His kingdom on the earth.

Then WHAT IS THE OTHER COVENANT in Galatians 4? We've already identified Gal4:24-25 is the Old Covenant.

What's the other one?

It's not the new covenant which is between God and Israel.

 

[Idolater]

Utter nonsense. I don't have to "demonstrate" it. It's totally clear in Paul's epistles. That you've shut your eyes and ears to the truth is your own personal problem.

Once again, for the spiritually stunted, PAUL was a dispensationalist. Paul lived TWO THOUSAND YEARS AGO.

Don't be an idiot! That's like me saying Paul was a Catholic. It's BEGGING THE QUESTION.

The PROMISE came BEFORE the law. The new covenant will be established when Christ returns to establish His kingdom on the earth.

It's not the new covenant which is between God and Israel.

Just tell me which one it is, if you get around to it---or any of you Dispensationalists, just anyone, just chime in and let us all know. One of the covenants Paul means in Gal4:24 ("THE TWO COVENANTS" he says!) is the Old Covenant. Dispensationalists agree about that.

The OTHER of the TWO covenants: I say, it's the New Covenant. It's not some unnamed covenant. And Hebrews 12:22-24, mentions both Church, and New Covenant, and the heavenly Jerusalem, and in Galatians 4 Paul also mentions the heavenly Jerusalem, he calls it "Jerusalem which is above".

It's the New Covenant.

 

[Right Divider]

Don't be an idiot! That's like me saying Paul was a Catholic. It's BEGGING THE QUESTION.

No, it's not. Paul was given a DISPENSATION... he says so in SCRIPTURE. Paul taught DISPENSATIONS.

So you can continue to make the FALSE CLAIM that dispensational teaching is "new", but it's NOT!

Just tell me which one it is, if you get around to it---or any of you Dispensationalists, just anyone, just chime in and let us all know. One of the covenants Paul means in Gal4:24 ("THE TWO COVENANTS" he says!) is the Old Covenant. Dispensationalists agree about that.

The OTHER of the TWO covenants: I say, it's the New Covenant. It's not some unnamed covenant. And Hebrews 12:22-24, mentions both Church, and New Covenant, and the heavenly Jerusalem, and in Galatians 4 Paul also mentions the heavenly Jerusalem, he calls it "Jerusalem which is above".

It's the New Covenant.

No, it's NOT!

Your RCC has brainwashed you into believing that you are the "new Israel". You're not!

 

[DAN P]

Yes the bride of Christ is the Church, His wife !

Hi and your answer is NO ANSWER !

2 Cor 11:2 says I HAVE ESPOUSED /HARMOSO and this Greek word really means to JOIN or to FIT TOGETHER .

In 2 Cor 5:17 says we are NEW CREATION / KTISIS and is in the NOMINATIVE CASE and means it is the SUBJECT .

THEN IN 1 Cor 15:49 , we , in the BODY OF CHRIST , are made in THE IMAGE / EIKON which is in the ACCUSATIVE CASE and means we are LIMITED to Christ IMAGE and Israel and Judah will NOT !

Then to top it off , can CHRIST have two BRIDES , , NOOOOOOOOO.

In Jer 3:8 CHRIST was already MARRIED to Israel and Judah , but gave them both a BILL of DIVORCE , but will both be reconciled to Christ and be saved , per Rom 11:26 and be KINGS and PRIESTS in Millennium , , by Ex 19:6 and also in Rev 1:6 .

dan p

 

[beloved57]

Hi and your answer is NO ANSWER !

2 Cor 11:2 says I HAVE ESPOUSED /HARMOSO and this Greek word really means to JOIN or to FIT TOGETHER .

In 2 Cor 5:17 says we are NEW CREATION / KTISIS and is in the NOMINATIVE CASE and means it is the SUBJECT .

THEN IN 1 Cor 15:49 , we , in the BODY OF CHRIST , are made in THE IMAGE / EIKON which is in the ACCUSATIVE CASE and means we are LIMITED to Christ IMAGE and Israel and Judah will NOT !

Then to top it off , can CHRIST have to BRIDES , , NOOOOOOOOO.

