Where Did The Body Of Christ Begin ?
- Thread starter dan p
- Start date
Hi , what verse will you use as the ENTRANCE into the Body of Christ , since it is not mentioned in Genesis and ONLY mentioned by the Apostle Paul !!
Kevin posted:
First sentence..................yes!
Second sentence..............yes!
Concatenate the two,......Really??? are you certain of this???
So, if Abraham repented and was baptized in the Holy Spirit and thus added to the body of Christ.......Book Chapter Verse please.
which begs the question posed by Dan p.
First sentence..................yes!
Second sentence..............yes!
Concatenate the two,......Really??? are you certain of this???
So, if Abraham repented and was baptized in the Holy Spirit and thus added to the body of Christ.......Book Chapter Verse please.
Poor Abe ...not a member of the body of Christ.
Poor Abe ...not a member of the body of Christ.
Hi , and if a person is saved by Grace , he is in the Body of Christ as referenced in by 1 Cor 12:13 , whether all know it or not !!
Paul is the ONLY one that say , that all saved people in the Age of Grace , are NEW MAN , in Eph 2:14-16 .
The Body of Christ began with the Salvation of Paul and was the PROTOS/FIRST member in the Body of Christ and the FIRST ONE BAPTIZO/PLACED into the Body !!
No one in Genesis , became New Creature or is " in Christ " a phrase used only by Paul some 50 Times !!
dan p
We are talking "semantics" here my good friends.
Tomato...ToMAto.
Potato.....PaTAto.
You (we) are confusing the CHURCH with the Body of CHRIST.
The Old Testament saints were saved just as we are today. BY FAITH IN THE MESSIAH.
They did not now His name, they only believed He was coming and by faith accepted him ALL the sacrifices of blood POINTED to the future of appearance and the shedding of His blood. The blood shed by animals in the OLD TEST. "covered" sin untill Jesus Christ came. THEY WERE IN FACT SAVED ON CREDIT!!!!
Since Messiah Jesus was Christ, the Son of God and God in the flesh, they HAD TO BE IN THE BODY OF CHRIST.
Really......this is a no brainer folks!!
Gal 3:8 “And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, “In you all the nations shall be blessed.”
Gal 3:14: “that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
Abraham believed God. It was counted him for righteousness. What did he believe? He believed as much as God had revealed. And, God had revealed even by that time that he was sinner and that the only savior was God, and that God would pay the penalty for his sin.
Now, he didn't understand all there was to know about Jesus Christ, but he understood enough to know that he was a sinner and needed a savior and God would provide a savior. That is why it says in
Hebrews 12, that Moses could foresee Christ, even Moses.
So, I believe, the OT people were saved by faith in God. They believed God’s word as much as was revealed to them, and knew their own sinfulness. In fact, the reason they would carry out the sacrifices, and the reason they would do all the things God told them to do was an outworking of an inward faith. It was not to earn salvation. It was to demonstrate the reality of it. They were saved by faith in Christ. They didn't know who Christ was. And, they didn't know specifically when and how and all of that, but they believed God. They were sinful, and God would have to provide a sacrifice for them.
Today we are saved by faith in the Messiah just as were the Old Test. believers. The only differance is that WE KNOW HIS NAME. His shed blood then cleanes ALL BELIEVERS OF ALL SIN FROM ADAM TO TODAY.
The "Church" was a mystery which was not revealed in the Old Test.
How in the world can we say that Moses, Adam, Abraham, David, Daniel, Ezekiel and on and on and on, did not belong to Christ ???
Jesus Christ is GOD, He is MESSIAH Jesus. ALL who come to Him are saved, placed into the body reguaredless of the time in which they lived.
Yes Abraham did indeed see that God would provide the required sacrifice. Gen 22:8. He didn't have all the fine detail, but he knew, and how prophetic was that!
Amen my friend!!
Xian Pugilist
Inactive
Hi danp. 
The body of Christ is the church, so until that church was established in Acts, I think the scripture has to be REALLLLLLLLLLLLYYYYYYYYYYY stretched to go back to Genesis. Afterall, just the Noahidic event alone shows that before Noah there wasn't much chance of His Church being there, else they would have been carried over, eh? I guess you could say the Nephilim were His Church as they seemed to survive the flood, but..... (insert shrug here).
