THE CHURCH IS NOT THE BRIDE OF CHRIST

[Doug]

LOL! The remnant of Israel is not the body of Christ?
Is Paul the remnant of Israel? Yes? Well, what is he doing being "crucified with Christ"? He is sharing in the death and resurrection of Christ because he is part of the body of Christ. Why is he doing that if "the remnant of Israel is not the body of Christ"?

[1Ti 1:16 KJV] 16 Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.

Paul states that Christ chose Paul to be a pattern to those who would believe hereafter which is the body of Christ

[Act 22:4 KJV] 4 And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women.
[1Co 15:9 KJV] 9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

Paul said he persecuted the remnant.......he did not ever say he was in the remnant of Israel

 

[GracePeace]

[1Ti 1:16 KJV] 16 Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.

Paul states that Christ chose Paul to be a pattern to those who would believe hereafter which is the body of Christ

[Act 22:4 KJV] 4 And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women.
[1Co 15:9 KJV] 9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

Paul said he persecuted the remnant.......he did not ever say he was in the remnant of Israel

OOPS!

Romans 9:3For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, 4who are Israelites...

If his kinsmen are Israelites, WHAT DOES THAT MAKE PAUL?
AN ISRAELITE!
Romans 11:1I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

So, we have established that Paul is an "Israelite".

Next, let's figure out if he is of "the remnant of Israel" that is being saved.
Is he saved? Yes. Then he is of the remnant of Israel that is being saved.

But let's look at Scripture :

Romans 11:2God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel? 3“Lord, THEY HAVE KILLED YOUR PROPHETS, THEY HAVE TORN DOWN YOUR ALTARS, AND I ALONE AM LEFT, AND THEY ARE SEEKING MY LIFE.” 4But what is the divine response to him? “I HAVE KEPT for Myself SEVEN THOUSAND MEN WHO HAVE NOT BOWED THE KNEE TO BAAL.” 5In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant...

So, at the present time, there is a "remnant" of Israel that is being saved. Why is it called a "remnant"? Because a "remnant" is a tiny piece of the whole. What happened to the rest? They're in unbelief, they're unsaved. "Not all Israel is the 'Israel' that is referred to in 'all "Israel" will be saved'."

So, yes, we have established the utterly elementary doctrine that Paul is an Israelite and is saved/being saved.

 

[Doug]

No, it wouldn't, because it says "peace be upon all those who walk by this rule", and that they are "the Israel of God", so "the Israel of God" would consist in all who walk by that rule.

[Gal 6:16 KJV] 16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace [be] on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

The verse is saying peace and mercy be upon those who walk according to this rule AND upon the Israel of God

The Israel of God is separate from those who walk to the rule

 

[GracePeace]

[Gal 6:16 KJV] 16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace [be] on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

The verse is saying peace and mercy be upon those who walk according to this rule AND upon the Israel of God

The Israel of God is separate from those who walk to the rule

A. Not in context : the entire Book is an excoriation of the Jewish "false brothers" ("...especially those of the circumcision, whose mouths must be stopped..." Ti 1:10) who are telling the Gentile believers that they don't really belong to God, or "God's people", or "Israel", unless they practice the customs prescribed under Torah; Paul, in response to this, tells them that they, indeed, do belong to God, are members of "the Israel of God", as one last parting shot at the Judaizers' false doctrine, saying that they are not even part of the Israel that counts as Israel before God. "Watch out for the dogs" he says of them elsewhere--dogs are the members of the nations who are not God's people. He's saying "these false teachers are not God's people, but you are in good hands, you are accepted, you are God's people, you are part of the Israel of God".

B. In Greek, the "and" (in "and upon the Israel of God") can be translated "even".
Here's a little Google AI for you :
The Greek word "kai" in Galatians 6:16, translated as "and" in many English versions ("and upon the Israel of God"), can potentially be translated as "even"
.
Why the Potential for "Even":

• Grammatical Possibility: While the most common meaning of "kai" is "and" (indicating a simple connection or conjunction), it can also be used in an appositional or explicative sense, meaning "even," "namely," or "that is".
• Contextual Arguments: Some scholars argue that translating "kai" as "even" fits the overall argument of Galatians, which emphasizes the unity of believers (both Jew and Gentile) in Christ and salvation through faith rather than adherence to the Mosaic Law.
  • This translation would imply that "those who walk by this rule" (those who believe in Christ and live by faith) are the "Israel of God".

