Who Is The Church Anyway?

To get straight to the point, the Lord's chosen people are named for the tribes of the twelve sons of Jacob, who himself is named "Israel".

Is... Ra... El... that is to be read , "Isis", "Ra", and "Elohim". (As noted by William Cooper of "The Hour of the Time".)

And to expand further;

Isis (The princess, the bride and the "body of believers")

Ra (The Father/Consort/Husband entity, I.e. Christ)

Elohim (The Lord of hosts. I.e. the Holy Spirit.)

So, they have the roles:

Isis = the bride of Christ or the body of "believers" (selected "as Is" with name shortened - not all mankind is Israel).

Ra = the bridegroom in whom all the fulness of the Godhead (Spirit, Christ and Bride) dwells bodily, and His name is not shortened.

Elohim = the body of angels that move in the Holy Spirit (Elohim) - who is the "Lord of Hosts" - and yet to be fully revealed in the new name of God, whose name is shortened to "El". (Yes, Him.) Those angels make up the difference in divine authority between the Father and His Christ to whom they are all subject. That marriage is already written of (but the marriage supper not yet called as the guests are yet to be completed on the last day.) and for that reason the name is most likely shortened.

And those that are not fallen in the Spirit are unified in Christ with all those that are forgiven and are then identified as those in the bride.

There is but one body in Jesus Christ.

As to the Egyptian references, all I can quote is:

Hos 11:1 When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt. (KJV)

Or even:

Mat 2:15 And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son. (KJV)


As to whether this is a scriptural truth, I would argue it is simply "the missing piece" I was looking for and one that I can not imagine surviving the Old Testament and/or the scribes - it would require the New Testament to validate it and it even now appears a "foreign" truth. It would also be of no further use to the New Testament for validating the very same God as also of the Old if it appeared therein, as it could not justify the addition of the New Testament to the Old unless it appeared in the Old itself.

So, as I cannot place this doctrine in either testament, unlike Stephen who said:

Act 7:38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us: (KJV)

I simply state it is the truth, the missing bit of the puzzle. Not unlike Jesus Himself, often quoted as the "missing piece" from people's lives - here, that trinity Israel (found as if in "Ra" or as Christ bodily), makes the two testaments one word.

Continue To Next Page

Return To Section Start

Return To Previous Page