Oooops.............in comment #19 it should have been PETER not Paul in Acts 2. Sorry about that!
Rom 7:4 - Paul refers to people becoming part of the body of Christ as soon as they depart from the law to believe in Christ. The body of Christ began as soon as the gift of eternal salvation became possible. As soon as a person repents and is baptized in the Holy Spirit they are baptized into the church (the body of Christ).
The "body of Christ" does not refer to a physical body but is more of an analogy of belonging to Christ and becoming part of His church. Paul uses the word body in different contexts to refer to belonging to something. If we belong to the body we are part of the body.
which begs the question posed by Dan p.The body of Christ began as soon as the gift of eternal salvation became possible. As soon as a person repents and is baptized in the Holy Spirit they are baptized into the church (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 !!
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!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
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?
??? 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.
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.
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
Now, is the POWER. I should say so.
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?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).
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.The church started at descension of the Spirit, and awareness and comprehension of the Apostles.
Lev 24:22. says otherwise.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.
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?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.
That is why they had to sacrifice over and over again. I doubt the issue is a straight forward as you seem to think.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.
Nobody is suggesting that and what has that to do with the topic?I'm trying to say, that the blood of Christ was important for us, but that it didn't force God's hand.
If, by 'body of Christ' you mean those who are saved by Grace alone though Faith alone in Christ alone, then it is evident that it has its origins in Genesis. Gen 4:26. Joel 2:32. Acts 2:21
If you believe the 'Body of Christ' is in fact rooted in another.....then Acts 9:6
If you believe the 'Body of Christ' had its origin at some point in time after the Resurrection......the sky is the limit.
At the very least, what about Matt 16:18. ?
But as for my self I'll go with Genesis.
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.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....
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.Had the Spirit been in that role in the old, it would not have been necessary for the Christ to die.