After Noah, you had the Priesthood of Melchizedek.
Then you had the Patristics.
Then you had the Aaronic/Levitical priesthoods.
Then you had the kings, then the judges.
Then the maccabean age.... (think I created that one...)
Then the Christ,
after that the Church
And that's where we are now.
You can make the biblical argument that God appointed the Christ, who was Jesus made manifest from the WORD to the man, sanctified by the Spirit around age 30, threeish year ministry, died and resurrected, Spirit descended to the APostles, they realized all they were taught and now understood it. They passed that information on. They trained people to protect the teachings. Those people were to train their replacements, and them theirs, and so forth.
Around the time John's epistles were written, or Johns' epistles, depending on authorship Clement was redressing the church at Corinth, apparently a perpetual trouble spot...and in his letter, he describes the church much as I did above, although it's spread over several of his letter's "chapters". 1 clement is a good read for church history.
It was written in, or immediately after the last Apostle's life. So if this was an opinion that stood in stark contrast to what the Apostles taught, you'd think a letter from that last Apostle, the one that Jesus loved, would have been writ addressing it. I'd think it was important enough that all the others that survived, it would have also. So I accept Clement's view as Apostolicly approved of.
His view is that God put the Priesthood in the OT to be reflective of what was coming in the NEW. Thus there were those trained to lead, and those trained to do the works/ Trained meaning gifted by God.
This is consistent with Paul in Ephesians 4, some were made to be [leaders, preachers, teachers, etc...], to lead the people to works of service, (not theology) through which they gain maturity (through the works) to be as spiritually mature as Jesus was.
Which is in line with the last of the three prayers in John 17.
So, after all the blah blah blah,
The church started at descension of the Spirit, and awareness and comprehension of the Apostles. At that point the Head was on the body. The body became the neck and spine (apostles) and branched out to create other members/tools/parts of the body creating a living organism that conveys God's love as His instrument to the people in the world. Even HIS enemies, matt 5:43-48.
The body of Christ is the church, so until that church was established in Acts, I think the scripture has to be REALLLLLLLLLLLLYYYYYYYYYYY stretched to go back to Genesis. Afterall, just the Noahidic event alone shows that before Noah there wasn't much chance of His Church being there, else they would have been carried over, eh? I guess you could say the Nephilim were His Church as they seemed to survive the flood, but..... (insert shrug here).
After Noah, you had the Priesthood of Melchizedek.
Then you had the Patristics.
Then you had the Aaronic/Levitical priesthoods.
Then you had the kings, then the judges.
Then the maccabean age.... (think I created that one...)
Then the Christ,
after that the Church
And that's where we are now.
You can make the biblical argument that God appointed the Christ, who was Jesus made manifest from the WORD to the man, sanctified by the Spirit around age 30, threeish year ministry, died and resurrected, Spirit descended to the APostles, they realized all they were taught and now understood it. They passed that information on. They trained people to protect the teachings. Those people were to train their replacements, and them theirs, and so forth.
Around the time John's epistles were written, or Johns' epistles, depending on authorship Clement was redressing the church at Corinth, apparently a perpetual trouble spot...and in his letter, he describes the church much as I did above, although it's spread over several of his letter's "chapters". 1 clement is a good read for church history.
It was written in, or immediately after the last Apostle's life. So if this was an opinion that stood in stark contrast to what the Apostles taught, you'd think a letter from that last Apostle, the one that Jesus loved, would have been writ addressing it. I'd think it was important enough that all the others that survived, it would have also. So I accept Clement's view as Apostolicly approved of.
His view is that God put the Priesthood in the OT to be reflective of what was coming in the NEW. Thus there were those trained to lead, and those trained to do the works/ Trained meaning gifted by God.
This is consistent with Paul in Ephesians 4, some were made to be [leaders, preachers, teachers, etc...], to lead the people to works of service, (not theology) through which they gain maturity (through the works) to be as spiritually mature as Jesus was.
