When Did the Church Start?

First Church--when?

Argument from silence proves little but the existence of silence.

The "calling out" of the apostles/disciples during the earthly ministry of Jesus would certainly seem to imply that what they were doing would qualify as a New Testament Church. They were preaching, teaching and baptizing-- they also had communion--before Pentecost. cf: Mt.28: 20, in context. Is this not what New Testament Churches should be doing today? The Day of Pentecost is not pivotal to this discussion because it does not support the argument.

Are we suggesting that Jesus did not have the power of The Spirit, The Holy from eternity? Consider: Immanuel.

We need to update our spiritual calendars.

A study of the word: ekklesia is also in order.

Choose wisely,

Bro. James

 

Argument from silence, what I quoted wasn't silence but scripture that spoke plainly to and contrary to your point. What I quoted was scripture what you state is a postulation in terms "seems to imply". Was Jesus wrong about WHEN He was going to build His Church and that being in the future tenses.

Though it is interesting James, so tell me please - by whos baptism were the disciples baptizing. Was it by Johns, for it must have been since the mandate to baptize in the authority of the Triune God (showing the Godhead fully involved in the Salvation) was not given until just before Christ left. And even then they were NOT PERMITTED to do anything until they were baptized with the Holy Ghost. If Jesus gave them all the authority they would need to fulfill their mission as the Church body why do we need the Holy Spirits empowering? Especially since there is NO power without authority, so if they were given that authority by Christ THEN AND THERE they should have been empowered as well. yet we know they were not. Besides Johns baptism was inferrior to the Baptism of Christ via the Holy Spirit. Which is why Christ stated:

And this baptism was spiritually was shown physically in the act of baptism AND in the declartion of God being authorizer of this NEW baptism that superceded Johns.

Just one more small question:
Hypothetically speaking as a Pastor or Elder: If a person (young or newer believer) feels called to be a pastor, do you instantly give to him full authority of pastor or do you train him up and give him only some or portions of the authority of pastor? Since you are the pastor and training this person is it not needful to give him portions of 'your' own responsibility that you may watch over and instruct till he is ready to take that which God has called him to the same ministry.

Is this not the same as what Christ did??
He imparted to them limited authority as He COULD NOT give them the full authority of the Church since that authority is established in the death and resurrection of Christ. The Church CAN NOT exist without the death and resurrection of Christ, period.

But yes some of what they were doing does look like what the NT Church does, but then again so do Mormons and JWs, so what is the difference?

The Church is not defined by its actions but is defined by the new nature given at the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and spiritually gifted to be a help and ministry in the Body of Christ for its health as well as growth.

And yes the Disciples were called but NONE truly believed who Jesus said He was as scripture tell us it was not till AFTER the resurrection that they believed.

Actually the day of Pentacost is crucial as it is the very crux of the argument concering the new man, baptism in the Lord Jesus Christ AFTER His death, burial and Resurrection, not to mention the empowering that is duplicated upon the Gentiles as proof they were also part of this New Man - ie, Body of Christ which is the Church.

Anyway, still good thoughts James. Thanks for the discussion.

 

Now this is when they were under the Law and shows that even those oracles were delivered unto us given by Jesus in those days.

Ephesians, chapter 2
"12": That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

"13": But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

"14": For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;

"15": Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

"16": And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

"17": And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.

"18": For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.

"19": Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

"20": And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

"21": In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

"22": In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

Don't you believe its the "same" man who gets out of the grave but changed. We have spent all this time preaching "the bringing in of the Gentiles" bringing them into what?

Now we have trouble preaching the keeping in of Israel when the Scripture says for us not to boast.

We are a different Church only in that all things were brought together in "Christ Jesus" of which He did when He came. 1. First preach to Israel to repent and believe in Him. 2. The breaking down the middle wall of partition between the Jew and the Greek where that we become a part of the family.

You fail to see what Jesus used to make up this Grace Church. He used first and foremost the remanant of Israel and second the whole world and brought them all together under Christ and His blood.

He said He would make a New covenant with His people. How could it be a New one if the other one was to another people.

Acts, chapter 7

"38": This is he, that was in the church 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:

Now this is them before the Law showing that by the same Spirit that raised Jesus from the dead, went and preached to them in the days of Noah while they waited for the Ark to be built.
1 Peter, chapter 3
"18": For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

"19": By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

"20": Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

The only argument I have with you is that I believe the "Grace" church started in the First days of Christ when He said "upon this Rock I build' my church. You say in the future only because it say "build" but if he was building at that time, which I believe He was, then build would be the right word to use if He was not finished, of which He was not. When He died, He said "it is finished".

