Not ALL the physically dead are raised at the same time, the dead in Christ rise FIRST.

[covenantee]

For instance, your translation uses the phrase "lively stones," which makes no sense. Stones aren't lively; they don't move at all.

1 Peter 2:5 Greek

In the Greek, it is "stones living".

So you believe that the Greek makes no sense?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

All translations have issues, but this is a manageable condition. We simply need to notice when a translation doesn't make sense of the overall message. For instance, your translation uses the phrase "lively stones," which makes no sense. Stones aren't lively; they don't move at all. Until you work out what idea your translation is attempting to convey, you can't use it to prove your case.

So, what translation do you use? Is this a hard question?

What's lively is what the stones represent and they represent Christians who are in the church. It talks about them being built into a spiritual house which matches Paul's description of the church in Ephesians 2:19-22 where he talks about Christians being part of the building of the household of God and temple of the Lord which represents the church.

I already did that.

No, you didn't. Will you please stop lying all the time?

Look at the passage again

1 Peter 2:9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of . . .

a chosen race
The only chosen race in the Bible is the family God chose to be his possession -- the sons and daughters of Jacob -- the twelve tribes. Therefore, Peter is not talking to the church at large because "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28). Understand? There is no such thing as a chosen race in the church.

a holy nation
The only chosen nation in the Bible is Israel. Therefore, Peter is not talking to the church at large because "the house of Israel will not be willing to listen to you, since they are not willing to listen to Me. Surely the whole house of Israel is stubborn and obstinate." Ezekiel 3:7


Let me quote the Ephesians passage from the NASB

Ephesians 2:19-22

So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.​

I don't see the similarity between 1 Peter 2 and Ephesians 2.

So you see, you have no case.

Are you being purposely dense here? I already showed you the passages that I was talking about. I'm talking about comparing the following passage to Ephesians 2:19-22:

1 Peter 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

You understand that this passage is talking about the same people as 1 Peter 2:9, don't you? Notice it calls them "an holy priesthood". Same people are called "a royal priesthood" in verse 9. Notice they are described as being "built up a spiritual house" with Jesus as the cornerstone. Just like what Paul wrote about in Ephesians 2:19-22. If you don't see those similarities then you're not even trying and you don't want to see them.

 

[PinSeeker]

Just one last thing since you said this.

LOL! "Just one last thing..."

I'm laughing at you, too. Just to be clear.

Hmmm, okay, but, with all due respect, I could not care less.

But thanks... I guess, because I couldn't care less about this, either... for letting me know that it bothers you, though.

In case you were wondering. <infinite smiles>

I wasn't. <smile>

Grace and peace to you.

 

[CadyandZoe]

1 Peter 2:5 Greek

In the Greek, it is "stones living".

So you believe that the Greek makes no sense?

Let's turn this around. You claim that the church is a "holy nation" and you are basing your claim on an epistle Peter wrote to the diaspora. Your position is based on a letter Peter is writing to the circumcision. Can you find anywhere in Paul's writings where he refers to the church as a nation?

 

[CadyandZoe]

So, what translation do you use? Is this a hard question?

I use the NASB.

What's lively is what the stones represent and they represent Christians who are in the church.

On what you base your conclusion? Have you ever seen lively stones?

It talks about them being built into a spiritual house which matches Paul's description of the church in Ephesians 2:19-22 where he talks about Christians being part of the building of the household of God and temple of the Lord which represents the church.

So he does. But this is beside the point, isn't it? I maintain that Peter is writing to the circumcision, and when he refers to them as "a holy nation" he refers to their nation -- Israel. So far you haven't shown me anything to contradict that idea.

No, you didn't. Will you please stop lying all the time?


Are you being purposely dense here? I already showed you the passages that I was talking about. I'm talking about comparing the following passage to Ephesians 2:19-22:

1 Peter 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

No. Your comparison is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

You understand that this passage is talking about the same people as 1 Peter 2:9, don't you?

