Search results

No believer will be left behind .

I see that 'immimnecy 'simply means 'what's next '. What's next ,is the rapture .

A message of ' grace , forgiveness, redemption , and a free gift is good news to sinners .

Is it Just Acts 2 38 that needs a fresh Greek update ?

I don't believe it applies to anyone outside the Tribulation. The Church won't be there ,so it doesn't apply to the body of christ .

Yes ,its crazy gymnastics because certain commentators don't know what to do with the verse ,so of course they strain as hard as they can with ' the greek ' . The kjv is just fine . But interestingly enough, most versions translate it the same. Do you do the same with ALL verses or is it Just...

We should take Eph 1.13 . 1 cor 1.21 , Rom 10.9 . 1 cor15 1 -4 and many others and realise that Acts chapter's 2-28 is when God was transitioning From Israel to Samaritans to Gentile . And take Acts descritptively and not prescriptively . That way when we read the epistles we can see how a...

In the sense that it refers to similar things . What I mean is that Acts 2 is not referring to something other than Jesus and how God was transitioning with Israel and such .

" Pah ! so long as it says words that are loosely connected to what I already know and understand, I'm going to read this back into Acts 2 , because it has these familiar, similar words and terminology. Like repent , baptised, and such. Oh yes I'm going to believe something other than what...

You didn't answer any of my points . 1) What sin ? These are law abiding, Pork abstaining, Sabbath observing, Jews . Stealing , Fornication? Or Does Peter specifically tell them exactly what they need to repent of ( The clue is in the immediate verses ) 2) Baptised SO THAT you are able to...

Erm I've written the Op and responding at great length here .

Acts 2.38 is to be understood within its context ( first ) Otherwise your twisting what it means ,because your bringing in outside bias to the text . Which is eiesegesis.

1) Repented from what ? 2) Be baptised, when ? 3) They believed, what ? Do you see the problem with 'patchwork' hermanutics?

Details matter with God ,and man . Imagine preaching Water is necessary to recieve the Holy Spirit because I didn't pay attention to each exact word as was written ? Crazy right ?

I'm not 'tossing out ' scripture. But rather believing scripture verse by verse in its immediate context first. Then I move forward assuming the writer intended each verse to be understood within context every time . I don't read Acts 2 and Acts 28 as if nothing changed ,no transitions...

Then Gods word specifically has no weight with you ? Just so long as general sweeping ,over arching, stringing together of verses match church doctrine and tradition, that's what really matters?

BUT , the discoverable meaning of the chapter/book in question should be sought first with the text / verse in question . This is to avoid exactly what happens to verses such as Acts 2.38 . People do this all over place . Reading later books / revelation back into early books . Peter has no...

You don't point out the context . They ask " What must we DO " . Not " what must I do to be saved " . They have crucified their messiah ,that's specific . I don't tell unbelievers this today . There's no ' believe ' , There's no ' faith ' , no Rom 10.9 . There's barely anything in What Peter...

Show me a message to a gentile thats the same as Acts 2.38 ? Then show me where it is after Acts also . The most crucial teaching to the body of Christ and what we find is Eph 1.13 .

I disagree. And this is the problem with the majority of bible teaching today. Loosey goosey hermanutucs . Its like " ok Paul mentions Baptism over here , so if I take that and add it to where the bible mentioned repent , double back to where believe was said and mash them together, with no...