 

[Doug]

I've been showing it, but you aren't paying attention : when Paul describes a natural branch being grafted back into its own olive tree, he doesn't use the language "contrary to nature", thus, these Gentiles, who are cut from "wild olive trees", and who are grafted in to the "cultivated olive tree" "contrary to nature", are not native to the cultivated olive tree, whereas all "remnant of Israel" believers are native to the olive tree, and are, when they come to faith, NOT grafted "contrary to nature" into their own tree that they belong to, but it is said of them "How much more will is He able to graft them into their own tree?"

The whole point is that the Gentiles were grafted into the good tree to provoke Israel to salvation
These Gentiles weren't part of the remnant before God made them part

 

[GracePeace]

The whole point is that the Gentiles were grafted into the good tree to provoke Israel to salvation
These Gentiles weren't part of the remnant before God made them part

LOL! They are not "remnants of Israel", they are "remnants" of Gentile nations--the majority of their nation is lost and destroyed, but those few souls are saved from among those Gentile nations.

Your argument was that they were "remnant of Israel Gentiles", not "Gentiles", but they really are Gentiles, non-Jews.

 

[Doug]

OOPS!

Romans 9:3For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, 4who are Israelites...

If his kinsmen are Israelites, WHAT DOES THAT MAKE PAUL?
AN ISRAELITE!
Romans 11:1I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

So, we have established that Paul is an "Israelite".

Next, let's figure out if he is of "the remnant of Israel" that is being saved.
Is he saved? Yes. Then he is of the remnant of Israel that is being saved.

But let's look at Scripture :

Romans 11:2God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel? 3“Lord, THEY HAVE KILLED YOUR PROPHETS, THEY HAVE TORN DOWN YOUR ALTARS, AND I ALONE AM LEFT, AND THEY ARE SEEKING MY LIFE.” 4But what is the divine response to him? “I HAVE KEPT for Myself SEVEN THOUSAND MEN WHO HAVE NOT BOWED THE KNEE TO BAAL.” 5In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant...

So, at the present time, there is a "remnant" of Israel that is being saved. Why is it called a "remnant"? Because a "remnant" is a tiny piece of the whole. What happened to the rest? They're in unbelief, they're unsaved. "Not all Israel is the 'Israel' that is referred to in 'all "Israel" will be saved'."

So, yes, we have established the utterly elementary doctrine that Paul is an Israelite and is saved/being saved.

Yes Paul was an Israelite but the body of Christ is made of Gentiles and Jews,,,,,,,,scripture doesnt say Paul believed Peter and the disciples but rather received revelations from Christ

 

[GracePeace]

Yes Paul was an Israelite but the body of Christ is made of Gentiles and Jews,,,,,,,,scripture doesnt say Paul believed Peter and the disciples but rather received revelations from Christ

A Jew is an Israelite. Paul is a Jew, and Israelite, of the remnant of Israel--and he's "in Christ", a member of the body of Christ, or else he could not have said that he had died with Christ. When Romans 6 says we are baptized into Christ, thus share in His death and in His resurrection, how much clearer do you want it said that believers (all believers--Peter, Paul, Stephanas, Jews, Gentiles, men, women, slave, free) are "in Christ", part of His body? Is it your opinion that Paul is not in Christ?

And what on earth does Paul believing Peter have anything to do with it--as if only those who receive Paul's message, which ostensibly differs from that of Peter, et al, are in the body of Christ? You think Peter is not in the body of Christ? You realize Paul went to Peter to check if his Gospel was true (Galatians 2:2), right, and that they verified that Paul's message was true, so they had the same message?

 

[Doug]

You realize Paul went to Peter to check if his Gospel was true (Galatians 2), right, and that they verified that Paul's message was true, so they had the same message?

Paul did not verify his gospel he communicated it to him...................[Gal 2:2 KJV] 2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

 

[GracePeace]

Paul did not verify his gospel he communicated it to him...................[Gal 2:2 KJV] 2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

1. You missed the point : they agreed, their messages did not differ. The message of Peter is the same message of Paul, so, no, there is not a unique message with Paul, which, if it is believed, magically makes you part of Christ--as if, by contrast, the message of Peter, which "differs", does not make you a part of the body of Christ.
2. "I did so in private to those who were of reputation for fear that I might be running or had run in vain" : he CHECKED his Gospel with those who were "in the know", just to make sure that it lined up with theirs.

