Marlowe, it was you who stated that which is perfect refers to Christ. I was disagreeing with your comment that his church is not perfect.
Posted by P-Marlowe to PFKEY On Religion 05/22/2003 2:45 AM EDT #33 of 51
Sorry, but "That which is Perfect" refers to Christ. The Church has never been perfect.
Furthermore, one says if you say that that "which is perfect" had not come in New Testament times, you are declaring that the church was then imperfect. Paul was speaking of the fact that the New Testament Scriptures had not all been given, and that when they were perfected, or completed, for that is the meaning of the word "perfect", then that which was in part, namely spiritual gifts or divine knowledge, prophecies, and tongues, were to be done away.
It is my contention that 'which is perfect' is refering to the New Testament Scriptures. Which were not fully reveled at the time Paul was writting to the Corinthians.
BTW the new testament scriptures were not even remotely available to the bulk of the TRUE body of Christ until the 19th and 20th centuries. Prior to that the only people with access to the fullness of this "perfection" were corrupt priests and stuffy theologians-- people who, for the most part, were probably not to be included in the True Church of Christ.
If access to the new testament cannon eliminated the need for spiritual gifts, then these spiritual gifts that Paul mentions were clearly needed by the laity throughout the dark ages and into the finishing stages of the reformation! Yet the Church was busy during those times quelching the spirit and inisisting that these "gifts" had ceased because the priests were in possession of this so-called perfection --something the liaty didn't need because they had the priests-- and there was no longer a need for the deep spiritual reflection and edification that accompanies these gifts. The corrupt priesthood held the keys and the laity held their purses open so that they could be robbed of their money as well as their souls.
Your argument has no basis in scripture. It has not basis in fact. It has no basis in logic. Try again.
BTW the new testament scriptures were not even remotely available to the bulk of the TRUE body of Christ until the 19th and 20th centuries. Prior to that the only people with access to the fullness of this "perfection" were corrupt priests and stuffy theologians-- people who, for the most part, were probably not to be included in the True Church of Christ.
If access to the new testament cannon eliminated the need for spiritual gifts, then these spiritual gifts that Paul mentions were clearly needed by the laity throughout the dark ages and into the finishing stages of the reformation! Yet the Church was busy during those times quelching the spirit and inisisting that these "gifts" had ceased because the priests were in possession of this so-called perfection --something the liaty didn't need because they had the priests-- and there was no longer a need for the deep spiritual reflection and edification that accompanies these gifts. The corrupt priesthood held the keys and the laity held their purses open so that they could be robbed of their money as well as their souls.
Your argument has no basis in scripture. It has not basis in fact. It has no basis in logic. Try again.
BTW the new testament scriptures were not even remotely available to the bulk of the TRUE body of Christ until the 19th and 20th centuries. Prior to that the only people with access to the fullness of this "perfection" were corrupt priests and stuffy theologians-- people who, for the most part, were probably not to be included in the True Church of Christ.
If access to the new testament cannon eliminated the need for spiritual gifts, then these spiritual gifts that Paul mentions were clearly needed by the laity throughout the dark ages and into the finishing stages of the reformation! Yet the Church was busy during those times quelching the spirit and inisisting that these "gifts" had ceased because the priests were in possession of this so-called perfection --something the liaty didn't need because they had the priests-- and there was no longer a need for the deep spiritual reflection and edification that accompanies these gifts. The corrupt priesthood held the keys and the laity held their purses open so that they could be robbed of their money as well as their souls.
Your argument has no basis in scripture. It has not basis in fact. It has no basis in logic. Try again.