Requirements of Salvation
- Thread starter BlessedCreator
- Start date
-
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.
My claim was that Scripture had no record of John ever ministering to the Gentiles. You have not presented any scripture that debunked that.
Other than Galatians 2:9, another point is that John had to follow the OT prophetic timetable, the nation Israel have to accept Jesus as their Messiah first, before the Gentiles can be reached by Jews. Luke's version of the great commission spelt that out too.
Since Israel never accepted their gospel throughout John's lifetime, the latter obviously did not happen. That was why Peter resisted going to Cornelius.
As for your final question, for one thing. Jews who believe still have to keep the Law, while Gentiles are exempted. This difference was clearly stated in Acts 21:20-25.
Other than Galatians 2:9, another point is that John had to follow the OT prophetic timetable, the nation Israel have to accept Jesus as their Messiah first, before the Gentiles can be reached by Jews. Luke's version of the great commission spelt that out too.
Since Israel never accepted their gospel throughout John's lifetime, the latter obviously did not happen. That was why Peter resisted going to Cornelius.
As for your final question, for one thing. Jews who believe still have to keep the Law, while Gentiles are exempted. This difference was clearly stated in Acts 21:20-25.
Which scripture? I have already explained that Gentiles are not saved now by John 3:16 and John 20:30-31. Only accepting by faith that Jesus died for our sins and rose again on the 3rd day will save us, that is the gospel in 1 Cor 15:1-4. You have not addressed that.
For your final point, if you read Acts 15 properly, Peter wanted the Jews to be exempted from the Law too, in verse 11, but James at the end only concluded that Gentiles who believed don't have to follow the Law (Verse 19).
Acts 21:20-25 confirmed that was the final conclusion of the Council.
For your final point, if you read Acts 15 properly, Peter wanted the Jews to be exempted from the Law too, in verse 11, but James at the end only concluded that Gentiles who believed don't have to follow the Law (Verse 19).
Acts 21:20-25 confirmed that was the final conclusion of the Council.
I am just reading what the text in Acts 15:7-11 is saying literally. We have to guess what Peter was actually thinking about when he stated vs11.
My belief is that the incident at Cornelius house alerted Peter that God was changing his dealings with Israel. Instead of Gentiles being saved thru Israel, God is now saving Gentiles independent of Israel, without the Gentiles having to follow the Law, without them having to be baptized.
But alas, James only allowed Gentiles to be exempted from the Law. As far as James is concerned, nothing has changed for the Jews wrt the Law of Moses. As I have stated, Acts 21:20-25, an event that happened more than 10 years after Acts 15, verified what James was saying as head of the Jerusalem assembly.
If James had agreed with Peter to exempt both Jews and Gentiles from the Law of Moses, as the latter suggested in Acts 15:11, perhaps the incident at Galatians 2 between Peter and Paul would not have happened, when the "men from James" arrived at the scene.
My belief is that the incident at Cornelius house alerted Peter that God was changing his dealings with Israel. Instead of Gentiles being saved thru Israel, God is now saving Gentiles independent of Israel, without the Gentiles having to follow the Law, without them having to be baptized.
But alas, James only allowed Gentiles to be exempted from the Law. As far as James is concerned, nothing has changed for the Jews wrt the Law of Moses. As I have stated, Acts 21:20-25, an event that happened more than 10 years after Acts 15, verified what James was saying as head of the Jerusalem assembly.
If James had agreed with Peter to exempt both Jews and Gentiles from the Law of Moses, as the latter suggested in Acts 15:11, perhaps the incident at Galatians 2 between Peter and Paul would not have happened, when the "men from James" arrived at the scene.
I'll let you chew on that one.
Going back to John, this sounds nothing like 'non Gospel' talk to me...
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. (Joh 5:24)
For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. (Joh 1:17)
Going back to John, this sounds nothing like 'non Gospel' talk to me...
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. (Joh 5:24)
For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. (Joh 1:17)
I agree with you. This was the Gospel of the Kingdom to the Jews as I have stated.