The other point I have with you is that when He built the "Grace" church, He included Israel in the building for He said, not me :

Ephesians, chapter 2
20": And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; Jesus plainly shows that "His Church" or Grace Church is built upon the Apostles and Prrphets and Jesus being the chief Corner Stone.

Have to walk my dog, not finished yet. :smilewinkgrin:

James is right about church = ekklesia in Greek and Jesus actually said "upon this Rock I build my congregation or assembly" of which the same was used hundreds of times in the OT. For some reason you don't want to use the word "church" for Israel, but the Scripture calls "Israel" by the name of "church". We just need to say we are now talking about the "Grace Church". I believe it took the "blood" of Christ to save all that is or will be saved and the "old man does put on the new man".

So, in my conclusion. I believe Jesus spoke of building the Grace Church and in that Church He use what was already established but built it upon better promises. I only believe in "one" people in the end. I don't believe in two brides in Heaven.

You strickly are only including the Church under the "new covenant" and fail to include the "old Church" the first 4000 years of mankind. God did not wait until after 4000 years to build His congregation.

House of Israel He will make a "New Covenant"?

 

Absolutely. Jesus could not give what He did not yet procure my friend. The indwelling Holy Spirit is proof of savlation and that is proof of being placed into the body of Christ know as the Church. Yes, believers ARE 'called out' but in that Calling out we are also sealed that we may never fall back from which we were called from. You see Jesus still had to fulfill the scriptures when He was with His disciples. He had to die and rise again that as the scriptures state:

Is it not interesting He did not have this authority (name) until AFTER His death. Why? Because all this must NEEDS be accomplished.

 

Good morning brother,
Yes, I believe it is the same man that gets out of the grave at the rapture. And that man is the Church made up of Jews and Gentiles. I haven't changed my stance on this at all, and hold to it most soundly. We bring them into fellowship with God through Christ Jesus and this fellowship is know as the church but is NOT known as Israel. Did you know Bob that Israel is used 73 times in the NT and in 71 of those times it is referring to the nation of (ethnic) Isreal. And the other two are used in a general term with regard to those akin to the OT Israel as being God people. The Church is not continued Israel. And just for those who don't know this is historically called Replacement Theology.

The problem with this whole view is that God has to break His original Covenant to Ethnic Israel because God made a faulty Covenant and had to make a new one. Which is not true in any scriptural reading.

No we don't. Keep it in Context Bob, this was the Gentile Church bragging against Gods hand chosen people as a nation Israel through whom we now share the commonwealth of Israel (salvation) AND are partakers WITH THEM. Notice the statement is about BEING A PART of what is THEIRS. The Gentiles were forgetting that God was not done with Israel and WILL as a Nation or people graft them back In. Why, because the Gentile believers were thinking God was Done with Israel as a Nation and they were now IT. But Paul rebukes this line of thought and established multiple times throughout His writings Israel and the Church as being seperate and distinct YET one group of people IN Christ.

This passage within context is merely dealing with the fact that now the Gentiles can come to a saving knowledge of Christ and they are made into something that NEVER WAS BEFORE - a NEW MAN. Not a continuation of the Old or the Old revived but some that has never been before. Yet these passages do not speak of the Nation of Israel but individual Jews who will follow Christ though few there actaully are.

With regard to Act 7:38
It is a commonly held view out side the replacement theological view point (which is typically a reformed view) of this scripture as such:

We see this in context as you continue reading 39 and on.
Israel was not THE Church but that body of believers was similar in fashion of being a People Called out from Egypt who trusted in God (somewhat). As we can see through study this paralled is one of two times in the NT it occurs and the other 71 other times Israel is mentioned in the NT it refers to the Nation Israel. Unless of course on actually 'likes' to allagorically look at scripture.
The only argument I have with you is that I believe the "Grace" church started in

LOL, Bob you got a glitch here with regard to me. I did not build my argument on the word 'build' but on the words 'WILL Build' and on "SHALL Not" with emphasis on the verb tenses of 'WILL' and 'SHALL'.
NOTE: When Jesus said 'It is finished' he was not stating he was finished building or building His part as He still had to Rise AND send forth the Comforter or the Holy Spirit.

