Absolutely! . . .that is what the text clearly states.
And I suspect the writer of Hebrews got it from the OT, where
the "angels" in Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7, in the Hebrew, are the "sons of God."
And then there's the angel in Rev 22:1 who states that he is a fellow servant with the NT saints,
and with their brothers the NT prophets, and of all who keep the words of this book (Rev 22:8-9).
4)
Actually, it does.
The letter is to Hebrew Christians, and the list presents what they left (Mt. Sinai) in OT Judaism
in contrast to what they came to (Mt. Zion, the new Jerusalem) in the NT church.
And along with the angelic spirits in the church it also presents the spirits of the righteous OT saints,
such as Abel (11:4) and Noah (11:7);
spirits because they are still waiting for the resurrection where they will be re-united
with their resurrection bodies, and
righteous because God credited their faith to them as righteousness, as he did to Abraham (Ro 4:3).
The revelation spoken by the Son in these last days (Heb 1:1-2) through the NT writers
presents both the angelic spirits and the spirits of the redeemed as in the NT church.
6)
Nothing was missed. . .do you know what an allegory is?
Can you not see what a desperate false argument this is,
applying the allegorical image or symbol, literally.
An allegory is not literal, it's the description of one thing under the image of another.
It is one thing used to symbolize another.
To "break into" the allegorical imagery (mothers, covenants, cities)
to include the literal (times of the images) destroys it as allegory.
8) NOT. . .it was asserted only.
Your misunderstanding of Heb 12 is amply demonstrated above, in # 2) and 4).
And the clear context of Eph 5:22-33 is an analogy between
the relationship of Christ to the church and
the relationship of husband to the wife,
wherein Paul states the profound truth of the union of Christ and his bride,
as the pattern of the marriage union between husband and wife.
9) You don't get the Biblical meaning of the marriage union, do you?
As his wife, the church is two-in-one-flesh with Christ; i.e., his body, his flesh and bone.
And Christ is the Lamb, whose bride is the New Jerusalem.
The wife (one in his flesh, his own body) of Christ is the church (Eph 5:31-32).
Christ is the Lamb (Jn 1:29, 36; 1Pe 1:19).
The bride of the Lamb is the New Jerusalem (Rev 21:9-10, 14b).
You must demonstrate the above are untrue, in order to demonstrate the following is untrue:
Therefore, the wife and bride of Christ, the Lamb, is the church, the New Jerusalem.
It's not complicated.
10) Yes, v. 31 is quoting Gen 2:24.
No it does not, that's not Paul talking (and "directing"), that's Moses talking, in Gen 2:24.
No it is not the cause. That is Gen 2:24, and the cause there is the making of Eve from Adam's own rib,
his own body.
That is the cause for which a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,
and they will become one flesh.
And that is the order God established at creation based on the pattern of the union of his Son
with those he redeemed, in God's plan to glorify himself through glorifying his Son in the
Church, wherein God's "manifold wisdom would be made know to the rulers and authorities in
the heavenly realms, according to his eternal purpose, which he accomplished in Christ Jesus
our Lord." (Eph 3:10-11)
And even in the allegory of Gal 4:25-26, the New Jerusalem represents the free in Christ,
which is the church.
And that New Jerusalem is the Bride of the Lamb.
______________________________________________
1) Well, you don't get to make that call, since perspective is subjective and,
therefore, yours is no more valid than mine.
3)
Are you not the one who is selecting what not to believe in the list in # 2)?
5) The Jerusalem that is above is in v. 26.
The church (those who are free from the law in the new covenant) is in v. 26.
They are children of a city, its citizens.
7)
So you are taking the symbolism here literally, and an animal marries a city, which is the mother of children?
