Search results

So, what's your point? It's harder to decipher your sentence structure than the straight word for word translations you quoted.

Paul's gospel was preached in the Garden of Eden. Genesis 3:15 KJV — And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

It is, even today: https://www.oneforisrael.org/bible-based-teaching-from-israel/inescapable-truth-isaiah-53/

Why? Why would one want to symbolize wine? Wouldn't it be because wine reminds us of something else? Otherwise, we are worshiping wine. Do we worship Jesus' blood? Or do we worship the one Who gave His blood? Do we worship the body? Doesn't that mean we worship the church at least as much as the...

You have to put "Jesus" in quotation marks, because you know He existed before, without the name.

Maybe the answer to the confusion is that it is impossible to draw such a distinct line as you are drawing. And I'm not opposed to your premise, that the name of Jesus is intended to refer to the person who is both God and man. I just don't see where it is necessary. If Jesus is the name applied...

Are we still on the Roman Catholicism transubstantiation question? Oh, right, this is a different thread. 😉

Else his books would be called "Hamnals".

Is science meant to be taken literally or not? After all if Anthony Fauci IS science...

Ask for an extra pack of socks for Christmas. Christians already defy styles to some degree, if merely for modesty's sake. And with all the weird styles, who can even tell what 3.5 years of style change would be. Of course, that means you have to rotate your clothes stock like you would have to...

No, it doesn't. Something was going to change, but how it changed was TBD before Paul, at least from the apostles' vantage point. And that old covenant wasn't a perfect one. That's why a new one was needed. In the New Covenant, God had to show them, through Paul and through Peter, that...

Again, that suggests that He is continuing to build, not a future build. I'm surely not saying Jesus had nothing to do with the people of Israel in the Old Testament. Indeed. And the people were all baptized and ate together of spiritual food and drank together of spiritual drink. 1...

My sister saw this in Seattle:

Surely the oxymoronic Roman Catholicism didn't start until there was widespread disagreement. The popes appear to have heightened that disagreement over the years.

I don't think you're as MAD as you are wondering, with that statement. Maybe I'm wrong, but most MADs here wouldn't put it that way, else I'm MAD, too.

One of my college physics texts was "Don't Panic". And for good reason.

That doesn't mean it was supposed to stay 100% Jewish. Yes, dispensation of the gospel shared by the Jews and Gentiles. There's the mystery! That Christ would be in Gentiles. "Also"? Amen!

I'm not sure I follow your sentence structure. Could you at least include a question mark?

I was trying to allow for different meanings, but "assembly" works. If Jesus is "building" an assembly, and pointing out the foundation of it, which assembly is He building? Is it the Jews? No, because the Jewish assembly was already built on Moses. Was it believing Jews over the years? No...

Agreed. And the context of building a church (congregation or group) on a foundation with the word "will", which is a future tense auxiliary verb, means, from context, something that was not already started 1500 years ago, as far as I can tell.