ECT The Gospel Proper

[turbosixx]

The seeming specifics you focus on are those of an amateur.

Which is one big reason why there is no getting through to you - you actually believe you know what you are doing when you focus on the wrong details.

Until you actually bother to attempt to trace out the origin of water baptism in the OT, you will not properly understand what a lot of passages in the NT like "to make ready a people prepared for the Lord" Luke 1:17, are actually talking about, and thus, their connection to the OT's water ritual.

Oh, you'll respond to this post with your own ideas. That's a given.

But all that is, is your need to show that you know a thing or two.

The very impulse in you that circumvents what you should have long done by now - gotten - in - the - OT - and - studied - out - THERE - ISRAEL'S - DIVERS (many and diverse) - WASHINGS.

For "To the law and to the testimony:" Turbo - "if" you "speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in" you on it - Isaiah 8:20.

You clearly haven't THEIR (the Law and the Prophets') light on this issue.

Acts 17:11, 12.

This is another thing that gets me. Instead of reading what the NT writers actually say about baptism, that is strongly ignored in favor of OT washings. I am familiar with the OT, not an expert but familiar enough to understand those things are a shadow of the things we have IN Christ.



Answer this question then I might actually believe you know what you're talking about. If you can't answer it, then what you're selling doesn't add up and I have no respect for your opinion.

IF Paul was sent not to baptize and baptism is not part of "his" gospel, for what reason did he repeatedly baptize believers just as Jesus instructed and just like everyone else?

 

[Rosenritter]

Funny post, that was.

I said what I said, based on the many passages I posted on it.

In contrast, your reply evidences the same old, ever obvious "this guy got all that from reading books supposedly about it, which he now reads into it."

Your kind all evidence that sort of thing, all the time - your notions and that of the endless books "about" you have all clearly weaned yourselves on, in your ignorance that that is how one studies the Bible - via endless books "about" it.

There are books confirming what I just told you? I wasn't aware of any. Tell me, what are they?

 

[Danoh]

This is another thing that gets me. Instead of reading what the NT writers actually say about baptism, that is strongly ignored in favor of OT washings. I am familiar with the OT, not an expert but familiar enough to understand those things are a shadow of the things we have IN Christ.



Answer this question then I might actually believe you know what you're talking about. If you can't answer it, then what you're selling doesn't add up and I have no respect for your opinion.

IF Paul was sent not to baptize and baptism is not part of "his" gospel, for what reason did he repeatedly baptize believers just as Jesus instructed and just like everyone else?

No, what gets you is your cluelessness about your ignorance.

For much of Matthew thru John are Old Testament ground.

Hebrews 9:17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

And the Lord does not die in those four books until their very end.

Which is why He reminds them to do things the Law had commanded them to, as in the following...

Matthew 8:1 When he was come down from the mountain, great multitudes followed him. 8:2 And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. 8:3 And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed. 8:4 And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

If you bothered with the OT, you would automatically know - "by reason of use" - that is a part of ISRAEL'S "instruction in righteousness" per Leviticus 14.

Much of Matthew thru John are...Old Testament ground.

That is what our assertions about its water baptism being Old Testament based, are founded on.

The problem is your willful ignorance.

Hebrews 5:13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. 5:14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

Until you understand the OT on water baptism, there is no point in attempting to sort out its practice in the book of Acts.

Not with someone as willfully ignorant on the obvious as you have continued to be.

Passages in Hebrews and so on, tell you that much of Matthew thru John are OT ground.

Duh-uh.

Romans 5:6-8.

 

[Danoh]

There are books confirming what I just told you? I wasn't aware of any. Tell me, what are they?

Must be why your kind all parrot the same old "one size fits all" readings into the passages.

Nope.

Not buying your professed wisdom was not store bought.

Not for a minute - no matter how well intentioned you might be.

Isaiah 8:20.

 

[Idolater]

No, what gets you is your cluelessness about your ignorance.

For much of Matthew thru John are Old Testament ground.

Hebrews 9:17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

And the Lord does not die in those four books until their very end.
. . .
Much of Matthew thru John are...Old Testament ground.

That is what our assertions about its water baptism being Old Testament based, are founded on.

And Matthew 28:19 KJV, being uttered after the testator of the New Testament died, is on New Testament ground.

 

[Danoh]

John 1:21 And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No. 1:22 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? 1:23 He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias. 1:24 And they which were sent were of the Pharisees. 1:25 And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?

