Baptism

[Once4all]

Aug 23, 2010 10:40:12 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

Once4all said:

Gentiles who were never under the Mosaic Law were baptized, so how can you say that it was Mosaic baptism?

Once,

Gentiles who had never heard the gospel were being justified APART from the observance of baptism. This means that baptism was not an absolute necessity otherwise God could not have justified them apart from the observance of it.

Roo

Hey, Roo, could you provide the Scriptures for that? Thanks.

[kangaroojack]

Aug 23, 2010 10:50:41 GMT -5 Once4all said:

Aug 23, 2010 10:36:14 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

Allyn,

The apostles were teaching the need for baptism and commanding it in the book of Acts. God was at the same time justifying Gentiles who did not have the law. He was justifying them APART from the observance of baptism.
This means that baptism was not an absolute necessity for all men but was for the Jew only until it had passed away.

Roo

Are you basing that on Cornelius? Who, of course, was baptized.

Once,

First, I am talking about the Gentiles who had not heard the gospel or had heard any instruction on baptism. God was justifying them according to a different standard which did not include the observance of the ordinance. This means that baptism was not an absolute necessity does it not? Please give me your take on Romans 2.

Second, the evidence seems to indicate that Cornelius was a Jewish proselyte and therefore he would not count as a "gentile."

Roo

[kangaroojack]

Aug 23, 2010 10:55:37 GMT -5 Once4all said:

Aug 23, 2010 10:40:12 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

Once4all said:
Once,

Gentiles who had never heard the gospel were being justified APART from the observance of baptism. This means that baptism was not an absolute necessity otherwise God could not have justified them apart from the observance of it.

Roo

Hey, Roo, could you provide the Scriptures for that? Thanks.

Romans 2. God was justifying Gentiles who had only the revelation of God in nature. They had not heard the gospel nor had they heard anything of baptism. Yet God justified them. Therefore, baptism was not an absolute necessity even when it was in force. If it had been an absolute necessity then God could not have justified them without it.

Roo

[Once4all]

Aug 23, 2010 11:06:52 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

Aug 23, 2010 10:55:37 GMT -5 Once4all said:

Hey, Roo, could you provide the Scriptures for that? Thanks.

Romans 2. God was justifying Gentiles who had only the revelation of God in nature. They had not heard the gospel nor had they heard anything of baptism. Yet God justified them. Therefore, baptism was not an absolute necessity even when it was in force. If it had been an absolute necessity then God could not have justified then without it.

Roo

Where does Romans 2 say they had not heard the gospel? The way I read it, Paul is addressing believers, both Jew and Gentile.

Just because in Romans 1:15 Paul writes that he is eager to preach the gospel to them, does not mean they have not already heard it. He calls them brethren in Romans 1:13, saints in Romans 1:7, and thanks God for their faith in Romans 1:8.

[Allyn]

Aug 23, 2010 10:34:33 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

Aug 22, 2010 13:41:12 GMT -5 Allyn said:

Hi Roo,

Thanks for the Hebrews 9 response, but that was not an answer to my question as far as I can tell.
Where does it say that the destruction of the temple was the sign that all external ordinances comprising the New Covenant had been done away with?

The PRESENT TIME spoken of by the writer was the time consisting of the temple sacrifices still in effect.

Hi Allyn,

Your reasoning is circular because you assume that baptism was a "new covenant" ordinance. Baptism was instituted by Moses. Please show how that it was a "new covenant" ordinance.

Thanks,

Roo

I think this is where you are confused between the old covenant use of baptism, which was strictly for purification of the flesh and not the heart. While the new covenant baptism is just the opposite. the old being the shadow of the new being the substance. It was not done away with but instead was newly established for the church.

[kangaroojack]

Aug 23, 2010 11:31:13 GMT -5 Once4all said:

Aug 23, 2010 11:06:52 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

Romans 2. God was justifying Gentiles who had only the revelation of God in nature. They had not heard the gospel nor had they heard anything of baptism. Yet God justified them. Therefore, baptism was not an absolute necessity even when it was in force. If it had been an absolute necessity then God could not have justified then without it.

Roo

Where does Romans 2 say they had not heard the gospel? The way I read it, Paul is addressing believers, both Jew and Gentile.

Just because in Romans 1:15 Paul writes that he is eager to preach the gospel to them, does not mean they have not already heard it. He calls them brethren in Romans 1:13, saints in Romans 1:7, and thanks God for their faith in Romans 1:8.

Once,

Chapter 1-2 deals with those Gentiles who had nothing but the revelation of God in nature. They did not have Moses or the gospel. All they had was the revelation of God in nature. God justified them. He was justifying them simultaneously with those to whom the gospel was being preached.