In Jer 3:8 CHRIST was already MARRIED to Israel and Judah , but gave them both a BILL of DIVORCE , but will both be reconciled to Christ and be saved , per Rom 11:26 and be KINGS and PRIESTS in Millennium , , by Ex 19:6 and also in Rev 1:6 .

dan p

Christ is God, Hes married to His Bride the Church, in the OT and the NT. John the Baptist recognized the OT Church/Bride of Christ Jn 3:29

He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled.

John arguably the last of the OT Prophets was acknowledging his part in the Body of Christ Bride. It was in transition and reformation.

 

[Idolater]

No, it's not. Paul was given a DISPENSATION... he says so in SCRIPTURE. Paul taught DISPENSATIONS.

So you can continue to make the FALSE CLAIM that dispensational teaching is "new", but it's NOT!

No, it's NOT!

Your RCC has brainwashed you into believing that you are the "new Israel". You're not!

The only thing I've been saying here but I haven't expressed it explicitly is that the whole New Testament was written for the Church. The Church was established by the Apostles and was celebrating Mass primarily, for well over 10 years before even the first New Testament book or letter was ever written, but this doesn't mean at all that all of the Apostles weren't already busily at work presiding over the Church, primarily administrating the celebration of Mass in every Church parish community, some of these parish communities were celebrating Mass in Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, and Rome. Every one of them was in union or communion with every other one, they all together comprised the one Church.

The Mass is the context for the writings in the New Testament. If ever you read all these writings, without identifying and acknowledging that these were all written with the Church in mind, as an already well-established body of men, and not just with them all in mind, but written to them, you are going to miss a thing or two in the interpretation.

There's no Roman Missal in the Apostolic era, the Apostles administrated the Church through word of mouth, man-to-man, directly among themselves and with their chosen pastors the first-generation bishops, such as Titus and Timothy. But the Mass was being celebrated every week, every Sunday, on the day of the week the Lord rose from the dead. The NT was written to these men and women, who were already going to Mass every week, Mass was presumed, it was barely mentioned, and when it was mentioned, it was merely alluded to, with a few exceptions, these exceptions being found in the recount of the Last Supper, when the Lord is seen celebrating the first Eucharist (Melchizedek practiced a shadow of the Eucharist with Abraham, which is fulfilled in Christ, a Priest of the order of Melchizedek), in the second half of John chapter six, and in 1st Corinthians there is quite a lot of Apostolic counsel on the matter of the Eucharist as well, but basically the NT doesn't talk a lot about Mass, because Mass was the backdrop for the entire NT. The NT wouldn't even have been written at all if it weren't for the Church having already by then firmly establishing the institution of the sacraments, the two most salient or prominent ones being baptism and the Eucharist.

 

[Right Divider]

The only thing I've been saying here but I haven't expressed it explicitly is that the whole New Testament was written for the Church.

Confusion reigns with those that believe their religious indoctrination over the truth.

The Church was established by the Apostles and was celebrating Mass primarily, for well over 10 years before even the first New Testament book or letter was ever written, but this doesn't mean at all that all of the Apostles weren't already busily at work presiding over the Church, primarily administrating the celebration of Mass in every Church parish community, some of these parish communities were celebrating Mass in Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, and Rome. Every one of them was in union or communion with every other one, they all together comprised the one Church.

"The Church" the body of Christ was established by the apostle Paul and NOT the TWELVE apostles that will sit on TWELVE thrones judging the TWELVE tribes of ISREAL. That you constantly try to equivocate on the meaning of "the church" is sad.

The Mass is the context for the writings in the New Testament.

A complete lie.

If ever you read all these writings, without identifying and acknowledging that these were all written with the Church in mind, as an already well-established body of men, and not just with them all in mind, but written to them, you are going to miss a thing or two in the interpretation.

Your RCC indoctrination makes you completely blind to the truth that God started something NEW with the ONE apostle Paul. Note that Peter spoke ONLY to the people of ISRAEL even after Christ's resurrection and ascension.

"Ye men of ISRAEL" Act 2:22

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

You are NOT Peter's audience.

