Featured What kind of 'body' was it, when the saints at Corinth were "baptized into one body"?

All anyone has to do to be convinced 'evolution' can not be anything having to do with reality that can be demonstrated, as long as they agree to do one thing and it is just as reasonable a thing to do as any.

And what is that one thing?

As long as someone agrees not to "assume evolution exists, and then want to add that as an axiom into any of their equations, as if assuming something makes it automatically come to life, and become a part of reality, even when we aren't about to observe it to be real, in any way or in any fashion.

It's just an example of not having them try to be saying something like, "we know that evolution is true, because evolution is assumed to exist and be real already, only just in our minds."

I don't want us to be saying, "since, we assume evolution is true, we have to assume we know evolution is true".

Based on what? Assumption. Period.

What does Darwin's book say 300 times, in his "Origin of the Species"?

300 times Darwin wrote in his book, "we may suppose"... That is the only mechanism he can use that brings him the results he comes up with for his shaky theory, is to assume it. For anyone to believe it they would have to agree to use their imagination and say with Darwin's 300 "we may suppose" statements that he is actually saying, "we may suppose that we need to assume something else extra here that we're going to suppose to be 'true', by inventing it out of thin air, next, in order to 'give us some (fake) ammunition' we'd need, in order to even begin to get our sin-cursed reasonings into sinning motion enough and think that: 'assuming evolution makes it exist', to start with, before we are able to say anything else about evolution being 'real'."

It's all rash, imaginary guesswork, otherwise to consider evolution possibly being real.

How about if he'd said, "now, we know that we can not suppose or assume anything". Then, where would his theory wind up? At the same place his 'Theory of Evolution' began, and that was with one big demonically stealth gratuitous assumption, which sounds like, "we may assume evolution takes place, because we may suppose evolution takes place".

Then, without adding in "the assumption that evolution exists to start with",
they would then be allowed to produce any demonstration that shows some approximation pointing to any 'evolutionary' process.

If evolution is not assumed, then you look around for something in support of evolution.

You won't find any except on paper.

Because they would be looking for evidence of evolution in a world that was Supernaturally Created by God, and their isn't any evidence, because there can't be.

And there is none.

There aren't two different sets of explanations laying around to see, since there is only one way that things came into being as they are.

And since Entropy is universally acknowledged as being able to be demonstrated in myriad ways and experiences continually worldwide that presents the idea of evolutions with one problem.

Scientifically, Entropy and Evolution are exact opposites in meaning.

And when Entropy is present taking place everywhere and Evolution can't 'field a team', that can be used for 'evidence' as long as we don't just assume it, then that is one big insurmountable problem for 'Evolutionists'.

There aren't any processes that are going on, or have ever gone on, which can be shown to demonstrate evolution taking place. Although they've tried, it always.

"Look a bird hatched from a lizard egg, see that's how birds evolved".

Or maybe it's the other way around.

Either way, you're talking about something that is produced from the imagination, not from science.

To prove evolution doesn't exist, you don't assume it. It should be able to have something concrete to show for itself if it was anywhere to be found.
...

So, why did I bring that up, to say that if you don't assume the existence of a 'Universal Invisible 'church', then you can search all over in the Bible and all it ever refers to are local churches, bodies, households, assemblies that congregate together, or to several of churches by saying, "to the church", meaning "to many or all of the Divinely founded and Bible based local church entities", around, in the same way the Bible is saying "to the church", plural, in the generic sense, and it is saying "to churches", etc., when the article 'the' is dropped.

"The husband," is referring to "husbands", not one big Universal Invisible Husband".

At least, that is how our language always works, unless the Devil gets his mind wrapped around it.

Yeah, I'm saying that if we don't assume a "Universal Invisible church" exists in the Bible, then where is anything like that, anywhere? The Kingdom of God? Yep. But the Kingdom is not what the Bible is saying by using the word, "church" and for 1,500 years of the New Testament Age of the kind of Churches Jesus Originated, there wasn't any talk of one, until Satan sold the invention of those words and that concept, to the Prodestants. It's not only invisible it's imaginary and not taught by God.

