WHAT DOES IT MEAN , ARE THE 12 IN, OR OUT OF THE

Pepper77 · Jan 19, 2019

ac28 said:
The 12 were part of the all Israel Church of God, 1Cor 11:16,22, the only church during Acts. The "body" during Acts was a "figure" of a body of Jewish and grafted in Gentile believers associated with the distribution of the gifts in 1Cor 12. It was called the "body of Christ", but it was never called a church.

When Israel was set aside in Ac 28:28, everything Israel was also set aside, including the Church of God. EVERYTHING from Acts is GONE, temporarily

The Church which is the Body of Christ, where Christ is the Head, Col 1:18, 24, is the new church which was formed by Paul after Acts and is the all-Gentile Church that exists today. The only place in the Bible this Church can be found is in Paul's 7 books written after Acts..

It is impossible that the "body of Christ", 1Cor 12:27, during Acts is the same as the Church which is His Body in Col 1:18. The "head" in 1Cor 12 is made up of members - eye and ear in 1Cor 12:16-21. In Colossians, Christ is the Head if the Body. Not the figurative head, but the actual Head of His actual Body, which is us, Eph 5:30.

The Church called "The Body of Christ" is found ONLY in Paul's 7 post-Acts epistles. It is the only church in existence today. It is a Gentile church whose Hope is in Heavenly Places, Eph 2:6, the Heaven of Heavens, Far above the starry Heavens, where Christ sits at the right hand of God, Eph 1:20. The Hope of the 12 is the New Jerusalem, which IS NOT Heaven. Therefore, it is not possible the 12 are in the Church which is the Body of Christ.

I'm sorry, I'm really having a hard time figuring out what you are saying. You say the Jerusalem church was a church but was not. You say they were the body of Christ but were not. Very confusing. Christ is the head of the body. Not the figurative head, but the actual head. The church of God has been set aside. What you are saying is not biblical. Paul calls the body of Christ the church of God which he purchased with his own blood...Acts 20:28. I'm sure there are other places he calls it the church of God as well, but that is what comes to mind. Your theology is very convoluted and confusing.

ac28 · Jan 19, 2019

Pepper77 said:
I'm sorry, I'm really having a hard time figuring out what you are saying. You say the Jerusalem church was a church but was not. You say they were the body of Christ but were not. Very confusing. Christ is the head of the body. Not the figurative head, but the actual head. The church of God has been set aside. What you are saying is not biblical. Paul calls the body of Christ the church of God which he purchased with his own blood...Acts 20:28. I'm sure there are other places he calls it the church of God as well, but that is what comes to mind. Your theology is very convoluted and confusing.

There's no mention of the body of Christ in Ac 20:28. Acts 20 took place in about 58AD or when Romans was written. It does say the Church of God, though. The Body of Christ in 1Cor 12 is not a Church. It is NEVER said to be a Church. It was a body of believers that had the Gifts of the Spirit.

On the other hand, the brand new Church in Ephesians was also called the Body of Christ

Dan Perez · Jan 19, 2019

Pepper77 said:
Dan, you could at least quote accurately the KJV of Gal 2:14. It is "But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?"

And your interpretation makes no sense at all. Paul was plainly saying that Peter was living freely like the Gentiles, not under the Mosaic law. Since he was living freely himself, and he was a Jew, why would he even try and compell the Gentiles to live under the Mosaic law that he understood he was free from and was living accordingly. He quit living freely when certain men of the circumcision came down (who were not acknowledging their freedom from the law and wanting to keep it going and compel the Gentiles to do so) Gal 2:12. I have heard interpretations from this group on this passage as convoluted as yours. The problem is it is a troublesome passage for your theology.
Acts 15:11 in the interlinear reads: But by the grace of God we believe to be saved in the same manner as they (the Gentiles). The KJV reads " But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, as they." How can you possibly get from that that Peter was saying he was not saved by grace??? That is exactly what he is saying.
I am going currently going to a hyper-dispensational church, but am about done going there because of these errors about the early Acts church not being saved by grace through the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross. To believe they were still in Adam and not in Christ nowhere is said. In fact the total opposite is proclaimes. In 1Cor 15 Paul says whether He or Peter or James or the 12 preached the gospel they believed. 1Cor 15:3-11. You all are really butchering the word of God. You need to be careful.

