ECT How is Paul's message different?

Interplanner

Well-known member
When we go back to Pentecost, we see two groups receiving the Holy Spirit that day. Each one in a different way.

???

Speak for yourself. What is it about D'ists trying to divide a coherent picture in to two parts all day long?

The arrival of the tongues was a special sign to Israel that God really had brought Messiah and his message, I Cor 14:21. That is how the mission is launched, with overwhelming signs and wonders. That is why I cannot understand the people here at TOL who react so strongly to the centerplace of the mission. No other effort or thrust gets this special treatment. Instead, they keep searching the modern horizon for some special sign and wonder about another age of Judaism to get started...





Can't see what the different way is.

This might be a clue: by the end of the day, there were 3000 believers. Without PA systems, it is hard to imagine one person's speech reaching that many people at once. So all those listening at 9am probably went to speak to others, empowered by the Spirit though not necessarily in other languages. They would have spoken in other languages if the others were the visitors from all over the empire. The important thing is they kept repeating and speaking the message so that the total was 3000 believers by the end of the day.
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
No I don't.





I already knew you would say that, the same way you "don't" need to know what Josephus said. And you entitle yourself to say that even though JohnB was doing what they (Qumran etc) were doing. But we all have to know what Jesus came up out of in Mt 3:16.

Once again, it's NOT time for D'ists. When ever the Bible says something, it's not ready for the public until the D'ists have come and inserted NOT in the verse. So here on Mt 3:16, we will find out that Jesus did NOT come up out of water.
 

Right Divider

Body part
I'm not anti-scholarship like you.
I'm not "anti-scholarship", I just don't put it ahead of the Biblical definitions like you.

Yes, He was immersed into the the afflictions and sufferings to which He voluntarily submitted on the Cross.
The Bible says that we are baptized into HIS DEATH. I can see that you don't know what that means.

Do you think that He was merely sprinkled into those sufferings?
Please show us all the Biblical TEXT that shows that we are baptized into his sufferings.

That is a different Greek word which doesn't mean immersed or submerged.
baptismos is a "different Greek word"?

You'll do anything, even lie, to try to make your stories true.
 

Right Divider

Body part
That doesn't matter as much as mt 3:16, but then these are D'ists reading the Bible which means it will come out inside down.
This is a classic example of reading your own meaning INTO the text.... just like you do ALL of the time!

Water is ALWAYS at the lowest point on the land, as it is heavier than air. The TEXT does NOT say that Jesus was dunked.

"Down into the water" can just was well be understood as up to his ankles.
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
Well, if you had read scripture, you would know that the noble thing to do would be to search the scriptures daily, not search Josephus.





lol, I hardly ever do Josephus. You are just as silly up close on details and prejudices as you seem to be from a distance.

The 'end of the age' message of Jesus is for that generation, especially as we know so much of it is in Luke and locked in time in Luke 23 (the nursing babies as adults), and Luke was transcribing Paul.

The end of the world was expected right after with the allowance that it might be delayed, and was delayed. The destruction of jerusalem was not delayed.

Only D'ists look at the material with their NOT glasses on and keep missing what it is saying.
 

turbosixx

New member
Can't see what the different way is.

This might be a clue: by the end of the day, there were 3000 believers. Without PA systems, it is hard to imagine one person's speech reaching that many people at once. So all those listening at 9am probably went to speak to others, empowered by the Spirit though not necessarily in other languages. They would have spoken in other languages if the others were the visitors from all over the empire. The important thing is they kept repeating and speaking the message so that the total was 3000 believers by the end of the day.

The apostles received the Holy Spirit with no mention of baptism and it was evident by speaking in tongues.
Acts 2:1 When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place. 2 And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. 3 And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested[a] on each one of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.

When Peter preached the gospel, he tells them to be baptized and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
We do not see them speaking in tongues. It says they were in awe by what the apostles did.
Acts 2:43 And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles.

We do not see anyone receiving the Holy Spirit and evident by speaking in tongues again until Cornelius. When Peter says they received the Holy Spirit like "us at the beginning" it has to be the apostles because it's exactly the same.

Cornelius was a special situation to prove the to the Jews that without any doubt the Gentiles were to be included.
Acts 11:15 As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning. 16 And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17 If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God's way?” 18 When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life.”

Anyway, that's the way I understand it.
 

Danoh

New member
I did show several passages that are built on what post-exile Judaism was doing, not direct OT passages. That's the point: that the NT is making use of what 1st century Pharisee Judaism was attempting but which lacked any reality--until John came. You don't know what you are talking about and are pompous.

You have to know why Qumran and Masada had their ritual pools. I believe there was also one at the temple. the main indicator is Mt 3:16, just quoted about 5 times in exchanges here (I don't know what you are reading but it seems to be neither the Bible nor TOL) and you have to answer for yourself: what did Jesus come up out of in Mt 3:16?