So, to not assume is a very valuable skill to bring to the table,
but I was really going to bring up "the body of Christ", as having some imaginary 'spiritual' worldwide existence being in direct opposition to the teaching in the word of God, by defining words like 'body' by what they were intended to mean in the age in which they were written and by what their synonyms mostly express, instead of(?) trying to use it's meaning by using an Antonym of it and think that it OK to conclude from doing something like that: "this is what God is saying".

Why would He do that?

God teaches words in the Bible for us to understand that they really mean the opposite of their real actual definition? And that doing that it produces some kind of new Doctrine men that are supposed to teach?

Not if they don't t assume it, without bonafide evidence and true Biblical support, instead of that which is faked, when men make Synonyms equal Antonyms in their meanings.

They don't.

1.) So. No, we may not suppose and assume,

And. 2.) No, Synonyms are never equivalent in meaning to their Antonyms.

Synonyms and Antonyms are intended to have opposite in meanings to one another.

Not to be so negative, but those two things really ill-advised.

You could say that I

in the practice of ether of them.

 

Since, the Spirit never baptized anyone or anything, we know it was Jesus Who was the only One Who ever took the Spirit and baptized with it in the Holy Spirit, or inundated and filled His church that He had Created in Jerusalem with the Shekinah Glory, one time forever on the Day of Pentecost. On The Day of Pentecost "He shall Baptist you with the Holy Spirit..." took place that had been prophecied by John the Baptist, about what Jesus was going to do. Jesus also fulfilled His promise to the disciples who were conveyed together as Jesus' first church assembly He had Created and told them while they were in that corporate capacity, "I will send you Another Comforter."

The disciples already had as much Holy Ghost in them as they ever would, placed in them in their New Birth, so Jesus was taking about when He would Baptist His church as an institution, on Pentecost, making it His first "habitations of God through the Spirit".

The Spirit is never seen in the Bible to have baptized anything.

The baptism the saved Corinthians were influenced by the Holy Spirit to submit to, as the process by which they would become members of that local body of Christ as Corinth as "members in particular", was by water baptism by the Authority of God.

How many water baptisms have there been? More than one. So, the only thing "one baptism" could be referring to is that there is only one "kind" of baptism.

There is water baptism that is the "one baptism", as to "one kind" of baptism and there are not two kinds. Any other references made calling something baptism is using the word figuratively, where that thing is also being said to have been "immersed". There is no such thing as a "Spirit baptism" anywhere taught in the book.

That there is "one kind of baptism" is being meant there, obviously, since there isn't anything else it could mean, that defines the sense in which "one body" is to be understood and that is it is talking about there being "one kind of body".

A body made up similar to how a human body is made to be.

The context is not specifically defining the sense that one of each item is to be understood in the same sense there is only the one God, because there are many many water baptisms that take place and there are many many bodies, provided we allow the Bible definition of those bodies as being similar to human bodies, in many respects.

I believe the Bible plainly compares what it is saying by a body, when it goes at length using the illustration of the human body, in a couple of places. That human body is described as being a solid local entity with various members connected to it and as having a head, etc.

That description necessitates that the "one body" can only be the kind that is illustrated by the use of that human body illustration which is, again, described as being a solid local entity with various members connected to it and as having a head, etc.

That is simple enough to see that the one kind of body we are being shown is a local body of assembled believers the way Jesus Created His local church religious organizations to be and how they are similar to a human body described as being a solid local entity with various members connected to it and as having a head, etc.

Nothing is spelled out more clear in the Bible than that when it is referring to Jesus' religious bodies, that they are tangible, intact, entire, complete, "local" entities exactly the same way a human body is.

