The Lord was slain on Passover. Was the Passover Lamb a sin offering, Lamont?
No; but "it's the big one, Lizabeth!" :chuckle:
The Lord was slain on Passover. Was the Passover Lamb a sin offering, Lamont?
The Lord was slain on Passover. Was the Passover Lamb a sin offering, Lamont?
The Lord was slain on Passover. Was the Passover Lamb a sin offering, Lamont?
Still got 2P2P on the brain, huh? What if it wasn't?
I guess Paul didn't get the memo. He never uses that term in his epistles to describe the LORD Jesus Christ. 13 epistles; no Lamb.
Still got 2P2P on the brain, huh? What if it wasn't?
So what you're saying is that, in ALL of Paul's THIRTEEN epistles, he never even ONCE uses the word LAMB.1 Corinthians 5:7
Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
Passover sacrifice was a lamb.
So what you're saying is that, in ALL of Paul's THIRTEEN epistles, he never even ONCE uses the word LAMB.
Who do you think that Paul is referring to when he goes on to say "Therefore let us keep the feast ..."?
Who do you think that Paul is referring to when he goes on to say "Therefore let us keep the feast ..."?
So NOW you're a dispensationalist? :chuckle:Paul is referring to the Father's firstborn, those symbolically marked with the blood of Christ.
In Mark 14:24 KJV Jesus said, "This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many."
The new testament is the testimony of the Holy Spirit which began with Jesus' resurrection. This is the Pre-Acts Dispensation (PAD). This dispensation ends when Jesus ushers in the world to come.
I'm saying that Paul refers to Christ as the lamb without using the word "lamb".
Jesus was the sacrifice that paid the price for us to leave the house of our bondage. We now "keep the feast" in a spiritual sense, not by observing a literal day.
- So you're confirming that Paul never even ONCE called Jesus the Lamb of God.
- "the house of our bondage"?
- We have no feasts to keep, spiritual or otherwise.
- Paul never writes of Jesus as "our high priest".
- Paul never writes us as sheep (see Ezekiel 34 to see why Jesus called Israel His sheep and Himself the Good Shepherd).
- Paul never writes about making disciples.
- Paul is that OTHER different apostle.
- Paul is Christs chosen vessel, why?
Why is His blood of the new testament shed for MANY? Why not ALL?
So in THIRTEEN epistles, this is the ONLY time that Paul ALMOST writes about the Jesus being the Lamb of God?I'm confirming that Paul referred to Jesus as being the spiritual Passover lamb without using that terminology.
So you don't believe that Paul spoke directly with the RISEN and ASCENDED LORD Jesus Christ and received ANYTHING that was new? That's silly.I'm confirming that Paul was completely consistent with the other post-Ascension epistle-writers 100%.
Paul never uses the OT scripture to put the body of Christ under the old nor the new covenant.There are a thousand and one likenesses in the OT, many of them symbolic of the same things. As an individual Paul used the ones that spoke to him, and Peter used those that he saw something in.
Modern "ministers" are a mess.Just like modern ministers - people preach the same scripture, and pull two, totally different-but-completely-complimentary truths out of it.
You are blind.There is not one iota of difference doctrinally between Paul and the others.
So in THIRTEEN epistles, this is the ONLY time that Paul ALMOST writes about the Jesus being the Lamb of God?
So you don't believe that Paul spoke directly with the RISEN and ASCENDED LORD Jesus Christ and received ANYTHING that was new? That's silly.
That's not what the chosen vessel wrote about our LORD:Not all will be firstborn. The Passover blood was always for the firstborn.
That's not what the chosen vessel wrote about our LORD:
:chuckle:
IP reminds me of little Leon over in Mayberry; that little boy in the cowboy outfit who goes around offering everyone a bite of his sandwich no one takes him up on.
:rotfl: