Where did the Body of Christ begin ?

[dan p]

Hi to ALL . Many Christians believe and have many views where the Body of Christ began .

1) Some say the the Body began in Genesis

2) Most say that the Body of Christ began at Acts 2

3) Some bgain it at Acts 9

4) some at Acts 11 and that person lives in FL

5) SOME begin it in Acts 13 , and my own Pastor believes and holds to this

6) and there are some that hold to a MID- Acts

7) Then there are the Hypers who hold to an Acts 28 position

8) This is what I believe and hold to an Acts 9 position and this is why ?

9) Rom 1:1 reads ; Paul a servant of Jesus Christ , called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God .

10) The word separated is the Greek word APHORIZO AND CAN BE TRANSLATED by 3 other words .

11) to mark off by a BOUNDRIES
12) by the word LIMITED
13) by the word Separated

14) I like the word Limited better

15) In the Greek the word limited is in the Pefect tense.

16) The Greek Passive Voice

17) The Greek Indictative Mood , so what does that all mean ?

18) The perfect tense , it is a combo meaning , with PAST ACTION with CONTINUING results . That means that when Paul was saved , from that point ON , HE ( Paul ) was limited to preach ONLY , the gospel of God, period .

19) The Passive Voice means that Christ put him into that position .

20) The Indicatative Mood means that what happened to Paul was a FACT.

21) The Body of Christ began with Paul and he was the FIRST one in the Body of Christ .

 

[tim-from-pa]

The body of Christ came when the Spirit of God was given, which beforehand was barred from mankind until then. The Spirit was given at Pentecost, the Jewish feast that foreshadowed this. It was impossible to be born of the Spirit before He was given. And to be born of the Spirit is required to become the body of Christ. Straightforward. There were exceptions with the OT patriarchs and prophets to carry out God's Word, but the question I am assuming as a whole....

 

[dan p]

Hi tim , all you have to do is show a verse that the Body of Christ began at ACTS 2 , WHEN all that happened in Acs 2 was PROPHETIC IN Joel 2 .

1) Can you please give a verse for any Gentiles shown here , for I can see plenty of Jews in verse , like Acts 2:22 , just for starters ?

 

[Tomlane]

The body of Christ came when the Spirit of God was given, which beforehand was barred from mankind until then. The Spirit was given at Pentecost, the Jewish feast that foreshadowed this. It was impossible to be born of the Spirit before He was given. And to be born of the Spirit is required to become the body of Christ. Straightforward. There were exceptions with the OT patriarchs and prophets to carry out God's Word, but the question I am assuming as a whole....

I agree with most of your answers Tim but I think you will find old testament people when they were moved by God had the Holy spirit upon them and not in them.

If you don't agree could you show me scripture to support the Holy Spirit going into people? Thanks.

Tomlane

 

[francisdesales]

I agree with most of your answers Tim but I think you will find old testament people when they were moved by God had the Holy spirit upon them and not in them.

What's the difference? This is a distinction without difference. The end result is the same. Man is transformed by the Gift of the Spirit.

And the Spirit of the LORD will prosper thee, and thou shalt prophesy with them and shalt be turned into another man 1 Sam 10:6

The Spirit turned Samuel into another man - just as He continues to transform those given the New Covenant. The difference is that the Spirit is much more widely available with the New Covenant.

Furthermore evidence:

But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him. 1 Sam 16:14

Seems the Spirit of God DEPARTED Saul, meaning He left what He had once entered into. Perhaps you can explain the distinction between "upon" and "in" regarding the effects of the Spirit... The New Testament uses the words interchangeably when refering to the Spirit being poured upon as well as abiding within us...

Regards

 

[tim-from-pa]

I agree with most of your answers Tim but I think you will find old testament people when they were moved by God had the Holy spirit upon them and not in them.

Upon or in is semantics. I agree with the "upon" better as they were still in the flesh. What you said is essentially what I stated. The OT was under the covenant of the Law of Moses (don't confuse that with the Abrahamic, Davidic and similar covenants which are neither "old" nor "new" but belong to the race of people and are in effect yet). The Old Covenant was to be kept by the person, or flesh power. If they did the commandments, they would live. Of course nobody could do that except Christ which is why He arose again.

In the New Testament, we have the New covenant which Christ instituted at what is called the "last supper" and told the disciples to wait for the coming of the Holy Spirit. Until then, men did not have the Holy Spirit or otherwise what would be the significance of His coming? The Law is not done away with, but rather the power to keep it, ie, this time by the Spirit.

I have further concepts to convey, but first I will await an answer to this post.

That's the point of God's feast days. They were prophetic forerunners of things to come. One could not have the Spirit until Christ's work was done, as it was not until the resurrection and the days afterwards that this was possible.