Is the "one baptism" in the sense the context is defining it saying whether God is meaning to be talking about the total quantity of baptisms there are ever are going to happen as what it is supposed to be being talked about when He says "one baptism", and "one body", as to the total number of bodies, or if it is indicating the kind, type, variety, form, or style of what one body is referring to as being a total of one kind, type, variety, form, or style?

It's one kind of baptism that means a lot to God that is His water baptism with authority and that there is one kind of local church body that is very important to Jesus that is the only kind He organized and the only one kind that exists.

Not two kinds.

Not one that is constituted similar to an individual local human body, as the Bible teaches, and then, secondly, some other kind of 'body' that can only be described as the antithesis of the definition of the word body, that can not be said to be a body in any way, and that is in no way similar to being able to be compared to how a human body is constructed, as a one piece INDIVIDUAL INDEPENDENT UNITED ASSEMBLY OF IT'S VARIOUS PARTS OR MEMBERS THAT BELONG TO IT.

Then, if you really want to view that passage and see the quality the context defines and the sense in which one of each item of these items can to be understood, it is their characteristic in all of them as having the Absolute and Utter Authority of God associated with them.

Ephesians 4:4-6,". . . There is one body that has the Absolute and Utter Authority of God associated with it and that is the one kind of body Jesus built and promised to be with in the Person of God the Holy Spirit, throughout all ages, world without end,

and one Spirit, that has the Absolute and Utter Authority of God associated with It,

even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; that has the Absolute and Utter Authority of God associated with it,

One Lord, that has the Absolute and Utter Authority of God associated with Him,

one faith, that has the Absolute and Utter Authority of God associated with it,

one baptism, which has the Authority of God, through a man sent by God to Baptist by His Authority, that has the Absolute and Utter Authority of God associated with it,

One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. . . ." Who, of course, has the Absolute and Utter Authority of God associated with Him, as the God of the Bible.

Conversely, somethings men call "the baptism of the Holy Spirit" or "the Universal Invisible church", have no Authority from God, as even being in existence and are completely foreign to any teachings in the word of God, and do not exist in any way, anywhere, other than in the sin-cursed reasonings and evil imaginations of fallen men heavily influenced by a liar and the Father of all lies.

Satan has robbed Apostate Christianity of the Baptist teachings of Church Truth in the Bible and switched them out with a non-body, unbodily pseudo-'body', that he is using to create his One-World church, with his One-World Government, the same way he switched out salvation by the New Birth with a non-existent, unBiblical, "baptism of the Spirit", and how he switched out the underlying original language texts in the production of abridged pseudo-'bibles', where you always still have to refer back to a version of the Bible translated like the KJV, in order to find out and read what God really said, along with what all else He has revealed to mankind.

While, God Created His kind of body that He is saying that there is only one body like it, that He has anything to do with, He also gave His one body one baptism, which is water baptism, by His Authority.

Just because Satan has gone about and counterfeited the Lord churches He Organized and the baptism He gave by His Authority, and rewrote His word, by insufficient means of every kind that results in insufficient versions, doesn't mean Christians have to compromise and abandon the Lord's Christian Baptist-like Doctrine churches, Christian Baptist Doctrine water baptist by the Authority of God, or Christian Baptist Doctrine-filled versions of the Bible that are complete.

.

 

So, people just have to add the word 'spiritual' in their Bible there to make the 'body' it's talking about into trying to say that it is now something that is not at all a 'body' of any kind or in any sense. That would be adding to the word of God to completely change the meaning of the word 'body' used as it is defined as being similar in construction to the human body.

Something is trying to be accomplished by doing that that is not of God.

Can't just add the word spiritual in and around anywhere you feel like in order to change the Bible or invent something being "baptized into by the Holy Spirit"which it never is and has never been taught in the Bible.

The Bible doesn't say a lot of irrelevant things.

Being one Spirit with Chist has nothing to do with His bodies He Creates and sustains to bring Him Glory, as groupds of saved folks organized that gather together.