Wonder why they know that whoever "that Prophet" was to be, he would be water baptizing them?

Yo, turbo, send them your memo - that they were not supposed to know about this supposed new development you wrongly assert THEIR water baptism supposedly was.

Hebrews 5:13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. 5:14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

Rom. 5:6-8.

 

[Danoh]

And Matthew 28:19 KJV, being uttered after the testator of the New Testament died, is on New Testament ground.

Given that your pagan RCC stole ISRAEL'S practice of a water ritual each time an Israelite would enter the Temple at Jerusalem and or a Synagogue, no thanks, you haven't a clue what Matthew 28: 19 is actually going on about.

Try Isaiah 2:1-5 after Matthew 24 finally takes place.

Try that, after you get saved that is.

For your pagan RCC is a works based heresy.

Romans five, verse one.

 

[Idolater]

And Matthew 28:19 KJV, being uttered after the testator of the New Testament died, is on New Testament ground.

Given that your pagan RCC stole ISRAEL'S practice of a water ritual each time an Israelite would enter the Temple at Jerusalem and or a Synagogue, no thanks, you haven't a clue what Matthew 28: 19 is actually going on about.

Try Isaiah 2:1-5 after Matthew 24 finally takes place.

Try that, after you get saved that is.

For your pagan RCC is a works based heresy.

Romans five, verse one.

So Matthew 28:19 KJV is on New Testament ground then?

 

[john w]

I suggest your context is to narrow as well. Water baptism started with John the Baptist to prepare the way for Jesus and it's a gospel of Christ ritual. If we start with John's and then go to Christ's we see the method doesn't change but it's purpose changes.

Why do you habitually lie? Your motivation? Water baptism did not start with the Baptist-it, "the water of separation," had its origins in the OT:

"And Aaron and his sons thou shalt bring unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and SHALT WASH THEM WITH WATER." Exodus 29:4 KJV


" And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,Take Aaron and his sons with him, and the garments, and the anointing oil, and a bullock for the sin offering, and two rams, and a basket of unleavened bread...And Moses brought Aaron and his sons, and washed them with water.... Leviticus 8:1-2 KJV,

"And Moses brought Aaron and his sons, and washed them with water" Leviticus 8:6

John 8 KJV
52 Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death. 53 Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself? 54 Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God: 55 yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. 57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? 58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

John 8:57 KJV Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

Why "the heck" would the Jewish leadership ask about "fifty years old?" And why does the Holy Bible take note "for our learning"(Romans 15:4 KJV) that the Lord Jesus Christ was "about thirty years of age"?

Luke 3:23 KJV And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

The bible...a book of details...


"From thirty years old and upward even until fifty years old, all that enter into the host, to do the work in the tabernacle of the congregation." Numbers 4:3 KJV
"From thirty years old and upward until fifty years old shalt thou number them; all that enter in to perform the service, to do the work in the tabernacle of the congregation." Numbers 4:30 KJV
"From thirty years old and upward even unto fifty years old, every one that entereth into the service, for the work in the tabernacle of the congregation…" Numbers 4:35 KJV
"From thirty years old and upward even unto fifty years old, every one that entereth into the service, for the work in the tabernacle of the congregation…" Numbers 4:39 KJV
"From thirty years old and upward even unto fifty years old, every one that entereth into the service, for the work in the tabernacle of the congregation,…" Numbers 4:43 KJV
"From thirty years old and upward even unto fifty years old, every one that came to do the service of the ministry, and the service of the burden in the tabernacle of the congregation." Numbers 4:47 KJV
"And from the age of fifty years they shall cease waiting upon the service thereof, and shall serve no more…" Numbers 8:25 KJV

Age 30 was the beginning age for service for the Levitcal priests, and 50 was the ending age:

"And the LORD spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying, Take the sum of the sons of Kohath from among the sons of Levi, after their families, by the house of their fathers…" Numbers 4:1-2 KJV


Thus, the "main Priest," the Lord Jesus Christ, arrives, at the Jordan, to be washed, anointed( and anointed with blood, later), and the Jewish leadership was not "surprised" at the washings, baptisms-it goes all the way back to the OT.

