- This topic has 4,343 replies, 85 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
- thethinker,Feb. wrote:
[/quote]
Thinker notes-Quote Seeking,
The Greek “ethnos” should not be translated “Gentiles.” It should be translated simply as “nations”. See Young's Analytical Concordance. The “nations” mentioned in Acts 10 refer to the uncircumcised of Israel and/or uncircumcised Gentile converts. This is the historical fact.I have no argument with your observation. Young Literal Translation has it, Act 10:45 and those of the circumcision believing were astonished–as many as came with Peter–because also upon the nations the gift of the Holy Spirit hath been poured out, In this context the “nations” equals
uncircumcised Gentile converts. This is the historical fact!As young's translation notes – those of the circumcision (Israel) were astonished. Why? because also upon the nations (here Gentiles ) the gift of the Holy Spirit hath been poured out
I note the definition given by both Thayer and Strong as follows:
Strong
ethnos
eth'-nos
Probably from G1486; a race (as of the same habit), that is, a tribe; specifically a foreign (non-Jewish) one (usually by implication pagan): – Gentile, heathen, nation, people.G1484
ἔθνος
ethnos
Thayer Definition:
1) a multitude (whether of men or of beasts) associated or living together
1a) a company, troop, swarm
2) a multitude of individuals of the same nature or genus
2a) the human family
3) a tribe, nation, people group
4) in the OT, foreign nations not worshipping the true God, pagans, Gentiles
5) Paul uses the term for Gentile ChristiansPermit me my commentary as to why I believe Paul did in fact command them to be baptized. Jews felt Gentiles were not worthy of salvation or that they had to jump through circumcision hoops to be saved. Paul says, “look folks, they received the Holy Spirit JUST AS WE HAVE and to rub it in your face further, I'M BAPTIZING THEM.
I cannot deny that Paul did, on this occassion, baptize Gentiles. The greater question is, WHY? My interpretation is above. To stick a thorn in the side of the Jews.
Thinker stated –
People on this board keep ignoring that the “Gentiles” who had not been incorporated into the covenant, and who had never heard the Gospel were saved according to their obedience to the message in nature (Rom. 2).
I do not see salvation being discussed in Romans two. Rather, I see law keeping as a means of salvation being discussed and the conclusion is not reached short of Romans 3:23 where Paul says this, Rom 3:23 for all did sin,
(Jews and Gentiles – comment added) and are come short of the glory of God–Paul would go on to say in this letter, Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
The crux of the issue here is baptism, I know. Who does, who doesn't, etc. I see though, not be honest (IMO) with the texts being consider ON ALL SIDES. Perhaps I am not being true to the text either. But it is my intent rather than making proving my point foremost.
Seeking
Quote (Gene @ Feb. 27 2009,14:31) Seekng ………Now ask yourself would God have removed the Spirit He gave them if they were not water baptized. Receiving the Holy Spirit has nothing to do with water baptism. A person is made right with the Baptism of Christ , (spirit and fire) water can never change anyone. IMO John told Jesus when He came to him to be baptized , “I have need to be Baptized by you”, Its the baptism of Christ that counts not the baptism of John. No where do i recall Paul commanding the Gentiles to be water Baptized. IMO love and peace to you and yours………………………gene
G,
We do not learn by speculation but by revelation.What was said by the anointed ones and happened was the will of God.
WHAT IF is not relevant
G,
You say
“Nick………A proselyte was a gentile convert who converted to the religion of the Jews, and Cornelius was one of those He believed in the same GOD as the Jew did and Prayed to Him also and was excepted by GOD too, and as a result was bound by the same rules the Jew were. And remember Peter did not have the future revelation that Paul was given later Brother. Paul added a more Spiritual side to our Faith then the rest of the other apostles did. He even said that GOD would Judge the intent of our Heart after (HIS) GOSPEL, remember. You full well know and understand Water Baptism could no way change You, but Spiritual Baptism does change you”Your opinion weighs little against what is written.
It is not written that he was a proselyte.
Do not add to what is writtenSeeking said:
Quote As young's translation notes – those of the circumcision (Israel) were astonished. Why? because also upon the nations (here Gentiles ) the gift of the Holy Spirit hath been poured out Uncircumcised Israelites were “Gentiles”. Anyone who was uncircumcised was a Gentile. Acts 10:45 is about the uncircumcised nations of Israel.