All made up. I was led to be water baptized into one of Jesus' local organized assemblies. You're reciting the teachings of Prodestants that they invented and force upon that verse for their own purposes to explain to themselves why the could exist and not just be the same old Catholic Universal Visible 'church'.

Prodestants may have to switch out 'we' and put 'body' in that verse to carry along the lie of their scheme they invented, but that is no reason for a Bible believer to think they have to.

Any time a body of Christ is talked about in the Bible, it is a local body of believers as is defined right in I Corinthians 12:27, "the body of Christ and members in particular", as Paul tells those in that body of Christ at Corinth, "Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular." How does God need to go about saying that any differently for you to get it? That they are "members one of another"(?) that come together in one place?

 

That body I Corinthians 15:44 is reffering to is Jesus' physical body, Himself, that God prepared for Him and elected for Him to be incarnated into, even though God is a Spirit, as opposed to natural man who is of the earth; "47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven."

No connection is attempted there to make Jesus physical body into equallying all of His saved children being a body or a spiritual body. The spiritual body that God's children obtain is what it is talking about as being their Glorified Resurrection body, individually, not as being the whole kingdom of saved people.

There new resurrected body when they are Glorified is raised from the dead, in incorruption, raised in Glory, and raised in power and is an individual's spiritual body.

"42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

 

So, when it says, "Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil", it means into a non-material spiritual wilderness? Matthew 4:1, or "But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law", in Galations 5:18, instead of by the Holy Spirit's guildance and influence, it means someone that is 'baptized by the Spirit', even without those words being recorded anywhere else?

Or, when Simeon, "came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law', in Luke 2:27, we are supposed to interpolate that to mean that it is really saying that Simeon by one Spirit was baptized into the spiritual temple?

I don't think so.

Of course, I don't buy into Satan's Bliztkrieg of lies in that verse compounding them into a false teaching that usurps everything special about Jesus' church bodies He called, "My church".

Satan lies when he says the Spirit baptises anything,
as if he can lie and invent to make 'Spirit baptism' something to do with salvation,
and the lie that the body God is refrring to is spiritual, when God says it is local and material made up of "members in particular", in that same passage.

That the 'Holy Spirit baptizes' souls during the New Birth into a 'spiritual' body is a comedy of errors that Satan combines together using several lies that have to be added to the scriptures, because if it weren't then the Holy Spirit would be said to be baptizing something somewhere or into a spiritual body and He explicitly does not.

If you're going to add in words of explanation into the verse, add these:

For by The One Holy Spirit are we all, the saved souls in Corinth, led by, guilded by, influenced by the Supernatural Intendance of the Shekina Glory chosing who will be added to the kind of church organization that Jesus built, baptized by water and the Authority of God into one of the one kind of local church body that Jesus Organized and perpetuated and multiplied, by like begets like.

The teaching of that verse includes a common salvation being shared by all the members of that one local body of believers, in 13b; "whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit."

Each of the individual members; 14 "For the body is not one member, but many."
who have been led by the Holy Spirit to be baptized and join in unity into that one local body of believers needed to understand that they were then abliged to all get along, "whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free", since they have all, "have been all made to drink into one Spirit", and are all saved by the same God.

"you Jews and Gentiles need to be sure and all get along now since you were all saved the same way, the the same Holy Spirit, now that the Spirit has led you to be water baptized and has put you all together into the same local church body, at Corinth"

13 "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

14 "For the body is not one member, but many.'

That is what the Bible is teaching, not some beam me up science fiction bunch of Satanic lies.

14 "For the body is not one member, but many."

Is that what all Prodestants have made it out to be, very recently in history, 1500 years after the Bible was completed and even began adding to and switching out the definitions of 'body' and 'church' in reference materials to include new man-mde meanings Satan took that long to sell them? No.

It's just that true historic Baptist Doctrine-like Bible Christianity is not Prodestant.

It's Bible and it's Baptist Docrine known as Church Truth. It's right in there, if you go about looking for it without assuming Satan's lies in that verse about it.

