Acts 2:38 Comparison: Evangelical vs. Oneness / Baptismal-Regeneration View

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
ChristRoseFromTheDead said:
The Eunuch may have been a proselyte, but he was not an Israelite because it was against the law for him to be a part of Israel as the verse I posted earlier shows. Therefore he was a gentile. There were 2 types of proselytes: proselytes of the gate (God fearers) and proselytes of righteouness. The latter had to get circumcised and keep the law of Moses, which made him a member of Israel (which the eunuch could not do); and the former merely had to observe certain synagogue rules (Acts 15:29) to be able to worship in synagogues.

You keep repeating this about not being lawful to assocaite with gentiles, but it's not true because the law of Moses did not forbid Israelites from associating with gentiles. It was an oral tradition of the pharisees.
Click to expand...

I never said the eunuch was an ethnic Israelite. I said, he was a proselyte.

A proselyte is not an ethnic Israelite. A proselyte is a Gentile attached to Israel’s covenant. You're confusing ethnicity with covenant status. The eunuch was a Gentile proselyte, not a pagan Gentile.

Scripture explicitly allows Gentiles to join Israel through conversion:
Ex 12:48–49, One law for the native and the stranger.
Num 15:14, 16, As you do, so shall he do… one ordinance.
Deut 31:12, the stranger is commanded to attend covenant assemblies.

""He couldn’t be circumcised, so he wasn't a proselyte of righteousness."" This is another category error.

The Law distinguishes: Eunuchs were physically unable to be circumcised & foreigners (who refuse circumcision) The eunuch is the 1st category & unable, not unwilling.

Isa 56:3–5 is literally God saying: Eunuchs who join My covenant are welcome.

""Acts 15:29 proves he was only a God‑fearer.""" NO! Acts 15:29 is written 20 years later, for Gentile believers in Christ, not for proselytes under Moses.

The eunuch was worshiping under the Mosaic covenant, not the Acts 15 decree. He was obeying Deut 16:16, which required all covenant males — including proselytes — to attend pilgrimage feasts. Acts 15 has zero relevance to Acts 8

""The Law of Moses didn’t forbid associating with Gentiles — it was just Pharisee tradition."" NPOE! This is historically and biblically false.

Peter, a Galilean fisherman, not a Pharisee says "UNLWFUL"

Acts 10:28 Peter does not say: Our traditions say, The Pharisees teach, We were told not to, He says UNLAWFUL

the Greek word athemitos, meaning: forbidden, taboo, against the law, not permitted.

John 18:28 shows the same purity logic: This is not Pharisee tradition. This is Jewish purity law as practiced by all Jews. If you're right (YOU'RE NOT). Then: Peter was wrong, John was wrong, Luke was wrong. All Jews in the Gospels misunderstood their own law. Give me a break!
 
FlyingDove said:
A proselyte is not an ethnic Israelite. A proselyte is a Gentile attached to Israel’s covenant.
Click to expand...

Only proselytes who converted by becoming circumcised were in the covenant. That is what the whole controversy was about in Acts 15. The pharisees said proselytes had to become circumcised to be saved; James said no, they could remain proselytes of the gate
 
FlyingDove said:
The Law distinguishes: Eunuchs were physically unable to be circumcised & foreigners (who refuse circumcision) The eunuch is the 1st category & unable, not unwilling.
Click to expand...

lol that's not what the law says. It says those maimed in the nuts or castrated could not enter the assembly of Israel.
 
FlyingDove said:
Isa 56:3–5 is literally God saying: Eunuchs who join My covenant are welcome.
Click to expand...

Isaiah was prophesying of the future acceptance of eunuchs into the assembly of the lord through the cross. That is why the story of Philip and the eunuch in Acts 8 is so beautiful. He was the one of the first gentiles to be saved. Isaiah couldn't have been talking about his time because he had no authority to change the law, which forbade eunuchs
 
FlyingDove said:
The eunuch was worshiping under the Mosaic covenant, not the Acts 15 decree. He was obeying Deut 16:16, which required all covenant males — including proselytes — to attend pilgrimage feasts. Acts 15 has zero relevance to Acts 8
Click to expand...

It doesn't say anywhere that he was a covenant proselyte or that it was a feast. He may have just gone there to pay his respects and worship.
 
FlyingDove said:
""The Law of Moses didn’t forbid associating with Gentiles — it was just Pharisee tradition."" NPOE! This is historically and biblically false.

Peter, a Galilean fisherman, not a Pharisee says "UNLWFUL"
Click to expand...

Peter was under the sway of the pharisees' teachings. I know there's nothing in the law of Moses that forbade associating with gentiles. Put your money where your mouth is and show the verse.
 
FlyingDove said:
The eunuch was worshiping under the Mosaic covenant, not the Acts 15 decree. He was obeying Deut 16:16, which required all covenant males — including proselytes — to attend pilgrimage feasts. Acts 15 has zero relevance to Acts 8
Click to expand...

btw lots of gentiles went to Jerusalem to worship. That's why they had a court of the gentiles in the temple that was supposedly nearly 35 acres in area
 
ChristRoseFromTheDead said:
They absolutely weren't. They were imports from other nations who adopted the religion of Israel. Jesus himself said they weren't children of Israel, otherwise he wouldn't have said this.