Seeking said:
Quote I do not see salvation being discussed in Romans two. Rather, I see law keeping as a means of salvation being discussed and the conclusion is not reached short of Romans 3:23 where Paul says this, Rom 3:23 for all did sin,
(Jews and Gentiles – comment added) and are come short of the glory of God–Paul said that the Gentiles who did not have the law were justified if they did “according to nature” those things that were in the law (2:12-14). The expression “according to nature” is an abbreviation for that which was revealed to them through nature. Therefore, the Gentiles were being justified by their obedience to nature simultaneously with the Jews who were being justified by repentance and baptism. This was before Paul's faith alone principle was introduced. All men are justified today by faith alone apart from law of any kind.
It is simply false to say that all men were required to be baptized then. And it is unbiblical to require it now. Today baptism is a man-made requirement.
thinker
Hi TT,
You say
“Uncircumcised Israelites were “Gentiles”. Anyone who was uncircumcised was a Gentile. Acts 10:45 is about the uncircumcised nations of Israel.”So not Jews and not proselytes.
Nothing to do with the NATION OF ISRAELthethinker,Feb. wrote:[/quote]
Thinker wrote –Quote Uncircumcised Israelites were “Gentiles”. Anyone who was uncircumcised was a Gentile. Acts 10:45 is about the uncircumcised nations of Israel. Here is Young's Literal Translation –
Act 10:44-47 While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”
With no disrespect for the text allow me transcribe in light of your contention.
Acts 10:44-47 While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all the members of the uncircumcised nation of Israel. And the believers, the memebrs of the circumcised nation of Israel who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out on the uncircumcised nations of Israel. For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people from the uncircumcised nation of Israel who have received the Holy Spirit just as we the circumcised nation of Israel have. (Adapted translation not true to any version)
I don't know why Young's Litreral didn't just put it that way.
You did say previously,”The “nations” mentioned in Acts 10 refer to the uncircumcised of Israel and/or uncircumcised Gentile converts. But your certain there wer no “uncircumcised Gentile converts in the group in Acts ten.” Is that because of logic or because we can't have any baptised Gentiles?Thinker comments –
Quote Paul said that the Gentiles who did not have the law were justified if they did “according to nature” those things that were in the law (2:12-14). The expression “according to nature” is an abbreviation for that which was revealed to them through nature. Therefore, the Gentiles were being justified by their obedience to nature simultaneously with the Jews who were being justified by repentance and baptism. Again, Paul is not talking about justification by law keeping as a means to salvation in 2:12-14. He is stating that whether under the law and violating it or under the law of nature and violating it – all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
Thinker wrote –
Quote Therefore, the Gentiles were being justified by their obedience to nature simultaneously with the Jews who were being justified by repentance and baptism. But no where in the context is Paul discussing repentance and baptism. He is discussing violation of law unto condemnation
because, true then and true now, “Gal 2:16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.Thinker writes –
Quote This before Paul's faith alone principle was introduced. All men are justified today by faith alone apart from law of any kind. I observe, they didn't have to wait long from Romans two.
Rom 3:21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it–
Rom 3:22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction:
Rom 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Rom 3:24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
Rom 3:25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.
Rom 3:26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
Rom 3:27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith.
Rom 3:28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.Paul's “Faith Alone” gospel right here in Rom. 3.
Thinker closes with –
Quote It is simply false to say that all men were required to be baptized then. And it is unbiblical to require it now. Today baptism is a man-made requirement. thinker
Yes, that is the debate here. But the texts in Romans are not discussing that issue. They are introducing salvation apart from works of law. That's any law for any body. Written on stone, hearts, in nature, no matter because we can not keep it well enoough to earn justification through it.
Seeking
Hi TT,
Man made?God requires the vessels be washed to be fit for the treasure of the HOLY SPIRIT.
The blood washes us in resonse to our repentant plea in water baptismNick………You couldn't be further fro the truth Brother. Please show where it say the Blood washes us in response to our repentant plea in water baptism. God justifies us by our Faith in Christs Sacrifice for our sins, this is Faith at work and nothing to do with water Baptism at all. The Baptism of Christ is what saves. Not water at all.
love and peace to you and your………………………………..gene
G,
1Peter3
21Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you–not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience–through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,Hebrews 9:14
How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?Hebrews 10:29
Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
Revelation 1:5
And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,1 Peter 1:2
Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.1 John 5:8
And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.Hi,
The book of Acts is the unchanging demonstration of the ways of God in the New covenant.