You're causing me to have to start a new thread on "what does it mean by "For by" in I Corinthians 12"?, if I haven't already thrown that in another thread on all this.

 

Yes, it was Jesus Who baptized with the Holy Spirit those who were hearing John and He would be baptizing them as members of Jesus' first church organization in Jerusalem with the Shekinah Glory, on the Day of Pentecost, in fulfillment of Daniel 9:24g, when Messiah the Prince is said to be going "to anoint the most Holy".

All the people there who were saved and the disciples already were filled with the Holy Spirit from their New Births. Jesus baptizing in the Holy Spirit, in Mark 1:8, was when He said He would send Another Comforter, i.e., the Holy Spirit as the Shekinah Glory, Who would then reside with Jesus' churches, until He comes back again, with them all now being "an habitation of God through the Spirit."

Jesus is said to be going to inaugurate His church He organized publically on Pentecost when He baptized her in the Holy Spirit. Baptist Doctrine-like succession since that time, until Jesus returns is a Holy succession empowered by the Almighty Holy Spirit, Who is GOD.

The Holy Spirit is never taught anywhere in the didactic books of the New Testament as ever baptizing anything or anyone of His Own POWER OR INITIATIVE.

We should agree that any baptizing done in the New Testament record involving the Holy Spirit was done by Jesus only, as it says.

Then, we would need to say that we agree that Jesus baptized His church there in Jerusalem with the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost, is the thing that it is talking about Jesus baptizing, if we do.

Then, unless you can find where the Bible says the Holy Spirit ever baptizes anything, we disagree, and I say there is a real and correct interpretation that explains otherwise, where men don't have to imagine some entirely new (false) Doctrine that God doesn't say a word about.

 

I already covered "For by", here: What kind of 'Spirit' was it, when those at Corinth were "By one Spirit" all baptized into one body?, like this:

"THE WORD “by”.

“For BY one Spirit are we all baptized into one body.”

"It is thought, by the universalist, that this word, if properly translated, forces us to believe that this verse has the Holy Spirit baptizing us into Christ literally, and thus the baptism could not be water baptism, and the body referred to could not be a local church.

"This is interpretation either by presupposition, or by panic, or some of both.

"The word "by" needs to carry no such meaning.

"It simply means we "are led by" the Holy Spirit to unite with that specific body (the local church that was the church and body of Christ in Corinth, in this case), exactly as we "are led by" the Spirit to confess Christ in verse 3,

"Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking "by" the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but "by" the Holy Ghost."

Another clincher is here: This is how Simeon, in Luke 2:27, came into the temple at the time of Christ’s dedication. “And he came "by" the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law,“

Simeon came Supernaturally "by" the influence of, or the leadership of, the Holy Spirit.

“For "by" one Spirit are we all baptized into one body,"

has the meaning and is to be interpreted when mixed with faith like this:

“For "by" the Supernatural influence, direction, guidance,
and leadership of, the "one" Holy "Spirit are we all baptized into one" local "body" to meet there in unity, whether Jew or Gentile, etc., and they were all to worship together there as one united body, because all of those in Corinth that had been saved and led by the Holy Spirit to be water baptized into that body of believers were all saved by that same Holy Spirit of which they had drank, again, whether Jew or Gentile.

That is the message being brought in that verse.

That is the Divine Interpretation, as arrived at from all of the immediate context within this chapter and that verse in Luke.

Otherwise, it is like people are trying to formulate some teaching foreign to the word of God based on the misinterpretation of a preposition, which is always preposterous to do. But it happens more often than we realize. False doctrines created by the misinterpretation of a preposition is fairly common and, of course, the activity of the Liar.

And they would be trying to say, 13; "For by one Spirit baptism are we all "saved" "and have been all made to drink into one Spirit."

Then, the message of that verse would be, "we are all saved AND we have all been saved".

That would just be a redundancy of unnecessary, repetitious words.