No, they are not the same people as I proved to you already. Peter and Paul both write letters to Christian churches. But they aren't the same people. That is, they aren't the same family groups. Paul is writing to Gentile Christians, while Peter is writing to Jewish Christians. 1 Peter 2:9 is true of Jewish Christians but not true of Gentile Christians.

God only chose one race. And God only designated Israel as a holy nation.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I use the NASB.

The NASB teaches the deity of Christ. Since you believe it is wrong about that, how do you trust it about anything?

On what you base your conclusion? Have you ever seen lively stones?

On the fact that it's not talking about a literal building, but rather is figuratively talking about God's people collectively, which we call the church.

So he does. But this is beside the point, isn't it? I maintain that Peter is writing to the circumcision, and when he refers to them as "a holy nation" he refers to their nation -- Israel. So far you haven't shown me anything to contradict that idea.

It's not beside the point at all. It's called interpreting scripture with scripture. Obviously, that's a foreign concept to you. He referes to them as a spiritual house with Jesus as its cornerstone. That is a description of the church just as we can see in Ephesians 2:19-22 as well. You are denying the obvious because you are deceived and have no discernment.

No. Your comparison is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

No, it absolutely is completely relevant. It's not wonder why you would want to deny that. Why would the spiritual house in 1 Peter 2 be different than the spiritual house with Jesus as its cornerstone in Ephesians 2:19-22?

No, they are not the same people as I proved to you already. Peter and Paul both write letters to Christian churches. But they aren't the same people.

Read what I say more carefully. I was saying that the people referenced in 1 Peter 2:5-6 (the passage I quoted) are the same people referenced in 1 Peter 2:9. I wasn't even referring to anything Paul wrote there. I made that point to show that the people referenced in 1 Peter 2:9 are part of the same entity as the people referenced in Ephesians 2:19-22.

That is, they aren't the same family groups. Paul is writing to Gentile Christians, while Peter is writing to Jewish Christians. 1 Peter 2:9 is true of Jewish Christians but not true of Gentile Christians.

This is absolutely insane for you to say that anything is true of Jewish Christians, but not Gentile Christians when scripture repeatedly says that there is no difference between Jewish and Gentile Christians and that we are all one in Christ Jesus. Hello? Have you never read these passages? These are from the NASB, your favorite flawed English translation:

Galatians 3:26 For you are all sons and daughters of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is [a]neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you [b]belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s [c]descendants, heirs according to promise.

Romans 10:12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; 13 for “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

You blatantly contradict scripture with your comments. Please ask God for wisdom (James 1:5-7).

God only chose one race. And God only designated Israel as a holy nation.

Christians are God's chosen. You need to try reading all of the New Testament.

 

[covenantee]

Let's turn this around. You claim that the church is a "holy nation" and you are basing your claim on an epistle Peter wrote to the diaspora. Your position is based on a letter Peter is writing to the circumcision. Can you find anywhere in Paul's writings where he refers to the church as a nation?

Leave it right where it is. Does the Greek "stones living" make sense, or doesn't it?

You've already been shown conclusively from longstanding recognized linguistic authority James Strong that Peter's epistle is addressed to the sojourning Church.

Jesus Himself referred to the Nation to which the Kingdom would be given, and that Nation could be no other than the Church.

Do you think that Paul disagreed with Peter's identification of the Church as the Holy Nation? He certainly didn't hesitate to describe his disagreement with Peter in Galatians 2:11-21, so there's no reason to believe that he wouldn't have described any disagreement with Peter about the identity of the Holy Nation.

But there's no hint of disagreement about the identity of the Holy Nation.

The Church.

 

[ewq1938]

Let's turn this around. You claim that the church is a "holy nation" and you are basing your claim on an epistle Peter wrote to the diaspora. Your position is based on a letter Peter is writing to the circumcision. Can you find anywhere in Paul's writings where he refers to the church as a nation?

Eph 2:11 Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh - who are called the uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands--
Eph 2:12 that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel & strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.
Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

Eph 2:19 Now, therefore, you are NO LONGER STRANGERS and FOREIGNERS, but FELLOW CITIZENS with the saints and members of the household of God,


When a gentile becomes a "fellow citizen" with a Christian Jew he is an Israelite just as the Jew is. On the flip side, Jews that do not believe in Christ are cast out and are no longer "citizens" of Israel.

