THE CHURCH IS NOT THE BRIDE OF CHRIST

[Big Boy Johnson]

Don't lett what the Lord says in His Word to get in the way of what you believe now:

Revelation 19:7 – “Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.”

Revelation 21:2 – “And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.”

Matthew 25:1 – “Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.”

Revelation 21:9 – “And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb’s wife.”

Those that really love the Lord simply accept what He says with childlike faith accepting what the Lord says as a dear child.

Rebellious children refuse to accept what the Lord says as the refuse His leading because they are the tares that don't love the Lord.

Now you know how to tell the two camps apart! Light side, and dark side.

 

[GracePeace]

[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

Here's an updated version.

Galatians 2:7But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised...

Even if you wanted to argue that Peter had one Gospel, and Paul had another Gospel, and these were different, and yielded different results among the different peoples :

1. What are the differences in the two Gospels?
2. In your (mis)understanding, Paul, a Jew, is in Christ, because he received a Gospel that was not "of the circumcision", though he is circumcised, and ought to have received that Gospel?

 

[GracePeace]

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

LOL! So if I can prove Paul preached that the Kingdom would come to earth, and that people should have faith in the Name of Jesus, that would prove they preached the same?

 

[Doug]

Here's an updated version.

Galatians 2:7But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised...

I am familiar with these translations....I dont use them

 

[Doug]

What are the differences in the two Gospels?

Peter preached only the name of Jesus for the remission of sins.........
[Act 2:38 KJV] 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
[Act 10:43 KJV] 43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

Not the blood.............[Rom 3:25 KJV] 25 Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

 

[GracePeace]

I am familiar with these translations....I dont use them

Did Peter abide in Christ?

 

[Doug]

LOL! So if I can prove Paul preached that the Kingdom would come to earth, and that people should have faith in the Name of Jesus, that would prove they preached the same?

Paul also preached the name of Christ and that he was the Son of God and the heavenly kingdom........This was all the truth of the gospel of God
Preaching similarities dont negate differences

 

[GracePeace]

Paul also preached the name of Christ and that he was the Son of God and the heavenly kingdom........This was all the truth of the gospel of God
Preaching similarities dont negate differences

So, were you saying that Paul's Gospel caused people to be "in Christ", but Peter's did not?

 

[GracePeace]

One new man is found in Paul's epistles
Christ formed the body of Christ which is the one new man, a new creature
The remnant of Israel is not the body of Christ so it is error to say they are
Paul doesnt call them the body of Christ but the church of God 1 Cor 15:9

1. You're saying that Peter and the other Jewish believers he preached to are "the remnant of Israel", and, therefore, are not "the body of Christ"? That's odd, since, when Paul was persecuting them, Jesus said, "Why are you persecuting ME?" LOL!
2. Did Peter abide "in Christ"?
3. Why is Paul, who is of "the remnant of Israel", part of "the body of Christ"--or do you dispute that?
4. Wouldn't it be fair to say that those who are "in Christ" are "the body of Christ"?
5. Would you say only those who heard and believed "Paul's" Gospel were "the body of Christ", and were "in Christ"?
6a. The reality of the "one new man" is clearly supposed to be active with Peter's Gospel, because God showed him he was not to call any man unclean (Acts 10), and that it was, therefore, fine for him to go to their home and eat with them; and this message, once he learned it by the vision, he preached to his Jewish brothers, and they accepted it, "...saying, 'Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life.'” How was there not "one new man" in Peter's Gospel, then?
6b. Didn't Paul call Peter out on his veering from this "one new man" reality in Galatians 2--and didn't Peter submit to that correction?
7. What "problem" are you trying to "solve" when you say Peter and Paul preach different Gospels that yield different results?

 

[Doug]

So, were you saying that Paul's Gospel caused people to be "in Christ", but Peter's did not?

No I did not
Paul said there were those in Christ before him

 

[Doug]

So, were you saying that Paul's Gospel caused people to be "in Christ", but Peter's did not?

I will answer your other post but just what is your main point in all of this....what is it you believe that others need to know

 

[Doug]

So, were you saying that Paul's Gospel caused people to be "in Christ", but Peter's did not?

My main point is that God is reconciling heaven and earth to himself
Israel will be used to reconcile the earth
The body of Christ will reconcile heaven
What Jesus taught and commanded Israel was for Israel....we can learn from it
the gospel preached by Peter was for Israel
Our gospel is from Paul
we do not become Israel.....God is not done with Israel
We need to rightly divide all of this....mixing it all together is confusion

 

[GracePeace]

No I did not
Paul said there were those in Christ before him

OK Thanks for the clarification.
If they are "in Christ", are they not also the body of Christ?

 

[GracePeace]

I will answer your other post but just what is your main point in all of this....what is it you believe that others need to know

Well, I hold that they preached the Gospel, and it's just one Gospel.
I don't want people confused by your nonsense.

 

[GracePeace]

My main point is that God is reconciling heaven and earth to himself
Israel will be used to reconcile the earth
The body of Christ will reconcile heaven
What Jesus taught and commanded Israel was for Israel....we can learn from it
the gospel preached by Peter was for Israel
Our gospel is from Paul
we do not become Israel.....God is not done with Israel
We need to rightly divide all of this....mixing it all together is confusion

1. What, exactly, was Peter's Gospel, from which we can learn--and what is an example of what we can garner from "his" Gospel--and how did it differ from Paul's?

2. Do you take into account that Paul also preached to the Jews?
a. Paul went to the Synagogue and preached his Gospel to Jews, not Peter's, many times, "as was his custom" (Acts 17:2).
b. The famous incident with the "Bereans", where they "daily searched the Scriptures" (Acts 17:11), are an example of Jews to whom Paul preached the Gospel--not Peter, not "Peter's Gospel for the circumcised", but "Paul's Gospel", which you insist was for the uncircumcised, not for the circumcised. Why would Paul preach his Gospel, which you insist was for uncircumcised only, to the circumcised? Wasn't he violating your supposed protocol?
c. Also, Romans, as I noted, was written, mostly, to the Jews in the Roman Church.
Remember :
i. "If you call yourself a Jew" (Ro 2:17),
ii. "Abraham our forefather according to the flesh" (Ro 4:1),
iii. "Or do you not know, my brothers (for I speak to those who know the Law)..." (Ro 7:1).
Literacy was not common back then, and, on top of that, as would be expected, Paul describes the Gentiles as neither having (Ro 2:14), nor knowing the Law (Ro 7:1), so all of Paul's Scriptural arguments would've gone over the Gentile believers' heads--as they continue to go over their heads today--but they are perfectly fitted when seen as preempting Jewish believers' Scripture-based objections (Scriptures which the Gentiles did not know--Paul's intended audience, with these arguments, was the believing Jews). Paul does address the Gentiles in Rome at the opening of the letter, and, finally, in Chapter 11, and with some issues (eg, Ro 14) after, but the lion's share of the material in Romans addresses Jewish believers in particular. Only they needed that information to answer their Scripture-based questions. For instance, Gentiles, who were never under Law, were not "set free" from the Law they were never under; that applies to Jewish believers.
In other words, why does Paul have such a detailed Gospel for Jews if the Jews were meant to have a different Gospel, and why are Gentile believers studying the Gospel Paul preached to the Jewish believers in the Roman Church?

3. I never said God was done with Israel; I said there were two Israels, and, one day, perhaps soon, the physical Israel, which is in unbelief, will be reunified with the spiritual Israel, their people they had been cut off from, as the Torah warns, due to their sin (in this case, of unbelief).