THE CHURCH IS NOT THE BRIDE OF CHRIST

[OZOS]

The nation of Isreal is compared to stones and Jesus is compared to a rock but you think no Christian is ever compared to a stone? You are aware that Jesus called Peter a rock upon which He will build His church, an edifice likened to the Holy City of Jerusalem?

Peter is one of the twelve apostles who sits on twelve thrones. Paul, is not one of the twelve apostles, but because of your pride and arrogance, and the fact that you are NOT a Christian, you have no clue why that is.

 

[marke]

Peter is one of the twelve apostles who sits on twelve thrones. Paul, is not one of the twelve apostles, but because of your pride and arrogance, and the fact that you are NOT a Christian, you have no clue why that is.

Paul is one of the twelve apostles. He took Judas' place by the appointment of God. Christians are lively stones in the house of the Lord.

 

[marke]

Paul is one of the twelve apostles. He took Judas' place by the appointment of God. Christians are lively stones in the house of the Lord, the house you suggest Jesus will be marrying when He assumes His rightful reign.

 

[OZOS]

Paul is one of the twelve apostles. He took Judas' place by the appointment of God.

No, he didn't, you moron.

 

[marke]

No, he didn't, you moron.

God called Paul an apostle chosen of God, not chosen by men.

Ephesians 1:1
Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:

 

[Idolater]

The question is, is the Holy City representative of Israel.

Is the Holy City "Jerusalem which is above" (Gal4:26), or is it "Jerusalem which now is" (Gal4:25)?

"[He] who was of the bondwoman" (Gal4:23), "Agar" (Gal4:24), "mount Sinai" (Gal4:25) and "Jerusalem which now is" (ibid.) all represent the same thing.

"Jerusalem which is above" represents "the mother of us all", "the children of promise" (Gal4:28), "the son of the freewoman" (Gal4:30) and "children . . . of the free" (Gal4:31). These can be any number of things, but they cannot be what "Jerusalem which now is" represents, agreed?

 

[JudgeRightly]

The nation of Isreal is compared to stones and Jesus is compared to a rock but you think no Christian is ever compared to a stone? You are aware that Jesus called Peter a rock upon which He will build His church, an edifice likened to the Holy City of Jerusalem?

No, Peter is "petros."

CHRIST is the PETRA that God built the church upon.

Christ is the Rock. Peter is a stone.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Paul is one of the twelve apostles. He took Judas' place by the appointment of God. Christians are lively stones in the house of the Lord.

No.

Matthias replaced Judas.

“Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.”And they proposed two: Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.And they prayed and said, “You, O Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which of these two You have chosento take part in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.”And they cast their lots, and the lot fell on Matthias. And he was numbered with the eleven apostles. - Acts 1:21-26 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts1:21-26&version=NKJV

Paul had a completely separate ministry from the Twelve.

But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.For you have heard of my former conduct in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it.And I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my own nation, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace,to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood,nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and remained with him fifteen days.But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.(Now concerning the things which I write to you, indeed, before God, I do not lie.)Afterward I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia.And I was unknown by face to the churches of Judea which were in Christ.But they were hearing only, “He who formerly persecuted us now preaches the faith which he once tried to destroy.”And they glorified God in me. - Galatians 1:11-24 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians1:11-24&version=NKJV

Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me.And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain.Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage),to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.But from those who seemed to be something—whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man—for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me.But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter(for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles),and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.They desired only that we should remember the poor, the very thing which I also was eager to do. - Galatians 2:1-10 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians2:1-10&version=NKJV

 

[OZOS]

God called Paul an apostle chosen of God, not chosen by men.

Ephesians 1:1
Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:

He is the apostle to the Gentiles, you idiot. Not one of the twelve unto the circumcision. Tell the truth, you've never really read a Bible, have you?

 

[Idolater]

The question is, is the Holy City representative of Israel.

Is the Holy City "Jerusalem which is above" (Gal4:26), or is it "Jerusalem which now is" (Gal4:25)?

"[He] who was of the bondwoman" (Gal4:23), "Agar" (Gal4:24), "mount Sinai" (Gal4:25) and "Jerusalem which now is" (ibid.) all represent the same thing.

"Jerusalem which is above" represents "the mother of us all", "the children of promise" (Gal4:28), "the son of the freewoman" (Gal4:30) and "children . . . of the free" (Gal4:31). These can be any number of things, but they cannot be what "Jerusalem which now is" represents, agreed?

Hebrews 12:

. . . 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 . . . .

 

[Right Divider]

Hebrews 12:

. . . 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 . . . .

CHURCH is a GENERIC word that REQUIRES CONTEXT.

There are MANY "churches" in the Bible... One of those "churches" is ISRAEL (which is what HEBREWS refers to).

Act 7:38 KJV This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

Again, this "church" is ISRAEL.

 

[marke]

He is the apostle to the Gentiles, you idiot. Not one of the twelve unto the circumcision. Tell the truth, you've never really read a Bible, have you?

What makes you think Paul's message had no purpose for Jews or the message of other apostles were not intended for Gentiles?

 

[Idolater]

CHURCH is a GENERIC word that REQUIRES CONTEXT.

There are MANY "churches" in the Bible... One of those "churches" is ISRAEL (which is what HEBREWS refers to).

Again, this "church" is ISRAEL.

