Where Did The Body Of Christ Begin ?

Kevin posted: 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.
You win a bananna for using concatenate correctly and spelling it right. That's a word I see about once a decade, ty.
 
I'm sorry. The caps before are a result of a thumb on a phone, not intent of the typist. I did have a couple of words I wanted capped. But, it wasn't yelling as it appears. :(


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
 
We are just discussing things, right? As such, my responses flow below. And it doesn't read as disjointed as you think it did in my view.

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.
Your argument implied that since noah was the Church, I believe. My comment to the Nephilim was, and IS, that scripture has them on both sides of the flood. So your argument is with the Biblical account, not on my statement. If there were nephilim after the flood, I don't think God created new ones, it would mean they survived.
So unless one or more of Noah's family were nephilim, (which we have no reason to think) your argumentation falls flat.
Well, it would, except.....Moses was post flood, right? His spies went out and found Nephilim.
And there are other places, I believe that Goliath was mentioned as such, but I'm not going to check my memory on that one, so take that with a grain of salt.

Noah was deemed righteous through faith.......is there a problem here?
Not that I can see, why do you ask? Do you want there to be one? Faith was the cornerstone of the law. Faith was all through the OT.

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.
And, apparently the Priesthood of Melchizedek, of no beginning nor end, existed in the time of Noah. And before the law, that was the priesthood that ran the world. This was before jews, or gentiles. This is the priesthood, our Church is based upon. So, no I don't think the CHURCH today, was in the OT as there were different establishments, and faith alone doesn't mean they were in the Church. I can't figure out how that argument would even be presented.

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....
For a fact, the CHRIST only existed for 3 years, after the dove landed on the shoulder of Christ at His baptism from John. Jesus lived for 30ish years before that. Jesus was no where in the OT. Rather the WORD from the OT and before creation, became manifest as Jesus/Joshua and had a reason to do so, a big part of that was to train those that would build His Church upon the rock that Christ was the son of God.

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.
John 1 is your pre-existant Word verse. The Christ isn't said in the verse to have existed.

It's a comparison say, OTHER WISE HE WOULD HAVE NEEDED TO suffer from the foundation... it's a conditional statement. A hypothetical observation. I don't blame you that the word of God says what it says. We are certainly safe there.

Hbr 9:26 Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin [fn24]by the sacrifice of Himself.

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.
Do you think noah was a son of abraham?

Why do you think the word FAITH is the determinant of the Church in the NT? Why do you think that word, anywhere it is used is proof of a link to the NT? I have faith my chair will work when I sit on it. (albeit not as much faith as I used to have...) Is that use of FAITH a link to the NT church? You have people of faith, ALL THROUGH the OT, but it's not a faith in Jesus Christ on the cross, but on God keeping His promises. When the law was given the Jews, there were promises with them. The Jews of that time, didn't have faith in the law, they had faith in GOD to honor the format He laid out through the law.

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.
I'm officially lost. Who said that the blood of Christ wasn't the format God chose to help us realize our sins could be forgiven? Why is this relevant to anything I said, I certainly haven't denied or contradicted this?


One could go on and on,
hehe, forgive me, but I gotta....

one has.

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.
Yeah, words don't mean nuttin. You can just make them say whatever you want. I get it. :|

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 can only say that by not being bogged down in words. The term messiah, only applied to the man for 3 years. Before that He was Jesus the carpenter. And that takes NOTHING away from His divinity. It merely denotes the stage of His life he was in. His carpetry time was totally separate from His Messianic life.

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.
Why do you imply I don't find God omnipotent? I assure you he's much less limited in my theology than yours! In my theological understanding HE does things that (I think) yours denies flat out.

Yup, even Cain and Abel were into sacrificing to God.
As a thanks, not to forgive sins. It doesn't compare. But there we go with words again, don't let them bog us down...

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.
No one has said God hasn't been there from the beginning, nor that He was inactive.

I'm missing the argument that ties all of this faith, to the Church. That was my claim, when the Church started. I don't see much reason to chase this tangent in this thread with you. You ignored paragrpahs 2-7, not even a comment to address them. That means, we aren't talking with each other.

Have a good day.
 
Sep 3, 2009
12,187
4,721
113
Florida
Xian Pugilist said........

".....Moses was post flood, right? His spies went out and found Nephilim."

Please list the Bible verse that prove this comment.
 
Xian Pugilist said:
"His spies went out and found Nephilim."


What Bible verse is that found in?
Any bible translated will have the same hebrew words there. I'm not accountable for if they put nephilim, giants, or other things...

Num 13:33 "There also we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight."
NASB

I will nearly always post from NASB, recognized the most word for word out there.

Of all the things I presented that could have been controversial, you want to demand service on the one you could have found with 8 keystrokes?
 
BTW, I'm not real sure why I am answering you? You make claims/arguments, they get refuted, and you don't address them after that? Maybe you don't have answers and don't want to acknowledge it? Maybe you don't follow up with your posts? Maybe some other reason all together?

Whatever it is, when you say something in a tone to show I'm beneath you and wrong, which is ok by me btw, and I actually have the backing to support it, shouldn't you either acknowledge that you see the point, or tell us why the refutation fell short of selling the point?