All who are converted are water baptised.Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 28 2009,13:15) Hi,
The book of Acts is the unchanging demonstration of the ways of God in the New covenant.
All who are converted are water baptised.
If they want to believe then they would believe without any further argument from you why they should believe. Their unbelief is a whole lot more basic than getting immersed in water so it is irrelevant whether they choose so or not since if they did they would just be getting wet. They are in denial which is a common human response to what a human views as an unpleasant truth. You did your job by warning them they are in error on this subject but they have chosen to continue to hold on to strange teachings. That is their choice just like I hope it is yours to continue to seek the truth of the gospel. Hopefully they come to believe the truth some day. I believe this continuing argument with them has become a vain argument.Seking said:
Quote Here is Young's Literal Translation – Act 10:44-47 While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”
With no disrespect for the text allow me transcribe in light of your contention.
Acts 10:44-47 While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all the members of the uncircumcised nation of Israel. And the believers, the memebrs of the circumcised nation of Israel who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out on the uncircumcised nations of Israel. For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people from the uncircumcised nation of Israel who have received the Holy Spirit just as we the circumcised nation of Israel have. (Adapted translation not true to any version)
I don't know why Young's Litreral didn't just put it that way.
You did say previously,”The “nations” mentioned in Acts 10 refer to the uncircumcised of Israel and/or uncircumcised Gentile converts. But your certain there wer no “uncircumcised Gentile converts in the group in Acts ten.” Is that because of logic or because we can't have any baptised Gentiles?Seeking,
I am certain that there were no Gentiles in the crowd that were baptized. Jesus told them to begin at Jerusalem, Samaria and to the utter most parts of the land. Paul said to the Jew FIRST. If the apostles had been preaching the gospel to Gentiles and commanding them to be baptized they would have been disobedient to the ORDER Christ gave them. It was not time to preach to the gentiles. And when the time to preach to Gentiles arrived baptism had already been done away.Seeking said:
Quote Again, Paul is not talking about justification by law keeping as a means to salvation in 2:12-14. He is stating that whether under the law and violating it or under the law of nature and violating it – all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Seeking,
Paul was clear that Gentiles were being justified according to their obedience to the revelation in nature,Quote For as many as have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law, for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the DOERS of the law shall be justified; FOR WHEN THE GENTILES who do not have the law do by nature those things in the law, although not having the law, are a law to themselves…. (Rom. 2:12-15) Paul said thart the DOERS of the law shall be justified. Then he goes on to say “when the Gentiles do according to nature those things in the law….” We know for certain that “ethnos” here means the non-Israelite nations because Paul said they did not have the law. Your denial that Gentiles were being justified simulataneosly with others who heard the “repent and be baptized” message is totally unsustainable. Your view means that there was no remedy for those who had not heard the Gospel.
More about “ethnos”
After Paul counted the leaders of the Jews unworthy of eternal life he said that he was going to the “nations” (ethnos).
Quote …it was necessary that the word of God be spoken to you first, but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, we turn to the nations…. (Acts 14:47) We know that the word “ehtnos” has been wrongly translated “Gentiles” because Paul never went to a Gentile after saying that. He went only into the synagogues of the Jews throughout the rest of Acts. This means that the word “ethnos” or nations is not a distinction of race but of class. Paul first went to the leaders of the Jews. They judged themselves unworthy of eternal life. So after that Paul went to the “nations”, that is the common people, but only in the synagogues of the Jews.
The synagogues was where the common people of Israel went to hear the law of Moses. Gentiles were not allowed. Paul went only into the synnagogues after saying “we turn to the nations“.
14:1: …they went in together to the synagogue of the Jews, and so spoke that a great multitude both of the Jews and the Hellenists believed… (15:21; 17:1,10,17; 18:4,7,8,17,19,26; 19:8; 22;19)
You need to investigate all the passages I gave you for they present an insurmountable problem for you. Paul shook the dust off his feet concerning the leaders of the Jews. Then he said to them “we turn to the nations”. After this he went only into the synagogues of the Jews where Gentiles were not allowed. Therefore, the word “ethnos” should be translated “nations” and should to be understood as the commmon people of the nations of Israel. The distinction between “Jews” and “nations” in chap 13 is one of class and not of race.