You've identified exactly two churches, and one of them is in one verse, Acts 7:38. All the others refer to the Church that everybody knows. The only other churches in the Bible aren't in your Bible because they're in the books removed from the Catholic Bible to make your Protestant Bible.

 

[Right Divider]

You've identified exactly two churches, and one of them is in one verse, Acts 7:38.

Incorrect. The "church" in Acts 7:38 is the same "church" as in Hebrews 12:23.
And that "church" is NOT the "church which is His body" (i.e., the body of Christ).

All the others refer to the Church that everybody knows.

The body of Christ is a NEW creature and is NOT Israel.

The only other churches in the Bible aren't in your Bible because they're in the books removed from the Catholic Bible to make your Protestant Bible.

 

[Idolater]

Incorrect. The "church" in Acts 7:38 is the same "church" as in Hebrews 12:23.

No it's not. The Acts 7:38 church was not the New Covenant Church of Hebrews 12:22-24.

And that "church" is NOT the "church which is His body" (i.e., the body of Christ).

The Body of Christ is the Church, and the Church is the Body of Christ.

The body of Christ is a NEW creature and is NOT Israel.

 

[Right Divider]

No it's not. The Acts 7:38 church was not the New Covenant Church of Hebrews 12:22-24.

I never said that the church in Acts 7:38 was "the new covenant church".

Both "churches" refer to ISRAEL.

The Body of Christ is the Church, and the Church is the Body of Christ.

Vain claims with no scriptural support.

Note that the NEW COVENANT is between the SAME TWO parties as the OLD COVENANT.

See Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8.

The body of Christ is NOT "new covenant".

 

[Idolater]

I never said that the church in Acts 7:38 was "the new covenant church".

I know. Hebrews 12:22-24 refers to "the new covenant church". As I've already said and as you've continued to let stand, you've only identified two churches in the whole Bible, and one of them is only indicated in Acts 7:38 and in no other scripture. You've yet to show even a third distinct church in Scripture, let alone anything approaching your hyperbolic and false "MANY".

Both "churches" refer to ISRAEL.

Vain claims with no scriptural support.

Note that the NEW COVENANT is between the SAME TWO parties as the OLD COVENANT.

See Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8.

The body of Christ is NOT "new covenant".

Why does St. Paul counsel the Corinthian church, the Gentile Corinthians, on how they should partake of Christ's blood, "the new testament in My blood" (1Co11:25) then? Why does he suggest that the Galatians, the Gentile Galatians, are "the children of promise" (Gal4:28), "the son of the freewoman" (Gal4:30) and "children . . . of the free" (Gal4:31)?

 

[Right Divider]

I know. Hebrews 12:22-24 refers to "the new covenant church". As I've already said and as you've continued to let stand, you've only identified two churches in the whole Bible, and one of them is only indicated in Acts 7:38 and in no other scripture. You've yet to show even a third distinct church in Scripture, let alone anything approaching your hyperbolic and false "MANY".

Regardless, the church which is His body is NOT described in the book to the HEBREWS.

Why does St. Paul counsel the Corinthian church, the Gentile Corinthians, on how they should partake of Christ's blood, "the new testament in My blood" (1Co11:25) then?

Because the new testament is NOT identical to the new COVENANT which is strictly between God and ISRAEL.

Jer 31:31-33 KJV Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: (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; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

That is CLEAR and UNAMBIGUOUS.

Why does he suggest that the Galatians, the Gentile Galatians, are "the children of promise" (Gal4:28), "the son of the freewoman" (Gal4:30) and "children . . . of the free" (Gal4:31)?

That passage is NOT talking about the new covenant.

You should know, but maybe you don't, that there are more than TWO covenants in the Bible.

 

[Idolater]

Regardless, the church which is His body is NOT described in the book to the HEBREWS.

Because the new testament is NOT identical to the new COVENANT which is strictly between God and ISRAEL.

That is CLEAR and UNAMBIGUOUS.

That passage is NOT talking about the new covenant.

You should know, but maybe you don't, that there are more than TWO covenants in the Bible.

There are only two covenants in Galatians 4.

There is "Sinai", "bondage" and "Agar" (vs 24), and then there is "Jerusalem which is above", "free", "the mother of us all" (vs 26), "promise" (vs 28), "born after the Spirit" (vs 29), "freewoman" (vs 30) and "free" (vs 31).

Are you trying to tell me that Paul's not talking about the New Covenant, and that it doesn't apply to the Gentile Galatians?

If you think that Paul got the "CLEAR and UNAMBIGUOUS" prophecy wrong, then your Dispensationalism's in a world of hurt.

 

[Right Divider]

There are only two covenants in Galatians 4.

Duh. I never said otherwise.

There is "Sinai", "bondage" and "Agar" (vs 24), and then there is "Jerusalem which is above", "free", "the mother of us all" (vs 26), "promise" (vs 28), "born after the Spirit" (vs 29), "freewoman" (vs 30) and "free" (vs 31).

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

Are you trying to tell me that Paul's not talking about the New Covenant, and that it doesn't apply to the Gentile Galatians?

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.

If you think that Paul got the "CLEAR and UNAMBIGUOUS" prophecy wrong, then your Dispensationalism's in a world of hurt.

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

Jer 31:31-33 KJV Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: (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; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

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.