Which is in line with the last of the three prayers in John 17.
So, after all the blah blah blah,
The church started at descension of the Spirit, and awareness and comprehension of the Apostles. At that point the Head was on the body. The body became the neck and spine (apostles) and branched out to create other members/tools/parts of the body creating a living organism that conveys God's love as His instrument to the people in the world. Even HIS enemies, matt 5:43-48.
Hi danp.
The body of Christ is the church, so until that church was established in Acts, I think the scripture has to be REALLLLLLLLLLLLYYYYYYYYYYY stretched to go back to Genesis. Afterall, just the Noahidic event alone shows that before Noah there wasn't much chance of His Church being there, else they would have been carried over, eh? I guess you could say the Nephilim were His Church as they seemed to survive the flood, but..... (insert shrug here).
After Noah, you had the Priesthood of Melchizedek.
Then you had the Patristics.
Then you had the Aaronic/Levitical priesthoods.
Then you had the kings, then the judges.
Then the maccabean age.... (think I created that one...)
Then the Christ,
after that the Church
And that's where we are now.
You can make the biblical argument that God appointed the Christ, who was Jesus made manifest from the WORD to the man, sanctified by the Spirit around age 30, threeish year ministry, died and resurrected, Spirit descended to the APostles, they realized all they were taught and now understood it. They passed that information on. They trained people to protect the teachings. Those people were to train their replacements, and them theirs, and so forth.
Around the time John's epistles were written, or Johns' epistles, depending on authorship Clement was redressing the church at Corinth, apparently a perpetual trouble spot...and in his letter, he describes the church much as I did above, although it's spread over several of his letter's "chapters". 1 clement is a good read for church history.
It was written in, or immediately after the last Apostle's life. So if this was an opinion that stood in stark contrast to what the Apostles taught, you'd think a letter from that last Apostle, the one that Jesus loved, would have been writ addressing it. I'd think it was important enough that all the others that survived, it would have also. So I accept Clement's view as Apostolicly approved of.
His view is that God put the Priesthood in the OT to be reflective of what was coming in the NEW. Thus there were those trained to lead, and those trained to do the works/ Trained meaning gifted by God.
This is consistent with Paul in Ephesians 4, some were made to be [leaders, preachers, teachers, etc...], to lead the people to works of service, (not theology) through which they gain maturity (through the works) to be as spiritually mature as Jesus was.
Which is in line with the last of the three prayers in John 17.
So, after all the blah blah blah,
The church started at descension of the Spirit, and awareness and comprehension of the Apostles. At that point the Head was on the body. The body became the neck and spine (apostles) and branched out to create other members/tools/parts of the body creating a living organism that conveys God's love as His instrument to the people in the world. Even HIS enemies, matt 5:43-48.
So then.........can you explain where Moses, Daniel, Micha, Job are, were etc.
IF God was Christ and Christ was the Messiah and there faith was in the Messiah where was there faith?
Xian Pugilist
Inactive
??? let me try this....
Moses, Daniel, Micha were...... lives in the OT? they lived under a different set of standards than we do? The Laws were for the Jews, not the Gentiles. Melchizedek was High Priest to God most High, before Jews and Gentiles existed. God provided.
I think writing God off as Christ, and making the terms interchangeable is erroneous. God saw wisdom in writing them as separate entities. I think keeping their separateness is as equally important as acknowledging their oneness.
CHRIST isn't a person, it's a title. Jesus was the Christ which IS another word for Messiah.
God is love, Love determines salvation, 1 john 4:16-18. If they lived their life, and fulfilled the love terms, and were repentant, then they had their salvation, and they believed in what the Christ was teaching.
The Jews put their faith in God's promise in the OT as sure as we do now. The Jews were given the laws, UNDER THE PROMISE that they would bring forgiveness. Either God lied, or they did get forgiveness. Their faith was in God who forgives, same as yours is. ( I'm assuming ).
Let me ask you, does Christ's blood have some mystical power of an omnipotent God forcing His behavior? Or dos Christ's blood become the catalyst for a call to mankind to come home to God who is omnipotent and would forgive or could forgive anyway? I'm trying to say, that the blood of Christ was important for us, but that it didn't force God's hand. It's not some supernatural force that forces God's performance.
