Right Divider
Body part
Where do you get these crazy ideas?
ECT Spiritual Israel?
- Thread starter Danoh
- Start date
John 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?
John 4:9 Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.
John 4:22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
Seems to me you are off on your above about the Pharisees having a problem with a Jew being water baptized.
Some questions...
Why did the Lord refer to Nathaniel as an Israelite indeed?
Why does Paul refer to himself as an Israelite and a Jew?
Why does Paul use either label when referring to Jews and Israelites he is dealing with and or writing about?
Where is it in Scripture that water baptism is an adoption ceremony?
And I guess I'd hold, not so much to a 2P2P, or what have you, but more to one,Two-Fold Purpose within four dispensations - promise, law, mystery grace, and kingdom fullness.
But I tend to view Dispensationalism not so much as an issue of ages or economies, but more one of Identities between things that differ in Scripture.
Anyway, Rom. 14:5; and 5: 6-8.
Wick Stick
Well-known member
1st century Judah.
Right Divider
Body part
Big mistake.... Probably from Judas Iscariot.
Go with the Bible instead.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Right Divider
Body part
That is some very silly stuff. I can't believe that a smart guy like you buys that nonsense.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Four minutes between my post and your response. Sigh.
When you are willing and able to actually read substantively deconstruct the arguments therein, perhaps the discussion will proceed.
Right dividers. Sigh.
My kingdom for someone who grasps tolle lege.
AMR
Wick Stick
Well-known member
That first verse is the one I would have cited you in support of my point. I don't see how the other verses are related?
As nearly as I can tell, it was a recognition of the virtue already present in him. But that's just at a reading, right now. I haven't ever contemplated it before. If you have something to teach, by all means...
Paul was from the tribe of Benjamin, which was part of the southern kingdom. Thus, he was a Jew because he was from Judah.
He was an Israelite in the larger sense - that he was a descendant of Abraham, as it says in the verse.
The nomenclature can be confusing, because Israel can refer to either all the tribes, during their united period, or it can apply only to the northern kingdom. In many places, when the northern kingdom alone is meant, the phrase used is "house of Israel" rather than just "Israel." E.g. I am sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
I don't think he does. He begins several addresses with "men of Israel," but it appears to me that he has thus addressed his speech, because he is speaking to those who he anticipates will receive his word, or those who already have. "Jews," by contrast, is used wherever the opposite is the case, as in Acts 13:50.
John 3 - Jesus interaction with Nicodemus. You must be born again. What do you think "born again" means, if not adoption? Nicodemus wasn't sure, so Jesus spells it out for him... born of water and of the spirit. Is there any doubt that baptism is what it is view?
But really, the people in that day didn't need that explained to them, just as we don't need someone to explain that a wedding is a ceremony of marriage. The author of Hebrews says, "let's not go over the basics, like baptism, again..."
If you really wish to see it spelled out, there are some papyrii from the 1st century that describe the practice.
Alternately, ask your local rabbi about the process to become a Jewish proselyte. The Jews still baptize their converts. They baptize "in the name" of Abraham, meaning to add the proselyte to Abraham's family tree.
Let me break it down for you visually. A baby resides in the mother's womb, which is full of water. At birth, the water breaks, and the baby exits into the world. In baptism, one is brought underwater, and then made to come up and out. It's a picture, or re-enactment, of birth. Re-birth. The new birth. Born... again.
Thanks for asking the question.
Right Divider
Body part
I skimmed through the article enough so see the problems with it, Mr. BetterThanMe.
Wick Stick
Well-known member
I see that the village idiot is no longer missing.
Right Divider
Body part
Indeed, he's posting under the name Wick Stick.
Justify your "baptism is adoption" using the Word of God and not your vivid imagination.
Wick Stick
Well-known member
That's all you got? "I know you are but what am I?"
Feel free to read post #68, where I already did what you just asked me to do.
Now then, I think I'll spend my time talking to thoughtful, intelligent people who actually care about what they believe. Buh-bye.
Right Divider
Body part
For example, this is a LIE.
Lying a about someones position is a dirty trick that not be part of a "Christian" treatise of any kind.
Evil.Eye.*{@}*
New member
Your big claim to authority is “take up and read” per Augustine tradition? Take up and read what, exactly? What Kingdom is yours, exactly?
On my earlier thread that I erased much I wrote to you and closed... I bound scripture together that irrefutably shows Jesus is concerned with the Israel of Land and Jacobs Lineage.
It starts with Acts 1 and binds to Jesus’ words in Matthew and Luke, coupled with Romans 11 and followed through with Old Testament prophecy that Jesus affirmed had literal authority... in Acts 1.
You act as if Zechariah is a fulfilled book and as if scripture is beneath the writings of man. I’m rogue and not around much... but is that what theology students pay to learn? That the Holy Spirit that inspires men is so mute that only money can buy spiritual enlightenment that is good? That the Bible isn’t good enough and it’s words should be filtered through the ramblings of sinners?
Do people pay to hear that the entire Jewish Writings we know, are by Jews that God has “revoked” His unfailing Word towards... though in Romans 11 He assures His Word is unfailing?
You may dislike me as much as many others, but your methodology is paper thin.
Zionist King... Jesus! Jesus is the worlds peace offering and the 1 John 2:2 and Hebrews 2:9 of the matter... but that’s not enough! You want to usurp Israel as well!
Pardon my inconvenient observations, but no soup for you.
Maybe if you tolle lege... Scripture correctly... you will know what All means and what the Kingdom of God means... pertaining to Israel!
Right Divider
Body part
That post does not do what you seem to think that it does. No great surprise to me.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Evil.Eye.*{@}*
New member
Acts 1...
Acts 1:6 Then they gathered around him and asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?”
7 He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”
9 After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.
10 They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 11 “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”
Matthias Chosen to Replace Judas
12 Then the apostles returned to Jerusalem from the hill called the Mount of Olives, a Sabbath day’s walk from the city
Q.E.D.
Go to Zechariah to understand the implications... all else is absolutely a denial of scripture.
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
I read it that article in full, and found mostly the same old, same old assertions.
Other things I found slightly similar in understanding to the Acts 9 Position I hold to, more or less.
As I read that article, I at the same time attempted to study out throughout its assertions the study approach it appears to have been based on (via my application of a study principle implied in Rom. 1:20).
I found some areas of common ground in study approach here and there with the Acts 9 Position's study approach I more or less hold to.
But the article was largely a response to the Acts 2 Position within Dispensationalism.
I'm sure you're well aware that Reformed Theology's John Gerstner's lengthy book against Dispensationalism and say, Keith Mathison's smaller book, both of which are well known within, and highly thought of by Reformed Theology, each focus their writing against the Acts 2 Position within Dispensationalism.
Gerstner only devoting three or sentences in his entire book to even mentioning the Acts 9 Position, which he greatly confuses with, and as being, the Acts 28 Position.
But the fact of the matter is that within what are basically four positions within Dispensationalism in general, both each's overall study approach, and as a result, each's findings, will tend to differ in key areas.
At some point, your school is going to have to put away its forever parroted errors, and actually study out from people from within those four positions within Dispensationalism themselves, not only what exactly what each actually holds to, but how each arrived at it.
And good luck with that, as many within each of the four basic positions within Dispensationalism, are often found clueless as to what exactly their particular study approach is, that has them holding to what they each hold to on one thing or another.
Again, thanks for the article, I found it a worthwhile read.
Romans 14: 5 towards you - in memory of Romans 5: 6-8 - in each our stead.