Uh, He included Jews NOT Israel for the Nation according to scripture is still to be dealt with and according to scripture will be saved. That is an odd statement if Israel IS the Church. That the Church will be saved?? The church is made up OF the Saved.

Of course Jesus is the Chief Corner stone and the other part of that foundation is the Prophets and Apostles. But this is a reference not to ALL being One Church but that ALL both OT and NT are apart of the same salvation via Faith in Christ. The prophets prophesied about His coming and the Apostles proclaimed He can come and both stated you need to repent and have faith in Him. But this does nothing toward showing the Church is continuous Israel.

You left out a work in your quote and I added it in bold so you can see what it was. And as to the rest this is true not only for Jewish gatherings (the for assembly) but pagan ones as well.

I don't use it because it doesn't fit with scripture Bob. As I said a couple of times already look at the number of times the word Israel is used and read each one in context (there are 73 in the KJV and 75 and 76 in some others) but in ALL cases (no matter the translation) only 2 verses (one verse uses Israel twice) do not refer to the Nation Israel but in a general sense of people of God. ONLY TWICE out of 71 times Bob. I believe it took the blood as well, Bob.

You stated "old man does put on the new man" and this is correct which is why there are TWO Covenants and both God is bound by His own Word to fulfill. One to a particular Nation and not all (Old) and One (New) to the Church (people of all Nations but Not a specific Nation)

Bob, this is actually our issue on this. IF we are all the Church then the first Covenant would have suffieced for as you state they were the Church too. They were Gods people people Bob but not the 'Old' Church. If we are ALL the Church Bob why does scripture LIMIT the Church to the parameters I stated earlier. I know you agree with them, and that if any church or person on the BB state we cam be apart of the Church Body without the indwelling presense of the Spirit of God or that there is no need for the Spirit to Baptize you into the Body of Chrst to be in the Church, or even that we can be in the Body of Christ without ever being Born-again - I know you would take them to task. So then why do you include Old Israel into that which they were never apart of BUT are promised to be brought back unto God and graphted back in.

 

A couple of thoughts here:

The view that Jesus' statement that he will build his church in the future--meaning the day of Pentecost--ignores the fact that the future began with the next day--or a few hours later, for that matter.

The contention that the church could not exist until it was empowered by the Holy Spirit ignores the fact that the Creator of the Universe established his church. Jesus is God, in the flesh. Did Jesus have less power than the Holy Spirit?

Furthermore, during Christ's earthly ministry, the disciples did have power. Remember the 70? They came back from their witnessing with the news that even the demons were subject to them.

Jesus told his disciples, the first church, that when he went away, he would send another comforter. That comforter, the Holy Spirit, did come in a spectacular way to leave no doubt that Jesus' words had come true. That coming demonstrated the truth of our claim ever since that "Christ is in us" in a way that he was not until then. Immanuel was "God with us." The HS is "Christ in us."

Allan said that the disciples were not permitted to do anything until they were baptized by the Holy Ghost. That was a 10-day period between his Ascension and Pentecost, not during his entire earthly ministry. Besides, Jesus didn't tell them not to do anything. He told them to tarry. Which they did.

The idea that Jesus did not have all authority until after his resurrection is an argument not demanded by the scriptures. Jesus had all power from the beginning. It was demonstrated numerous times during his ministry, specifically his power over his creation and his power over death.

Okay, more than a couple of thoughts.

 

No but Jesus could not do more that God had established. That being the Church is established in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ AND the baptism of the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ ( you know the Rom 5 body). If the Church is established in anything else it is not the church. I agree they were in training TO BE the Church but they were not yet the Church.

Yes and scripture also tells us they did not believe Jesus would do what He said He would do and rise from the death so therefore they did not believe in Jesus totally as of yet. Yes the 70 did have authority to do those things but why pray tell did they stop doing them? A better question is why does Jesus NEVER call them The or His Church but ALWAYS refers to them as His Disciples? Yet we find the Resurrected Lord speaking in Rev to His Church(es).

If we do not have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit we do not have Christ and therefore we are not apart of the Church. The Holy SPirit did not dwell in ANY of them prior to this point and is why THIS point is referrence later in Acts 7 with the Gentiles: It came upon them as with us IN THE BEGINNING.. What beginning and why was this sign so important to them to paralell it to Acts 2. Because it was the Spirit of God indwelling, sealing, and empowering them Just as it did them IN THE BEGINNING of the Church. This is why scripture states it is His Spirit that bears witness with our spirit that we are of Christ!

