Do you believe the Church started at Pentecost?

[J.D.]

I hardly see how reading the Book exactly as it is written can be termed "irrational".
IMO when the Book says "testament" the Book means testament, and when the Book say "covenant" the Book means covenant.
And to avoid confusion the Book in Heb 9 defines the difference between the two.
A covenant is in effect between two living while a testament becomes effective after the death of one of the testators.
When the Book refers to Christ as mediator of a New Testament the Book is speaking of Christ's relationship to the Christian of today; but when the Book speaks of Christ as mediator of a New Covenant it is speaking about and to an entirely different group.
Words that are different, are different; and IMO one does well to let the Book maintain the difference it set forth.


I do let the Bible determine my hermeneutic; but I do not change the words of the Book to make it fit a given theology.


Here you are viewing and interpreting through the glass of a theology that replaces the Jew with the Christian.
I agree with your assessment of what the book of Hebrews is telling the Hebrews; but I do not agree that it is not speaking of a future time when again God will be dealing with the nation of Israel and doing so through the New Covenant.
I agree the Old Covenant is passed away and I do agree the New Covenant to the house of Israel and Judah would have shortly followed if all Israel had of accepted the prick of the Holy Spirit at the sermon of Stephen in Acts 7; but since all Israel did not believe, then the New Covenant is not yet because it is between God and Israel.


Here again, you are interpreting from the view of a replacement theology.
I feel the scriptures keep the Church separate from the Jew so therefore we should as well.


See above; but before you start asking questions, perhaps you could address the passage from Jer.

I wonder what you would say to a Greek person reading a Greek bible. Would they need the English translation to understand it?

Anyway, here's an interesting comparison (i.e., comparing scripture with scripture):

Hebrews 9:19-20: For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, Saying, This [is] the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.

Exodus 24:6-8: And Moses took half of the blood, and put [it] in basons; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar. And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient. And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled [it] on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.

Did the writer of Hebrews change the Word of God?

 

[Marcia]

No, I feel the Church is the Bride and the OT saints will be guests at the wedding.
IMO one way to discern a groups' end is to look at the promise God made that particular group for God will always keep His promises.
The OT saints were promised a land.
Members of the Bride are promised a Glorious Body in which to help the King rule and reign over the land promised to the OT saints.
Christ is not our King, He is the Head of the Body.

Well, I agree that the OT saints were promised a land.

However the amillennialist will argue the OT and NT saints are one because that foundation is needed to support their view of the future.

I am not amil. Are you saying that the OT saints are not the church? That's what I'm saying.

The amillennialist feels the NT saints have "Replaced" the Jew as God's chosen people so therefore the Church is to be the recipient of God's promise of a physical promised land.

Right the amils do think that and I disagree with them.

IMO if it is argued that God will not keep His OT promises made to Israel, then that sets a basis for letting the world put in question as to whether God will keep His promises concerning even the basics of salvation.

I somewhat agree with you.

So are we on the same side here? I have not had time to read all the comments.

 

[olegig]

Did the writer of Hebrews change the Word of God?

I believe the writer of Hebrews was God so therefore there is a meaning God left for us in that change.

But before we venture into new ground, we should finish the old ground with your expounding on the passage from Jeremiah 31:31-37.

I am especially interested in your gleaning from vs 35-37.

 

[olegig]

Well, I agree that the OT saints were promised a land.
I am not amil. Are you saying that the OT saints are not the church? That's what I'm saying.
Right the amils do think that and I disagree with them.
I somewhat agree with you.
So are we on the same side here? I have not had time to read all the comments.

I can tell you are not amillennial by you previous comments.
Yes, I am saying the OT saints are not members of the Body of Christ, the Bride of Christ, which sometimes is referred to as the true Church (with a capitol C).

I somewhat agree with you.
See, that's what I meant by my comment about women. You are drawing your conclusions about me based on what you see of me, not on what others have said about me.
And I thank you for that.

Yes, I feel we are basically in agreement here.
Again, it is my opinion that scripture maintains separation between the Jew, Gentile, and Church of God.
That is 3 separate and distinct groups which scripture holds separate in message at various times and in prophetic outcome.

The above is one reason I am premillennial because that particular view is the only one that permits the maintenance of the separation even through until the new heaven and new earth.

 

[Grace&Truth]

1-b. is more accurately described as being 'heathen' or unsaved assembly - found in Acts 19:32, 39,41.

I am not sure what your point is, but the word Ekklesia is a general Greek Word meaning "called out assembly" that is why Jesus clarified it by saying "My called out assembly" in Matthew.

 

[olegig]

I am not amil. Are you saying that the OT saints are not the church? That's what I'm saying.