God is LORD of all, KING OF KINGS, He can do what HE wants to do and does. He could forgive anyone, at any time, for any reason or lack of reason, He chose. Right?
POWER. Does the blood of Jesus Christ have some kind of POWER?????
YES IT DOES!!!
I think you are missing something here.
Hebrews 9:12
King James Version (KJV)
12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
Hebrews 9:15
King James Version (KJV)
15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
These verses point out the superior sacrifice that Jesus accomplished. Through His shed BLOOD and death redemption was made complete for all men who by faith believed in God.What He did the Old Test could not do. What He did was impossible for the blood of rams and goats etc. to do. Jesus "EFFECTUATED" THE REDEMPTION OF THE TRANSGRESSIONS THAT WERE UNDER THE 1ST TESTAMENT.
This NOT something to be contested but to be believed for it is written right here in the Scriptures my friend.
The Old Test. sacrifices could not and di not take away sin....they merely made an atonement which is a "covering".
The BLOOD of Jesus was the one and only thing that expiated ALL THOSE PAST SINS that had received atonement.
The sacrifices in the Old Test. could be looked upon as writing a check and then when Jesus shed His blood...the debt was paid in full.
Jesus Christ's shedding of blood and death on the cross the deposit was released and all the past checks written on His account was honered and paid.
Now.........if that does not make a person (Old Test. saint) a part of the body of Christ, I have no clue what does or
will.
Now, is the POWER. I should say so.
Xian Pugilist
Inactive
Nope, Not missing a thing. You didn't address my arguments, you just produce new contradictory arguments. Had you addressed them specifically I am sure you would have realized the difference.
There is no point in carrying this thought on at this point. I'll throw the olive branch with a few comments and see if it sinks in or not.
If I accept your claims, then God isn't Omnipotent. If God isn't Omnipotent, then the Bible is a lie anyway. And I'm just simply not going to ignore that logic, nor accept He isn't Omni anything.
The sacrifice mattered because GOd said He would accept it. IT's GOD'S promise, not the blood over powering God. :| God is omnipotent. So think of this, God could have forgiven anyway, without the son on the Cross. But Jesus went and died ANYWAY, knowing it didn't have to happen, but that it would reach the people. That's a much bigger love when you think about it.
Errr, yeah. But scripture says if you still sin you don't' know Him and haven't met Him. And you don't accept that, so how about some consistency here?
That's what Christ's sacrifice does. but it ONLY WORKS because GOD made the contract and said HE would honor it. :|
Why did JOHN write you still had to confess your sins then? If it meant it as you expressed it, they would be gone before you committed them and confession isn't necessary. However, John wrote otherwise. You don't like JOhn much or something?
j/j.Please, this isn't meant to sound insulting as it will. If we were in person it would come across much better. But the line you just wrote, is rendered a cliche in today's theology, and has nearly lost all meaning as it has a different meaning to every person you say it to. Maybe not on the surface but as soon as you start digging into it, it will fracture and people go different ways.
I respect your opinion and would defend your right to it, even though I can't make it stick biblically.
God can be overpowered by blood. That is your faith. He forgives sins for all time, but you still have to confess, so if you don't confess, you arne't forgiven, which do I buy into, your view or John's? You want to take the scripture exactly as written, no context in one place, but not do it in another. Fact is, it appears you read scripture however is most convenient for your presuppositional view. We all do it, it's a hard habit to break.
from Xian Pugalist :
If your argument here was in anyway valid, not one New Testament saint would have perished by any God ordained 'natural' catastrophe whatsoever, since the time covered by acts. But we see no 2k geriatrics scampering about, do we.
I think the scripture has to be REALLLLLLLLLLLLYYYYYYYYYYY compressed and edited to jump forward to Acts.
From post #32:
What would be the end of a person who died on the way to sacrifice at the Temple?