Hi and we see from Acts 21:20 that in verse 18 that James and the Elders came to see Paul and in verse 20 , there were thousands of Jew were zealous of the LAW !!

Gal 2:12 Peter was separating himself , being AFRAID of the ones from the CIRCUMCISION , so why was Peter SCARED from those that kept the Law of Moses , and why did Paul say is verse 13 that Peter was a HYPOKRISIS / HYPOCRITE , and that passage seem clear to me !!

dan p

Pepper77 · Jan 19, 2019

Dan Perez said:
Hi and we see from Acts 21:20 that in verse 18 that James and the Elders came to see Paul and in verse 20 , there were thousands of Jew were zealous of the LAW !!

Gal 2:12 Peter was separating himself , being AFRAID of the ones from the CIRCUMCISION , so why was Peter SCARED from those that kept the Law of Moses , and why did Paul say is verse 13 that Peter was a HYPOKRISIS / HYPOCRITE , and that passage seem clear to me !!

dan p

Hi Dan, There were thousands of Jews still zealous for the law absolutely. But what it doesn't say in Acts 21 is whether that was a good thing or not. The context of Acts 21 is that they were going to confront Paul because they had been informed that he was teaching the Jews to forsake the law of Moses. I know you know we have to be careful to try and use the historical accounts in Acts as doctrine. It is a history of the early church and was a transitional period, where the Mosaic law was passing away and the New Way, the way of the Spirit was being taught and eventually the Mosaic law, which was a shadow would be replaced by the New Covenant of grace. Paul was right, Peter was being a hypocrite in fearing those of the circumscision because he knew the truth of the gospel.

Pepper77 · Jan 20, 2019

ac28 said:
There's no mention of the body of Christ in Ac 20:28. Acts 20 took place in about 58AD or when Romans was written. It does say the Church of God, though. The Body of Christ in 1Cor 12 is not a Church. It is NEVER said to be a Church. It was a body of believers that had the Gifts of the Spirit.

On the other hand, the brand new Church in Ephesians was also called the Body of Christ[/QUO

ac28 said:

There's no mention of the body of Christ in Ac 20:28. Acts 20 took place in about 58AD or when Romans was written. It does say the Church of God, though. The Body of Christ in 1Cor 12 is not a Church. It is NEVER said to be a Church. It was a body of believers that had the Gifts of the Spirit.

On the other hand, the brand new Church in Ephesians was also called the Body of Christ

Click to expand...

In 1Cor 1:2 and 2Cor 1:2 Paul addresses them as the "Church of God". In 1Cor 1:2 he also says they are sanctified "IN Christ Jesus". Paul (the apostle to the Gentiles) addresses them as the Church of God and the body of Christ in 1Cor 12. It's all right there. To throw away the epistles to the Corinthians as addressed to the church is wrong. Paul wrote them too. But I think it's wrong to throw away Peter and John's epistles too as not being for us. Yes, there are some difficulties in Corinthians with the instructions for the gifts of the Spirit. But there are other ways of understanding that than throwing away the whole epistles. There is way too much church truth for us in them. The church I'm going to now is a mid-Acts disp church. I have problems with even alot of what they teach, but we are there because the other churches in our area don't seem to understand we are not under law but grace, and mix the two way too much.

Dan Perez · Mar 13, 2019

Pepper77 said:
Hi Dan, There were thousands of Jews still zealous for the law absolutely. But what it doesn't say in Acts 21 is whether that was a good thing or not. The context of Acts 21 is that they were going to confront Paul because they had been informed that he was teaching the Jews to forsake the law of Moses. I know you know we have to be careful to try and use the historical accounts in Acts as doctrine. It is a history of the early church and was a transitional period, where the Mosaic law was passing away and the New Way, the way of the Spirit was being taught and eventually the Mosaic law, which was a shadow would be replaced by the New Covenant of grace. Paul was right, Peter was being a hypocrite in fearing those of the circumscision because he knew the truth of the gospel.

Hi and where is that phrase " by the NEW COVENANT of Grace " written ?

dan p

Pepper77 · Mar 14, 2019

Dan Perez said:
Hi and where is that phrase " by the NEW COVENANT of Grace " written ?

dan p

Paul said he was a minister of the new covenant in 1 Cor 3:6. And Paul calls is the gospel of grace. Also talked about in Hebrews where it’s referred to as the new covenant in Hebrews 9:15 and following. Also Paul refers to it in 1 Cor 11:24-25. Jesus instituted the New Covenant with his shed blood. That is the cornerstone of our faith.