Paul stated in Romans 15:8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:
The gospel was for the Jews: their King, their promised Messiah has arrived in the flesh. He is to usher them to the Kingdom of Heaven on earth that would be set up with him sitting on David's throne in Jerusalem.
It was very good news to Israel, it was the gospel being preached in John (John 20:30-31), I agree with you in that fully. But, as the story in Acts goes, Israel has rejected their King. This is despite the many signs and wonders Jesus and the 12 displayed throughout.
But now, this is not the gospel that saves us. Ours is 1 Cor 15:1-4. I noticed you are not addressing this.
Paul stated in Romans 15:8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:
The gospel was for the Jews: their King, their promised Messiah has arrived in the flesh. He is to usher them to the Kingdom of Heaven on earth that would be set up with him sitting on David's throne in Jerusalem.
It was very good news to Israel, it was the gospel being preached in John (John 20:30-31), I agree with you in that fully. But, as the story in Acts goes, Israel has rejected their King. This is despite the many signs and wonders Jesus and the 12 displayed throughout.
But now, this is not the gospel that saves us. Ours is 1 Cor 15:1-4. I noticed you are not addressing this.
That's also the Gospel that saves the Jews...
But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
(Rom 3:21-30)
Paul had spent two chapters in Romans showing both Jew and Gentiles were guilty and fell short of God's righteousness.
Then puts forth in chapter 3 the redemption provided by God for both Jew and Gentile...same Gospel.
But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
(Rom 3:21-30)
Paul had spent two chapters in Romans showing both Jew and Gentiles were guilty and fell short of God's righteousness.
Then puts forth in chapter 3 the redemption provided by God for both Jew and Gentile...same Gospel.
Yes, ever since Israel rejected their King, in the Body of Christ, there is no longer any difference between Jews and Gentiles. I agree with you.
But Paul and the mysteries he revealed to us from the ascended Christ, did not exist during the time when John was telling us in the gospel of John, when Jesus was in the flesh.
You do agree with that right?
But Paul and the mysteries he revealed to us from the ascended Christ, did not exist during the time when John was telling us in the gospel of John, when Jesus was in the flesh.
You do agree with that right?
Yes I agree that Paul had revealed some mysteries (regarding the Church) that were beforehand obscure, but I disagree that the Church started with Paul. It started at Calvary;
foretold in Mt 16:18...
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.(Mat 16:18)
and purchased at Calvary...
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. (Act 20:28)
foretold in Mt 16:18...
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.(Mat 16:18)
and purchased at Calvary...
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. (Act 20:28)
So at least we agree that John 20:30-31 was not written to the Body of Christ.
It cannot be, since the gospel that is valid now for the Body of Christ is to believe that Jesus died for our sins and rose again for our justification, which is found in 1 Cor 15:1-4.
In John's purpose for his gospel, you cannot find 1 Cor 15:1-4 there. We can still learn from it, just like the rest of the OT.
It cannot be, since the gospel that is valid now for the Body of Christ is to believe that Jesus died for our sins and rose again for our justification, which is found in 1 Cor 15:1-4.
In John's purpose for his gospel, you cannot find 1 Cor 15:1-4 there. We can still learn from it, just like the rest of the OT.
LOL, You can excise Jn 20:30-31 from your bible if you want, but John (esp Jn 1:1 had been instrumental in convincing me of the truth about Jesus.
Vs 31 is a promise to all...
John 20:30-31 KJV
[30] And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: [31] But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
included would be Jn 1:1...
John 1:1 KJV
[1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Vs 31 is a promise to all...
John 20:30-31 KJV
[30] And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: [31] But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
included would be Jn 1:1...
John 1:1 KJV
[1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
This is totally untrue! John spoke and wrote a very simple kind of Greek. John, and 1,2,3 John are the easiest books in the NT to translate. When I was studying for the final of 1st year Koine Greek, we had 7 passages we had to translate, and also write down all the verb forms used in the passage. When I read the passage from John, I never went back, it was so easy. Revelation is harder, but he still uses syntax and word order of Hebrew, in the Greek text. These became known as "Hebraisms" and John was the only user of this, because his Greek wasn't very advanced. The consistency in his writing helps us to know they were written by the same author.
