ECT The Gospel Proper

[drbrumley]

The best news this world ever heard was from outside a grave in Jerusalem and that news is "he is not here, he is risen."

 

[Rosenritter]

Act 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

Act 11:1 And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God.
Act 11:2 And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him,
Act 11:3 Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.

Act 11:18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

Now... who was the first to preach to Gentiles... Peter or Phillip?

Jonah.

 

[Rosenritter]

The problem is with your question. You shouldn't blame me and be so ornery, because you can't seem to understand what I was saying. The time of their visitation had come, but the Jews rejected Him. I'm pretty sure that's what I've been saying. Jesus says the same here.

​

And I really don't care if you put me on block, so stop nagging me about it.

For clarification, can you concur with these two statements? (or explain why not?)

1. Jesus did not come to set up a physical kingdom on the earth that coexisted with other physical kingdoms: "My kingdom is not of this world."

2. The establishment of that kingdom over this earth is neither hindered nor prevented by whether the Jewish nation accepts Him.

 

[Rosenritter]

The burden would be to mention he was Jewish? You're kidding right?

No. Had he been Jewish it would have been so easy to say he was a Jew. One word. That word isn't there, even given all the other words in this account.

He was going to Jerusalem to WORSHIP. He was reading from the book of Isaiah written in Hebrew.

Would it strike you as so unusual that a eunuch of the gentile Queen might be educated in the scriptures or have access to Isaiah? It is not without precedent that rulers would want to know something about neighboring religions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

"Seventy-two Jewish scholars were asked by the Greek King of Egypt Ptolemy II Philadelphus to translate the Torah from Biblical Hebrew into Greek, for inclusion in the Library of Alexandria.^[14]"

 

[Rosenritter]

You're calling me a liar. Don't deny it.

You're accusing me of contradicting myself, and I wasn't.

I should just report you.

You could try the constructive option of stating whether Jesus was prevented from his mission by the crucifixion or not. I don't care if you got words mixed up before; I would rather have a straight answer now.

 

[Rosenritter]

Made up.
Sure... lots of gentiles picked up copies of Isaiah at the corner bookstore for their reading pleasure. :rotfl:

Attendants to rulers (their wise men) are expected to be more knowledgeable.

 

[glorydaz]

For clarification, can you concur with these two statements? (or explain why not?)

1. Jesus did not come to set up a physical kingdom on the earth that coexisted with other physical kingdoms: "My kingdom is not of this world."

2. The establishment of that kingdom over this earth is neither hindered nor prevented by whether the Jewish nation accepts Him.

I can't say I agree with either statement.

This is Jesus' response when He was about to be delivered up for His death on the cross.

John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.​

 

[glorydaz]

You could try the constructive option of stating whether Jesus was prevented from his mission by the crucifixion or not. I don't care if you got words mixed up before; I would rather have a straight answer now.

Let's just get this straight. YOU got my words mixed up when you "reworded" what I said.

What "mission" are you talking about?

 

[glorydaz]

Attendants to rulers (their wise men) are expected to be more knowledgeable.

He came to worship. Is that really worth arguing about?

 

[john w]

1. Jesus did not come to set up a physical kingdom on the earth that coexisted with other physical kingdoms: "My kingdom is not of this world."

That is slick...Slick as a pig, sliding down a plank:

John 18:36 KJV Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.


Why did you delete, leave out,"but now is my kingdom not from hence," thus selectively changing the meaning of the Saviour's intent in explaining, at the time, His kingdom was not yet realized, but will be, in the future.....?


What motivated you to practice this deceptive tactic? Let me guess: Your doctrine determines what the word of God should say. If it does not, you will selectively omit/delete verses of the book.

That is slick....

 

[steko]

Jonah.

That is an entirely different context.

We are talking about post DBR.

 

[meshak]

That's a stupid question.

Can you not read?

I think the question I'm wanting to explore is pretty clear to anyone with an IQ of 72 or higher.

Go ahead, try again. YOU CAN DO IT!

Clete

So why the question about the gospel?

 

[Clete]

So why the question about the gospel?

Look, either read the thread and participate substantively or go away.