Dan Perez · Mar 16, 2019

Pepper77 said:
Paul said he was a minister of the new covenant in 1 Cor 3:6. And Paul calls is the gospel of grace. Also talked about in Hebrews where it’s referred to as the new covenant in Hebrews 9:15 and following. Also Paul refers to it in 1 Cor 11:24-25. Jesus instituted the New Covenant with his shed blood. That is the cornerstone of our faith.

Gi , Pepper77 , and the Greek word COVENANT and written NEW COVENANT in 1 Cor 11:25 is COVENANT / DIATHEKE and can be translated , a Disposition , ARRANGEMENT , Compact , Covenant or testament !! see G1242 in STRONG'S

This ARRANGEMENT was given to Paul for the DISPENSATION of the Grace of God , in 1 Cor 9:17 , Col 1:25 and 26 and in Rom 16:25 and 26 and in Eph 3:2 !!

The word DISPENSATION / OIKONOMIA has a different meaning than what DIATHEKE means !!

The NEW COVENANT was given to Israel in Heb 8:8 and no where have I seen it given to the Body of Christ !!

Eph 2:8 says we are saved by Grace !!

Can you show how Gentiles are saved under the NEW COVENANT ??

See Ezk 36:24-38 to see salvation under the NEW COVENANT !!

dan p

ac28 · Mar 19, 2019

Pepper77 said:
Paul said he was a minister of the new covenant in 1 Cor 3:6. And Paul calls is the gospel of grace. Also talked about in Hebrews where it’s referred to as the new covenant in Hebrews 9:15 and following. Also Paul refers to it in 1 Cor 11:24-25. Jesus instituted the New Covenant with his shed blood. That is the cornerstone of our faith.

That was true during Acts, when Paul's ministry was to the Jews (first) and to the Gentiles that were all part of Israel, having been grafted into Israel. Acts was 100% Israel.

The purpose of Israel's new covenant is, through the Holy Spirit, to put the law into their inward parts so they will be able to keep the whole law and love doing it, which they were never able to do uner the old covenant. Only then can Jer 31:31-34, Eze 36:28-30 be fulfilled

Today, there is no Israel, since they were set aside in Acts 28:25-28. Truth for Today is 100% to Gentiles and is found only in Paul's 7 post-Acts books. Since the Covenants applied only to Israel, no one today has any association with them.

Dan Perez · Mar 19, 2019

ac28 said:
That was true during Acts, when Paul's ministry was to the Jews (first) and to the Gentiles that were all part of Israel, having been grafted into Israel. Acts was 100% Israel.

The purpose of Israel's new covenant is, through the Holy Spirit, to put the law into their inward parts so they will be able to keep the whole law and love doing it, which they were never able to do uner the old covenant. Only then can Jer 31:31-34, Eze 36:28-30 be fulfilled

Today, there is no Israel, since they were set aside in Acts 28:25-28. Truth for Today is 100% to Gentiles and is found only in Paul's 7 post-Acts books. Since the Covenants applied only to Israel, no one today has any association with them.

hI and in Luke 16:2 and in verse 4 the Greek OIKONOMIA / DISPENSATION is in the text and also in 1 Cor 9:17 , so what kind of dispensations are they ??

And 1 Cor 9:17 is PRE-ACTS 28 !!

If there is no Israel , how do you answer Rom 11:5 and reads , So therefore , even in the PRESENT TIME , is in the Greek PERFECT TENSE which means when Israel was set aside , to after Rom 11:26 , they will be a REMNANT , how do you read Rom 11:5 ??

dan p

ac28 · Mar 19, 2019

Romans was written about 6 years before Israel was set aside in Acts 28, and therefore has nothing directly to do with us today - different times, different dispensation, different people, different church, and different calling. The Israel Remnant in Rom 11 were believers in Christ. When Israel was set aside, all believers in Christ from Acts were given an opportunity to advance to be a member of the the brand new church which was Christ's Body, where He is the Head. Those saved Gentiles and Jews (remnant) left behind when Israel was set aside in Acts 28:28 were the beginning of the new church in Ephesians. Note that everything in Ephesians (probably the 1st book written after Acts) is directed to those that already believe.

