THE CHURCH IS NOT THE BRIDE OF CHRIST

[Marilyn C]

Who said men become females?
I can't rewrite scripture just because you have a hangup.
SPIRITUALLY, the body of Christ is the bride of Christ, just as Adam's own body was his bride.
You have no answer for that, right?

So `many sons` should really be many` females?`

 

[GracePeace]

So `many sons` should really be many` females?`

I guess you're completely unfamiliar with Scripture : God called Israel "My firstborn son" AND referred to them as "sisters" (in Ezekiel), AND said He was married to them. You want to try to physicalize these things to make them problematic, but, again, your ignorant nonsense crumbles in the face of Scripture. You are ridiculous and ignorant.

 

[Titus]

See post 761.

`This is he who was in the Church in the wilderness with the angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai, and with our fathers, the one who received the living oracles to give to us....` (Acts 7: 38)

I`m saying that God recognizes the two churches/ekklesia that He made - Israel and the Body of Christ.

Thanks,
Jesus died for His church.
So the body of Christ is the church in Acts 2:47 as Jesus is dead and ressurected having left earth now in heaven, when those that were being saved were added to the church in Acts 2:47.

Colossians 3:18,
- and Jesus is the Head of the body the church who is the beginning the firstborn from the  dead that in all things He might have the preeminence

The church in Acts 2:47 cannot be the church in the wilderness as Christ has already died for His church. Acts 2:47 is the church of Christ.
Do you agree?

 

[Marilyn C]

I guess you're completely unfamiliar with Scripture : God called Israel "My firstborn son" AND referred to them as "sisters" (in Ezekiel), AND said He was married to them. You want to try to physicalize these things to make them problematic, but, again, your ignorant nonsense crumbles in the face of Scripture. You are ridiculous and ignorant.

Yes God calls Israel by various names as to His relationship with them.

If you continue to denigrate me our discussion is finished.

 

[Marilyn C]

Thanks,
Jesus died for His church.
So the body of Christ is the church in Acts 2:47 as Jesus is dead and ressurected having left earth now in heaven, when those that were being saved were added to the church in Acts 2:47.

Colossians 3:18,
- and Jesus is the Head of the body the church who is the beginning the firstborn from the  dead that in all things He might have the preeminence

The church in Acts 2:47 cannot be the church in the wilderness as Christ has already died for His church. Acts 2:47 is the church of Christ.
Do you agree?

Yes.

 

[Marilyn C]

No, logically, if Jesus said "Go into all the nations and teach them to observe what ever I have taught you", and the Apostles DID NOT go, they would have disobeyed Him! That is literally your position--if not, make it clear. The reality is that your position crumbles in the face of plain Scripture--ie, you tried to say "that only applies to Israel", but, no, Christ said "go teach it to all the nations"--and you can't handle it, so you say "No, the disciples did not go into all the nations". Your position is indefensible.

Christ is the Seed, the Word of God.

Nope, "give it to another nation bearing its fruit". You really have a hard time accepting Scripture.
Do you know that you're lying, or is that plain truth hidden from you like the Scriptures' plain truths are hidden from you?

I really don't know what you're arguing, here. The Scripture is clear that the nations rejoice with His people (Peter, Paul, etc), etc, etc,, and you have no answer for it.

I don't know what you're complaining about--your position is literally that the Apostles disobeyed Christ, and did not go into all the nations. You know, I could even grant that to you, and you'd still be wrong : in Christ's mind, everything He taught was to be observed by the nations, even if the Apostles disobeyed Christ.

Sorry, if you don't hold to Doug's view, I take it back--you believe in "Church of Israel"?

As you are not giving scriptures but just your opinions then discussion is not profitable.

 

[GracePeace]

Yes God calls Israel by various names as to His relationship with them.

God doesn't just "call" them His wife, He said "your Maker is your Husband" Isaiah 54:5, and, accordingly, describes Israel's idolatry as "adultery" in Hosea. He RELATES to them as Husband. Oh, but they're His son, so how could He do that? LOL! You are completely out of your depth--and we're still in the shallow end of the pool!

If you continue to denigrate me our discussion is finished.

Be worthy of respect, and you'll get it--instead, you dismiss any Scripture that debunks your poppycock--in reality, you're the epitome of why women, who, of course, WISH to be teachers, can never be teachers over men, nor wield authority over a man. You are the weaker vessel--that refers to the weakness of your mind, which was deceived, because it is weak, whereas "Adam was not deceived".

 

[GracePeace]

As you are not giving scriptures but just your opinions then discussion is not profitable.

Oh, I thought I was discussing with a "bible college" student or graduate. I thought you would be familiar, and know which Scriptures I was alluding to. Did you really need me to cite every verse instead of alluding to them?

 

[Lizbeth]

You don't understand the magnitude of this subject if you think it doesn't have great importance.

Paul was not referring to any of the apostles.
There was a group of men falsely claiming to be apostles.
They did not have the Holy Spirit.
Their teachings were not Inspired.

I've taught what Jesus said on this matter with book, chapter and verse.
The Bible teaches us there were no prominent apostles.
Jesus taught against it.

You're misunderstanding what I meant about not making this seem over-important. All scripture and all truth of course is important, but there are things the Lord wouldn't have us make too much of, for example in the way that Catholicism does.

I was referring to this verse, in which Paul mentioned Peter (also called Cephas), James and John, which definitely was referring to those three apostles....

Gal 2:9
And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

And I think it's not a coincidence that that these were the same three Jesus took with Him to witness His transfiguration.

 

[Lizbeth]

Actually, we are born of the `incorruptible seed` through the word of God.