Are you actually accerting they could have gone out preached, baptized, and rebuked with authority without waiting on the Holy Spirit. Jesus told them to WAIT, that word does not imply option and why they did just what they were told. If Jesus told you to Tarry (wait) He is most definately accerting do not do anything until what I told you will happen, happens.

Let us see what scripture says

Sounds like scripture is demanding Jesus recieved all authority, glory and honor to to me, AFTER His resurrection! Jesus had all power from the beginning... of Course Jesus had Power but not the authority to use His power as He choose which you seem to acclaim Him as scripture denies this. His authority was to do the Will of the Father and nothing more and not His own will. His power was limited to fulfilling the Plan of God the Father. This does not make Him less God but that which scripture discribes His as 'the submissive servent'.

But no matter how we slice it the Church is that which is IN Christ according to His death burial and Resurrection, ALSO the indwelling, sealing, and empowering of the Spirit. Without these there IS NO Church.

 

Yep, Scritpure speaks quite often of it in the Millinial Kingdom or Millinial Riegn of Christ. In Isa, Jer, Ezk. Daniel, Hosea. It is a good study.

 

I can agree with every bit of this Allan. As far as them not being indwelt with the Spirit, I don't know if you believe the fountain spoken of to the House of David was opened when Jesus died or not, but I do and that is when "half flowed to the hinder sea and half to the former sea" and that is when they received what they had been waiting on, including all those who had died in faith believing. Otherwise there would repentance after death and Jesus said " ever how death finds you so shall the resurrection receive you. Also, "if you die in your sins where I am you cannot come".

We are pretty close Allan, It took a while to get into each other's head but we are pretty close. Just one thing, Stephen called it a "church" back in the days of Noah, and Stephen was a born again Jewish Christian. Also, by the same Spirit that raised Christ from the dead, He went and preached to them in the days of Noah, while they waited on the preparing of the Ark. No need for me to rehash the same things but there was a lot that took place back then that involved Jesus Himself, just not the shedding of His blood until He came in the flesh and to set up His "Grace" church. I think we would be much closer if you could see that as Stephen called them "church in the wilderness" and "The Church" that you are speaking of now is really the "Grace Church".

I really think this has been a good discussion and I think it brought forth a lot of things that needed to be discussed among us that were not apparent in the beginning of this thread. I have enjoyed it.

 

Whence the Church?

A couple of rhetorical questions in passing:

1. If there was something deficient with John The Baptist's Baptism, why did Jesus insist on being baptized by John?

2. If Jesus is God in the flesh, how is He ever deficient in power(dynamos), or authority (exousia)? Jesus is God--omni, omni, omni--eternally. This no power til Pentecost does not wash--Jesus is the power.

3. If Jesus's disciples, having been called out, were preaching, teaching and baptizing, why were they not a group of baptized believers carrying out the commission of the Lord Jesus--i.e. a New Testament Church?

Choose wisely,

Bro. James

 

You got my vote...........

 

Just a couple of rhetorical answers to your rhetorical questions: :tongue3:

1. If there was nothing deficient in Johns baptism why then did Jesus Change it? Because Johns Baptismal ministry was for the Jewish people ONLY. The Baptism John was doing was Historically done to and for those who were NOT Jewish by decent but wanted to be believers of and in Judism. They who had chosen to believe In Jehovah had to forsake every other God (repent) and claim Him as whom they will serve only. But what drew such great attention to John is that John was telling these Religious Jews and not the heathen to Repent, turn to God and be baptised because they were not truly following the Lord as they claimed. The baptism of Jesus remembers His death, burial and Resurrection.
What is so complicated about this? NO Assembling of people can be the Church UNTIL the Death, Burial, and Resurrection of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Even the baptism we are commanded to baptise with is ABOUT His death, burial and Resurrection. The Lords supper we partake in is about His Death and remembering that in that Death there IS A resurrection.