 

[Tomlane]

francisdesales, You asked: What's the difference? This is a distinction without difference. The end result is the same. Man is transformed by the Gift of the Spirit.

There is a big difference and the end results is not the same.

First before I give you scripture as proof, I have an idea you will not let God's word into your heart on this matter, other then the scriptures that you have taken out of context that support your theology in a very weak way. Your doctrine of works sure sounds like it comes from mother Rome to me.

Here why there is such a big difference from the Holy Spirit being upon a man and being in a man.

You gave me part of the answer self without even realizing it. Thank you for the scripture Francis that saved me a little time.

But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him. 1 Sam 16:14

As you see, the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul and an evil spirit from the troubled Saul.

Man did not have a comforter until after Christ ascended into Heaven and then it came to dwell within the body as God's promise or seal for everlasting life and to let us know we were bought with a price and are no longer of ourselves. You can't possible know that or believe it until you are born again spiritually.

In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.
Eph 1:13-14 (KJV)

Please notice Francis, in whom you also trusted. It never says a thing about doing a thing other then trusting {believing} and we sealed with the Holy Spirit. This is another big difference God when he seals a believer is Gods promise for eternal life and God can't take the spirit away or can break his word. If God could take the spirit away from a person, then God would be a liar. We never make a promise to God, He makes it with us only. And as it says In whom you believed and trusted. Again no works on our part. Another difference being God put his Holy Spirit on a person for his good pleasure for a man to do God's will. The person again was saved not because of doing God's will like Abraham going to sacrifice his son; but rather because he believed God.

1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

Romans 4:1-8 (KJV)

Francis I hope you will read the above scriptures and take them very seriously for they can be saving grace for you as well by just believing God.

Tomlane

 

[Tomlane]

Hi Tim, before I reply to you, I have a couple of questions to ask first of you.

You stated Tim, That's the point of God's feast days. They were prophetic forerunners of things to come. One could not have the Spirit until Christ's work was done, as it was not until the resurrection and the days afterwards that this was possible.

What was possiable after the resurrection and do you believe feast days is for today? Also do you believe the practice of communion is scriptural and if so where do you find the scriptures for a Sunday snack?

Thanks Tim, I'll be looking for your answers

 

[Paidion]

I have another question: "When did the Kingdom of God begin?"

Did not John the Baptizer announce it as near? Did not Jesus proclaim it? Did He not say that it was in the midst the Pharisees who inquired about it? (Luke 17:20,21) What was this kingdom which was right there among the Pharisees? A kingdom consists of a king and his subjects. In this case, the king was King Jesus, and His subjects were His disciples.

As I see it, King Jesus and His subjects comprise the Body of Christ. I think the Body of Christ came into being as soon as He had disciples.

 

[Tomlane]

Paidion, Good question since this is Tim's thread I think he should answer you first and if I don't agree with him, I'll give you my two cents with and that is figuring current inflation.
Tomlane

 

[francisdesales]

You gave me part of the answer self without even realizing it. Thank you for the scripture Francis that saved me a little time.

But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him. 1 Sam 16:14

As you see, the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul and an evil spirit from the troubled Saul.

Man did not have a comforter until after Christ ascended into Heaven and then it came to dwell within the body as God's promise or seal for everlasting life and to let us know we were bought with a price and are no longer of ourselves. You can't possible know that or believe it until you are born again spiritually.

I am finding out that you are having a difficult time supporting your arguments. Have you even given any thought to what you are saying???

1 Sam 16:14 says the Spirit of the Lord. Is there ANOTHER Spirit of the Lord? Is there an "Old Testament" Holy Spirit and a "New Testament" Holy Spirit? Where is the OT Spirit? Is He off somewhere on another planet now that the NT Spirit has abrogated the OT Spirit's role? :naughty

That, in effect, is what you are saying. And it is clearly wrong. Paul and John said that the Word of God pre-existed the Christ incarnate. The same can be said of the Spirit, who is ALSO God. Thus, when the Bible says the SPIRIT OF THE LORD, it means the SAME HOLY SPIRIT who came upon the Apostles in the upper room!!!

The difference is NOT the Spirit, but His availability to mankind. Previously, the Spirit only came to prophets, priests, kings. Not the typical man. Not the Gentile. Now, God's Covenant has expanded to include all men, the Spirit is free to come upon Greek and Jew, free man and slave, male and female, etc...

Peter himself also said this during his first revelation to the Jews in Acts 2:

But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: Acts 2:16-18

These verses tell us two things, both showing you are incorrect:

First, there is no distinction between "upon" or "in", since it says the Spirit will be poured out (upon).
Second, it discusses how the Spirit will be made available to ALL men - and even sons and daughters will prophesy and have visions and dreams. Every day people. Not just the prophets and priests and kings, as in the OT.