 

[Doug]

1. You missed the point : they agreed, their messages did not differ. The message of Peter is the same message of Paul, so, no, there is not a unique message with Paul, which, if it is believed, magically makes you part of Christ--as if, by contrast, the message of Peter, which "differs", does not make you a part of the body of Christ.
2. "I did so in private to those who were of reputation for fear that I might be running or had run in vain" : he CHECKED his Gospel with those who were "in the know", just to make sure that it lined up with theirs.

They didnt preach the same gospel..........[Gal 2:7 KJV] 7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as [the gospel] of the circumcision [was] unto Peter;........................two different gospels

 

[GracePeace]

They didnt preach the same gospel..........[Gal 2:7 KJV] 7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as [the gospel] of the circumcision [was] unto Peter;........................two different gospels

Nope, they were just appointed to go and preach to two different people-groups : Peter was mainly to sent to the Jews, and Paul was mainly sent to the Gentiles, and both engaged in preaching the Gospel to eachothers' main audiences (Paul preached to Jews (eg, the Synagogue in Antioch in Acts 13), and Peter preached to Gentiles (eg, Cornelius in Acts 10)).

In fact, Paul brings Peter back in line with his (Paul's) own Gospel, correcting him for not walking in accordance with the truth of the Gospel, but causing Gentiles to live as Jews, in Galatians 2--and we know that this is a point Paul hits over and over and over in "his Gospel"--and Paul specifies it was so that the truth of the Gospel would be preserved, meaning both Peter and Paul adhered to the same Gospel, being held to the same standard of truth, so that Paul could spot when Peter was not walking in truth.

When Paul says "according to my Gospel" in Romans, you need to keep in mind that the majority of the Book of Romans was written to the Jewish believers in the Roman Church : the circumstance of the writing of the Epistle was that the Jews had been exiled from Rome (as rulers have often done), but, now that they were returning to Rome, they were finding that the Church had been filled with Gentile believers, and they were having issues getting along. In other words, Paul writes the Epistle of Romans to both Jews and Gentiles. "BuT hE wAs OnLy SeNt To Da GeNtIlEs!"

You don't have a clue about a single thing you say.

They (Peter, et al, and Paul) preached the same message. You can't prove there's a difference.

 

[Doug]

Nope, they were just appointed to go and preach to two different people-groups

Galatians says the gospel OF not To........this signifies different gospels

 

[Doug]

In fact, Paul brings Peter back in line with his (Paul's) own Gospel, correcting him for not walking in accordance with the truth of the Gospel,

All I know is Peter was told not to call Gentiles unclean and was told food was clean and here he was not eating with the Gentiles anymore because the circumcision said it was not lawful
Plus in the council they decided not to put Gentiles under the law

 

[Ronald Nolette]

It is important to know for it leads to the wrong inheritance.

Anyone who is a true believer is part of the body of Christ and thus part of the bride.

I know you have been taught the 144,000 and the great crowd, but that is a false interpretation of Gods word.

 

[GracePeace]

Galatians says the gospel OF not To........this signifies different gospels

No, it doesn't say "of", and, no, you can't prove they are different, and I proved they were the same, and I await your response to my having already proved they were the same.

 

[GracePeace]

All I know is Peter was told not to call Gentiles unclean and was told food was clean and here he was not eating with the Gentiles anymore because the circumcision said it was not lawful
Plus in the council they decided not to put Gentiles under the law

Yeah, meaning that the two had the same Gospel, but, here, in this incident outlined in Galatians 2, Peter was not walking in the truth of the Gospel, and, so, Paul, who believed the same Gospel, brought him back in line with the Gospel the two of them shared in common LOL

 

[GracePeace]

All I know is Peter was told not to call Gentiles unclean and was told food was clean and here he was not eating with the Gentiles anymore because the circumcision said it was not lawful
Plus in the council they decided not to put Gentiles under the law

So... in what way(s) did their Gospels ostensibly differ?

 

[Doug]

No, it doesn't say "of", and, no, you can't prove they are different, and I proved they were the same, and I await your response to my having already proved they were the same.

[Gal 2:7 KJV] 7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as [the gospel] of the circumcision [was] unto Peter;

It says OF

 

[Doug]

So... in what way(s) did their Gospels ostensibly differ?

Peter preached the gospel of the coming kingdom on earth and faith in the name of Jesus

Paul preached that Christ died for our sins was buried and rose for our justification