ECT Fundamental question: how can the one David referred to be his son?

[Lazy afternoon]

And your point is?

The 12 Apostles taught the Gospel of Christ before Paul did, and the 120 were baptized into the Body of Christ before Paul was.


Luk 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
Luk 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
Luk 24:46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
Luk 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
Luk 24:48 And ye are witnesses of these things.
Luk 24:49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.


Act 1:5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
Act 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
Act 1:7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.
Act 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

LA

 

[Interplanner]

The Body of Christ began with Jesus, was added to by the 120 and then the 3000.

To say the body of Christ began through Paul is a lie.

Luk 24:46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
Luk 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
Luk 24:48 And ye are witnesses of these things.
Luk 24:49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

Act 1:3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
Act 1:4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.
Act 1:5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
Act 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
Act 1:7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.
Act 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

Madists are not born into the Kingdom of which Christ taught of.

LA

Speaking of numbers of followers, what if each of the 70 had 2 people they had told and trained by the time Pentecost happened? 210 from that.

 

[dodge]

And? We can agree he is adding...

so......once again, you have no point or answer....

You can't add to what does not exist unless you are in the la la land of MAD.

I understand that you are destroying the context of scripture to make it fit into MAD ,but all you are doing is trying to force a square peg into a round hole.

 

[dodge]

Dodge,

It is almost impossible to have spiritual communication with literalists.

Especially when they change the context of scripture to make it fit MAD when it doesn't. They (MADist) are looking more and more like Roman Catholics where context only means what they say it is.

 

[Tambora]

Especially when they change the context of scripture

MAD doesn't change the context of scripture.

 

[Tambora]

Dodge,

It is almost impossible to have spiritual communication with literalists.

Bull.

But it is impossible to have logical communication with folks that change the literal to spiritual.

 

[Tambora]

'assembly/ekklesia' in those verses is the same word translated as 'church/ekklesia' in other verses.

Why are these 'assemblies' not equivalent to the other 'assemblies' that are identified as Christ's church, BOC or the Church of GOD?
For after all, it's the same word...'ekklesia'.

:BRAVO:

Aren't all churches the same universal church?

Nope.

 

[Interplanner]

MAD doesn't change the context of scripture.

You do all the time on Gal 2 and Acts 15. The 2nd coming-itis about Acts 15 is insane. The inability to see the situation in Gal 2 is ridiculous.

 

[Tambora]

You do all the time on Gal 2 and Acts 15. The 2nd coming-itis about Acts 15 is insane. The inability to see the situation in Gal 2 is ridiculous.

Nope.

 

[Interplanner]

Nope.

You have to give details Tam. I already don't accept your pontifications, so don't give them. show me why you think you have the context of Acts 15 correct.

 

[Tambora]

You have to give details Tam.

No I don't.
You can be wrong and foolish, and I can laugh at your stupidity.

 

[Interplanner]

No I don't.
You can be wrong and foolish, and I can laugh at your stupidity.

If you can't explain your position, it is worthless. We are to give reasons for the hope that is in us. You don't.

 

[Tambora]

If you can't explain your position, it is worthless.

Not true, foolish one.
One can believe truth whether it is explained to them or not.

We are to give reasons for the hope that is in us. You don't.

I do.

 

[steko]

This was NOT a meeting of the B.O.C. nor a church it was a civil meeting of a gathering of the towns people who was mad at Paul for threatening their business of making idols to Diana.


41 And when he had thus spoken, he dismissed the assembly.

Correct!
The point in all my questioning of all of this is to get you to admit that when we find the word 'church' in Scripture, it is not always referring to the same 'assembly'.
Thank you for finally conceding the point.

Therefore, when Stephen mentions 'the church/assembly/ekkliesia' in the wilderness, he is speaking about the 'qahal/assembly' of the 'edah/congregation' of the twelve tribes of Israel, which is not the BOC, though both are called 'church' in different contexts.

Could it be that there are other instances in Scripture where the word 'church' is referring to an assembly other than the BOC?

Context determines meaning.

:chuckle: Did you really think that I believed that those three verses in Acts 19 were referring to the BOC?

Act 7:38 This is he, that was in the church[ekklesia] in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:


Exo_12:6 And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly[qahal] of the congregation[edah] of Israel shall kill it in the evening.

 

[Nang]

Correct!
The point in all my questioning of all of this is to get you to admit that when we find the word 'church' in Scripture, it is not always referring to the same 'assembly'.
Thank you for finally conceding the point.

