'For' or 'because of' the remission of sins

[oldhermit]

Perhaps you mean 'causal' use?

Yes, you're right. LOL. I think I made that mistake every time I used that word. I shall have to correct that. Thank you for bring that to my attention.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Matthew 12:24 does not support Robertson's argument for the so-called 'casual' use of eis. He knows that will not work here. Here, eis express point action. The men of Nineveh repented "at" the preaching of Jonah. If Matthew had meant to say that they repented "because of" the preaching of Jonah, he could have used 'dia' since it is with the accusative case and that would have conveyed the idea of 'because of'. Instead, Matthew uses a word that never means 'because of'. In Matthew 26:28, Jesus says, "This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for (eis) the forgiveness of sins." This is the exact same construction as that of "be baptized for (eis) the remission of sins." Was Jesus blood shed because of the remission or to achieve the remission of sins?
There is nothing 'alleged' in what I am saying. What I am giving you are the simple grammatical facts.

You are agreed with yourself to contradict yourself, like in asking, '~Was Jesus blood shed because of the remission or to achieve the remission of sins?~'
'~because of the remission or to achieve the remission of sins~' is one and the same thing!

I am not trying to be condescending or rude but, so Greek has no synonyms or equivalents; only antonyms and opposites... '~If Matthew had meant to say that they repented "because of" the preaching of Jonah, he could have used 'dia' since it is with the accusative case and that would have conveyed the idea of 'because of'~' even though both 'eis' and 'dia' are '~with the accusative case and that would have conveyed the idea of 'because of'~'... man o man zippit mate, zippit!

 

[oldhermit]

Christiaan Gerhardus Ebersöhn
Many of his followers left Him because of the last (words of Jesus in verse 65) and no longer walked with Him.
John 6:66

The KJV says "From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him." The Greek says literally, "From that [time], many out of the disciples of him departed to the back and no longer with him walked." There is absolutely no justification for translating eis here as because. You do not substitute conjunctions for prepositions.

 

[oldhermit]

Of which '~verse~' do you speak?

Acts 2:38 of course.

 

[oldhermit]

No one as far as I can see except you talks about '~Matthew 12:24~'!

Perhaps you need to read more. There is not one translator or committee of translators who will render this as "because of" the preaching of Jonah. They know better.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

The KJV says "From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him." The Greek says literally, "From that [time], many out of the disciples of him departed to the back and no longer with him walked." There is absolutely no justification for translating eis here as because. You do not substitute conjunctions for prepositions.

. . .and I say to myself, Myself, zippit!

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Perhaps you need to read more. There is not one translator or committee of translators who will render this as "because of" the preaching of Jonah. They know better.

. . .zippit!

 

[oldhermit]

You are agreed with yourself to contradict yourself, like in asking, '~Was Jesus blood shed because of the remission or to achieve the remission of sins?~'
'~because of the remission or to achieve the remission of sins~' is one and the same thing!

If they are one in the same thing then 'because of" means to obtain or to achieve. Therefore, be baptized 'because of' or 'to achieve' the forgiveness of sins.

 

[farouk]

If they are one in the same thing then 'because of" means to obtain or to achieve. Therefore, be baptized 'because of' or 'to achieve' the forgiveness of sins.

In Acts 2.41 they were baptised because they were believers - having received his word gladly - rather than in order supposedly to become believers.

 

[oldhermit]

In Acts 2.41 they were baptised because they were believers - having received his word gladly - rather than in order supposedly to become believers.

Peter says they were to be baptized in order receive the remission of sin. This is the directional position of eis. Those who attempt to make eis mean 'because of' completely ignore the rules of grammar, both in Greek and in English. Yes, they believed and were therefore baptized but it at baptism that sin is removed.

 

[farouk]

Peter says they were to be baptized in order receive the remission of sin. This is the directional position of eis. Those who attempt to make eis mean 'because of' completely ignore the rules of grammar, both in Greek and in English. Yes, they believed and were therefore baptized but it at baptism that sin is removed.

I don't see how it can mean what you say. In Acts 2.41 they had already gladly received his word - indicating their saving faith - and so they were subsequently to believing baptised; they clearly didn't become baptised in order to become believers.

 

[oldhermit]

I don't see how it can mean what you say. In Acts 2.41 they had already gladly received his word - indicating their saving faith - and so they were subsequently to believing baptised; they clearly didn't become baptised in order to become believers.

That is a simple cause to effect process. Those who believed were baptized. Surely you understand that an unbeliever will not be baptized. What followed the completion of this process was the forgiveness of sin and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. We are not permitted to adjust the grammar of the text to comply with out soteriology, rather we must allow the language of the text impose its own soteriology upon us.

 

[farouk]

That is a simple cause to effect process. Those who believed were baptized. Surely you understand that an unbeliever will not be baptized. What followed the completion of this process received to things. The forgiveness of sin and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. We are not permitted to adjust the grammar of the text to comply with out soteriology, rather we must allow the language of the text impose its own soteriology upon us.

It would be to impose a reverse order on things if in Acts 2.41 we supposedly held that in order to be saved they were baptized; they clearly were baptized because they were saved. Baptism is a symbol.

 

[oldhermit]

It would be to impose a reverse order on things if in Acts 2.41 we supposedly held that in order to be saved they were baptized; they clearly were baptized because they were saved. Baptism is a symbol.

Yes, baptism is a symbol but not of the forgiveness of sin. It is a symbol of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Look. Grammatically, 'because of' cannot be used in the place of eis. First of all, eis NEVER, NEVER, NEVER means because of, not in NT Greek nor in classical Greek. Also, in Greek as well as in English, in order for 'because of' to be used, it must link two independent clauses. A clause must have both a noun and a verb. Remission and sin are both nouns but there is no verb thus "remission of sin" does not form an independent clause. 'Because of' the remission of sin is a gross violation of the rules of grammar that govern both languages. You are operating under the assumption that forgiveness of sin takes place at the point of a mental ascent of a set of facts - belief - but, more than once we are told that the only point at which sin is removed is in baptism. Read Paul's recount of his own conversion in Acts 22.

 

[farouk]

No; this would surely mean that the repentant thief on the cross was not forgiven if he could only be forgiven through baptism.

 

[oldhermit]

No; this would surely mean that the repentant thief on the cross was not forgiven if he could only be forgiven through baptism.

You have to remember that the thief died while still under the Law of Moses. Beside that, you are only assuming he was not baptized. He may very well have been baptized with the baptism of John which was also for the remission of sin. "And all the country of Judea was going out to him, and all the people of Jerusalem; and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins." Mark 1:5

 

[farouk]

You have to remember that the thief died while still under the Law of Moses. Beside that, you are only assuming he was not baptized. He may very well have been baptized with the baptism of John which was also for the remission of sin. "And all the country of Judea was going out to him, and all the people of Jerusalem; and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins." Mark 1:5

Faith was the operative principle there, not baptism.

 

[oldhermit]

None of this changes the conditions for the remission of sins Peter lays down in Acts 2:38. In Acts 22, Paul confirmed that he was commanded to be baptized in order to wash away his sins. There is no doubt he already believed from the time the Lord appeared to him. If his sins were forgiven at the point of belief then why was he commanded to be baptized to wash away his sins. Ananias informed him that he was still in his sins even though he had believed.

 

[oldhermit]

Christiaan Gerhardus Ebersöhn
Many of his followers left Him because of the last (words of Jesus in verse 65) and no longer walked with Him.
John 6:66

John 6:66 does not contain the word εἰς. The word translated "because of" is the ἐκ which is typically translated "out of."