 

[glorydaz]

(10) Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

Paul doesn't say that we are under the law of Moses, or any of its rites or other traditions within that covenant, but he has no qualms telling us that we are supposed to to fulfill the law, that we are to accomplish the intent of those laws. Some people here (posting) seem to have a resistance to anything that Christ commands. I say that this should not be. If we love Him, if we truly have faith in him, will we not willingly obey always? And if he commands us to love each other and to even love our enemy, this is the gospel in one word. If you (or I) were to learn nothing else in this life, that would be the word to learn.

This is the way people put themselves under the law....by claiming they are commanded to do what only Jesus Christ could do for us. Love is the fulfilling of the law, but it wasn't your love, it was HIS, and it was fulfilled IN US...not by us.


Must there always be men seeking to steel the Glory of God by pretending their work was required on the cross? :sigh:

Romans 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: 4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.​

 

[Rosenritter]

No, what gets you is your cluelessness about your ignorance.
The problem is your willful ignorance.
Not with someone as willfully ignorant on the obvious as you have continued to be.
Duh-uh.

Great content.

 

[turbosixx]

No, what gets you is your cluelessness about your ignorance.

For much of Matthew thru John are Old Testament ground.

Hebrews 9:17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

And the Lord does not die in those four books until their very end.

Which is why He reminds them to do things the Law had commanded them to, as in the following...

Matthew 8:1 When he was come down from the mountain, great multitudes followed him. 8:2 And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. 8:3 And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed. 8:4 And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

If you bothered with the OT, you would automatically know - "by reason of use" - that is a part of ISRAEL'S "instruction in righteousness" per Leviticus 14.

Much of Matthew thru John are...Old Testament ground.

That is what our assertions about its water baptism being Old Testament based, are founded on.

The problem is your willful ignorance.

Hebrews 5:13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. 5:14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

Until you understand the OT on water baptism, there is no point in attempting to sort out its practice in the book of Acts.

Not with someone as willfully ignorant on the obvious as you have continued to be.

Passages in Hebrews and so on, tell you that much of Matthew thru John are OT ground.

Duh-uh.

Romans 5:6-8.

IF Paul was sent not to baptize and baptism is not part of "his" gospel, for what reason did he repeatedly baptize believers just as Jesus instructed and just like everyone else?

 

[Rosenritter]

Must be why your kind all parrot the same old "one size fits all" readings into the passages.

Nope.

Not buying your professed wisdom was not store bought.

Not for a minute - no matter how well intentioned you might be.

Isaiah 8:20.

Nope, I'm fairly sparing (or stingy) regarding buying any sort of theology book. The majority of my theology bookshelf was inherited and had stuff like "Peter Ruckman"* Speaking of which and putting together the pieces, it makes sense now where he gets his spirit seen in his writing. That force seem to manifest often from the MAD camp (this board, and others that I have seen.) I didn't realize they had that common factor until now.

* This post shall in no way be deemed to be supportive of Peter Ruckman.

 

[glorydaz]

Are you saying the gospels are not the same?

Of course they are not the same, and Peter makes it plain here.

Acts 10:35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.​

I understand that but what were the Gentiles grafted into? What was it?

Didn't you read Romans 11?

Romans 11:17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;

Romans 11:24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?​

The Olive Tree (The household of God).

Ephesians 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

Eph. 2:11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; 12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: 13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
​

What happens to those who are not of the remnant?

They were cut off for unbelief. But in the future, Israel can be grafted in again.

The proof I see that they converted Christians exactly the same is by reading what Peter preached and did to add people and then reading what Paul preached and did to add people. It's identical.

Did Paul say we had to work righteousness to be saved? Show me where you would find that.

 

[turbosixx]

Water baptism did not start with the Baptist-it, "the water of separation," had its origins in the OT:

I agree. Washings are found in the OT but they were VERY specific. For example for the priest and not just for anyone. They were for our learning to help us to understand Christ, just like you did a good job explaining that Jesus is the "main Priest".

Thus, the "main Priest," the Lord Jesus Christ, arrives, at the Jordan, to be washed, anointed( and anointed with blood, later), and the Jewish leadership was not "surprised" at the washings, baptisms-it goes all the way back to the OT.

Let me ask you, can Jesus the "main Priest" offer atonement for our sins under the law of Moses?

 

[turbosixx]

Of course they are not the same, and Peter makes it plain here.

Acts 10:35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.​

I'm sorry my bad. I thought you were a mind reader . I meant the gospels (Matt.-Jn.).