 

[Clete]

I suggest to you that those on Pentecost were not saved under the law of Moses. The law changed.
Jesus could not have offered Himself for the peoples sins under that law of Moses.
Heb. 7:11 Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron? 12 For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well. 13 For the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar. 14 For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests.

Christ could not be high priest under the law of Moses.
Heb. 9:11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) 12 he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.
Christ entered heaven as high priest and offered once and for all His blood for the sins of the people. Under a new covenant.
Heb. 9:5 Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant.

Okay. It seems like I've already conceded this point to one degree or another.

The point is that it doesn't apply to the Body of Christ. We are not Jews we are not members of the nation of Israel and we are not looking forward to an Earthly Kingdom where the meek inheret the Earth etc.

I've never known you to be difficult. How do you know they aren't relevant if you haven't considered how it fits in to the gospel. Paul baptized believers. He must have believed it had/has a purpose.

Who said I haven't considered it. I've considered it and rejected the idea that it's required for salvation. Whether it still has an important but unsalvific role to play is very debatable and needlessly divisive and as a result it is a debate I typically avoid.

I suggest the same applies to us today.
This is after Acts 9, he's talking about Acts 9 but it's near the end of Paul's life and he tells us he was baptized to wash away his sins.
Acts 22:16 And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’
Just like all the conversions we see back to Pentecost, they end in baptism. Where is Paul arguing against baptism instead of him practicing and preaching it.
Rom. 6:3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
All of us who, that leaves out those who were not baptized.

As others here have already argued, Paul baptized with the Holy Spirit.

This is after Acts 9.
Acts 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family.
Paul baptized a Gentile believer. Just as Jesus instructed and just as Peter did.

As already conceded and plainly stated, water baptism was a practice that survived the change but faded with time, just as miracles did. It was a transisional practice and even if one insisted on maintaining the practice to this day, which many obviously do, it is something that a saved person does rather than something an unsaved person does to get saved. We are not saved by performing religious rituals, that's law, not grace.


Clete

 

[Right Divider]

Attendants to rulers (their wise men) are expected to be more knowledgeable.

Especially if they're Jews.

 

[meshak]

Look, either read the thread and participate substantively or go away.

Ok, fair enough.


So what is the problem with "For God so love the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life"?

 

[Right Divider]

I can't say I agree with either statement.

This is Jesus' response when He was about to be delivered up for His death on the cross.

John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.​

Indeed, the issue was temporary.

 

[turbosixx]

The point is that it doesn't apply to the Body of Christ.

It does apply. If they weren't saved under the law of Moses, what law were they saved under?

As others here have already argued, Paul baptized with the Holy Spirit.

Argued yes, proven no. Receiving the Holy Spirit and being baptized WITH the Holy Spirit are two different things. For example. Acts 19. These men were believers and had already been water baptized and they received the Holy Spirit by Paul laying his hands and not any type of baptism. Paul would only lay hands on them after they had been baptized "in the name of" Jesus.

Verse 5 says "On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." What do understand this to be? Can you provide scriptural support?

Verse 6 says And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying.
What do you understand this to be? Can you provide scriptural support?

I can show with scriptural support that neither of these are baptism WITH the Holy Spirit. I can also show with scripture what each are as well as baptism WITH the Holy Spirit.

 

[Right Divider]

It does apply. If they weren't saved under the law of Moses, what law were they saved under?

What makes you think that everyone must be saved under some law?

 

[Rosenritter]

When Acts says that 'households' are baptized, if there are infants in those 'households,' how can you be sure that they would have been denied baptism until they were older?

fyi, in my estimation, the Catholic Church's sacrament of Confirmation is substantially similar to baptism, for those who believe in 'believers baptism' only, and not infant baptism. Confirmation involves conscious choice, like 'believers baptism.' And, Catholics must be confirmed to be in full communion with the Church.

And I also always thought that---once I thought of it---since circumcision was done in infancy, that baptism in infancy seems permissible at least. And there are lots of Presbyterians and I would guess Lutherans who believe in infant baptism too, not just Catholics.

What is the purpose of baptism? Is it about the relationship of the one being baptized with Christ, or is it about others?