It might have been his 100th journey to sacrifice, but alas death overtook him between his home and the temple. Given that forgiveness for him was solely dependent of his ritual sacrifices, although he had obtained forgiveness for sins committed prior to has last sacrifice, the poor guy is now going to be just so much dead meat?? Where is the sacrifice and forgiveness for his latest bevy of sins?
Suffice to say that your whole premise based on that foundational statement: "The body of Christ is the church, so until that church was established in Acts, I think the scripture has to be REALLLLLLLLLLLLYYYYYYYYYYY stretched to go back to Genesis." is flawed and does not stand up to the scrutiny of God's word.
If your argument here were in anyway valid, the same would need to be said of the Noahs; they survived the flood did not they?
If your argument here was in anyway valid, not one New Testament saint would have perished by any God ordained 'natural' catastrophe whatsoever, since the time covered by acts. But we see no 2k geriatrics scampering about, do we.
Of course, 'Apostle' basically means 'a messenger that is sent'. See also Heb 3:1. So, the tittle of 'Apostle' may not legitimately be restricted to the twelve. Now consider the seventy who were instructed by the Lord God, and given a share of the same Spirit that was upon Moses. Num 11:17,24,25. Since they, (the seventy) prophesied it would not be proper to argue the preposition used to denote position of the Spirit. It is clear enough though that the Spirit had descended from God to Moses and thence the seventy. Yes, and moreover, we have specific evidence that some of the OT personalities including this same Moses were subjects of the Kingdom of God. Mark 9:1,2,3,4. Mark 12:24,25,26,27.
I think the scripture has to be REALLLLLLLLLLLLYYYYYYYYYYY compressed and edited to jump forward to Acts.
From post #32:
Lev 24:22. says otherwise.
Who is writing God off as Christ??? You are right in that Christ is a tittle or an office rather than a name, but it is common enough to refer to Jesus as Christ (the Christ of God). Let's not be overly pedantic hmm?
That is why they had to sacrifice over and over again. I doubt the issue is a straight forward as you seem to think.
What would be the end of a person who died on the way to sacrifice at the Temple?
It might have been his 100th journey to sacrifice, but alas death overtook him between his home and the temple. Given that forgiveness for him was solely dependent of his ritual sacrifices, although he had obtained forgiveness for sins committed prior to has last sacrifice, the poor guy is now going to be just so much dead meat?? Where is the sacrifice and forgiveness for his latest bevy of sins?
Nobody is suggesting that and what has that to do with the topic?
Suffice to say that your whole premise based on that foundational statement: "The body of Christ is the church, so until that church was established in Acts, I think the scripture has to be REALLLLLLLLLLLLYYYYYYYYYYY stretched to go back to Genesis." is flawed and does not stand up to the scrutiny of God's word.
Xian Pugilist
Inactive
Calvin, one word. Why?
Why does my thought not work? You give some assertions, some accusations, make statements o might be wron, but you don't just say, here's how it is and here's where you messed up. Your firat paragraph I would answer no they don't. Until you can say why it would need to apply to noah's brood, I can say no, and answer as much as you have proven....
There is a big difference of the Spirit working on you, vs indwelling you. That indwelling permanency doest occur until acts..... the role of the Spirit in the O.T. is substantially different. Had the Spirit been in that role in the old, it would not have been necessary for the Christ to die. Why would them being subjects of the kingdom of God have ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE BODY OF christ? The body is the Church. Before the Chirch was a messiah.
Before him was the maccabeans, before them, the prophets, judges, kings, melchizadek, noah, god. The church didn't start until it was built, that is acts. I can't say you are wrong, I'm not sure what your claim is, I can't connect it, and its probably obvious, but.....
Levi 24:22 has God addressing the Jews, no? Thanks for proving my poiint. If you are led by the Spirit, you aren't under the law. Why do you argue we live under their standard? Had he been telling the women something about their menses there, would you assume it applied to you too? If not, this is exactly the same situation....
They referred to jesus as God. I argue that Jesus is separate from God in the text by the divinities decree. We shouldn't confuse them. Anyway, you chastise me for making issue of Jesus and Christ being the same but different, and Christ, the word, had nothing to do with my statement except as an example to draw contrast with. Not to self, keep comments simpler....
