No! I am not equivocating. I have one thing in mind when I say Church.
Church is not a magic word. Capitalizing it is not Biblical.
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.
No, I'm NOT. That is ridiculous. I've shown you that the word CHURCH requires CONTEXT to determine its actual MEANING. The CHURCH in Acts 7:38 is NOT the SAME "church" as the church called the body of Christ (which began with the apostle Paul).
"Church" is a main character in the NT.
Fairy tale. The new TESTAMENT could not even begin until AFTER Christ's death (Hebrews 9:16-17). Therefore, the vast majority of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John cannot even be considered "new testament".
Along with Christ and John the Baptist and the Apostles, the Church is also prominent on the NT pages.
Christ was a Jew under the law.
John the Baptist was a Jew under the law.
The TWELVE apostles that will sit on TWELVE thrones judging the TWELVE tribes of ISRAEL were Jews under the law.
Paul tells the church, the body of Christ, that WE are NOT under the law.
That you cannot tell the different shows your religious blindness.
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.
Paul was the FIRST member of the body of Christ.
The TWELVE were members of the nation of Israel and NOT the body of Christ.
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.
Which gospel? He most certainly was NOT preaching the gospel of the grace of God to them.
And why did Peter need a VISION when Christ had already sent the twelve to all the world? I know the reason, but you apparently do not.
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.
There is NO SUCH OFFICE as "president of the Church". That is just more of you ridiculous RCC indoctrination contaminating your mind.
Note that in Galatians 2, Peter, James and John agreed to separate their ministries. PJ&J agreed NOT to go to the gentiles.
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.
Seems that you simply reject the simple, plain and clear teaching of the Bible.
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.
I'm not a "protestant", but I do agree with then that the Romanist "church" is an abomination.
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.
Mat 15:24 KJV But he answered and said,
I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
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:
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.
Peter has nothing to do with the
BODY OF CHRIST.
Peter is
ONE of the
TWELVE apostles that will sit on
TWELVE thrones judging the
TWELVE tribes of
ISRAEL.
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.
Lack of RIGHT DIVISION will continue to cause you great confusion.
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.
There is Israel and there is the body of Christ.