The apostles NEVER commanded a Gentile to repent and be baptized. They didn't preach at all to the Gentiles until later. They obeyed their Lord's command “to the Jew first.”
Therefore, baptism was not required of all men. Gentiles were being justified without it as I have already shown.
thinker
Hi TT,
Peter commanded that Cornelius and the other gentiles be baptised.[acts10]
Nothing has changed since then except through the speculations of men.Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 28 2009,21:06) Hi tt,
Scripture does not say water baptism was ever done away with.
Should we rather believe you?
Nick,
You keep making me repeat myself. Hebrews 6:1-2 explicitly says that baptisms were the “elementary principles of Christ”. The Hebrew Christians were warned to not lay again that foundation. Believe the scriptures.Nick said:
Quote Peter commanded that Cornelius and the other gentiles be baptised.[acts10]
Nothing has changed since then except through the speculations of men.Why do you keep bringing up a Jewish proselyte? The “nations” that were commanded to be baptized were not Gentiles. I have proven from Acts 13 that they were the common people of Israel. Seeking will not be able to overcome the problem this presents for him.
thinker
Nick,
It's time for you to answer questions. In Acts 13 Paul told the Jewish leaders “we turn to the nations”. If the word “nations” here means “Gentiles”, then why did Paul go only into the Jewish synagogues? Explain why Paul never went to a Gentile after saying “we turn to the nations”?I have grown weary of answering your questions without your returning the courtesy of answering mine.
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ Feb. 28 2009,02:41)
Thinker is adamant stating –Quote Seeking,
I am certain that there were no Gentiles in the crowd that were baptized.then is added
Quote when the time to preach to Gentiles arrived baptism had already been done away Next Thinker observes –
Quote but the DOERS of the law shall be justified; FOR WHEN THE GENTILES who do not have the law do by nature those things in the law, although not having the law, are a law to themselves…. (Rom. 2:12-15) Staying with your logic, past and present, and looking at
Thinker, you keep refereing too “Gentiles” in the above references. You help us identify “non-Israelite nations” as “ethos” with the following –
Quote We know for certain that “ethnos” here means the non-Israelite nations because Paul said they did not have the law. Act 10:45 And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles.
These had to be non-Israelite Gentiles as they did not have the gift of the Spirit poured out as did Israelites according to the promise in Joel fulfilled in Acts two which was a promise
to the Jews.Quote Seeking,
Paul was clear that Gentiles were being justified according to their obedience to the revelation in nature,I already sppoke to this. Paul WAS NOT discussing salvation but rather damnation and made the point that it did not matter how you got the law – on tablets or in nature – you violate it. Paul said, ALL HAVE SINNED not all but those without the law have sinned because they flawlessly kept the law and were justified. ALL FELL SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD.
Rom 3:22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction:
(includes all ethnos) Rom 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Rom 3:24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
Rom 3:25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.
Rom 3:26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
Rom 3:27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith.
Rom 3:28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.
Rom 3:29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,
Rom 3:30 since God is one–who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.
There is Paul's gospel.Quote …it was necessary that the word of God be spoken to you first, but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, we turn to the nations…. (Acts 14:47) So, was it from this time forward that Paul finally went to the
“ethnos” non- Israelite, uncircumcised, mysterious group so hard to identify? (I believe it is Acts 13:46)You observed, The synagogues was where the common people of Israel went to hear the law of Moses. Gentiles were not allowed. But my version of Acts 14:1 reads differently than yours Act 14:1 Now at Iconium they entered together into the Jewish synagogue and spoke in such a way that a great number of both Jews and Greeks believed. So some Greeks (Gentiles) must have snuck in.
Even Youngs Literal has it this way –
Act 14:1 And it came to pass in Iconium, that they did enter together into the synagogue of the Jews, and spake, so that there believed both of Jews and Greeks a great multitude;
Quote You need to investigate all the passages I gave you for they present an insurmountable problem for you. Not so! You postulate and claim to have proven. You mention “therefore” and move to a conclusion many do not share. In the minds of some, the insurmountable problems are before you as well. I'm still working with it butnhave not seen
solid proof, irrefutable with out denial presented by any of us
or we would be in one of two places total agreement ot total denial.If, as you say, Paul preached to the non-baptised after Acts 13:46 was he baptising?