Many chose to not accept this new church in Eph, Col, etc. and have a hope of the Highest Heaven at Christ's appearing (epiphaneia). They instead preferred to wait for the rapture at Christ's 2nd coming (parousia), and retain their membership in the Acts Church of God and its hope for the New Jerusalem. An example:1Tim 2:15, "This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.

Pepper77 · Mar 20, 2019

ac28 said:
Romans was written about 6 years before Israel was set aside in Acts 28, and therefore has nothing directly to do with us today - different times, different dispensation, different people, different church, and different calling. The Israel Remnant in Rom 11 were believers in Christ. When Israel was set aside, all believers in Christ from Acts were given an opportunity to advance to be a member of the the brand new church which was Christ's Body, where He is the Head. Those saved Gentiles and Jews (remnant) left behind when Israel was set aside in Acts 28:28 were the beginning of the new church in Ephesians. Note that everything in Ephesians (probably the 1st book written after Acts) is directed to those that already believe.

Many chose to not accept this new church in Eph, Col, etc. and have a hope of the Highest Heaven at Christ's appearing (epiphaneia). They instead preferred to wait for the rapture at Christ's 2nd coming (parousia), and retain their membership in the Acts Church of God and its hope for the New Jerusalem. An example:1Tim 2:15, "This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.

Pepper77 · Mar 20, 2019

So you are saying all those part of the kingdom church could choose to become a part of the body of Christ once Israel was set aside? And all the original apostles chose not to? Peter and John and James turned down an offer to become part of their Savior’s body? And exactly where does it say that? And why would they turn down anything their Savior was offering them? The one they trusted in and understood that He bore their sins on the cross so they could die to sin and live unto righteousness through Him? 1 Peter 2:24. The one who they understood had redeemed them with His precious blood? 1 Peter 1:18 Wow, these two verses alone in Peter testify to Peter’s understanding of the gospel of grace and how we are redeemed. And Romans is not for the body of Christ? Really? The great book of Romans which gives us all the amazing truths of our life in the Spirit in Romans 6-8? Who came up with this doctrine? What teachers or theologians can you refer me to? Thank you.

Dan Perez · Mar 20, 2019

ac28 said:
Romans was written about 6 years before Israel was set aside in Acts 28, and therefore has nothing directly to do with us today - different times, different dispensation, different people, different church, and different calling. The Israel Remnant in Rom 11 were believers in Christ. When Israel was set aside, all believers in Christ from Acts were given an opportunity to advance to be a member of the the brand new church which was Christ's Body, where He is the Head. Those saved Gentiles and Jews (remnant) left behind when Israel was set aside in Acts 28:28 were the beginning of the new church in Ephesians. Note that everything in Ephesians (probably the 1st book written after Acts) is directed to those that already believe.

Many chose to not accept this new church in Eph, Col, etc. and have a hope of the Highest Heaven at Christ's appearing (epiphaneia). They instead preferred to wait for the rapture at Christ's 2nd coming (parousia), and retain their membership in the Acts Church of God and its hope for the New Jerusalem. An example:1Tim 2:15, "This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.

Hi and you say that the , when Israel was set aside , all believers in Christ from Acts were given and opportunity to advance to be members of the brand new church which was Christ Body , and would like to see a verse for your theology !!

Col 3:11 also says Where there cannot be Greek and Jew ETC , ETC , but Christ THE ALL THINGS , and does this mean ant thing ?

Also , whybthe change in Gal 3:28 begins with There cannot be Jew nor Greek and Col 3:11 begins with Where there cannot be Greek and Jew , why the difference , which much SIGNIFICANCE and would like your thoughts ??

dan p

ac28 · Mar 20, 2019

Pepper77 said:
So you are saying all those part of the kingdom church could choose to become a part of the body of Christ once Israel was set aside? And all the original apostles chose not to? Peter and John and James turned down an offer to become part of their Savior’s body? And exactly where does it say that? And why would they turn down anything their Savior was offering them? The one they trusted in and understood that He bore their sins on the cross so they could die to sin and live unto righteousness through Him? 1 Peter 2:24. The one who they understood had redeemed them with His precious blood? 1 Peter 1:18 Wow, these two verses alone in Peter testify to Peter’s understanding of the gospel of grace and how we are redeemed. And Romans is not for the body of Christ? Really? The great book of Romans which gives us all the amazing truths of our life in the Spirit in Romans 6-8? Who came up with this doctrine? What teachers or theologians can you refer me to? Thank you.

