Posted on 12/25/2012 9:50:07 AM PST by narses
>> “Where did Paul teach that the Church was a mystical body?” <<
.
In Romans when he introduced it.
>> “Where did Paul teach that the Church was a mystical body?” <<
.
In Romans when he introduced it.
>> “Where did Paul teach that the Church was a mystical body?” <<
.
In Romans when he introduced it.
The ‘Roman’ occupiers were mostly natives. This is the best known facet of Roman rule, and its reason for success. They spoke Hebrew throughout the region.
Chapter and verse?
Papias called me a liar?
Any evidence for this beyond, “I pulled that out of my own butt?”
“All over the place. “Out of the mouth of two witnesses” is mentioned literally in Deut 17:6 and Deut 19:15 in the law, and is practiced throughout the Torah and the prophets. Why do you think that everything is repeated at least twice?”
Ok. You have Jesus, and the Gospel writer for the things that they witnessed. Everything that’s in the Gospel qualifies.
“That is not true. I am not saying to ignore any part.”
But you are. You are saying that ‘unless it meets my arbitrary criteria’, we don’t have to follow it.
“exactly why the law cannot be changed in one jot or tittle.”
And that includes the Gospels. You are attempting to alter the Gospels by ignoring one verse that you don’t like. This is wrong.
“YHWH does not, because YHWH’s Word is sure.”
Then why are you arguing that this one passage is not ‘sure’, and that we can safely ignore it without incurring God’s wrath?
“Which is contrary to what you are teaching here.”
How so? I am arguing that when Jesus gave St. Peter the power to bind and loose that St. Peter was given this authority by God himself, at God’s own time and place, and at his own choosing. I am affirming this principle that the Gospels are inviolate - you are denying this is the case.
“The burden is upon YOU to show that the changes y’all have inflicted upon the Torah are ordained”
Jesus himself said this was the case, and taught this in the Gospels. Ergo, I have met the burden you have asked. You have simply dismissed the citation.
I have then challenged the origin of the rule, and I have now shown why everything in the Gospels qualifies.
So far, you’ve pulled everything you’ve posted here out of that location.
Actually, everything I’ve cited here has been from the Bible. :)
I do not claim infallibility. I do not create new laws. I have made no new rite or order. My consequence is upon my own head. And I am truly open to correction - within the structures that I KNOW to be true.
Your organization is immune to correction though. And has made new law and orders and rites, which plainly confound the law of YHWH. What of that? Who shall correct them, and their folly? And what consequence will they bear? Shall you follow Yeshua or the laws of men?
Actually everything you’ve posted has been opposed to the Bible.
>> “ I am arguing that when Jesus gave St. Peter the power to bind and loose that St. Peter was given this authority by God himself” <<
.
Peter was given no ‘power,’ he was given a commandment that what he bound on Earth had to be that which was bound in Heaven. This is born out by the rest of the NT. Acts 10 is a good example, and there are many more, such as when Paul had to rebuke him for his hypocrisy, and James backed Paul up solidly.
Peter had no ‘power’ but the spiritual gifts of the apostle.
Qualifies as what? one still cannot use the Gospels, or the words of Yeshua to change the Torah. Nothing changes the Torah.
But you are. You are saying that ‘unless it meets my arbitrary criteria’, we don’t have to follow it.
I said no such thing, and my criteria is not arbitrary, as I have already proven.
What I have said is that if the interpretation thereof destroys the Torah, then the interpretation is needfully wrong.
And that includes the Gospels. You are attempting to alter the Gospels by ignoring one verse that you don’t like. This is wrong.
I have ignored nothing.
And that includes the Gospels. You are attempting to alter the Gospels by ignoring one verse that you don’t like. This is wrong.
The passage is sure - it is the interpretation and extrapolation that is false.
How so? I am arguing that when Jesus gave St. Peter the power to bind and loose that St. Peter was given this authority by God himself, at God’s own time and place, and at his own choosing. I am affirming this principle that the Gospels are inviolate - you are denying this is the case.
They can only be inviolate on the sure foundation of the law - To use such a passage to assert authority over the Torah is obviously malformed. And that is exactly what has happened.
Jesus himself said this was the case, and taught this in the Gospels. Ergo, I have met the burden you have asked. You have simply dismissed the citation.
Unless you can demonstrate how that fits within Yeshua's clear command to do and teach the Torah, you have met no such burden. For if Yeshua actually sanctioned such as you desire, he can only be a false prophet. Ergo, your interpretation and extrapolations there from must be incorrect.
I have then challenged the origin of the rule, and I have now shown why everything in the Gospels qualifies.
You have shown nothing. There is no cause with which one can change the Torah. YHWH said so, and so did Yeshua.