Mat 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

That new nation are peoples that come from all the world's nations, forming a new nation based on faith in Christ.

 

[PinSeeker]

When a gentile becomes a "fellow citizen" with a Christian Jew he is an Israelite just as the Jew is. On the flip side, Jews that do not believe in Christ are cast out and are no longer "citizens" of Israel.

Ah, well, even non-believing Jews were never really citizens of God's Israel. As Paul says, "not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but 'Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.' This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring" (Romans 9:6-8) That's not just true from Jesus's or Paul's time forward, but also really all the way back to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob... to the beginning, really.

That new nation are peoples that come from all the world's nations, forming a new nation based on faith in Christ.

Yeah, so I would disagree with "new" and say it's a continuation from of old, it was just limited to the Israelites before the coming of Jesus, but with His coming growing to include people of every tongue, tribe, and nation.

But yes, otherwise, great post.

 

[CadyandZoe]

On the fact that it's not talking about a literal building, but rather is figuratively talking about God's people collectively, which we call the church.

Have you ever seen "lively stones"? Think.

It's not beside the point at all. It's called interpreting scripture with scripture.

You missed the point entirely. Why prove that Peter is talking to Christian churches when that point was never in dispute?

Obviously, that's a foreign concept to you. He referes to them as a spiritual house with Jesus as its cornerstone. That is a description of the church just as we can see in Ephesians 2:19-22 as well. You are denying the obvious because you are deceived and have no discernment.

Again, this idea was never in dispute.

No, it absolutely is completely relevant. It's not wonder why you would want to deny that. Why would the spiritual house in 1 Peter 2 be different than the spiritual house with Jesus as its cornerstone in Ephesians 2:19-22?

Again, this isn't relevant to the question under discussion.

Read what I say more carefully. I was saying that the people referenced in 1 Peter 2:5-6 (the passage I quoted) are the same people referenced in 1 Peter 2:9. I wasn't even referring to anything Paul wrote there. I made that point to show that the people referenced in 1 Peter 2:9 are part of the same entity as the people referenced in Ephesians 2:19-22.

A comparison between these two passages does NOT prove they are the same people. It proves that Peter and Paul are both talking to Christian churches. It does not contradict the idea that Peter was talking to Jewish Christians, while Paul was talking to Gentile Christians.

This is absolutely insane for you to say that anything is true of Jewish Christians, but not Gentile Christians when scripture repeatedly says that there is no difference between Jewish and Gentile Christians and that we are all one in Christ Jesus.

Your argument suffers from overgeneralization. You mistakenly assume that universal salvation automatically eliminates all history and social distinction. That is not true. If this were true then neither Peter nor Paul would write that Wives should obey their husbands. The Apostles don't believe that all personal histories, family histories, social relationships, and economic realities are eliminated.

Paul wrote that Peter was the Apostle to the circumcision. This defeats your view there is no difference between Jewish and Gentile Christians. There is no difference with respect to salvation and eternal life. But it doesn't follow that ALL other differences are irrelevant.

You blatantly contradict scripture with your comments.

I contradict you because you are mistaken and I give good reasons for what I believe.

Christians are God's chosen. You need to try reading all of the New Testament.

Peter speaks the truth when he addresses his Jewish readers, calling them a "chosen race." No other race can make that claim. He speaks truthfully when he refers to his Jewish readers as "a holy nation." No other nation can make that claim.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Leave it right where it is.

I asked you a question.

Does the Greek "stones living" make sense, or doesn't it?

Yes, the concept of "living stones" makes sense when discussing a symbolic building. My comment concerned "lively stones," which doesn't make sense. I was attempting to convey the idea of "textual dissonance", which all Bible students should notice. And whenever a translation contains wording that seems odd or out of place, the Bible student should ask why.

You've already been shown conclusively from longstanding recognized linguistic authority James Strong that Peter's epistle is addressed to the sojourning Church.