Here is an interesting verse I just came across while researching for another topic.
Sometimes amazes me how things just jump out that never had much meaning before.

Hebrews 12:23 (King James Version)
23To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

The above would indicate 2 groups of folks in Heaven at that time period.
1. the general assembly
2. the church of the firstborn...............

 

[J.D.]

But before we venture into new ground, we should finish the old ground with your expounding on the passage from Jeremiah 31:31-37.

I am especially interested in your gleaning from vs 35-37.

I believe the writer of Hebrews was God so therefore there is a meaning God left for us in that change. [underline added]

1. Do you believe that God actually penned the words Himself or used a human being to do it? 2. For the record, I do not believe that the writer of Hebrews (God, as you say) changed the word of God, but apparently YOU DO as evidenced in your comment: "in that change". So, are you saying that God changed the Word of God?

But before we venture into new ground, we should finish the old ground with your expounding on the passage from Jeremiah 31:31-37.

I am especially interested in your gleaning from vs 35-37.

Are you really interested in my gleanings? I don't think so. You've ignored several salient points I've made already, so why should I go on with this?

 

[olegig]

Are you really interested in my gleanings? I don't think so. You've ignored several salient points I've made already, so why should I go on with this?

No, I have stated that we could get to them after you first address what I first used as a proof text concerning your position.

You seem to be willing to jump in any direction to avoid dealing with what God said about the future of the seed of Israel in Jeremiah.

 

[Marcia]

Here is an interesting verse I just came across while researching for another topic.
Sometimes amazes me how things just jump out that never had much meaning before.

Hebrews 12:23 (King James Version)
23To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

The above would indicate 2 groups of folks in Heaven at that time period.
1. the general assembly
2. the church of the firstborn...............

Thanks for your feedback.

Is it possible that "general assembly and church of the firstborn" are referring to one and the same? There's a term for this literary device but I can't recall it now.

 

[olegig]

Thanks for your feedback.

Is it possible that "general assembly and church of the firstborn" are referring to one and the same? There's a term for this literary device but I can't recall it now.

I suppose it is possible, and I suppose someone who would wish it to mean one and the same can force some literary device on the passage to make it read as they wish.

I note the passage does not say: ".....general assembly the church of the firstborn........"

 

[BMAPreacher]

I suppose it is possible, and I suppose someone who would wish it to mean one and the same can force some literary device on the passage to make it read as they wish.

I note the passage does not say: ".....general assembly the church of the firstborn........"

While the text does include the word "and" i believe the phrase general assembly refers back to the innumerable company of angels since "general assembly" is a greek word meaning a mass meeting. The phrase "church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven" is speaking of the true church, the bride, the phrase "souls of just men made perfect" are those that are saved but not part of the true church (the bride).

 

[olegig]

While the text does include the word "and" i believe the phrase general assembly refers back to the innumerable company of angels since "general assembly" is a greek word meaning a mass meeting. The phrase "church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven" is speaking of the true church, the bride, the phrase "souls of just men made perfect" are those that are saved but not part of the true church (the bride).

BMAPreacher, glad to hear from you. On a personal note it seems you have been a member here; but have not posted much.
I am wondering if you have been reading along for a long while and your impression of this place.
Has there always been as much dissension as there seems to be now, or is it a recent event?

Thanks for your input on the Hebrew passage:

Hebrews 12:23 (King James Version)
23To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

I note in the above the passage says "spirits" and you said "souls", do you feel this makes any difference?

I do agree the phrase "church of the first born" is referring to the Bride and would like to hear your further thoughts on those who are "made perfect".

When do you feel the Body of Christ began and who might be in it?

 

[BMAPreacher]

BMAPreacher, glad to hear from you. On a personal note it seems you have been a member here; but have not posted much.
I am wondering if you have been reading along for a long while and your impression of this place.
Has there always been as much dissension as there seems to be now, or is it a recent event?

Thanks for your input on the Hebrew passage:

Hebrews 12:23 (King James Version)
23To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

I note in the above the passage says "spirits" and you said "souls", do you feel this makes any difference?

I do agree the phrase "church of the first born" is referring to the Bride and would like to hear your further thoughts on those who are "made perfect".

When do you feel the Body of Christ began and who might be in it?

The KJV does say spirits and not souls, that was just mistyping on my part. I believe the Church began when Christ called His 12 Apostles in Luke 6, 1cor. 12:28 says he set some in the church first apostles. On the day of Pentecost the church was added to, something has to exist before it can be added to.
My view on the bride is that she will be made of members of scriptural New Testament churches that have kept themselves pure with the washing of water by the word (Eph. 5:26, 27). Paul writes also, "I have espoused you (a local church) to one husband (IICor. 11:2) The spirits of just men made perfect, i believe, is speaking of those that are saved but were not part of scriptural churches.