I can concede some of that...Titus 1:13A.

On The Mikveh Trail

https://www.timesofisrael.com/on-th...e-rugged-path-of-jerusalems-ancient-pilgrims/

Rom. 5:6-8
 
Last edited:

Danoh

New member
Can't see what the different way is.

This might be a clue: by the end of the day, there were 3000 believers. Without PA systems, it is hard to imagine one person's speech reaching that many people at once. So all those listening at 9am probably went to speak to others, empowered by the Spirit though not necessarily in other languages. They would have spoken in other languages if the others were the visitors from all over the empire. The important thing is they kept repeating and speaking the message so that the total was 3000 believers by the end of the day.

Amusingly, all you have just done once more, is nicely illustrated the hole I often find behind very the basis of many of your various assertions.

In the above, for example, you went from "its hard to imagine" "so...probably," to "they would have," to "is."

Revealing by that, that as you read Acts 2's narrative but found it did not make sense to you (which is actually due to where you actually look at things from to begin with - absent of much more of Scripture's overall narrative on one thing or another), you worked your own math into Acts 2's narrative to where you finally arrived at a "sense" that does make sense - to you.

Not that you are alone in this repeated error in study approach of yours - those who claim the Spirit led them to their various, obvious mis-fires in interpretation, also always evidence your same erroneous "study approach" in their own assertions, as well.

Likewise, the various Acts 9 / Acts 28 Hybrids as supposed MADs whose many errors having been creeping into many of the weaker, more "books based" Mid-Acts groups out there.

The Hybrids repeatedly evidencing your same building a thing from within one's own vacuum and guessing at.

Though, in their case, many of their proponents often evidence poor parsing skills to begin with, beginning with their own North American English writing and speaking skills, as one cause of their many errors.

Amusing, as much as you fight their ever knowing it all kind on here, you continually evidence nothing more than what is obviously your own version of their guessing at approach.

:chuckle:

Rom. 5: 6-8.
 

Danoh

New member
The apostles received the Holy Spirit with no mention of baptism and it was evident by speaking in tongues.
Acts 2:1 When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place. 2 And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. 3 And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested[a] on each one of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.

When Peter preached the gospel, he tells them to be baptized and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
We do not see them speaking in tongues. It says they were in awe by what the apostles did.
Acts 2:43 And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles.

We do not see anyone receiving the Holy Spirit and evident by speaking in tongues again until Cornelius. When Peter says they received the Holy Spirit like "us at the beginning" it has to be the apostles because it's exactly the same.

Cornelius was a special situation to prove the to the Jews that without any doubt the Gentiles were to be included.
Acts 11:15 As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning. 16 And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17 If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God's way?” 18 When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life.”

Anyway, that's the way I understand it.

And you're as off on some of that as Interplanner is in HIS version of it.

But at least Interplanner has always revealed a clear understanding of Paul's justification by faith (even though IP erroneously reads it into passages in Scripture that are not asserting it - this being because even his understanding of justification by faith ever evidences a books based learning, and an over-reliance on the teachings of men ends one up at their same reasoning into a thing, mixed in with what little such men did get right, and or had merely been parroting that someone prior to them had gotten right).

In contrast, you hold to works for salvation (water baptism; enduring unto the end, and all the other errors your kind hold to).

Meaning, if you're not even saved to begin with, there isn't much point in sorting out all these other issues you are ever going back and forth with others about on here - lost you remain if you are adding works to justification by faith.

In which case, Rom. 5:6-8 towards you.
 

turbosixx

New member
And you're as off on some of that as Interplanner is in HIS version of it.

But at least Interplanner has always revealed a clear understanding of Paul's justification by faith (even though IP erroneously reads it into passages in Scripture that are not asserting it - this being because even his understanding of justification by faith ever evidences a books based learning, and an over-reliance on the teachings of men ends one up at their same reasoning into a thing, mixed in with what little such men did get right, and or had merely been parroting that someone prior to them had gotten right).

In contrast, you hold to works for salvation (water baptism; enduring unto the end, and all the other errors your kind hold to).

Meaning, if you're not even saved to begin with, there isn't much point in sorting out all these other issues you are ever going back and forth with others about on here - lost you remain if you are adding works to justification by faith.

In which case, Rom. 5:6-8 towards you.

We are not saved by works. What work/s can anyone possible do to earn salvation?
 

Catholic Crusader

Kyrie Eleison
Banned
The Bible forms an organic whole. It is the story of Salvation History and it is for all people. Certain parts are not just for certain peoples. That is a vile heresy.
 

turbosixx

New member
You should believe everything that the Bible says and IN ITS PROPER CONTEXT.

But you don't.

I totally agree. I believe this is the context.

15 And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation

That's everyone, not just the Jews.
 
Top