You have already been encouraged to ask why that makes sense. Does it make sense? I don't think it does. Churches aren't filled with sojourners but with local people who live in the area.

Jesus Himself referred to the Nation to which the Kingdom would be given, and that Nation could be no other than the Church.

Did Jesus say that the Kingdom would be taken from one nation and given to another nation? No, the discussion centered on the leadership of the people. He spoke to the chief priests and the elders, telling them that leadership would be taken from them and given to others, specifically the Apostles.

Do you think that Paul disagreed with Peter's identification of the Church as the Holy Nation?

Peter didn't identify the Church as a Holy Nation.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Eph 2:11 Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh - who are called the uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands--
Eph 2:12 that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel & strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.
Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

Eph 2:19 Now, therefore, you are NO LONGER STRANGERS and FOREIGNERS, but FELLOW CITIZENS with the saints and members of the household of God,


When a gentile becomes a "fellow citizen" with a Christian Jew he is an Israelite just as the Jew is. On the flip side, Jews that do not believe in Christ are cast out and are no longer "citizens" of Israel.

Mat 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

That new nation are peoples that come from all the world's nations, forming a new nation based on faith in Christ.

Ephesians 2:19 is interesting to our discussion because the claim is that Peter was writing to Christian churches who sojourners, in the figurative sense, but Paul tells Ephesians that they are no longer strangers and foreigners in the figurative sense.

 

[covenantee]

My comment concerned "lively stones," which doesn't make sense.

It makes perfect sense, because "lively" was an older English word for "living".

You have already been encouraged to ask why that makes sense. Does it make sense? I don't think it does. Churches aren't filled with sojourners but with local people who live in the area.

Strong's definition:
" in the N. T. metaphorically, in reference to heaven as the native country, one who sojourns on earth: so of Christians, 1 Peter 1:1;"

It makes perfect sense.

Churches are filled with Christians who sojourn on earth.

Did Jesus say that the Kingdom would be taken from one nation and given to another nation?

He said it would be taken from the chief priests and Pharisees of the nation of Israel, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof, which is a clear reference to the Holy Nation of the Church, described by Peter in 1 Peter 2:9, which brings forth the fruit of the Spirit, described by Paul in Galatians 5:22-23.

Peter didn't identify the Church as a Holy Nation.

Peter explicitly identified the Church as a Holy Nation.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Have you ever seen "lively stones"? Think.

Have you ever heard of figurative text? Think.

You missed the point entirely. Why prove that Peter is talking to Christian churches when that point was never in dispute?

LOL. You're kidding, right? We've been saying it refers to the church and you keep disagreeing with us, but it was never in dispute? Are you just playing games here?

A comparison between these two passages does NOT prove they are the same people. It proves that Peter and Paul are both talking to Christian churches. It does not contradict the idea that Peter was talking to Jewish Christians, while Paul was talking to Gentile Christians.

The idea that there is a difference between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians contradicts the many passages that tell us there is no difference between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians in the church. Of course, you probably think all those passages are mistranslated or some nonsense like that. There is no point talking to someone who just cherry picks scripture or has his own personal translation of scripture. You can make it say whatever you want.

Your argument suffers from overgeneralization. You mistakenly assume that universal salvation automatically eliminates all history and social distinction. That is not true. If this were true then neither Peter nor Paul would write that Wives should obey their husbands. The Apostles don't believe that all personal histories, family histories, social relationships, and economic realities are eliminated.

Total nonsense. You do not accept the passages that say there is neither Jew nor Gentile in the church and that say there is no distinction or no difference between Jew and Gentile in the church.

Paul wrote that Peter was the Apostle to the circumcision. This defeats your view there is no difference between Jewish and Gentile Christians.

LOL. That does not defeat my view at all. It simply means that he was called to preach to Jews in particular, though he did preach to some Gentiles like Cornelius and his family as well. How does that mean there is any difference between Jewish and Gentile Christians?

There is no difference with respect to salvation and eternal life. But it doesn't follow that ALL other differences are irrelevant.