Didn't you read Romans 11?

Romans 11:17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;

Romans 11:24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?​

The Olive Tree (The household of God).

Ephesians 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

Eph. 2:11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; 12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: 13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
​

They were cut off for unbelief. But in the future, Israel can be grafted in again.

That is my understanding, the tree is God's people (household). What brought Jew and Gentile into the same household of God?

Did Paul say we had to work righteousness to be saved? Show me where you would find that.

All you have to do is point out one of Paul's conversions that shows he taught or did something different than the others. God has seen fit to give us several of his conversions.

 

[glorydaz]

IF Paul was sent not to baptize and baptism is not part of "his" gospel, for what reason did he repeatedly baptize believers just as Jesus instructed and just like everyone else?

Paul did NOT repeatedly baptize, and the few he did baptize were saved under the Kingdom program, not under Paul's Gospel of Grace that did not require water baptism.

 

[glorydaz]

I'm sorry my bad. I thought you were a mind reader . I meant the gospels (Matt.-Jn.).

Now there's an easy one. Just follow the IFs.

Faith plus works were required for salvation in the Kingdom Gospel.
The Gospel of Grace was through faith alone....without works.

In the Kingdom Gospel, loving your neighbor was required Luke 10:27-28, forgiving others was required Matt. 6:14-15, doing the will of the Father was required Matt. 7:21, confessing sins was required. NOTICE the IF.

1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.​

And on an on...

That is my understanding, the tree is God's people (household). What brought Jew and Gentile into the same household of God?

The Gospel of Grace which was preached by Paul....neither Jew nor Greek.

All you have to do is point out one of Paul's conversions that shows he taught or did something different than the others. God has seen fit to give us several of his conversions.

Paul preached the Gospel of Salvation. We are saved by the PREACHING OF THE CROSS....plus nothing. That is how men are converted now.

1 Corinthians 15:1-4
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:​

1 Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

 

[john w]

I agree. Washings are found in the OT but they were VERY specific. For example for the priest and not just for anyone. They were for our learning to help us to understand Christ, just like you did a good job explaining that Jesus is the "main Priest".

No, you don't, as you are changing your story, back peddling, side stepping, doing the hokey pokey, spinning "context"(which can be employed, carefully) on every other post, are sloppy, lazy, in your choice of words, in presenting your argument/premise. To wit, you argued:

I suggest your context is to narrow as well. Water baptism started with John the Baptist to prepare the way for Jesus and it's a gospel of Christ ritual.

Knock it off. That is what you asserted-you made it up.

And what was happening, at the Jordan River, when John the Baptist was baptizing?:

John's baptism was not something "new"-conversely, it was a ceremony thoroughly understood by those who read the scripture(or should have been understood-hence, the Lord Jesus Christ's piercing question to someone who should have understood: "...Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not of these things?"-John 3:10 KJV), and to whom he ministered.

Water baptism did not begin with John the Baptist. In the Holy Bible we are able to trace its development, and we discover that water baptism is a ceremonial cleansing pertaining exclusively to the kingdom promised to the nation Israel, and at river Jordan was "the initiation rights," for the kingdom of priests, comprised of the believing remnant of the nation Israel.
The only priesthood that will be recognized in the future on earth, during the millennial kingdom, will be from the nation of Israel-this has no reference to the Body Of Christ in this dispensation:


Survey...
" And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel." Exodus 19:6 KJV

"Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." 1 Peter 2:5 KJV

"But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light...." 1 Peter 2:9 KJV

"But ye shall be named the Priests of the LORD: men shall call you the Ministers of our God: ye shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, and in their glory shall ye boast yourselves." Isaiah 61:6 KJV

"But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light; "And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen." Revelation 1:6 KJV

"And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth." Rev. 5:10 KJV

"Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years." Rev. 20:6 KJV

Let me ask you, can Jesus the "main Priest" offer atonement for our sins under the law of Moses?

You can ask all you want, but I'm no Forest Gump, who falls for your MO on TOL-bait'nswitch, change the subject, create a moving target, move the goal posts. I stay on the topic presented, in an argument, and ignore your "hit and run's."

 

[turbosixx]

Paul did NOT repeatedly baptize, and the few he did baptize were saved under the Kingdom program, not under Paul's Gospel of Grace that did not require water baptism.

His last conversion recorded, he baptized believers just as everyone else did. Why would he do it at all?