Please notice Francis, in whom you also trusted. It never says a thing about doing a thing other then trusting {believing} and we sealed with the Holy Spirit. This is another big difference God when he seals a believer is Gods promise for eternal life and God can't take the spirit away or can break his word.

It doesn't say that God cannot take away His Spirit. YOU say that. God takes away His Spirit from Saul! In addition, when one grieves the Spirit, they harden their hearts against God, making themselves enemies of God. Such a one does NOT have the promises of the Spirit, as Paul over and over tells us that such a person shall NOT inherit the Kingdom (Gal 5 and 1 Cor 6 are two examples).

The promise is given and given freely and without our meriting it but OBTAINING it is conditional. One must repent and allow the Spirit to transform us. We are now God's property and must act as such, for grieving the Spirit makes us ENEMIES of God!

If God could take the spirit away from a person, then God would be a liar.

Where does God say that He cannot take away His Spirit? It says a promise has been given, but the promise is conditional. One must obey the Will of the Father, for example:

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Matt 7:21-23

Merely SAYING they have the promise is not enough. One must ALSO obey the Father to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Those who DISOBEY the Father, as Saul did, lose the inheritance...

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Cor 6:9-10

This is written to Christians who have received the seal of the Spirit, are God's property. Yet, Paul tells them that if they are "unrighteous" by their actions, they shall NOT actually inherit the Kingdom.

We never make a promise to God, He makes it with us only.

The promise is conditionally given, for example:

The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with [him], that we may be also glorified together. Romans 8:16-17

IF....

IF we obey the Father. IF we suffer with the Christ. IF we are more righteous than the Pharisees and Scribes (Mat 5:20). IF we abide in Christ and have not grieved the Spirit. IF we repent. IF we persevere. IF we have faith working in love. IF... Conditional.

Francis I hope you will read the above scriptures and take them very seriously for they can be saving grace for you as well by just believing God.

I have read them and do not find your position within them. I pray you consider you are deviating from the faith given to the Apostles by the Christ through your sectarianism.

Regards

 

[dan p]

Hi Paidion , you say ; I think the Body of Christ came into being as soon as he had disciples .

1) Prove it ?

2) Just show it in the Gospels where the Body of Christ is MENTIONED ?

3) When we are saved , we are seated in the heavenlies by Eph 1:3 .

4) And the Apostles will be seated on 12 THRONES judging Isreal in Matt 19:28 , so where do you want to be ? On earth with Israel , and if you do , you will have to become a Jew .

5) Or do you want to be seated in the Heavenlies with Christ and be a Trophy of His grace ?

 

[Tomlane]

francisdesales, The reason you don't think I get it, far as I can see you intellectualize everything with your human mind and the things of God are foolishness to you. In comparing the things you have said thus far in response to what I have given you it seems they are foolish things to you and I can understand that very well. Even the very scriptures I give you in relations you debating go over you head completely.

However for the sake of Time I don't really have the time to debate every little point with you. Sorry I have to say that to you, but I don't see the time would be profitable for either of us.

For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
1 Cor 1:18 (KJV)

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
1 Cor 2:14 (KJV)

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
Matt 7:6 (KJV)

This is my honest easement of our pointless debating. Obviously your opinion has been well stated along that line as well. You take care.

Tomlane

 

[francisdesales]

francisdesales, The reason you don't think I get it, far as I can see you intellectualize everything with your human mind and the things of God are foolishness to you.

Oh Lord help me. Another of these charecters...

Is this what the "mind of the Lord" is teaching you to say? Responding to my posts with such accusations? Typical. Whenever a sectarian does not agree with what the Church says, it always comes to this... "You are using your human mind", implying that YOU are using your "God mind"???

Wrong. Basically, you are substituting your own opinions for God's Word and His intent of His Word. How lame. Anyone can claim that. "God speaks through me and I know everything about the Bible and God's meaning. Anyone who disagrees with the prophet Tomlane is to be cast out of the Kingdom as a dog..."

Please. :gah

Am I supposed to believe you have the gift of prophesy with your attempts to make your point of view - which actually place you even further from what the Scriptures say as you attempt to "explain" what pastor Bob told you... All you are doing is digging a deeper hole for yourself.

Listen, if you can disprove me from Scriptures, go for it. But you can cut the dribble about your supposed superiority in the spiritual realm. You know very little about my devotional life, and so far, I believe I have been effectively pointing out your mistaken interpretations. Do you honestly think I never read the Bible? Try to keep your comments to the Bible instead of getting personal. :bigfrown

In comparing the things you have said thus far in response to what I have given you it seems they are foolish things to you and I can understand that very well. Even the very scriptures I give you in relations you debating go over you head completely.