2. Of course He is the power but that authority given to the Church COULD NOT be given until Christ was given the authority from God the Father OF WHOM Christ came to do HIS will according to what the FATHER TOLD Jesus to do. Read Matt 28:18-19

I thought He already had all Power and commissioned them before (remember the 70) but here Jesus makes an odd statement He NEVER MADE BEFORE His death. and states in verse 19 Go ye therefore (or - Go because of this...) and is the very Reason Phil 2 is important to understand

Jesus had the authority but could not jump over certain steps in the Fathers plan that ESTABLISHED His Purpose. Before the Church can be, Jesus must die and rise again that those believers would be baptised INTO Christ (Rom 6)

One last thing on #2 - If Jesus IS the Power for them then why wait for the Holy Spirit for they should have already been empowered as Jesus IS that Power. What is so special about the Holy Spirit in this that Jesus could not do?? After all He is their power is He not, or does scripture say - not by power nor by might but by His Spirit?? Each has their role to play in the redemtion of Man and the building up of the Church. Both are equal but both distinct in their purpose - much like Israel and the Church.

You Stated:

If the Calling out is all that is needed to be the Church (along with wittnessing and teaching and baptising) then why is the death and Resurrection of Christ SO IMPORTANT to the Church? With out them WE CAN NOT BE the Church for it is IN THEM we find ourselves. Without them We ARE NOT the Church. There are specific criteria that makes us apart of the CHURCH and without ALL of them we ARE NOT the Church Nor is or was ANYONE else.

The Church is not just about being Called out but What makes this CALLING out possible that they CAN BE called out! I might even be inclinded to say AFTER the resurrection they were called the Church (ok maybe not) but this is a much closer scriptural stance than being the Church BEFORE the Death and Resurrection of Christ of which the Church is baptised INTO that IDENTIFIES them AS the Church OF Christ Jesus.

Anyway Good discissions from everyone - Thanks for the fun :thumbsup:

 

Yep, I agree Bob. I have already address somewhat the Church in the Wilderness in a previous posting so I will just leave it there. We do agree on a great deal (and we vary only slightly here as well) and I to think it was a good discussion. I enjoyed it too. The Church IS and that is what matters - God Bless you with boldness In Him - Amen.

 

Allan,
The fact that Jesus said after his resurrection that he had been given all power in heaven and earth does not necessarily mean that he did not have it until then. It is certainly open to the interpretation that he has always had it.

Jesus veiled his divinity to some extent--such as being bound by time and space--while on earth. But the power he displayed over creation and over death suggests strongly that he did not give it up. Before his resurrecton, by the way. He was as fully God as he was man.

You also said:
The baptism of Jesus remembers His death, burial and Resurrection.
What is so complicated about this? NO Assembling of people can be the Church UNTIL the Death, Burial, and Resurrection of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Jesus baptism pictures his death, burial and resurrection, and we remember it a as we look backward. It also pictures the gospel, which he and his disciples preached from that time forward.

Your statement that no assembling of people can be the church until his death, burial and resurrection can't be supported by scripture.

And even if it's so, his church assembled for the great commission before Pentecost, after the resurrection. It also assembled in the upper room after his resurrection and before Pentecost. They even had a business meeting.

 

True, and I did not state Jesus had NO power or authority but that His Power and authority was limited to the accomplishing of His Fathers Will. But as to being given a name above every name that is named both in 'heaven' and in the 'earth' and under the earth... And to Jesus stating All authority has been given Me in 'heaven' and 'earth' shows these two verses are linked and both speak of this event transpiring AFTER His Resurrection.
What then do these scriptures mean if Christ already HAD this authority before His death??
And why was it only given Jesus AFTER His death and resurrection according to Phil 2 and Christs statement made after His Resurrection as well??

The argument can be made that it was this authority (His full glorified authority) which He set aside until He accomplished the Will of the Father as the Suffering Servant and at it culmination He then reclaimed it again. I personally hold to this view but suffice to say He did not have this authority again until His Resurrection as says the scriptures.