There's no Roman Missal in the Apostolic era, the Apostles administrated the Church through word of mouth, man-to-man, directly among themselves and with their chosen pastors the first-generation bishops, such as Titus and Timothy.

You are BLIND to the reason that Christ chose TWELVE apostles during His ministry to the CIRCUMCISION.

Rom 15:8 KJV Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:

But the Mass was being celebrated every week, every Sunday, on the day of the week the Lord rose from the dead. The NT was written to these men and women, who were already going to Mass every week, Mass was presumed, it was barely mentioned, and when it was mentioned, it was merely alluded to, with a few exceptions, these exceptions being found in the recount of the Last Supper, when the Lord is seen celebrating the first Eucharist (Melchizedek practiced a shadow of the Eucharist with Abraham, which is fulfilled in Christ, a Priest of the order of Melchizedek), in the second half of John chapter six, and in 1st Corinthians there is quite a lot of Apostolic counsel on the matter of the Eucharist as well, but basically the NT doesn't talk a lot about Mass, because Mass was the backdrop for the entire NT. The NT wouldn't even have been written at all if it weren't for the Church having already by then firmly establishing the institution of the sacraments, the two most salient or prominent ones being baptism and the Eucharist.

Trying to continue the ministry TO THE CIRCUMCISION is a gross error.

The body of Christ has NO PRIESTS nor PRIESTHOOD. That is why those words are completely ABSENT from ALL of Paul's epistles.

 

[DAN P]

Christ is God, Hes married to His Bride the Church, in the OT and the NT. John the Baptist recognized the OT Church/Bride of Christ Jn 3:29

Christ is God, Hes married to His Bride the Church, in the OT and the NT. John the Baptist recognized the OT Church/Bride of Christ Jn 3:29

He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled.

John arguably the last of the OT Prophets was acknowledging his part in the Body of Christ Bride. It was in transition and reformation.

He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled.

John arguably the last of the OT Prophets was acknowledging his part in the Body of Christ Bride. It was in transition and reformation.

Christ is God, Hes married to His Bride the Church, in the OT and the NT. John the Baptist recognized the OT Church/Bride of Christ Jn 3:29

He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled.

John arguably the last of the OT Prophets was acknowledging his part in the Body of Christ Bride. It was in transition and reformation.

Hi and I see that you have quoted John 3:29 and the CONTEXT is John the Baptist , verse 26 and 27 >

That means you believe in water BAPTISM also ?

But who is the FRIEND/ PHILOS IN VERSE 29 ?

In the BODY OF CHRIST there are NO MALES nor FEMALES as written in Gal 3:28 !

So who is CHRIST marrying in verse 29 ?

And in Matt 25:1 , the CONTEXT is the KINGDOM of HEAVEN that is for Israel !!

Why 10 VIRGINS and who do the represent ??

Gal 3:28 makes your answer MOOT >

dan p

 

[Idolater]

Confusion reigns with those that believe their religious indoctrination over the truth.

"The Church" the body of Christ was established by the apostle Paul and NOT the TWELVE apostles that will sit on TWELVE thrones judging the TWELVE tribes of ISREAL. That you constantly try to equivocate on the meaning of "the church" is sad.

No! I am not equivocating. I have one thing in mind when I say Church. It's you who tries to argue that when the New Testament mentions "Church" that it's something other than what I mean by it. "Church" is a main character in the NT. Along with Christ and John the Baptist and the Apostles, the Church is also prominent on the NT pages. Especially when we know that things like elders /bishops /pastors /presbyters /overseers, are Church officeholders. So whenever we're talking about those guys, we're also talking about the Church. Not to mention Paul's favorite name for the Church: the Body of Christ.

A complete lie.

Your RCC indoctrination makes you completely blind to the truth that God started something NEW with the ONE apostle Paul. Note that Peter spoke ONLY to the people of ISRAEL even after Christ's resurrection and ascension.

Yeah, it was something new, but it wasn't an institution. Peter is shown preaching the Gospel to Gentiles after receiving a vision from God. Peter was with Paul and Gentiles in Galatians 2, before some people of Israel arrived, touching off a verbal altercation between the two Apostles, one of them, the president of the Church.