Why they sacrificed, how often they sacrificed, has NOTHING to do with what I said. No wonder I have you all in a ruckus, you don't even read or try to understand what is said before you jump on me. Those sacrifices would have done NOTHING AT ALL FOR SIN, HAD GOD NOT SAID THEY WOULD IN THAT COVENANT1. ITS NOT THE SHEEPS BLOOD, ITS GOD'S ACCEPTANCE OF THAT ACTION AS PROPITIATION AT THAT TIME. SAME AS NT AND CHRIST. HAD GOD NOT SAID HE WOULD FORGIVE FOR THIS SYMBOL OF CHRIST ON THE CROSS, christ's blood would do nothing for you. Period. Read it 3x slowly. I am not talking about the sacrifice, but about God and His promise.
I SAID THAT THE BODY OF CHRIST ON THE CROSS WASN'T THE POINT OF SALVATION IT WAS A PART IN AN ARGUMENT YOU WOULD HAVE MISSED BECAUSE YOU DON'T READ BUT THE SENTENCES YOU THINK YOU CAN USE TO TAKE A JAB at me with. And, as you can see, most of those were off target and not my comments, arguments at all.
Scripture says christ's body is the church today. Not my claim, since it says exactly that, your claim that I stretch things, is farsical. Here, nice conservative baptist based source for ya.... learn about it from someone besides me since you don't listen to anything I said anyway.
Argh, can't find paste in my phone's browser, go to got??s.org spell it out, and search body of christ.... its not my claim, will you accept the scripture over your position?
If you can get on things I said, make your first paragraph make sense eaiser to read-like, and sto with the straw men you vehemently accost, we can get somewhere. I learned the meaning of apostle. Apparently I never bothered to dig into that word. Amazing what happens if you are willing to learnl
Why does my thought not work? You give some assertions, some accusations, make statements o might be wron, but you don't just say, here's how it is and here's where you messed up. Your firat paragraph I would answer no they don't. Until you can say why it would need to apply to noah's brood, I can say no, and answer as much as you have proven....
There is a big difference of the Spirit working on you, vs indwelling you. That indwelling permanency doest occur until acts..... the role of the Spirit in the O.T. is substantially different. Had the Spirit been in that role in the old, it would not have been necessary for the Christ to die. Why would them being subjects of the kingdom of God have ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE BODY OF christ? The body is the Church. Before the Chirch was a messiah.
Before him was the maccabeans, before them, the prophets, judges, kings, melchizadek, noah, god. The church didn't start until it was built, that is acts. I can't say you are wrong, I'm not sure what your claim is, I can't connect it, and its probably obvious, but.....
Levi 24:22 has God addressing the Jews, no? Thanks for proving my poiint. If you are led by the Spirit, you aren't under the law. Why do you argue we live under their standard? Had he been telling the women something about their menses there, would you assume it applied to you too? If not, this is exactly the same situation....
They referred to jesus as God. I argue that Jesus is separate from God in the text by the divinities decree. We shouldn't confuse them. Anyway, you chastise me for making issue of Jesus and Christ being the same but different, and Christ, the word, had nothing to do with my statement except as an example to draw contrast with. Not to self, keep comments simpler....
Why they sacrificed, how often they sacrificed, has NOTHING to do with what I said. No wonder I have you all in a ruckus, you don't even read or try to understand what is said before you jump on me. Those sacrifices would have done NOTHING AT ALL FOR SIN, HAD GOD NOT SAID THEY WOULD IN THAT COVENANT1. ITS NOT THE SHEEPS BLOOD, ITS GOD'S ACCEPTANCE OF THAT ACTION AS PROPITIATION AT THAT TIME. SAME AS NT AND CHRIST. HAD GOD NOT SAID HE WOULD FORGIVE FOR THIS SYMBOL OF CHRIST ON THE CROSS, christ's blood would do nothing for you. Period. Read it 3x slowly. I am not talking about the sacrifice, but about God and His promise.