Really, (about it picturing the gospel) please show me scripture for this as I have never heard or read this before.
Water Baptism is the physical display of the spiritual truth (spiritual baptism).
We are buried with Him, and raised with Him a new man (new creation)
And IN the Spiritual Baptism we are placed immediately into the Body of Christ of which IS THE Church. and that without this baptism we are NOT placed into the body of Christ and therefore not in the Church as well. These points are clearly shown in Rom 6, Col 1:18 and I Cor 12 as shown below:

Lastly Tom:

I have already substantiated via scripture the Church is ONLY those who are believers in the Death and Resurrection of Christ who are also at this point indwelt by the Holy Spirit by being Baptised of the Holy Spirit. This Baptism places those same believers INTO the body of Christ which IS the Church and nothing less.
These reason disqualifies ALL those before the Resurrection because they ALL did not believe and UNDERSTAND who Jesus truly was until AFTER the resurrection. How do we know this, because scripture tells us and because Jesus had to open their understanding AFTER He appeared to them after He arose as says the scriptures.
What you (a group or assembly) do does not make you a /the Church, but what is done within you based upon whom and WHAT you have believed however DOES. IF they did not believe in death and resurrection of Christ as the atoning sacrifice (which prior to His resurrection they did not) and were not indwelt, sealed and empowered by His Spirit (which prior to Acts 2 they were not) they according to the scriptures cited nor anyone else are or could be considered in any scriptural sense the 'body' Church as defined BY scripture.

Thanks again Tom for your thought and respectful responces. It was most decidedly a pleasure. Whatever our position on the when we are in total agreement of the 'IS'. :thumbsup:

 

When the Church?

We seem to be having difficulty with "when". Perhaps this is because we have different definitions of "what". I submit that a NT Church is a local, visible body of baptized believers in the Lord Jesus Christ--called out and gathered together--to carry out His Commission per His instruction.

This definition fits--all the way back to the shores of Galilee, when Jesus said: "Come, follow me, I will make you fishers of men." It does not fit most "Church(?)" councils nor the 95 points conspicuously posted in Wittenburg, Germany by a soon to be defrocked Roman priest in the 16th century.

Now "what"?:wavey:

In His service,:BangHead:

Bro. James

 

I agree brother that the Church IS a local body of believers but also that scripture identifies the Church in a unified sense as well. Such as we are baptized into the body of Christ, and Christ returns for the His Bride the Church. One is the functional aspect (local) of this body and is defined in smaller units, but the larger universal (invisible) Church is but a discripter of of our unity In Christ and His precious creation and Bride.

God be praised by our actions as well as our lips.
Allan

 

Allan, I appreciate the spirit in which you defended your views, and you do very well. I though we had about exhausted this conversation, but there are a couple of statemets you made that I want to comment on.

For instance, you said:
I did not state Jesus had NO power or authority but that His Power and authority was limited to the accomplishing of His Fathers Will.

If you mean that Jesus limited the use of his own power, then I might agree with you. But self-limiting does not mean that he did not have all power. It could only mean he did not use it. The problem is, except for his time-space limitation, I think it would be difficult to say what the limitations were.

Then, you said:
And why was it [all power] only given Jesus AFTER His death and resurrection according to Phil 2 and Christs statement made after His Resurrection as well??

Philipians 2 does not support your contention. It speaks of his exaltation, it speaks of magnifying his name, it speaks of every knee bowing. But nothing about his power. I'm afraid you're trying to force your views into the passage.

Quote:Tom
Jesus baptism pictures his death, burial and resurrection, and we remember it a as we look backward. It also pictures the gospel, which he and his disciples preached from that time forward.

You said:
Really, (about it picturing the gospel) please show me scripture for this as I have never heard or read this before.

We all agree that the gospel is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus.
You'll find the rationale for its picturing the gospel in a verse you quoted--

Romans 6:5 5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also [in the likeness] of [his] resurrection.

The key word is "likeness." Baptism is "like" Jesus death, burial and resurrection. It actually explains 6:4, which speaks of believers being buried with him by baptism unto death. That's water baptism, of course.

You said:
Water Baptism is the physical display of the spiritual truth (spiritual baptism). Or, an outward testimony of what has happened inside. I agree.

You equated spirit baptism with entry into the universal church, and cited I Cor 12:13
For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body...

This has been rehashed on so many other threads that I won't get long-winded here. I also see this baptism as water baptism, not into the so-called universal church, but into the congregation at Corinth. The word Spirit could just as easily spirit. And the Greek "en" translated in the KJV "by" could easily be "in" instead. Rendering the verse "For in one spirit [as, a spirit of unity] we are immersed into the body..."

Another rendering is possible "For by one Spirit [as, led by the Spirit]..."

I'll give you and other posters the last word on this. You're so good at this, you've worn me out. I'll rest and lurk for a while.

 

One thing that has come out of this thread is that now it is "a New Testament Church", with most, and when we begun, it was The Church.