The plain sense makes sense and to substitute these words doesn't make sense even it didn't.
Once we are Enabled to see that the plain sense makes sense we have what God would have us to understand.
You sure like to add your own words to what the scripture says.
I'm thinking that any explanatory commentary is well distinguished from the Bible text, for clarity, etc.
If Paul meant ‘the church in Jerusalem’, I am sure he could have said so. But he persecuted the church in general, the assemblies in Jerusalem, Galatia, and Samaria.
There was just one Organized and Established church at that time in existence. Paul said what he meant.
When Paul said he persecuted the church, he meant not just in Jerusalem, but in other towns. One of them was Damascus, remember?
Nothing in the Bible refers to a church being in Damascus, at that time. You're adding to what the scriptures say.
Acts 9:1
Then Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest and asked letters from him to the synagogues of Damascus, so that if he found any who were of the Way, whether men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.
If you think “church” always means one specific assembly in one location
Yes, I do. Or the word 'church' may be speaking of several specific assemblies ("the church in Asia") in the institutional sense similar to "the Public School System is uneducated." Each time the institution is being referred to, it is referring to the individual actual schools that exist; not to one in umber, total, Public School that is everywhere and invisible(?)
you do not understand how tiny homes were in NT times.
Churches didn't always meet in homes. That is not a restriction.
I am currently unable to attend any church building.
Respect.
But when Paul says “the church”, or “the body of Christ’, I am included, for I am a member of the body of Christ, the universal church, the church in general.
This is from the attached doc.,
1899 New Issue. Invisible 'church' idea.
"Baptists may be wrong in the distinctive doctrines they hold, but they cannot be wrong in standing consistently to them while they believe them to be truth.
If they are wrong, they should be abandoned; but until discovered to be wrong they should be unflinchingly maintained. At the present time it seems to be conceded by everybody that in the main, the doctrines of the Baptists are Scriptural, and the world is willing to grant us reasonable toleration if we will be liberal and allow a mutual fraternity in church and pulpit with all others. But we cannot do this, without a contradiction of our own essential and fundamental doctrines, and, hence, cannot do it at all.
"Our fathers were bitterly opposed in the consistent stand they took for strict Baptist practices, by those who believed in what was known as the "church-branch theory." It was contended that the "real church" was the "universal
[p. 100]
church," composed of "all the saved," and that all visible churches were mere human conveniences, and that, all taken together, the Christians amongst them made the "true church," while the denominations were "branches of the church," and all on a par...."
When you read “church” in your Bible, which local assembly in your town does it have relevance to? The Lutheran, Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, Assembly of God, or Nazarene church?
This is from the attached doc.,
1899 New Issue. Invisible 'church' idea, 12 of 13.
"12. The believers in the universal church are not agreed as to how one gets into it. Baptists are supposed to be put in by conversion; Methodists are supposed to be born members of it; Presbyterians baptize their babies into it; Campbellites baptize sinners into it; Episcopalians enter by confirmation; the Hardshells have been in from the foundation of the world; Mormons are immersed into it; Catholics are sprinkled into it, and the Universalists get into it without doing anything! If there is such a church, it should have some uniformity about it, and it would have. But the dreamy fiction has neither form nor fashion, in either its membership, its laws, its terms, or anything else. It is all a dream."
...
"Just to reinforce what a church is I offer this excellent definition set forth by J.E. Cobb in his Baptist Church Manual:
“A New Testament church is an assembly of people called out from the world by the preaching of the Gospel accompanied by the Regenerating Work of the Holy Spirit, and baptized in the faith and fellowship of the Gospel, to a life of conformation to the Will of God, to execute the Will and Perpetuate the Ordinances of Christ until He comes.”
From the attached article:
WHAT IS A CHURCH by Tom Ross
Or does it refer, more likely, to the true believers scattered like wheat among the tares, the totality of all genuine believers, the church in general?
This is from the attached doc.,
1899 New Issue. Invisible 'church' idea, pt. 7 of 13.
7. The "invisible church" is a medley of contradictions, if it is anything. It is said to have in it the saved of all denominations. These "saved" people at the same time that they are in the "invisible church" are also in their different denominational churches, and hold to all the peculiar doctrines of their several denominations. They have Mormons with their polygamy, Catholics with their water god, Episcopalians with their sacramental ritualism, Universalists with their no-hell doctrine, Presbyterians with their unconditional decrees, Methodists with their
[p. 107]
apostasy, Campbellites with their baptismal salvation, Baptists, with their close communion, all mixed together in one "invisible body," cemented together by the conflicting doctrines of infant baptism vs. believer's baptism; salvation by grace vs. salvation by works; final perseverance vs. apostasy; open communion vs. close communion; episcopacy vs. congregationalism; affusion vs. immersion, and a hundred other conflicting doctrines! All these people, with all these doctrines, are supposed to be peacefully and unconsciously pillowing their heads upon the bosom of this "invisible church!!" Is it possible that such an outrage on common sense to say nothing of the outrage on the Bible, can have serious advocates amongst men?