The Singular Factor In Coming To God Through Christ.

[Truther]

Actually, it's largely just been assembled in historical fashion. Obviously, the gospel accounts of Jesus and the Apostles flow historically into the ascension of Jesus into heaven in the book of Acts and the ministry of the Apostles. And then into the ministry of Paul.

It was assembled in a particular order such as this...

Take a sinner to the gospels to give them something to believe in.

Then take the sinner to Acts 2:38 as they repent, so they can obtain remission of sins per water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ(and also become Spirit filled).

Then, as they qualified for sainthood, read them the Epistles which are letters written specifically to them as saved persons per Acts 2:38.


This is something you cannot learn in seminary, but they spend 8 years teaching it backwards(skipping Acts).

 

[Truther]

It was literally impossible for me to be water baptized when I heard and responded to the gospel. He honored the situation and circumstances I was in at that time. But most of all he honored my FAITH and did not hold baptism against me as a legalistic hurdle to receiving the Spirit in salvation. I would not do such an loving thing to my son. How much more, God, who loves his children infinitely more.

Is Acts 2:38 Grace or Law?

 

[Ferris Bueller]

Yes, but in the nameless titles, like the Catholics are.

Do you really think there is some kind of confusion on God's part as to what Son is being referred to when people are baptized the way Jesus said to baptize? ↓↓↓

"...baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" Matthew 28:19​

Probably not, I'm guessing.

 

[Curtis]

"the last will be first, and the first will be last." Matthew 20:16

Actually, Jesus said many - not all - who are first shall be last, and Vice versa.

Many who we think have earned the highest level of reward in heaven will find that most of their apparent good works are burned up as dross, and they will enter heaven with the least reward in heaven.

BTW the highest level of reward in heaven is martyrdom, which is why scripture says many believers refused deliverance so as to obtain a higher reward in heaven.

Maranatha

 

[Curtis]

Is Acts 2:38 Grace or Law?

The new covenant started with the death of Jesus. The old was superseded at that time. And Acts 2 is post resurrection of Jesus.

Not to mention Acts 2 is the start of the Christian church - 3,000 were added to the church in Acts 2.

 

[dev553344]

Questions to anyone...

What is the name of the Father?

What is the name of the son?

What is the name of the Holy Ghost?

What is the name of the Son? It isn't Jesus the Christ, that's a name assigned to him in the english language or somethign along those lines. You're probably baptized with a made up name for the son. But he has many names: List of Scriptural Names of Jesus Christ - References based on the King James Version of the Bible (KJV)

But Jesus' name in Hebrew was “Yeshua” which translates to English as Joshua.

@Truther Would that make you feel you need to get re-baptized per acts 2:38 with the correct name then so you can believe your saved.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

Is Acts 2:38 Grace or Law?

Grace.
But your doctrine makes it law. I do not see any difference between what you teach and saying one has to merit salvation through the acceptable and approved performance of a Sabbath day or a Passover.

 

[Truther]

Do you really think there is some kind of confusion on God's part as to what Son is being referred to when people are baptized the way Jesus said to baptize? ↓↓↓

"...baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" Matthew 28:19​

Probably not, I'm guessing.

Now, you recently called Peter a heretic.

This is your red flag.

You oopsied here.

You know the only way to fix it is to know that Jesus, giving Peter the Keys, which he used in Acts 2(Jews), Acts 8(Samaritans) and Acts 10(Gentiles), was spot on.

So, as you admit that Peter was spot on, then you know that Peter and the rest in Acts always and only baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, never once alluding to(saying or commanding) "Father" or "Holy Ghost" titles during baptisms.

They did not even once say "son".

They only baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

Are they all heretics or is your source heretical?

 

[Truther]

The new covenant started with the death of Jesus. The old was superseded at that time. And Acts 2 is post resurrection of Jesus.

Not to mention Acts 2 is the start of the Christian church - 3,000 were added to the church in Acts 2.

The new covenant started in Acts 2 officially.

The Holy Ghost was poured out in Acts 2.

The prerequisites were all met at His death.