"We were saved by the baptism in the Spirit and we have been saved when we were made to drink into one Spirit."

Or, "by one Spirit" we have been made "into the Spirit".

That is not a message to talk about and is not the meaning given by that verse.

That would just be a pleonasm or tautology that you've probably heard about, which is just bad Grammer.

"We were saved when we were all saved when Spirit baptised and all saved when we drank of that selfsame Spirit"

 

Have you ever read in chapter 12 of I Corinthians and seen what verse 18 says?

Verse 18 mimics and repeats what God intends for us to understand what is meant in I Corinthians 12:13; "

"For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit."

18 "But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.

19 "And if they were all one member, where were the body? 20 But now are they many members, yet but one body."

Which is saying, "for by one Spirit God set members every one of them in the body by leading them by His Spirit to be baptized into membership and now are they many members, yet one body."

I think you may have missed a couple of things in the O.P., so I went ahead and posted some of them again, here;

 

This is just a General Baptist Disscusion.

 

And, along with the Bible, and which Testament, book, chapter, and verse context we look at, from a sufficiently translated Bible good for a Christian's use, that Bible will also remain consistent and faithful to the Rule of First Mention. The first mention of a word in any of those divisions cited will most always define for us its intended meaning and that same definition will carry over as that word continues to be used, as when it was first mentioned.

In the chapter context of I Corinthians, a 'church' is defined as being a local entity in a specific location, such as the one in Corinth that this letter is written to;

In that first mention of the church at Corinth, the word 'church' is also then immediately equated as being what the Bible calls, "God's building".

So, a church is further described and defined there as something that is God's Own possession.

That local church located at Corinth is talking about having members who belong to God that are in that verse referred to as, "ye", i.e., "ye are God's building"

As that same meaning for the word church is seen in the first chapter and the others throughout I Corinthians, it always continues to mean a local church gathering of the members that belong to her and make a 'church' into what it is, Biblically speaking, and that is a local assembly of Christians that have agreed to gather together in one place because they belong to God and He has them there where they are going to worship Him as a group that He has brought together.

In addition to a 'church' in I Corinthians being a local assembly of believers, when it says of them, "ye are God's building",

...that local assembly of believers is also compared to being equated to "the house",

..."laborers together",

..."God's husbandry",

...and that they, in 5:4; "In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,"

...and as people who "company",

...of which are said, "that your brethren",

...and in 6:11; "... such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God",

...and they are called members in particular when asked, "are not ye my work in the Lord?",

...as well as when that specific local church assembly of particular members at Corinth is called 'one bread' and 'one body', in 10:17; "For we being many are one bread and one body",

...and they are called, "partakers of the Lord's table",

...as one of, "the churches of God" (11:16),

...then, on into I Corinthians 12 where that church at Corinth is over and over called a 'body', which illustrates that church body there as having the same characteristics of a locally assembled unit that a locally assembled human body has, as being one unit, also,

...and in this same chapter the meaning of the word 'body' is reiterated and plainly defined again using the formula in 12:27; where the Bible says, "Now are ye the body of Christ, and members in particular", that in a math 'equation' would look like, "the body of Christ" = "members in particular".

What could make anything more clear than that a church and the body of Christ, spoken of in I Corinthians, generally, and I Corinthians 12, specifically, have particular members that assemble in them?

Would the two verses before 12:27 also help us to understand?; 25 "That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.

26 "And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honored, all the members rejoice with it."

Or do we need even further help for us to see that the word "body" in I Corinthians 12:13 is to be seen as a local church assembly by referencing the verse directly after 12:27?; where the particular members similar to those in 12:27 had been placed into Jesus' first church at Jerusalem when it says in 12:28, "And God hath set some in the church, first apostles", etc.

How about the word, "body" used in the verse before 12:13?; per the O.P.,

What kind of 'body' was it,
when the saints at Corinth were "baptized into one body"?

re: "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit." I Corinthians 12:13.

The verse just before 12:13 is;

I Corinthians 12:12, says, "For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ."