I SAID THAT THE BODY OF CHRIST ON THE CROSS WASN'T THE POINT OF SALVATION IT WAS A PART IN AN ARGUMENT YOU WOULD HAVE MISSED BECAUSE YOU DON'T READ BUT THE SENTENCES YOU THINK YOU CAN USE TO TAKE A JAB at me with. And, as you can see, most of those were off target and not my comments, arguments at all.
Scripture says christ's body is the church today. Not my claim, since it says exactly that, your claim that I stretch things, is farsical. Here, nice conservative baptist based source for ya.... learn about it from someone besides me since you don't listen to anything I said anyway.
Argh, can't find paste in my phone's browser, go to got??s.org spell it out, and search body of christ.... its not my claim, will you accept the scripture over your position?
If you can get on things I said, make your first paragraph make sense eaiser to read-like, and sto with the straw men you vehemently accost, we can get somewhere. I learned the meaning of apostle. Apparently I never bothered to dig into that word. Amazing what happens if you are willing to learnl
I would like to point you to a couple scriptures...
Mar 14:58 We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.
1Co 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
Jesus started His new temple which we are at the New Covenant. Christianity was in fact founded on the new Covenant. Last time I checked, that didn't happen in Genesis. If it did why did Jesus need to come back and establish the Covenant by Grace? They were under the Law until He came down here. They will eventually receive the Holy Spirit at the second resurrection though and be grafted back into their own tree. Jesus said you must be born again in order to enter the kingdom of Heaven..and they will at the valley of Dry Bones( Ezekiel 37)...
I think in answer to Town Crier: Deut 14:2. "For you are a people holy to the LORD your God, and the LORD has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth."
Tit 2:14. "who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works."
1 Pet 2:9 "But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light." All speak of the same priesthood.......the same possession, or are there several priesthoods, several possessions? I don't see scripture teaching us that there are several groups of saved people. There is to be just one people for His own possession.
If Scripture makes no distinction I fail to see were we get of doing so.
So, Xian Pugalist posted:
So unless one or more of Noah's family were nephilim, (which we have no reason to think) your argumentation falls flat. Noah we are told was a righteous man. Heb 11:7. " By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith." Noah was deemed righteous through faith.......is there a problem here? Is it that he didn't stand before the assembly and declare that Jesus died (or maybe one day would die) for his sins etc.etc. But, take special note here: Noah was an heir of the righteousness which is by faith. No problem, except that Noah predated Abraham by a couple of centuries or so. Abraham/Abram generally being understood as the patriarch of faith.
But an heir, is 'A person inheriting and continuing the legacy of a predecessor' So, who is this predecessor who laid down the legacy of faith?
Now, if Christ only came into existence with either the birth or maybe the baptism of Jesus you could have point to your argument but....He is the pre-existent WORD. Also, in speaking of the Christ, read Heb 9:26 He was from the foundation of the world. Don't blame me if the word of God doesn't suit your theology...just not my fault.
Gal 3:7. says :"Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. " Noah? as one born out of time.
Is there a chronological order here, or is there just an observance of type?
You then go on to say,
One could go on and on, but I think suffice to say that you need to let the word of God fashion your theological understanding. Don't get bogged down on words and their temporal positioning by mere humans. The Church might only be mentioned by that specific name in the New Testament, the Body/Bride of Christ the same.
So what! Even Messiah is only forecast by name as late as the life of Daniel. However as later revelation shows, He, the Messiah was from the foundation of the World.
You might not want to look at it as God being omnipotent, but the truth is He has been at work providing for the saving of people ever since Adam and Eve messed up in the Garden in Eden. Yup, even Cain and Abel were into sacrificing to God. Things didn't wait till Abraham came along or Moses, or Paul. God was in there, sleeves rolled up providing for fallen mankind from the start.
Tit 2:14. "who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works."
1 Pet 2:9 "But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light." All speak of the same priesthood.......the same possession, or are there several priesthoods, several possessions? I don't see scripture teaching us that there are several groups of saved people. There is to be just one people for His own possession.
If Scripture makes no distinction I fail to see were we get of doing so.
So, Xian Pugalist posted:
Going back to your opening statement post#30, You argue that because the nephilim seemed to survive the flood, they might as well be the body of Christ. Regardless of your apparent flippancy, the Noahs were the only ones to survive the flood.