“Qualifies as what? one still cannot use the Gospels, or the words of Yeshua to change the Torah. Nothing changes the Torah.”
Then you aren’t a Christian. :)
“my criteria is not arbitrary”
Yes, your criteria is arbitrary, unless you choose to toss out the entire Gospels. Which is consistant, but it also makes you not a Christian.
“What I have said is that if the interpretation thereof destroys the Torah”
You would have to prove that it does destroy the Torah. Which Jesus’s statement most definitely does not do.
“I have ignored nothing”
You are ignoring the passage that states that Jesus gave Paul the power to bind and loose.
“The passage is sure - it is the interpretation and extrapolation that is false.”
What interpolation? That Jesus told Peter that he gave Peter the power to bind and loose? That whatever he bound on earth would be bound in Heaven? That he gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven?
That is all in the actual verse. No interpolation necessary.
“To use such a passage to assert authority over the Torah is obviously malformed. And that is exactly what has happened.”
It is up to you to show that Jesus violated the torah by doing this. It is your thesis. You must demonstrate why. Just saying so is insufficient.
“Unless you can demonstrate how that fits within Yeshua’s clear command to do and teach the Torah”
We see the priestly authority from Melchizedek handed down to Aaron, to Moses, to Elijah. Each time, God gave them blessings and a command and an order to protect his people Israel.
Peter received the same commission, as did Paul - the Great Commission, to preach the Gospel to all nations.
“You have shown nothing”
You say that two witnesses are sufficient. I have shown that all the Gospels bear the testimony of at least two witnesses.
You have conceded this point. Now you are arguing that “Yeshua has no power to change the Torah” and that in commissioning the 12, and giving Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven is contrary to what the Torah states. Now you must prove your contention by showing exactly how this is so.
“Peter had no ‘power’ but the spiritual gifts of the apostle.”
The disciples did not at that point in time, have the gifts of the Holy spirit, which did not come until Pentecost.
This is different.
Christ explicitly states, “I give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven”. He says this to Peter only, not the other Apostles, and he singles out Peter after Peter’s affirmation that Jesus is the Christ.
“Actually everything you’ve posted has been opposed to the Bible.
Your bible omits the Gospel of Matthew? It is a curious bible!
If you believe Yeshua gave Peter the means to call YHWH a liar then we have nothing more to talk about.
Where did Paul teach that the Church was a mystical body?
church == ekklesia in the koine greek. How does YHvH define "church" i.e.Ekklesia ? or What was the purpose of the Ekklesia ? Was it a temporal corporation to rule on earth ? No ! Was it to have a temporal head ? No ! It was a gathering of YHvH's chosen people to hear His Word ? and learn to Fear YHvH all their days ? And to teach their children the same ? Yes. ------------- Ekklesia is from the Hebrew Qahal (kof, hey, lamed) I notice a change in case of the first letter of church
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
Is it all those called out by YHvH ?
A study of the word "church", in the Koine Greek : Ekklesia.
Was the "church" started at the YHvH commanded
Feast day of Shavuot (pentecost) as some say ?
Did the "church" exist earlier ?
Using the LXX as a guide we see that the Ekklesia
is first used in Deuteronomy 4:10 NAsbU Deuteronomy 4:10 "Remember the day you stood before YHvH, your God
Also see : Deu 4:10, Deu 9:10, Deu 18:16, Deu 23:3, Deu 23:4, Deu 23:9, Deu 31:30,
at Horeb, when YHvH said to me, 'Assemble the people to Me, that I may let
them hear My words so they may learn to fear Me all the days they live on
the earth, and that they may teach their children.'
Jos 9:2, Jda 20.2, Jda 21:5, Jda 21:8, Jdg 20:2 Jdg 21:5, Jdg 21:8, 1 Sa 17:47,
1 Sa 19:20, 1 Ki 8:14, 1 Ki 8:22, 1 Ki 8:55, 1 Ki 8:65, 1 Ch 13:2, 1 Ch 13:4, 1 Ch 28:2,
1 Ch 28:8 (kof => The HOLY ONE
which is haQahal The assembly (hey, kop, hey, lamed)
hey => grace, breath of G-d
lamed => teaching and learning)
In scripture it is always used to describe
those who have been assembled by YHvH.
It begins in Exodus 16:3 ( the bread from heaven )
and continues to Nehemiah 8:17 (living in Booths) NAsbU Nehemiah 8:17
The entire assembly of those who had returned from
the captivity made booths and lived in them.
The sons of Israel had indeed not done so
from the days of Joshua(Yehoshua)
the son of Nun to that day.
And there was great rejoicing.
The keys to the kingdom of heaven is salvation by faith.
He gave them to all of mankind, but most deferred.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.