Covenant Theology teaches that ekklesia always refers to the universal, invisible church of believers in the messianic promises of God.

These are a remnant out of all peoples, who have found grace in the eyes of God. They can be inside the visible churches, or part of all kinds of assemblies, or outside the churches in the world . . but God knows them as His spiritual children.

So when reading about "churches", one must first ask how the scripture applies to those who have heard and believed the covenant promises of God.

This is the study of Remnant Theology. It is this saved remnant that makes up the universal and spiritual body of Christ, who inherit the heavenly Kingdom of God.

Therefore, when Stephen mentions 'the church/assembly/ekkliesia' in the wilderness, he is speaking about the 'qahal/assembly' of the 'edah/congregation' of the twelve tribes of Israel, which is not the BOC, though both are called 'church' in different contexts.

God saved a remnant out of the twelve tribes of the nation of Israel. These are indeed part of the universal body of Christ, for they were saved by faith in the promised Messiah.


Act 7:38 This is he, that was in the church[ekklesia] in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

 

[drbrumley]

You can't add to what does not exist unless you are in the la la land of MAD.

I understand that you are destroying the context of scripture to make it fit into MAD ,but all you are doing is trying to force a square peg into a round hole.

You don't understand a thing. There was a church at that time. The Old Testament had prophecies for this specific time. God dealt exclusively with Israel. Salvation for the Gentiles was to come thru the nation of Israel. A good example is Phillip and the Eunuch. After Christ went to the cross and rose again on the third day, they were offered the Kingdom. They rejected God's offer once again. Then like in times of old, when God gave up the Gentiles and went exclusively to Israel, He gave up Israel for a time and went exclusively to the Gentiles. I don't know why God did it that way, nor do I care why He did it that way. I just know He did it and am thankful for His offer of salvation to us Gentiles. We are not Israel. We are not spiritual Israel nor His Kingdom Church which was prophesied and where the 3000 were added. Christ had a mission when He was here and He fulfilled it. And He was promptly rejected. God, because of Israel's unbelief, saved the remnant. That's the church that was added the 3000. And of Peter, James, John etc...The Apostle Paul was also saved thru this, but was later told as scripture bears out He became the Apostle to the Gentiles. And consequently I believe (although there is debate on this)that the other apostles were moved into the dispensation of grace. some feel they did, some feel they didn't. But they are still saved.

 

[steko]

Covenant Theology teaches that ekklesia always refers to the universal, invisible church of believers in the messianic promises of God.

[/COLOR]

I know what it teaches and I disagree.

 

[Interplanner]

You don't understand a thing. There was a church at that time. The Old Testament had prophecies for this specific time. God dealt exclusively with Israel. Salvation for the Gentiles was to come thru the nation of Israel. A good example is Phillip and the Eunuch. After Christ went to the cross and rose again on the third day, they were offered the Kingdom. They rejected God's offer once again. Then like in times of old, when God gave up the Gentiles and went exclusively to Israel, He gave up Israel for a time and went exclusively to the Gentiles. I don't know why God did it that way, nor do I care why He did it that way. I just know He did it and am thankful for His offer of salvation to us Gentiles. We are not Israel. We are not spiritual Israel nor His Kingdom Church which was prophesied and where the 3000 were added. Christ had a mission when He was here and He fulfilled it. And He was promptly rejected. That's the church that was added the 3000. And of Peter, James, John etc...The Apostle Paul was also saved thru this, but was later told as scripture bears out He became the Apostle to the Gentiles. And consequently I believe (although there is debate on this)that the other apostles were moved into the dispensation of grace. some feel they did, some feel they didn't. But they are still saved.

But there is another Israel by faith, and God is no longer working apart from faith (perhaps he never did) and I am not familiar with the term 'kingdom church', although you could use 'church' in the sense of 'gathering' or 'called ones.' and those existed.

 

[drbrumley]

and I am not familiar with the term 'kingdom church', although you could use 'church' in the sense of 'gathering' or 'called ones.' and those existed.

And that is all we do.....

 

[musterion]

Bull.

But it is impossible to have logical communication with folks that change the literal to spiritual.

Trying to discuss anything with them is to fall through the looking glass...Bible words can mean anything they want them to mean, or nothing at all. You cite something literal? Pfft, they disregard it. But when THEY want to be literal, you're an idiot for disagreeing. It lets them rule a conversation they'd otherwise choke on.

That's why IP and many others hate literalism.