Such as? What else really matters besides salvation and eternal life when it comes to being part of the church?

I contradict you because you are mistaken and I give good reasons for what I believe.

You give weak reasons that are a complete joke and contradict much scripture.

Peter speaks the truth when he addresses his Jewish readers, calling them a "chosen race." No other race can make that claim. He speaks truthfully when he refers to his Jewish readers as "a holy nation." No other nation can make that claim.

Peter refers to them as a spiritual house with Jesus Christ as its cornerstone (1 Peter 2:5-6) which is the same way Paul describes the church in Ephesians 2:19-22. Peter was not referring to them as a separate entity from the church. There are not two different spiritual houses with Jesus Christ as the cornerstone. But, that's what you're trying to tell us, which is a complete joke.

 

[ewq1938]

Ephesians 2:19 is interesting to our discussion because the claim is that Peter was writing to Christian churches who sojourners, in the figurative sense, but Paul tells Ephesians that they are no longer strangers and foreigners in the figurative sense.

It is in a literal sense. God decides who is Israel and who is not, and decides the requirements for the inclusion into Israel. Christians of any race are now Israelites.

 

[CadyandZoe]

It makes perfect sense, because "lively" was an older English word for "living".

Strong's definition:
" in the N. T. metaphorically, in reference to heaven as the native country, one who sojourns on earth: so of Christians, 1 Peter 1:1;"

It makes perfect sense.

Churches are filled with Christians who sojourn on earth.

He said it would be taken from the chief priests and Pharisees of the nation of Israel, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof, which is a clear reference to the Holy Nation of the Church, described by Peter in 1 Peter 2:9, which brings forth the fruit of the Spirit, described by Paul in Galatians 5:22-23.

Peter explicitly identified the Church as a Holy Nation.

I don't agree with your conclusion that Peter is talking to sojourners on earth.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Have you ever heard of figurative text? Think.

I understand that Paul was speaking figuratively about "living stones." My point was that the term "lively stone" creates a misleading image and is therefore discordant in the text. The translator hasn't gotten it right. We need to think about it and look it up.

LOL. You're kidding, right? We've been saying it refers to the church and you keep disagreeing with us, but it was never in dispute? Are you just playing games here?

Why is this so difficult to understand?

We are discussing 1 Peter 2:9. Someone suggested that Peter is making a universal statement concerning all Christians everywhere. I maintain that the verse speaks exclusively about Jewish people.

1 Peter 2:9

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;​

Undoubtedly Peter is thinking about the Exodus and reminds his readers God's word to Israel through Moses.

Exodus 19:5-7

Now then, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be My own possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is Mine; and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words that you shall speak to the sons of Israel.” So Moses came and called the elders of the people, and set before them all these words which the Lord had commanded him.​

God is talking to Israel through Moses. For this reason, Moses met with the elders of the people "and set before them all these words which the Lord had commanded him." According to Peter, God took a people for himself from among all the peoples so that they "may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called [them]." Moses referred to the people as God's own possession, a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation. Peter repeats these same phrases in his remarks to his readers.

a chosen race
The only chosen race in the Bible is the descendants of Jacob -- the families that stood near Mt. Sinai to hear the word of the Lord. God chose a people for himself from among all the people's of the earth. (Deuteronomy 7:6) According to 1 Peter and Exodus 19:5-7, God chose that particular race to act as his royal priests to the rest of the world. Peter argues that since God has given them that role among the rest of the world, they should act in a way worthy of that task.

a royal priesthood
The Jewish people, chosen by race, were assigned the duty of being God's priests in the world. Eventually, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders will sing a new song. (Revelation 5:9-10) Here we learn that after the desolation of Israel, the followers of Jesus will take over the role of being the kingdom of priests to proclaim the excellencies of God among the nations. As of Peter's writing, the Jewish people had that role. After the desolation of Jerusalem and Israel, the followers of Jesus take over that role.

a holy nation
Israel is the only nation God designated as a holy nation.

The idea that there is a difference between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians contradicts the many passages that tell us there is no difference between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians in the church.