These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Matthew 10:5-6​
Click to expand...
It is my understanding that the Samaritans were mixed Jew and Gentile.

The scripture you mention is making a distinction between the groups. Something else to consider is the order in which the salvation message was presented; Jews, Samaritans, Gentiles. When I was pondering this some time ago Paul's words popped into my mind. "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. (Gentile)" Rom. 1:16 Considering this fact, the Samaritans had to hear the salvation message before the full fledged Gentiles.
 
Wansvic said:
It is my understanding that the Samaritans were mixed Jew and Gentile.

The scripture you mention is making a distinction between the groups. Something else to consider is the order in which the salvation message was presented; Jews, Samaritans, Gentiles. When I was pondering this some time ago Paul's words popped into my mind. "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. (Gentile)" Rom. 1:16 Considering this fact, the Samaritans had to hear the salvation message before the full fledged Gentiles.
Click to expand...

I am seeing that, but only because the Samaritans were already familiar with the God of Israel and his word, even though their religion was filled with many errors. Likewise, the Ethiopian eunuch had a heart that was seeking God through scripture, so it was easy for God to reach him (Acts 8). Also Cornelius the Roman proselyte (Acts 10). Low hanging fruit, so to speak.
 
ChristRoseFromTheDead said:
Peter was under the sway of the pharisees' teachings. I know there's nothing in the law of Moses that forbade associating with gentiles. Put your money where your mouth is and show the verse.
Click to expand...

If your made up claim was true. Then scripture wouldn't recorded it!

Ok,

Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words: UNLAWFUL [ 1,,G111, athemitos ]
a late form for athemistos (themis, custom, right;" in classical Greek, "divine law"), "contrary to what is right," is rendered "an unlawful thing" (neuter) in Acts 10:28; in 1 Peter 4:3, "abominable."


Acts 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
(NOTE: Peter, directly cites UNLAWFUL for a Jew to keep company or to a gentile. But u claim he doesn't know what he's talking about)

Jn 18:28 Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.
(NOTE: John, if these Jews even went into this gentile hall of judgment. They would become unclean & couldn't eat the Passover meal

Try for once, to actually read the text. The Law of Moses DID forbid Israel from mixing with Gentile nations. Covenantally, domestically & ritually:

Torah separation laws (Deut 7:2–3; Lev 20:24–26) are exactly what produced the UNLAWFUL boundary Peter refers to in Acts 10:28

Purity laws (Lev 15, Num 19) that made Gentile homes a source of defilement. Jn 18:28

Passover restrictions (Num 9:6–7; Lev 7:20–21) that barred any unclean person from eating holy meals & you get the long‑standing Jewish practice of avoiding Gentile dwellings centuries before the Pharisees existed.

God breathed scripture records Peter a Galilean fisherman. He's NOT a Pharisee saying that entering a Gentile house IS UNLAWFUL.

If this boundary was merely Pharisee tradition, explain why Peter still believed it after Pentecost & why God had to override it by direct revelation. Sorry, Torah itself created the separation.
 
ChristRoseFromTheDead said:
The Eunuch may have been a proselyte, but he was not an Israelite because it was against the law for him to be a part of Israel as the verse I posted earlier shows. Therefore he was a gentile. There were 2 types of proselytes: proselytes of the gate (God fearers) and proselytes of righteouness. The latter had to get circumcised and keep the law of Moses, which made him a member of Israel (which the eunuch could not do); and the former merely had to observe certain synagogue rules (Acts 15:29) to be able to worship in synagogues.

You keep repeating this about not being lawful to assocaite with gentiles, but it's not true because the law of Moses did not forbid Israelites from associating with gentiles. It was an oral tradition of the pharisees.
Click to expand...

The Ethiopian eunuch owned an Isa scroll. Scrolls were sacred, hand‑copied items controlled by Jewish covenant authorities. If he were only a God‑fearer like Cornelius, he would not have owned a scroll & been reading Isaiah on the road. The scroll alone is proof he was a full convert. I've provided several law of Moses verse's. You provided: NO! Because you say so. I'll stick with recorded scripture.
 
FlyingDove said:
The Ethiopian eunuch owned an Isa scroll. Scrolls were sacred, hand‑copied items controlled by Jewish covenant authorities. If he were only a God‑fearer like Cornelius, he would not have owned a scroll & been reading Isaiah on the road. The scroll alone is proof he was a full convert. I've provided several law of Moses verse's. You provided: NO! Because you say so. I'll stick with recorded scripture.
Click to expand...

The Ethiopian eunuch was a man of great authority who was in charge of the queen's finances. He had the means to acquire a scroll. Maybe that was one of the reasons he went to Jerusalem, and he was reading his new possesion on his way home. The fact that he himself was reading it means that it was a Greek Septuagint and he was fluent in Greek.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back