`...having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides for ever. ` (1 Peter 1: 23)

Amen, very true, but that doesn't cancel out other analogies and aspects of how we are born again.

 

[GracePeace]

LOL! @Marilyn C was getting absolutely hammered in debate, so she shifted the issue to "show me respect" so that she could run away--it appears--she had enough of having to actually call the Apostles "disobedient", etc, lying against Scripture, to uphold her nonsense, so she decided to bow out. Sounds good!

 

[Titus]

Yes

Jews and gentiles are both saved in the body of Christ.

You're misunderstanding what I meant about not making this seem over-important. All scripture and all truth of course is important, but there are things the Lord wouldn't have us make too much of, for example in the way that Catholicism does.

I was referring to this verse, in which Paul mentioned Peter (also called Cephas), James and John, which definitely was referring to those three apostles....

Gal 2:9
And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

And I think it's not a coincidence that that these were the same three Jesus took with Him to witness His transfiguration.

I dont know if you read all of my posts but those verses were already explained by me.
None of the verses you used teach prominence among the apostles.

I would appreciate you including book chapter and verse to avoid confusion.

The private discussion is recorded in Acts 15. Apostles and elders of the church came together to discuss the matter of the Jews binding circumcision and commanding that the gentile Christians keep the law of Moses.

Paul repeats this twice Galatians 2:6 ; 9
Leading men are referred to as Pillars of the church.
That word is reference to elders and apostles in the church.
Specifically James, Cephas, John.
Pillar simply means men that were respected in the church.
This has NOTHING to do with ranking among the apostles.
Proof of this is Cephas was not even an apostle!!! Yet he was one of the Pillars.
So in no way is the context implying greater apostles over other apostles as Pillars in the church

I just realized I made a mistake. It was James who was not an apostle.
Cephas or Peter was.
Paul is speaking of Jesus' brother, James in Galatians 2 as a pillar.
This James was never an apostle.
Only two apostles mentioned. Elders are not apostles.
Although an apostle could become an elder in the church.

James the apostle was dead before Paul wrote his epistle to the Galatians.
Acts 12:1-2,
- now about the time Herod stretched forth his hand to vex certain of the church
And he killed James the brother of John with the sword

I knew there was only two apostles and one elder of the church that were referred to as pillars in the church that Paul spoke of in Galatians 2.
I mistakenly typed the wrong name. I apologize.

But you are mistaken.
There were not three apostles mentioned.
There were two and one elder.

 

[Lizbeth]

Yes, and He rules. It is not talking about land, as God made it all and never gave it away. people think when God talks about kingdom it means he is going to take over the earth. Well, He never gave it away. God is talking about rulership.

God had delegated rule of this world to Lucifer....prince of this world.....the ruling angelic principality of it. But with God always sovereign over all. But we we know Satan fell and in the fullness of time Jesus in defeating him took the rule from him, or we could say the Father took the rule away from Satan and gave it to His Son. But regardless of who is ruling this world, the world is only temporal, and we are told this world is going to pass away one day....and that it is going to burn up at the return of Christ, and so we look for a new heavens and new earth. ("New" and "renewed" in scripture speaks to something being made spiritual and eternal, no longer earthly or carnal and temporal. So we are not supposed to be "looking" for and expecting a kingdom on this earth, but Peter wrote we "look for a NEW heavens and new earth"

Rulership is part of having a kingdom, I agree, but I think we need to look at the general point Jesus was making in the passage we're talking about:

Luk 17:20-24

And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:

Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

And he said unto the disciples, The days will come, when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see it.

And they shall say to you, See here; or, see there: go not after them, nor follow them.

For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day.

The Pharisees and Jews of that day were expecting a visible earthly kingdom. An earthly utopia. Jesus was correcting that carnal understanding and letting them know His kingdom is not earthly like earthly kingdoms that one can see with the natural eyes and point to it (lo here or lo there it is). His kingdom is not temporal, it is spiritual/heavenly and thus eternal. (In the exact same way He was also saying His coming and return is not the way that we might think in our carnal thinking.)

 

[Lizbeth]

Jews and gentiles are both saved in the body of Christ.

I dont know if you read all of my posts but those verses were already explained by me.
None of the verses you used teach prominence among the apostles.

I would appreciate you including book chapter and verse to avoid confusion.

I just realized I made a mistake. It was James who was not an apostle.
Cephas or Peter was.
Paul is speaking of Jesus' brother, James in Galatians 2 as a pillar.
This James was never an apostle.
Only two apostles mentioned. Elders are not apostles.
Although an apostle could become an elder in the church.

James the apostle was dead before Paul wrote his epistle to the Galatians.
Acts 12:1-2,
- now about the time Herod stretched forth his hand to vex certain of the church
And he killed James the brother of John with the sword

I knew there was only two apostles and one elder of the church that were referred to as pillars in the church that Paul spoke of in Galatians 2.
I mistakenly typed the wrong name. I apologize.

But you are mistaken.
There were not three apostles mentioned.
There were two and one elder.

In Gal 2:9 Paul was referring to something that had happened in the past, not long after Paul was saved....apparently before James was martyred.

 

[Lizbeth]

LOL! @Marilyn C was getting absolutely hammered in debate, so she shifted the issue to "show me respect" so that she could run away--it appears--she had enough of having to actually call the Apostles "disobedient", etc, lying against Scripture, to uphold her nonsense, so she decided to bow out. Sounds good!

This is not about winning arguments. It should be about helping one another, shouldn't it? Gloating doesn't help, instead it HINDERS.