If you do neither, it just leaves accusations laying around, anyone can read and surmise what they will. An example.

If someone asks you, "Have you told your mother you are gay yet? "
Whatever answer you give, doesn't wipe out the presumption presented that you are gay. You say, I'm not gay. The reader sees, you haven't told your mother yet, you aren't out of the closet, you are hiding it. Speculation can convict you. That's a hyperbolic example of why it's important to reply to your replies.
 
Sep 3, 2009
12,187
4,721
113
Florida
Any bible translated will have the same hebrew words there. I'm not accountable for if they put nephilim, giants, or other things...

Num 13:33 "There also we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight."
NASB

I will nearly always post from NASB, recognized the most word for word out there.

Of all the things I presented that could have been controversial, you want to demand service on the one you could have found with 8 keystrokes?
Yes I could have.
 
Sep 3, 2009
12,187
4,721
113
Florida
BTW, I'm not real sure why I am answering you? You make claims/arguments, they get refuted, and you don't address them after that? Maybe you don't have answers and don't want to acknowledge it? Maybe you don't follow up with your posts? Maybe some other reason all together?

Whatever it is, when you say something in a tone to show I'm beneath you and wrong, which is ok by me btw, and I actually have the backing to support it, shouldn't you either acknowledge that you see the point, or tell us why the refutation fell short of selling the point?

If you do neither, it just leaves accusations laying around, anyone can read and surmise what they will. An example.

If someone asks you, "Have you told your mother you are gay yet? "
Whatever answer you give, doesn't wipe out the presumption presented that you are gay. You say, I'm not gay. The reader sees, you haven't told your mother yet, you aren't out of the closet, you are hiding it. Speculation can convict you. That's a hyperbolic example of why it's important to reply to your replies.
Why don't you give your contempteous attitude a day off. I just asked you a simple question, no more no less. WHY are you so bent on an argument, and why are you so insulting????

Are you in fact a Christian??? Is the Lord Jesus you Savior???

Jesus said that His believers will be know by their fruits. So far I have seen nothing from you except bitterness, and hatefull responces.
 
Jul 22, 2010
3,157
1,225
113
73
Australia
Your argument implied that since noah was the Church, I believe. My comment to the Nephilim was, and IS, that scripture has them on both sides of the flood. So your argument is with the Biblical account, not on my statement. If there were nephilim after the flood, I don't think God created new ones, it would mean they survived.
No, that was not my argument as all. You mentioned Noah and you mentioned Nephilim. I merely suggested that if those tall and lanky ones had survived the flood, (you used the word "seemed") they could only have done so through the Noahs. So we seem to agree on this point. As for my implication that Noah was the Church, well no, not really, but we were discussing the body of Christ. I believe it could be said that the Church(NT) is part of the body of Christ, but the body of Christ is not restricted to or defined by the NT church.
The report of Nephelim by the majority of the spies is of doubtful value. But its in the Bible!!:mad: :mad: Down boy down!
That the report was made is sure enough, but the content of that report is highly suspect. It should be noted that the land contained many towns of many and varied tribes. It should also be noted that there is no further reference to nephilim of the giants when Israel finally went into the promised land. As a race of post flood 'nasties', they were a myth. There are, even today instances of giantism.
But let's keep to the subject of the body of Christ.
 
Why don't you give your contempteous attitude a day off. I just asked you a simple question, no more no less. WHY are you so bent on an argument, and why are you so insulting????

Are you in fact a Christian??? Is the Lord Jesus you Savior???

Jesus said that His believers will be know by their fruits. So far I have seen nothing from you except bitterness, and hatefull responces.
Major,

You came at me pretty hard. I answered you.

You didn't even acknoledge it. You ignored it, yet you still come back challenging me. What is the good of answering your challenge, if you will drop it and not follow up? I asked a sincere questionl. As you have done that more than once, I feel justified in asking. I have a shirt with a stain. I washed it 4x and the stain didn't budge, I assumed it wouldn't come out and stopped washing it..... ???
 
No, that was not my argument as all. You mentioned Noah and you mentioned Nephilim. I merely suggested that if those tall and lanky ones had survived the flood, (you used the word "seemed") they could only have done so through the Noahs. So we seem to agree on this point.


-------no, we don't agree, only Noah's family, and animals were on the arc. Who knows how many nephilim, but they were before and after the flood. I guess, I have to admit that the claim, survived, is as presumptuous as on the arc is. I never considered on the arc. I can't see reason to give that any legs, but, I ageee that its possible-------



As for my implication that Noah was the Church, well no, not really, but we were discussing the body of Christ. I believe it could be said that the Church(NT) is part of the body of Christ, but the body of Christ is not restricted to or defined by the NT church.