"Ye men of ISRAEL" Act 2:22

You are NOT Peter's audience.

You are BLIND to the reason that Christ chose TWELVE apostles during His ministry to the CIRCUMCISION.


Trying to continue the ministry TO THE CIRCUMCISION is a gross error.

Since I'm not a Dispensationalist, I wonder sometimes about what it will be like when finally the nation of Israel as a body believes the Gospel, and converts to Christ. They're going to start going to church, you know. The question is open which church. The answer is not found in Dispenationalism, because Dispensationalism is apocalyptic, requiring a miraculous intervention for Israel to repent, but if that reading of the Bible is wrong, and incompatible with the Scripture, then all Dispenationalism is, is dumb. As in, mute; silent. There's a path for everyone except Israel, in Dispenationalism. Israel requires God Himself to reach down from heaven and set things right for us.

Us Catholics just think of them the same way we think of you Protestants, Christ taught us that we should treat those who don't listen to the Church, like publicans and prostitutes. That means, we all have human rights, given to us by God, and no matter how mad we are about you, we cannot morally deprive you of your authentic human rights.

In other words we're liberals, since liberalism is the philosophy that takes human rights as basically fundamental. Christ taught us to be liberals. Respect human rights.

The body of Christ has NO PRIESTS nor PRIESTHOOD. That is why those words are completely ABSENT from ALL of Paul's epistles.

It does not matter what you call the office. Priests, pastors, bishops, presidents for all I care. But the office was created by Christ when He created the office of Church president and appointed Peter to the office. Christ established that institution, and in so doing he established the institution of the office of a bishop (cf. 1st Timothy 3:1 for where Paul mentions this office by name), because the Church president is always going to also be a member of the category of bishops, he's just going to be the bishop who's presiding over the entire Church. It's a big job, but at the same time, it's still just another pastor job, the president has to do all the things that the other bishops have to do too; he is the bishop of Rome as well, for one thing. The bishop of a city, is that city's senior pastor.

It does not matter if Paul talks about them being priests, and about the order of Melchizedek. Paul talks about the Eucharist. That's more important than whether or not he ever says that Church pastors are priests. The Eucharist is an institution that has always been celebrated by priests. The bishops have always celebrated the Eucharist. The Eucharist is always celebrated because that's literally what Christ said to do. Melchizedek celebrated a shadow of the Eucharist when he and Abraham met. There are four separate accounts in the NT of Christ establishing the Eucharist and in each one He has bread and He has wine, and that's exactly what Melchizedek has when he and Abraham meet.

 

[Idolater]

Hi and I see that you have quoted John 3:29 and the CONTEXT is John the Baptist , verse 26 and 27 >

John the Baptist calls Christ the Lamb. Paul says Christ is our Passover---he says it to Gentiles. Christ takes away the sins of the world, 1st Corinthians 15:3-4

That means you believe in water BAPTISM also ?

But who is the FRIEND/ PHILOS IN VERSE 29 ?

In the BODY OF CHRIST there are NO MALES nor FEMALES as written in Gal 3:28 !

So who is CHRIST marrying in verse 29 ?

The Church.

And in Matt 25:1 , the CONTEXT is the KINGDOM of HEAVEN that is for Israel !!

Why 10 VIRGINS and who do the represent ??

Gal 3:28 makes your answer MOOT >

dan p

Dan, is "the Jerusalem which is above" in Gal 4:26, the same as "the heavenly Jerusalem" in Hebrews 12:22, and the "new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven" in Rev 21:2 ?

 

[beloved57]

Hi and I see that you have quoted John 3:29 and the CONTEXT is John the Baptist , verse 26 and 27 >

That means you believe in water BAPTISM also ?

But who is the FRIEND/ PHILOS IN VERSE 29 ?

In the BODY OF CHRIST there are NO MALES nor FEMALES as written in Gal 3:28 !

So who is CHRIST marrying in verse 29 ?

And in Matt 25:1 , the CONTEXT is the KINGDOM of HEAVEN that is for Israel !!

Why 10 VIRGINS and who do the represent ??

Gal 3:28 makes your answer MOOT >

dan p

Theres only one wife/bride and only one God/Christ