Further, there are NO extant, early Hebrew manuscripts of any book in the NT. Koine Greek was the Lingua Franca of the Roman Empire. It was one of the conditions God set up before the birth of Christ, so the gospel would spread rapidly, along with Pax Romana and safe roads and seas. Because almost everyone understood Greek, the writers of the Books of the NT wrote in Greek, so the maximum number of people in the Roman Empire would be able to read or hear the originals and copies. Even Matthew, who wrote to Hebrews, and the writer of Hebrews, did not use Hebrew. Hebrew was a dead language by the 1st century AD. The boys learned to read Hebrew in Torah school, but not many spoke it. Besides, Aramaic was the language used in the ancient near east, never Hebrew, in that area. Most Hebrews had lost their Hebrew by 300 BC, when the OT was translated from Hebrew into Greek. it wasn't till the 8th to the 10th centuries that the Masoretes added the vowel pointings to help with pronunciation.
The Romans employed many people and when they built a new city in that area, they used Hebrew craftsmen, like Joseph the carpenter, father of Jesus. It is likely Jesus also used Greek when working, before he began his ministry, as when Jesus was interrogated by Pontius Pilate, there is no translator mentioned. They both spoke in Greek!
Actually there were many gentiles looking to know God. The Roman centurion, the woman at the well (Samaria), the people in the Decapolis were mostly Gentiles, and Jesus healed a demon possessed Gentile man, who became a follower, when he was on the east side of the Sea of Galilee. Also the woman who begged Jesus to heal her daughter was a Gentile, and when Jesus implied Gentiles were dogs, she replied the dogs eat the food which has fallen From the Master's plate to the ground.
Jesus came for the Jews, but so many rejected him, that he opened up the gospel for everyone, which was always his purpose.
I suggest you read the Bible more, maybe learn Hebrew and Greek, and study some history, before you going throwing out utterly wrong statements about the Bible. The NT was written in Greek. No Hebrew at all. You need to look in the OT for Hebrew!!
Further, there are NO extant, early Hebrew manuscripts of any book in the NT. Koine Greek was the Lingua Franca of the Roman Empire. It was one of the conditions God set up before the birth of Christ, so the gospel would spread rapidly, along with Pax Romana and safe roads and seas. Because almost everyone understood Greek, the writers of the Books of the NT wrote in Greek, so the maximum number of people in the Roman Empire would be able to read or hear the originals and copies. Even Matthew, who wrote to Hebrews, and the writer of Hebrews, did not use Hebrew. Hebrew was a dead language by the 1st century AD. The boys learned to read Hebrew in Torah school, but not many spoke it. Besides, Aramaic was the language used in the ancient near east, never Hebrew, in that area. Most Hebrews had lost their Hebrew by 300 BC, when the OT was translated from Hebrew into Greek. it wasn't till the 8th to the 10th centuries that the Masoretes added the vowel pointings to help with pronunciation.
The Romans employed many people and when they built a new city in that area, they used Hebrew craftsmen, like Joseph the carpenter, father of Jesus. It is likely Jesus also used Greek when working, before he began his ministry, as when Jesus was interrogated by Pontius Pilate, there is no translator mentioned. They both spoke in Greek!
Actually there were many gentiles looking to know God. The Roman centurion, the woman at the well (Samaria), the people in the Decapolis were mostly Gentiles, and Jesus healed a demon possessed Gentile man, who became a follower, when he was on the east side of the Sea of Galilee. Also the woman who begged Jesus to heal her daughter was a Gentile, and when Jesus implied Gentiles were dogs, she replied the dogs eat the food which has fallen From the Master's plate to the ground.
Jesus came for the Jews, but so many rejected him, that he opened up the gospel for everyone, which was always his purpose.
I suggest you read the Bible more, maybe learn Hebrew and Greek, and study some history, before you going throwing out utterly wrong statements about the Bible. The NT was written in Greek. No Hebrew at all. You need to look in the OT for Hebrew!!
-
1
- Show all