When the Bible speaks of the word "church" it is always a local assembly and not an invisible, universal "church".

 

[olegig]

The KJV does say spirits and not souls, that was just mistyping on my part.

No problem, I do see us as being triune just as the Godhead; but for now we cannot separate ourselves from the whole.
I see the spirit going to Heaven at conversion, the soul going to Heaven at death, and the body going to the grave to be later resurrected and joined again with the soul and spirit; but made new.
What do you think?

I believe the Church began when Christ called His 12 Apostles in Luke 6, 1cor. 12:28 says he set some in the church first apostles. On the day of Pentecost the church was added to, something has to exist before it can be added to.

I agree for just because Paul said the Body was a mystery does not mean it was not present. It is just that no one knew the full ramifications of it.

My view on the bride is that she will be made of members of scriptural New Testament churches that have kept themselves pure with the washing of water by the word (Eph. 5:26, 27).

Here I don't quiet follow your phrasing....
What do you mean by "kept themselves"?

Paul writes also, "I have espoused you (a local church) to one husband (IICor. 11:2) The spirits of just men made perfect, i believe, is speaking of those that are saved but were not part of scriptural churches.

I feel the Body is made up of folks from many different denominations of local churches.
They have believed the gospel message and received the free gift of salvation made possible by the Faith of Christ. Their body and soul was separated by the circumcision made without hands, and are daily washed and kept sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

When the Bible speaks of the word "church" it is always a local assembly and not an invisible, universal "church".

How does this square with your previous statement above where you begin with: "I believe the Church began when Christ"?

 

[Tom Butler]

The KJV does say spirits and not souls, that was just mistyping on my part. I believe the Church began when Christ called His 12 Apostles in Luke 6, 1cor. 12:28 says he set some in the church first apostles. On the day of Pentecost the church was added to, something has to exist before it can be added to.
My view on the bride is that she will be made of members of scriptural New Testament churches that have kept themselves pure with the washing of water by the word (Eph. 5:26, 27). Paul writes also, "I have espoused you (a local church) to one husband (IICor. 11:2) The spirits of just men made perfect, i believe, is speaking of those that are saved but were not part of scriptural churches.

When the Bible speaks of the word "church" it is always a local assembly and not an invisible, universal "church".

Whew! I was beginning to think I was all alone. Glad to know somebody else is out there who holds the same view as I do.

 

[Tom Butler]

I feel the Body is made up of folks from many different denominations of local churches.
They have believed the gospel message and received the free gift of salvation made possible by the Faith of Christ. Their body and soul was separated by the circumcision made without hands, and are daily washed and kept sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

Glad to hear you also believe that the local church is the only kind. But your comment may be grist for another thread to discuss the following questions:

By definition, other denominations have some doctrines which are in error. How much error does it take to disqualify a congregation from being a true New Testament Church?

Which denominations would you consider to have scriptural congregations?

Which are not? Can a congregation hold to baptismal regeneration and still be considered a NT church? How about churches which attach saving value to communion?

How does this square with your previous statement above where you begin with: "I believe the Church began when Christ"?

BMAPreacher can answer for himself, but my take is that when Jesus established his church during his earthly ministry is was THE church--the only one there was at the time.

 

[BMAPreacher]

BMAPreacher can answer for himself, but my take is that when Jesus established his church during his earthly ministry is was THE church--the only one there was at the time.

I agree with this statement. Since that time the church at jerusalem has reproduced churches of like faith and order. Alot of the denominations that we have now are because they split from the Catholic church and brought some of her pagan and unbiblical doctrines along with them. But since the church wasfirst established there has always been churches that have held to the doctrines such as the trinity, justification by grace through faith, sola scriptura, seperation of church and state, eternal security of the believer, baptism by immersion, communion as a symbol, etc. even before the reformation

 

[BMAPreacher]

No problem, I do see us as being triune just as the Godhead; but for now we cannot separate ourselves from the whole.
I see the spirit going to Heaven at conversion, the soul going to Heaven at death, and the body going to the grave to be later resurrected and joined again with the soul and spirit; but made new.
What do you think?

I don't see any scriptural basis for that

Here I don't quiet follow your phrasing....
What do you mean by "kept themselves"?

They have rejected unbiblical doctrine

 

[olegig]

I don't see any scriptural basis for that

To which do you refer?

 

[Onlybygrace]

Ok Tom, we could argue that Paul was talking generically of the entire global body of Christ and not specific local congregations when he speaks of "a body" or you so it is a mute point.

But what you have said still does not tell me why he specifically says there is but one body as there is one Lord, one faith and one baptism...what did he mean then?