--------- wow! Again. Never heard that argument, wish it was this easy to grasp the first time. I see the logic. Same thoughts as above.... I think all in all, its pretty clear the body of christ is the nt church.... that's a tangent to dig more in its own thread perhaps? Well, I guess not. Its speculation, can you corroborate with it? I don't see it backed up in the original comments, but obviously I was barking at the wrong tree when I read the first one. That's two big bads in one day....... :( I hate making mistakes like that.... sorry.---------




The report of Nephelim by the majority of the spies is of doubtful value. But its in the Bible!!:mad: :mad: Down boy down!
That the report was made is sure enough, but the content of that report is highly suspect. It should be noted that the land contained many towns of many and varied tribes. It should also be noted that there is no further reference to nephilim of the giants when Israel finally went into the promised land. As a race of post flood 'nasties', they were a myth. There are, even today instances of giantism.
But let's keep to the subject of the body of Christ.
And the last part......meh, its valid as an argument, I feel its taking too liberal a redaction.... but, stilll must be considered.

So, what else did I miss?

My position is its a reach to say the nt church goes back before Christ. I think the melchizedek and levitical priesthoods remove that option. Try again now that we are more in tune please?
 
Jul 22, 2010
3,157
1,225
113
73
Australia
First of all, has it occurred to you that placing your own comments with in the same quote code as someone else's comment makes poor reading? I refer to the above post for example. Calvin said.....and included in what calvin is accused of saying are words which did not originate with calvin "-------no, we don't agree, only Noah's family, and animals were on the arc. Who knows how many nephilim, but they were before and after the flood. I guess, I have to admit that the claim, survived, is as presumptuous as on the arc is. I never considered on the arc. I can't see reason to give that any legs, but, I ageee that its possible-------" Nope, no siree, calvin never said those words!

It is the fault of the forum software. It either can't or is not set up to handle 'nested quotes'. If we do not take care, much strife can result.

My position is its a reach to say the nt church goes back before Christ. I think the melchizedek and levitical priesthoods remove that option. Try again now that we are more in tune please?
unsure of your point here??? What I said was "I believe it could be said that the Church(NT) is part of the body of Christ, but the body of Christ is not restricted to or defined by the NT church." Perhaps it could also be said that the NT Church is defined by the body of Christ.( but only in part)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Major
I know its easier to read, but when I am on my phone typing with thumbs.......

I don't see how the ot is also the body of christ, in lieu of the nt wording. I can't dismiss your thought, I just can't back it up either.

I was setting my words off with --------this is me------- hoping it was clear... sorry. Wasn't trying to make an issue like that...
 
Sep 3, 2009
12,187
4,721
113
Florida
No, that was not my argument as all. You mentioned Noah and you mentioned Nephilim. I merely suggested that if those tall and lanky ones had survived the flood, (you used the word "seemed") they could only have done so through the Noahs. So we seem to agree on this point. As for my implication that Noah was the Church, well no, not really, but we were discussing the body of Christ. I believe it could be said that the Church(NT) is part of the body of Christ, but the body of Christ is not restricted to or defined by the NT church.
The report of Nephelim by the majority of the spies is of doubtful value. But its in the Bible!!:mad: :mad: Down boy down!
That the report was made is sure enough, but the content of that report is highly suspect. It should be noted that the land contained many towns of many and varied tribes. It should also be noted that there is no further reference to nephilim of the giants when Israel finally went into the promised land. As a race of post flood 'nasties', they were a myth. There are, even today instances of giantism.
But let's keep to the subject of the body of Christ.
Agreed!

Fear and adrinaline makes men see strange things.
 
Sep 3, 2009
12,187
4,721
113
Florida
No, that was not my argument as all. You mentioned Noah and you mentioned Nephilim. I merely suggested that if those tall and lanky ones had survived the flood, (you used the word "seemed") they could only have done so through the Noahs. So we seem to agree on this point. As for my implication that Noah was the Church, well no, not really, but we were discussing the body of Christ. I believe it could be said that the Church(NT) is part of the body of Christ, but the body of Christ is not restricted to or defined by the NT church.
The report of Nephelim by the majority of the spies is of doubtful value. But its in the Bible!!:mad: :mad: Down boy down!
That the report was made is sure enough, but the content of that report is highly suspect. It should be noted that the land contained many towns of many and varied tribes. It should also be noted that there is no further reference to nephilim of the giants when Israel finally went into the promised land. As a race of post flood 'nasties', they were a myth. There are, even today instances of giantism.
But let's keep to the subject of the body of Christ.
I am in agreement with you Calvin and enjoy your insights.

So then, speaking of the body of Christ.............should we not consult the Word of God and use it to help us????

I think so. Think "POSITIONAL".......... and "PRACTICAL"

IMO ..... the POSITIONAL beginning of the Body of Christ took place in the mind of God before time began. Can we prove that from the Bible.???

Ephesians 3:9..............
"And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God who created all things by Jesus Christ".

Do you see it??? The two reasons for which God gave Paul this GRACE (Ability) was....................................

#1. To preach the gospel to the Gentiles (vs 8 )
#2. To disclose God's plan for implementing the Jew-Gentile mystery in human history.

The Body of Christ itself remained a secret hidden from man until, in His own time, God initiated the Dispensation(Time) of Grace and revealed its message to the Apostle Paul. This was the PRACTICAL beginning of the Church, which is Christ's Body.

II Tim. 1:9..........
"Who hath saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in CHRIST JESUS BEFORE THE WORLD BEGAN".