You are mistaken. The universal application of salvation does not remove human distinctiveness. A Christian man is still a man. A Christian slave is still a slave. A Christian baker is still a baker. A Christian artist is still an artist.

Of course, you probably think all those passages are mistranslated or some nonsense like that. There is no point talking to someone who just cherry picks scripture or has his own personal translation of scripture. You can make it say whatever you want.

On the contrary, Amillennialism misconstrues passages of scripture in order to make it agree with Amillennialism.

Total nonsense. You do not accept the passages that say there is neither Jew nor Gentile in the church and that say there is no distinction or no difference between Jew and Gentile in the church.

Your charge is without merit. Paul spoke about being "in Christ," emphasizing the association with Jesus Christ under the New Covenant. He stated that "in Christ," there is neither male nor female, meaning that it doesn't matter whether someone is male or female; they will be treated the same. However, Paul did not suggest that male/female distinctiveness is eliminated.

The same is true with being Jewish. In Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile, meaning that it doesn't matter whether someone is a Jew or Gentile; they will be treated the same. However, Paul did not suggest that Jew/Gentile distinctiveness is eliminated.

LOL. That does not defeat my view at all. It simply means that he was called to preach to Jews in particular, though he did preach to some Gentiles like Cornelius and his family as well. How does that mean there is any difference between Jewish and Gentile Christians?

The answer is obvious and I am unable to understand why you can't see it. If mother tells daughter to pick only the ripe berries, mother makes a distinction between ripe berries and unripe berries. If Paul says that Peter is the apostle of circumcision, Paul is making a distinction between the circumcised and the uncircumcised. And so, we would expect the Apostle to the Jews to speak about Jewish issues.

Such as? What else really matters besides salvation and eternal life when it comes to being part of the church?

Nothing. But that isn't the point as I said earlier. Peter, speaking as an apostle to the Jews is expected to speak about Jewish issues and his readers are expected to take that into consideration and avoid wild generalizations.

You give weak reasons that are a complete joke and contradict much scripture.

I give good reasons but your ears are full.

Peter refers to them as a spiritual house with Jesus Christ as its cornerstone (1 Peter 2:5-6) which is the same way Paul describes the church in Ephesians 2:19-22. Peter was not referring to them as a separate entity from the church. There are not two different spiritual houses with Jesus Christ as the cornerstone.

I never said that there were two spiritual houses.

But, that's what you're trying to tell us, which is a complete joke.

You are mistaken about what I said. I maintain that 1 Peter 2:9 refers to social states that are unique to the Jewish people and so far you haven't given me a good reason to change my mind. The church consists of "a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues." The Jewish people alone are a chosen race.

 

[CadyandZoe]

It is in a literal sense. God decides who is Israel and who is not, and decides the requirements for the inclusion into Israel. Christians of any race are now Israelites.

God certainly has the right to declare anyone to be an Israelite. The point is, Paul is not saying that in Ephesians chapter 2. Paul is describing a new "polis" in Ephesians, one that is not bound by territory.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I understand that Paul was speaking figuratively about "living stones." My point was that the term "lively stone" creates a misleading image and is therefore discordant in the text. The translator hasn't gotten it right. We need to think about it and look it up.

You're just trying to distract from the fact that Peter described the "holy nation" and "royal priesthood" he was talking about as a spiritual house with Jesus Christ as its cornerstone which is an obvious description of the church. Anything that is applied to Jewish Christians applies to Gentile Christians as well as we are all one in Christ Jesus and there is no difference between the Jew and Gentile in the church (Gal 3:26-29, Romans 10:12, etc.). Gentile Christians are fellow citizens and fellow heirs with Jewish Christians. Your attempts to separate what Jesus put together as one have failed. You can't defeat the truth of scripture.

Why is this so difficult to understand?

You tell me since you're the one misunderstanding this. It's clearly hopeless that you will understand it any time soon since you are completely lacking in discernment.

 

[covenantee]

I don't agree with your conclusion that Peter is talking to sojourners on earth.

I concur with Strong.

Do you understand "lively stones" now?