So unless one or more of Noah's family were nephilim, (which we have no reason to think) your argumentation falls flat. Noah we are told was a righteous man. Heb 11:7. " By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith." Noah was deemed righteous through faith.......is there a problem here? Is it that he didn't stand before the assembly and declare that Jesus died (or maybe one day would die) for his sins etc.etc. But, take special note here: Noah was an heir of the righteousness which is by faith. No problem, except that Noah predated Abraham by a couple of centuries or so. Abraham/Abram generally being understood as the patriarch of faith.
But an heir, is 'A person inheriting and continuing the legacy of a predecessor' So, who is this predecessor who laid down the legacy of faith?
Now, if Christ only came into existence with either the birth or maybe the baptism of Jesus you could have point to your argument but....He is the pre-existent WORD. Also, in speaking of the Christ, read Heb 9:26 He was from the foundation of the world. Don't blame me if the word of God doesn't suit your theology...just not my fault.
Gal 3:7. says :"Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. " Noah? as one born out of time.
Is there a chronological order here, or is there just an observance of type?
You then go on to say,
Really? You do know the full counsel of God don't you! For what does the Scripture say? Heb 9:22. "Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins." And, Jesus says as recorded in Matt 26:28. "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." and again in Mark 14:24. Jesus said it (there are two witnesses), I believe it, that settles it.
One could go on and on, but I think suffice to say that you need to let the word of God fashion your theological understanding. Don't get bogged down on words and their temporal positioning by mere humans. The Church might only be mentioned by that specific name in the New Testament, the Body/Bride of Christ the same.
So what! Even Messiah is only forecast by name as late as the life of Daniel. However as later revelation shows, He, the Messiah was from the foundation of the World.
You might not want to look at it as God being omnipotent, but the truth is He has been at work providing for the saving of people ever since Adam and Eve messed up in the Garden in Eden. Yup, even Cain and Abel were into sacrificing to God. Things didn't wait till Abraham came along or Moses, or Paul. God was in there, sleeves rolled up providing for fallen mankind from the start.
Xian Pugilist
Inactive
K,
Please define.....
Repents
Body of Christ
Baptised in the Spirit.
The "as soon as" they depart from the law, I'm not sure how to take that... I'm not sure the scripture says that either.
4 Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. 5 For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death.
Please consider,
were made to die to the law---- doesn't mean you have died to the law yet.
Through the body of Christ---- would mean it's executed through the Church.
Might be joined to another----- Not a guarantee you will make it to that point.
In order to bear fruit for God-- You are saved for a purpose... (eph 2:10, last parable in matt 25, gal 5:6)
I don't get "as soon as" out of there. Doesn't mean you are wrong, it means I don't see how you got there. I was taught as a child it was instantaneous too. Right after the sinner's prayer. OR right after baptism.
When I couldn't support that claim in scripture I got angry and hit the books. And I'm not picking at you, just the statement you made. I don't see anything wrong with what you believe as expressed. I certainly can't say you are backwards, wrong, misled, whatever.
I'm merely contrasting your views, with mine, trying to find a nut between the trees.
Please define.....
Repents
Body of Christ
Baptised in the Spirit.
The "as soon as" they depart from the law, I'm not sure how to take that... I'm not sure the scripture says that either.
4 Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. 5 For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death.
Please consider,
were made to die to the law---- doesn't mean you have died to the law yet.
Through the body of Christ---- would mean it's executed through the Church.
Might be joined to another----- Not a guarantee you will make it to that point.
In order to bear fruit for God-- You are saved for a purpose... (eph 2:10, last parable in matt 25, gal 5:6)
I don't get "as soon as" out of there. Doesn't mean you are wrong, it means I don't see how you got there. I was taught as a child it was instantaneous too. Right after the sinner's prayer. OR right after baptism.
When I couldn't support that claim in scripture I got angry and hit the books. And I'm not picking at you, just the statement you made. I don't see anything wrong with what you believe as expressed. I certainly can't say you are backwards, wrong, misled, whatever.
I'm merely contrasting your views, with mine, trying to find a nut between the trees.