Eph 1:12-14
12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

This refers to Paul's Salvation Gospel, which was spelled out in 1Cor 15:1-4 and not repeated after-Acts. As far as I can see, it is the ONLY thing from Acts that Paul carried over into the post-Acts epistles. This shows that the initial inductees in the brand-new post-Acts Church were those Saints from Acts, who were left without a home when Israel was set aside.

The 12 had no choice. Their ministry is 100% earthly. Besides fulfilling the Great Commission, which they alone were assigned to do, they will in the future sit on 12 thrones and judge the 12 tribes in the earthly Kingdom. Also, they are totally locked into the all-Israel New Jerusalem, where the foundations are named after them.

The only people in the Bible who are called to go to the Highest Heaven, Eph 2:6, are we Gentiles today who have been given the eyes of understanding to see, believe, and claim the Hope of this Calling, as found ONLY in Paul's 7 post-Acts books. See Eph 1:17-18. Any claim of anything elsewhere in the Bible that is earthly and, therefore, is given to Israel, is in vain. You can claim them, but you'll NEVER get them.

ac28 · Mar 20, 2019

Dan Perez said:
Hi and you say that the , when Israel was set aside , all believers in Christ from Acts were given and opportunity to advance to be members of the brand new church which was Christ Body , and would like to see a verse for your theology !!

Col 3:11 also says Where there cannot be Greek and Jew ETC , ETC , but Christ THE ALL THINGS , and does this mean ant thing ?

Also , whybthe change in Gal 3:28 begins with There cannot be Jew nor Greek and Col 3:11 begins with Where there cannot be Greek and Jew , why the difference , which much SIGNIFICANCE and would like your thoughts ??

dan p

Eph 1:13 shows that Paul was speaking to those who were saved during Acts. See my post above.

The Jews and Gentiles in Gal were equal, in that they were both tied into Israel's program, with the rapture and the New Jerusalem as their hope.

The Jews and Gentiles today, in Col, are equal, since the present set-aside Jews are just another Gentile nation in God's eyes. If they see and believe, they can also spend eternity in Heaven, where Christ sits at the right hand of God.

Ttalkkugjil · Mar 20, 2019

Dan Perez said:
Hi to all and among Grace believers , this question is still being debated !!

Are the 12 apostles IN the BODY OF CHRIST or are they OUT OF THE BODY OF CHRIST !!

What say you ??

dan p

First - which 12?

Dan Perez · Mar 20, 2019

Ttalkkugjil said:
First - which 12?

Hi and I means the 12 apostles and Gal 3:28 says that There ( cannot be ) a Greek verb in the Present tense , which says that the Present tense in Greek means CONTINOUS ACTION when placed into the Body of Christ !!

Here is another reason why the Body of Christ began with Paul and 1 Cor 15:8 says that only Paul was BORN OUT OF DUE TIME / EKTROMA , and also translated , miscarriage , premature birth and Paul isnthe ONLY one born out of due time BUT Israel will be BORN IN DUE TIME after the GREAT TRIBULATION !!

dan p

Zoe Hart · Mar 20, 2019

To get the full meaning of Galatians 3:28, one needs to read the entire third chapter.

According to the KJV, Gal 3:28-29 reads:
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
"And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."

It is saying believers in Christ are not categorized in any way other than as believers who are one in Christ and they will inherit accordingly.

Therefore, since the Apostles were believers in Christ the Savior after His crucifixion and resurrection, I believe they are "in". They eventually learned they no longer had to follow the old Law.

Pepper77 · Mar 21, 2019

Zoe Hart said:
To get the full meaning of Galatians 3:28, one needs to read the entire third chapter.

According to the KJV, Gal 3:28-29 reads:
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
"And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."

It is saying believers in Christ are not categorized in any way others than as believers who are one in Christ and they will inherit accordingly.

Therefore, since the Apostles were believers in Christ the Savior after His crucifixion and resurrection, I believe they are "in". They eventually learned they no longer had to follow the old Law.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN , ARE THE 12 IN, OR OUT OF THE

By grace through faith

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

By grace through faith

By grace through faith

Well-Known Member

By grace through faith

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

By grace through faith

By grace through faith

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Social Pastor

Well-Known Member

Pilgrim Searching for the Truth

By grace through faith

Similar threads