ECT Moment of Salvation Compared to Water Baptism

[turbosixx]

Now I KNOW that you are being completely DISHONEST!


THAT is what YOU said.... and I showed you that you are COMPLETELY WRONG by quoting a verse that showed the Jesus was preaching the gospel of the kingdom LONG before the day of Pentecost! And YOU call that a "diversion tactic"?

Matt 4:23 (AKJV/PCE)​

(4:23) ¶ And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people. ​

YOU claim that there is ONE gospel and that that ONE gospel was first preached on the day of Pentecost.

YOU made the FALSE claim and I showed you the TRUTH.

You are completely DISHONEST to make the FALSE claim that this is a "diversion tactic".

Sorry, I wasn't more thorough in my explanation. You know I believe the gospel started with John the Baptist. There is one gospel, the good new of Christ. What I should have said was that Pentecost was the first time man heard that the gospel could now forgive their sins.


Yes, it's a diversion tactic. Are these the same gospel?

Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
2 Cor. 10:14 For we are not overextending ourselves, as though we did not reach you. For we were the first to come all the way to you with the gospel of Christ.

I say they are.

 

[turbosixx]

delete

 

[DAN P]

Sorry, I wasn't more thorough in my explanation. You know I believe the gospel started with John the Baptist. There is one gospel, the good new of Christ. What I should have said was that was the first time man heard that the gospel could now forgive their sins.


Yes, it's a diversion tactic. Are these the same gospel?

Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
2 Cor. 10:14 For we are not overextending ourselves, as though we did not reach you. For we were the first to come all the way to you with the gospel of Christ.

I say they are.

Hi and Paul is the ONLY ONE to to use this phrase 10 times , THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST because it came from the risen Christ !!

Mark 1:1 is Jesus earthly ministry !!

dan p

 

[Danoh]

More absurdity. If we cannot go by the rules of grammar, how are we to determine anything. The 120 being baptized with the Holy Spirit violates those rules and the context.

You and I have nothing further to discuss.

:chuckle:

One key rule of grammar is that rules of grammar are meant to function within the particular, overal narrative and structure they are merely a part of.

And the narrative there is clear - an Israelite Feast Day under THEIR Law.

You're following various rules of grammar, but you're crystal clear obviously doing so within what YOU have erroneously concluded is the narrative being described as playing out there in Early Acts.

Your obvious failure?

Your having failed to ask more, and more, and yet still more (who, what, when, where, why, and how) types of questions of Early Acts' narrative there.

Luke 12:42 And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season? 12:43 Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.

2 Corinthians 4:13 We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak;

Rom. 5:6-8 towards ya.

 

[turbosixx]

Hi and Paul is the ONLY ONE to to use this phrase 10 times , THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST because it came from the risen Christ !!

Mark 1:1 is Jesus earthly ministry !!

dan p

Just because it's his earthly ministry doesn't make it another gospel.

Baptism is how the gospel of Christ started.
Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. 2 As it is written in Isaiah the prophet,
“Behold, I send my messenger before your face,
who will prepare your way,
3 the voice of one crying in the wilderness:
‘Prepare[c] the way of the Lord,
make his paths straight,’”

4 John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

Baptism is still a part of the gospel of Christ. His earthly ministry was baptism for repentance but now it's being baptized in the name of Jesus.
Acts 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.

Just because Paul is the only one to use the phrase doesn't mean anything. ALL the inspired writers get their information from the same source.

 

[turbosixx]

:chuckle:

One key rule of grammar is that rules of grammar are meant to function within the particular, overal narrative and structure they are merely a part of.

And the narrative there is clear - an Israelite Feast Day under THEIR Law.

You're following various rules of grammar, but you're crystal clear obviously doing so within what YOU have erroneously concluded is the narrative being described as playing out there in Early Acts.

Your obvious failure?

Your having failed to ask more, and more, and yet still more (who, what, when, where, why, and how) types of questions of Early Acts' narrative there.

Luke 12:42 And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season? 12:43 Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.

2 Corinthians 4:13 We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak;

Rom. 5:6-8 towards ya.

This is what I don't understand. I hear a lot of talking but no one has used the context to show my error.

Yes, it's an Israelite feast day under their law but that is NOT the narrative. It's not surprising that God planned the announcement of Jesus being Lord and Savior on a day when thousands of his people were there to hear it. After all, they were to hear it first. Three thousand souls were saved that day and more each day but not by the old law.

Now, if I understand you correctly you believe the 12 taught and/or instructed observance of the old law, if so please point to book, chapter and verse.

 

[Cross Reference]

Jesus was not talking about abolishing the law. That is just something that you or someone else has invented.

Matt 28:19-20 (AKJV/PCE)
(28:19) ¶ Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: (28:20) Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the world. Amen.​

THIS was AFTER the cross.... Jesus was STILL telling them to teach the law to all nations.

Do you really believe that ALL THINGS WHATSOEVER I HAVE COMMAND YOU does NOT include Matthew 23?


There are MANY "good news'" in the Bible. That you want to try to force the all to be identical is your problem.

Matt 4:23 (AKJV/PCE)​

(4:23) ¶ And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people.
​

You're just plain wrong and should start speaking the truth.


You claim that they had been released from the law at the cross. YOU are the one that needs to support YOUR argument.

Acts 21:18-21 (AKJV/PCE)​

(21:18) And the [day] following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. (21:19) And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. (21:20) And when they heard [it], they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: (21:21) And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise [their] children, neither to walk after the customs. ​

Notice that there is nothing said about this being zealous of the law as wrong and it's thousands of Jews.