Yes, the things you have said are foolish things because they are incorrect interpretations of God's Word.

"Jesus is not speaking about being born again in John 3:5 - but natural birth"? "The Spirit of the Lord of the OT is not the same as the NT?" "When a person is sealed, God CANNOT leave that person?" Shall I continue with more "Tomlane gaffs"?

So far, they are false teachings. NOT that the Word of God is false, but your INTERPRETATION of God's Word is false. It leads people to destruction, beginning with yourself. Didn't you know that Peter warned those who misread Paul about that? Do you think that EVERY Christian magically is able to interpret the Scriptures without error? What would be the need for such a warning from Peter if EVERY CHRISTIAN had the gift of prophesy and teaching? Ask yourself WHY Peter wrote that to CHRISTIANS!

However for the sake of Time I don't really have the time to debate every little point with you. Sorry I have to say that to you, but I don't see the time would be profitable for either of us.

Naturally. Make accusations and bolt for the door, posting numerous times elsewhere and clearly showing how much TIME you really have. I think there is another reason. You don't want to admit you are wrong.

For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
1 Cor 1:18 (KJV)

You aren't preaching the cross, but Tomlane's sectarian words that tickle the ears.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
1 Cor 2:14 (KJV)

Yes, the natural man who thinks they have appropriated the Spirit and everyone else is wrong.

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
Matt 7:6 (KJV)

I don't consider you a dog, but I guess I am in your eyes, so you won't be wasting your time on me... A nice face-saving strategy. A back slap as you run out the door!

This is my honest easement of our pointless debating. Obviously your opinion has been well stated along that line as well. You take care.

[/quote]

I understand that you cannot support your point of view from the Bible. :P

This line of talk from you is just a lame subterfuge to ska-daddle as quickly as possible, trying not to make it too obvious that you have been refuted. What is sad is that you think that you have an uninteruppted pipeline of knowledge to God, but since I am a dog and you don't have time (to prove me wrong - although you have time to babble elsewhere), I guess we won't hear you refute what I have said earlier.

Better to be ignorant that proven wrong, I guess.

Good for you.

 

[tim-from-pa]

What was possiable after the resurrection and do you believe feast days is for today? Also do you believe the practice of communion is scriptural and if so where do you find the scriptures for a Sunday snack?

What was possible after the resurrection is the giving of God's Spirit as foreshadowed by the feast of Pentecost. Each event of the work of Christ had to be in proper order: Passover (His death), Unleavened Bread (His sinless body interred, our coming out of sin into a new life in Christ when He arose on the Firstfruits (the firstborn among many brethren) and Pentecost (the firstfruits harvest the called out ones of whom would become his church).

Trumpets, Atonement and Tabernacles did not occur yet, as that will happen in the Second Coming.

The Communion undoubtedly has the origins in Passover, and like Passover can be kept in the home, and should be kept on Passover, although I understand different people have different interpretations on the time of its taking.

As for a Sunday snack, who said anything about Sunday for that matter? What about Saturday?

 

[Tomlane]

Tim, I mentioned Sunday as snack day as that is when all the pious denominations practice it. Since I don't partake of Mother Rome's snack days I could be wrong and am open to correction. The Seventh Day Adventist far as I know is the only sect that does it on Saturday. Anyone know of any other sects and cults that do the communion thing on Saturday?

Also for all of your Sabbath day explanations could you give scripture to back up what you believe?

I'll wait your answer before I reply to that part or your explanation.

Thanks Tim,

Tomlane

 

[Rick W]

Luke 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and broke it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
Luke 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

It's not a snack nor is it from "Mother Rome" as you put it.
Many here are not Catholic and participate in faith in communion.
Discuss communion as you wish but I would advice doing so in an appropriate manner befitting a Christian and refrain from referring to the Catholic belief with inflammatory remarks.
That goes for everyone.

 

[stovebolts]

It's not a snack nor is it from "Mother Rome" as you put it.

I seem to recall a fairly descent study on the Lords Supper somewhere around this site ;)

 

[Tomlane]

I have a question for Rick. If my understanding is correct, I am not allowed to call it as I see it from scripture and I should not be honest in what I see as scripture?

I'm sure you have a good answer for it. Thanks

Tomlane

 

[francisdesales]

Tim, I mentioned Sunday as snack day as that is when all the pious denominations practice it. Since I don't partake of Mother Rome's snack days I could be wrong and am open to correction.

I would gladly again prove how little you know Scriptures, but am not allowed to in this open forum - nor do you have the time, I venture, to "counsel" me...

I would ask that you try to restrain yourself from future trolling, however, as your post is inflammatory. Whether you believe it or not, Catholics believe that the host is God Himself in the form of bread. Calling God as "snack" is inappropriate.

Mods, that's the best I can do without going nuts...

Regards