 

[Truther]

What is the name of the Son? It isn't Jesus the Christ, that's a name assigned to him in the english language or somethign along those lines. You're probably baptized with a made up name for the son. But he has many names: List of Scriptural Names of Jesus Christ - References based on the King James Version of the Bible (KJV)

But Jesus' name in Hebrew was “Yeshua” which translates to English as Joshua.

@Truther better get re-baptized per acts 2:38 with the correct name then so you can believe your saved.

No, "Iesous" was given to Joseph/Mary.

"Yeshua" was made in China.

 

[Truther]

Grace.
But your doctrine makes it law. I do not see any difference between what you teach and saying one has to merit salvation through the acceptable and approved performance of a Sabbath day or a Passover.

Okay, since you say Acts 2:38 is Grace, is it works?

 

[dev553344]

No, "Iesous" was given to Joseph/Mary.

"Yeshua" was made in China.

So what name were you baptized with? Please be specific so we can assess whether you followed Acts.

 

[Truther]

So what name were you baptized with? Please be specific so we can assess whether you followed Acts.

Jesus.
God heard it.
It sounds just like Iesous.
That is how languages mimic each other.

Yashua or Yahweh is absolutely some other name that has zero similarity.

You might as well say "kangaroo".

 

[Curtis]

What is the name of the Son? It isn't Jesus the Christ, that's a name assigned to him in the english language or somethign along those lines. You're probably baptized with a made up name for the son. But he has many names: List of Scriptural Names of Jesus Christ - References based on the King James Version of the Bible (KJV)

But Jesus' name in Hebrew was “Yeshua” which translates to English as Joshua.

@Truther better get re-baptized per acts 2:38 with the correct name then so you can believe your saved.

God inspired the New Testament to be written in Koine Greek - and in the Greek manuscripts, Messiah is called Iesous, His name in Greek.

Not surprisingly, the apostles did not insert Hebrew into their Greek writings, thus neither Yehoshua nor Joshua are found there, but are completely absent.

Since you’re such a stickler for doing things exactly right, you need to be baptized in the name of Iesous, just as the New Testament calls Him.

Shalom

 

[dev553344]

Jesus.
God heard it.
It sounds just like Iesous.
That is how languages mimic each other.

Yashua or Yahweh is absolutely some other name that has zero similarity.

You might as well say "kangaroo".

The point is that you were not baptized with his given name. So you were baptized with the name assigned to him. So if that is the case then what is wrong with using some of his other names, like Son of God.

 

[dev553344]

God inspired the New Testament to be written in Koine Greek - and in the Greek manuscripts, Messiah is called Iesous, His name in Greek.

Not surprisingly, the apostles did not insert Hebrew into their Greek writings, thus neither Yehoshua nor Joshua are found there, but are completely absent.

Since you’re such a stickler for doing things exactly right, you need to be baptized in the name of Iesous, just as the New Testament calls Him.

Shalom

Yes but I'm not the stickler, @Truther is making that argument. I was happily baptized in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Per:

Matthew 28:19
“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:”

 

[Truther]

God inspired the New Testament to be written in Koine Greek - and in the Greek manuscripts, Messiah is called Iesous, His name in Greek.

Not surprisingly, the apostles did not insert Hebrew into their Greek writings, thus neither Yehoshua nor Joshua are found there, but are completely absent.

Since you’re such a stickler for doing things exactly right, you need to be baptized in the name of Iesous, just as the New Testament calls Him.

Shalom

Jesus..Iesous...same thing.

 

[Truther]

The point is that you were not baptized with his given name. So you were baptized with the name assigned to him. So if that is the case then what is wrong with using some of his other names, like Son of God.

That is a title.

 

[Curtis]

The new covenant started in Acts 2 officially.

The Holy Ghost was poured out in Acts 2.

The prerequisites were all met at His death.

Sorry, but Hebrews 9 calls the New Testament (covenant) the last will and testament of Jesus, and that as with all wills, it took effect at His death:

Heb 9:15 Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant.

Heb 9:16 For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established.

Heb 9:17 For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive.

Heb 9:18 Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood.

Shalom Aleichem

 

[dev553344]

That is a title.

What if I used his name Emmanuel? Would you consider that incorrect? Matthew 1:23 “Behold, a virgin shall be with child and shall bring forth a Son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel” (which being interpreted is, “God with us”).