Who Was The First On In The Body Of Christ ?

[WhiteKnuckle]

While I find this post interesting, it does seem like something that doesn't move anyone closer to the understanding of the word of God.As far as the comments made on aggression, I agree, there does seem to be a certain amout of aggression on this forum. But that's to be expected, everytime a person states their belief or opinion and is "confronted" with another, there's a risk that someone will feel insulted and then an debate to win is ensued.We should all listen to first the Lord, and then to eachother, with careful consideration of what the truth is. This calls for study, reading, rereading, and praying. There is no reason for anyone to argue or get offended by any corrections or other interpritations.Now that this post has deviated from the OP, and I feel this question is personally meaningless and seems to be causing a controversy I'm done with this question. I'm sorry I ever got involved in it in the beginning.

 

[bethog]

QUOTE (dan p @ Apr 1 2009, 12:47 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=71500
Hi to all . I have notice that there are some that believe , that the Body of Christ began at Acts 2 .. . . . . . . . .
Ok, so you tried this post and nobody reacted and then you started another thread called “Who Was The First On In The Body Of Christ?” and that is one and the same subject. Are you trying to get a point over and if nobody bites, you start another thread. Is this claims you made going to bring anybody closer to God and is the exact time when the Church came into being going to influence our salvation. Let us be glad that the Church was born. There is no edification in these kind of arguments which is provocative in nature.

 

[bethog]

QUOTE (WhiteKnuckle @ Apr 1 2009, 11:27 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=71551
While I find this post interesting, it does seem like something that doesn't move anyone closer to the understanding of the word of God.As far as the comments made on aggression, I agree, there does seem to be a certain amout of aggression on this forum. But that's to be expected, everytime a person states their belief or opinion and is "confronted" with another, there's a risk that someone will feel insulted and then an debate to win is ensued.We should all listen to first the Lord, and then to eachother, with careful consideration of what the truth is. This calls for study, reading, rereading, and praying. There is no reason for anyone to argue or get offended by any corrections or other interpritations.Now that this post has deviated from the OP, and I feel this question is personally meaningless and seems to be causing a controversy I'm done with this question. I'm sorry I ever got involved in it in the beginning.
I have noticed the thread “Acts 2 Vs Acts 9” and I have to agree with you “this question is personally meaningless and seems to be causing a controversy” and “I'm sorry I ever got involved in it in the beginning”

 

[dan p]

QUOTE (bethog @ Apr 1 2009, 05:24 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=71557
Ok, so you tried this post and nobody reacted and then you started another thread called “Who Was The First On In The Body Of Christ?” and that is one and the same subject. Are you trying to get a point over and if nobody bites, you start another thread. Is this claims you made going to bring anybody closer to God and is the exact time when the Church came into being going to influence our salvation. Let us be glad that the Church was born. There is no edification in these kind of arguments which is provocative in nature.
Hi bethog , these are different OP , and I AM sorry you can not see that , and why not answer the OP ? I am just trying to educate the Body of Christ , like you should be doing , and instead you bother me with nonsense .

 

[HammerStone]

QUOTE
1. “as to create in Himself one new man from the two” This Scripture speaks of the Church as “one new man” Thus not only the Jews or the Nations, but the new man that came from both Jews and Nations. So in order to be called “the Church” there have to be the “coming together” of the “one new man”
The coming together you speak of is Christ, just as the verses themselves say. This just isn't some sort of conditional statement.QUOTE
2. :16 “reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross” This part of Scripture speaks of both “in one body”, and again mentioning of the Church or the body of Christ. But take note that it will happen “through the cross”. Therefore only after Jesus was crucified this “one new man” could come into existence.
Hence why Christ prophetically spoke of what he was about to do. The disciples weren't saved by the law.The same is why we're now reading about it all.

 

[bethog]

QUOTE (Denver @ Apr 2 2009, 03:40 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=71602
The coming together you speak of is Christ, just as the verses themselves say. This just isn't some sort of conditional statement.
I hope I misunderstand you . . . . You say “The coming together you speak of is Christ” So what you say, is that Christ was “two”. So He “create in Himself one new man from the two”. Explain the “two”. Jesus was two “what”? And then “He might reconcile them both to God”. This “them both” which you now say is Christ who became “the one new man” had to be “reconcile to God”. What did Christ do wrong to be reconciled with God?

 

[dan p]

QUOTE (bethog @ Apr 1 2009, 09:36 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=71533
I have read a couple of the different subjects on “Christianity Board Christian Forum” and I have noticed that you are ready to correct each and everybody with some aggression without mercy. Do you have a problem when people giving their opinion? Is the purpose for “Christianity Board Christian Forum” that everybody must believe and think just as you do or else . . . It is defiantly the truth as you state it here. Christ is the corner stone and for that there are clear Scripture. For those of us saying that the “birth of the Church” was in Acts 2 is a presumption which we make as we read the Bible in context, but same can be said for the presumption you make as your Scripture used do not clearly answer to the question of this thread
1) Hi bethog , and I don't have a problem WITH ANYONE GIVING AN OPINION , but don't you want the facts to show that it is scriptual ? Most everyone that I see has disagreed with me , but I am not offensed by that . This forum is reaching more than just you , and that is who I am reaching with the pure Gospel of Grace that the Apostle Paul presented , for he alone is our Aposlte to the Gentiles and Rom 11:13 says so .