P.S. Why is James talking about "Jews among Gentiles" if there is neither Jew NOR Greek in the body of Christ?

You need to ask yourself some questions like, what did redemption accomplish for man; for God; for Jesus?
When you figure it out you will [maybe] begin to understand why you need to be born again.

 

[meshak]

You need to ask yourself some questions like, what did redemption accomplish for man; for God; for Jesus?
When you figure it out you will [maybe] begin to understand why you need to be born again.

If you are not born again, you will not strive to be like Jesus by following His example and His word.

It is that simple.

 

[Cross Reference]

If you are not born again, you will not strive to be like Jesus by following His example and His word.

It is that simple.

Exactly! Why? Because it is a Divine "Love affair" by giving of His very life to such a one . . but, in measure.

Jesus was full of Grace and Truth. How come He could receive was because He had learned over 30 yrs., how to protect it. The new born of God is given the same responsibility and in the same way. . . by faith.

 

[Right Divider]

Sorry, I wasn't more thorough in my explanation. You know I believe the gospel started with John the Baptist. There is one gospel, the good new of Christ. What I should have said was that Pentecost was the first time man heard that the gospel could now forgive their sins.

Then why did you post this?

Yep. Pentecost was the first time men heard the gospel.

You have a problem keeping your facts straight.

Yes, it's a diversion tactic.

AGAIN YOU LIE! Is this what Churchianity makes you do?

I was responding to YOUR FALSE CLAIM that "Pentecost was the first time men heard the gospel." and I showed you, FROM SCRIPTURE, that YOUR statement was FALSE.

And YET you STILL claim that I was using a "diversion tactic"! What incredible DISHONESTY!

Are these the same gospel?

Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
2 Cor. 10:14 For we are not overextending ourselves, as though we did not reach you. For we were the first to come all the way to you with the gospel of Christ.

I say they are.

Mark was writing about the FACT that Jesus Christ was the SON OF GOD. That is why Mark includes that in verse 1. Mark was NOT talking about the GOSPEL OF THE GRACE OF GOD, since it had NOT been revealed yet.

 

[Right Divider]

You need to ask yourself some questions like, what did redemption accomplish for man; for God; for Jesus?
When you figure it out you will [maybe] begin to understand why you need to be born again.

You fixate on a couple of verses of scripture when you should understand the whole thing.

 

[Cross Reference]

You fixate on a couple of verses of scripture when you should understand the whole thing.

Where we blunder is in trying to expound the Cross doctrinally while refusing to do what Jesus told us to do, . . lift Him up. “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto Myself” (John 12:32 KJV).
We are not sent to specialise in doctrine, but to lift up Jesus, and He will do the work of saving and sanctifying souls. When we become doctrine mongers God’s power is not known, only the passionateness of an individual appeal [if any]. In order to do that one needs to be born again.

Whatout knowing what redemption accomplished, knowledge of the new birth will escape you.

 

[Right Divider]

Where we blunder is in trying to expound the Cross doctrinally while refusing to do what Jesus told us to do, . . lift Him up. “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto Myself” (John 12:32 rv).
We are not sent to specialise in doctrine, but to lift up Jesus, and He will do the work of saving and sanctifying souls. When we become doctrine-mongers God’s power is not known, only the passionateness of an individual appeal. In order to do that one needs to be born again.

You're a very silly person CR.

You're trying to hammer me with YOUR DOCTRINE.... great irony. Thanks for the laugh.

 

[turbosixx]

Mark was writing about the FACT that Jesus Christ was the SON OF GOD. That is why Mark includes that in verse 1. Mark was NOT talking about the GOSPEL OF THE GRACE OF GOD, since it had NOT been revealed yet.

Diversion tactic might not be the best description. The whole bible is about Jesus. One time Paul calls it the gospel of the grace of God and, if I understand you correctly, that makes it different than the gospel of Christ which is found multiple times. You like to mention the gospel of the kingdom as a different gospel. What about the gospel of peace, is that another gospel? Or the gospel of God, is that another?

Is not Christ the grace of God?
Is not Christ peace?
Is not Christ God?
Is not Christ the kingdom?

 

[meshak]

Diversion tactic might not be the best description. The whole bible is about Jesus. One time Paul calls it the gospel of the grace of God and, if I understand you correctly, that makes it different than the gospel of Christ which is found multiple times. You like to mention the gospel of the kingdom as a different gospel. What about the gospel of peace, is that another gospel? Or the gospel of God, is that another?

Is not Christ the grace of God?
Is not Christ peace?
Is not Christ God?
Is not Christ the kingdom?

I agree with the above except your believing in the trinity.

Is it important to claim Jesus is God?

It is just a doctrine, you know.

 

[turbosixx]

Is it important to claim Jesus is God?

I don't claim it, the bible does.

Jn. 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

I only know what the bible tells me.

 

[meshak]

I don't claim it, the bible does.

Jn. 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

I only know what the bible tells me.

I think you need to read the Bible contextually.

 

[meshak]

Did Jesus says anything about the trinity being essential to believe?

 

[turbosixx]

I think you need to read the Bible contextually.

I would be glad to listen what you have to say about the context.

Here is what I see in the context.
Jn. 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Jn. 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15 (John bore witness about him, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.’”)

 

[meshak]

I would be glad to listen what you have to say about the context.

Here is what I see in the context.
Jn. 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Jn. 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15 (John bore witness about him, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.’”)

I am not a Bible scholar. But I know Jesus does not teach the trinity.