Act 14:7 and there they were proclaiming good news.
Act 16:10 and when he saw the vision, immediately we endeavoured to go forth to Macedonia, assuredly gathering that the Lord hath called us to preach good news to them,
Act 16:30 Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
Act 16:31 And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
Act 16:32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house.
Act 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.So, Paul is asked, WHAT MUST I DO TO BE SAVED
The sequence that follows is
1) Believe in the Lord Jesus
2) They speak the word of the Lord to him
3) He was baptizied at onceWhat did Paul change in his preaching and practice? NOTHING!
Quote Gentiles were being justified without it as I have already shown. This is the moot point yet to be shown.
Seeking
Hello to all,
Addressing the Acts 10 dilemna about Cornelius I submit for our consideration the following observations.
Peter had to have a vision to expplain to him it was permissible by God for him to go to Cornelius –
Act 10:14 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.”
While he was pondering the whole thing God said go without reservation.
Act 10:19 And while Peter was pondering the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Behold, three men are looking for you.
Act 10:20 Rise and go down and accompany them without hesitation, for I have sent them.”Peter explains to Cornelius the unlawfulness of his talking to Cornelius
Act 10:28 And he said to them, , but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean.
Note Peter's words – “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation
NATION
G246
ἀλλόφυλος
allophulos
Thayer Definition:
1) foreign
Part of Speech: adjectiveG246
ἀλλόφυλος
allophulos
al-lof'-oo-los
From G243 and G5443; foreign, that is, (specifically) Gentile: – one of another nation.Context, Peter's vision and words, and these descriptions of the ethnicity of Cornelius resolve the “etnos” theory for me. Peter viewed Cornrlius as an outsider, non-Jew – probably Italian -a centurion of what was known as the Italian Cohort.
Seeking
Thinker originally said:
Quote The synagogues was where the common people of Israel went to hear the law of Moses. Gentiles were not allowed. Seeking replied:
Quote But my version of Acts 14:1 reads differently than yours Act 14:1 Now at Iconium they entered together into the Jewish synagogue and spoke in such a way that a great number of both Jews and Greeks believed. So some Greeks (Gentiles) must have snuck in. Seeking,
The Greek word in Acts 14:1 is “hellenist.” A hellenist may be a Greek speaking JEW. The distinction between Jews and Greeks in Scripture may have been a racial distinction but not always. Sometimes it was a distinction among different classes of Jews. We have to be guided by context. Non-Jews were not permitted to enter into the synagogue. This is historical fact! Note what Nelson's Bible Dictionary says:Quote SYNAGOGUE– A congregation of Jews for worship or religious study…. Eventually the term came to refer exclusively to JEWS….The synagogue was a place where local groups of Jews in cities and villages anywhere could gather for the reading and explanation of the Jewish sacred Scriptures and for prayer (page 1018). We can't ignore these historical facts when interpreting the Scriptures. Paul shook the dust off his feet regarding the leaders of the Jews. He told them that they were unworthy of eternal life. Then he said, “we turn to the nations”. But after this he went only into Jewish synagogues where the common Jews (“nations”) were taught the torah. Therefore, the distinctiom between “Jew” and “nations” in Acts 13 is one of class and not of race. And the distinction between “Jew” and “Greek” is also one of class because only Jews were permitted into the synagogue.
Every single place Paul went after saying “we turn to the nations” was the Jewish synagogues.
Non-Jews were NEVER commanded to be baptized!
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ Feb. 28 2009,22:14) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 28 2009,21:06) Hi tt,
Scripture does not say water baptism was ever done away with.
Should we rather believe you?
Nick,
You keep making me repeat myself. Hebrews 6:1-2 explicitly says that baptisms were the “elementary principles of Christ”. The Hebrew Christians were warned to not lay again that foundation. Believe the scriptures.Nick said:
Quote Peter commanded that Cornelius and the other gentiles be baptised.[acts10]
Nothing has changed since then except through the speculations of men.Why do you keep bringing up a Jewish proselyte? The “nations” that were commanded to be baptized were not Gentiles. I have proven from Acts 13 that they were the common people of Israel. Seeking will not be able to overcome the problem this presents for him.
thinker
Hi TT,
You keep returning to your misunderstanding of Heb 6 and offering it as some sort of truth.You do not have the proofs you claim.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