That verse in 12:12 is saying that the "one body" in 12:13, is to be thought of as it is compared to a human body saying, "as the body is one, and hath many members" and "all the members of that one body, being many, are one body,

and unquestionably it makes the 12:13 'body', the same kind of 'body' associated with the rest of the book and in this chapter to be a 'body' of God's children assembling that are God's building, exactly spoken of "as the body is one, and hath many members" and "all the members of that one body, being many, are one body,"

 

And wait, wait, wait!! For confirmation, we can also look to see what 12:14 says, again, that is the verse directly after 12:13;

"For the body is not one member, but many."

Not bad.

And have you ever read in chapter 12 of I Corinthians to see what verse 18 says?

That verse 12:18 is a parallel passage to 12:13 that mimics and repeats what God intends for us to understand that the actual meaning of I Corinthians 12:13 is;

18 "But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him."

Blue words added from verse 12:13 and (Black) words in bold I add:

"But now hath", by one Spirit (influencing their soul to be baptized according to God's command), "God set", when are we all baptized, "the members every one of them" by water into one body "in the body, as it hath pleased him."

And 'the body' in 12:18, is not still talking about the illustration using the human 'body', but 'the body' in 12:18 is now referring to the same 'one body', like the churches where God says they are His children contained within them, where He mentioned "ye are my building" and it is saying IT THE LORD GOD OF THE UNIVERSE THAT PUT THEM INTO IT, as 12:18 states, "now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him."

Those are "particular" individual saved people that God is saying He put into that specific local church body of believers, at Corinth.

The next two verses?

19 "And if they were all one member, where were the body?

20 "But now are they many members, yet but one body."

The "one body" of 12:13 is the same as the "one body" in 12:19 & 20
and is the same kind of local body of believers spoken of all throughout I Corinthians 12, except in the illustration of a local human 'body', when the human body is said to be one solid body as a unit, also.

And, therefore, before it is brought up by concerned Bible believers that they have heard about those who always pull out of context and bring in from Ephesians 4:4; "There is one body", and that it is supposed to be the 'proof positive' that the 'one body' in I Corinthians 12:13 is something other than what a church body or local body of believers always is referring to.

We could look at what is always customarily attempted by them, which is to use the misinterpretation of 'one body', in those two verses, and take them both completely out of their contexts, and by them using only some presumed 'Artistic Licence' they imagine they 'possess', in order to create an entirely different, and actually the opposite, meaning of 'one body' that is totally foreign to the scriptures, 'making something out of nothing'.

Then, we'd need to know that the misinterpretations of those verses, created out of thin air, must always be used and applied to the first passage in order to ipso facto 'prove' the other one,

AND then that same misinterpretation that was used to 'prove' the latter passage would have to be employed to then 'prove' the former one, in reverse.

All that simply by using circular reasoning and Pretzel Logic to twist a false teaching into an extra-Biblical 'knot'-case.

But, they can't go there, anyway, whether they are panic-stricken by the thought they have to try to do that screwed-up kind of thing to fake the 'result' they want, or not.

They will need to consider themselves informed before they even try to go there, that it is against the law, and anything they try to say about it will be used against them in a court of law.

The words 'one body' in 12:13 have already been told to us that it means "many members", in 12:20 when it adds, "yet but one body", from the immediate context within those verses in the same chapter.

But, again, there is no sense going to Ephesians 4 and trying to conjure up any nonsense from that passage, because we have already seen 'one body' used in context from chapter 12, as well as having seen the Law of First Mention of 'one body' seen in the book of I Corinthians in chapter 10, where "one body" was already mentioned as being that very same specific local church assembly of particular members at Corinth, calling them 'one bread' and 'one body', in 10:17;

"For we being many are one bread, and one body".

The only thing that the words 'one body' can mean in 12:13 is that it refers to the one body assembled with its particular members, as the local body of Christ, at Corinth.

You can't make that up.