Roo

[kangaroojack]

Aug 23, 2010 11:31:59 GMT -5 Allyn said:

Aug 23, 2010 10:34:33 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

Hi Allyn,

Your reasoning is circular because you assume that baptism was a "new covenant" ordinance. Baptism was instituted by Moses. Please show how that it was a "new covenant" ordinance.

Thanks,

Roo

I think this is where you are confused between the old covenant use of baptism, which was strictly for purification of the flesh and not the heart. While the new covenant baptism is just the opposite. the old being the shadow of the new being the substance. It was not done away with but instead was newly established for the church.

Allyn,

No baptism purified the heart! If this was the case then Christ did not need to die. What is your basis for saying that "new covenant" baptism is the "substance" of old covenant baptism? Jesus himself is the substance of all those old covenant ordinances and in Him they all came to their final end.

It is: "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness."

It is not: New covenant baptism is the end of old covenant baptism.

Christ is the end of ALL things.

Roo

[Allyn]

Aug 23, 2010 11:58:39 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

Aug 23, 2010 11:31:59 GMT -5 Allyn said:

I think this is where you are confused between the old covenant use of baptism, which was strictly for purification of the flesh and not the heart. While the new covenant baptism is just the opposite. the old being the shadow of the new being the substance. It was not done away with but instead was newly established for the church.

Allyn,

No baptism purified the heart! If this was the case then Christ did not need to die. What is your basis for saying that "new covenant" baptism is the "substance" of old covenant baptism? Jesus himself is the substance of all those old covenant ordinances and in Him they all came to their final end.

It is: "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness."

It is not: New covenant baptism is the end of old covenant baptism.

Christ is the end of ALL things.

Roo

1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? 3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

[kangaroojack]

Aug 23, 2010 12:43:01 GMT -5 Allyn said:

Aug 23, 2010 11:58:39 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

Allyn,

No baptism purified the heart! If this was the case then Christ did not need to die. What is your basis for saying that "new covenant" baptism is the "substance" of old covenant baptism? Jesus himself is the substance of all those old covenant ordinances and in Him they all came to their final end.

It is: "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness."

It is not: New covenant baptism is the end of old covenant baptism.

Christ is the end of ALL things.

Roo

1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? 3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Question: What about the Gentiles who had no revelation from God except the Revelation of His glory in nature? God justified them without any knowledge about baptism?


Roo

[Morris]

Wow! Miss a weekend and miss a lot!

I have some catching up to do.

[Once4all]

Aug 23, 2010 11:52:11 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

Aug 23, 2010 11:31:13 GMT -5 Once4all said:

Where does Romans 2 say they had not heard the gospel? The way I read it, Paul is addressing believers, both Jew and Gentile.

Just because in Romans 1:15 Paul writes that he is eager to preach the gospel to them, does not mean they have not already heard it. He calls them brethren in Romans 1:13, saints in Romans 1:7, and thanks God for their faith in Romans 1:8.

Once,

Chapter 1-2 deals with those Gentiles who had nothing but the revelation of God in nature. They did not have Moses or the gospel. All they had was the revelation of God in nature. God justified them. He was justifying them simultaneously with those to whom the gospel was being preached.

Roo

Well, Roo, then belief in Jesus isn't necessary, either.

I'll go over chapters 1 and 2 again, more slowly, when I get some time.

[Once4all]

Aug 23, 2010 12:53:40 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

Question: What about the Gentiles who had no revelation from God except the Revelation of His glory in nature? God justified them without any knowledge about baptism?

Romans 1:20-24 NASB
(20) For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
(21) For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
(22) Professing to be wise, they became fools,
(23) and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
(24) Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.

It sounds like a people that knew God, then turned to idolatry, much like the children of Israel who worshiped the golden calf.

I still need to go over the chapters. This was just a quick thought.

[kangaroojack]

Aug 23, 2010 15:08:52 GMT -5 Once4all said:

Aug 23, 2010 11:52:11 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

Once,

Chapter 1-2 deals with those Gentiles who had nothing but the revelation of God in nature. They did not have Moses or the gospel. All they had was the revelation of God in nature. God justified them. He was justifying them simultaneously with those to whom the gospel was being preached.

Roo

Well, Roo, then belief in Jesus isn't necessary, either.

I'll go over chapters 1 and 2 again, more slowly, when I get some time.

Bev,

In that time belief in Jesus Christ was required only of the Jews because Christ came only to them. Christ did not come to the Gentiles did He? Therefore, the Gentiles were not required to believe in Him.

God is just. He could not hold men accountable for rejecting Christ if they never heard of Christ. Neither could He justify them for believeing in Christ if they never heard of Him. Therefore, God had to hold the Gentiles accountable by another standard which was the revelation of His glory in nature. If the Gentiles accepted that revelation and believed in the true God they were justified. If they set up idols to a false god they were damned. But they could not be held accountable on the basis of Christ if they never heard of Him.

Now the apostles did not bring Christ to the Gentiles until their "Jew first" mandate had been fulfilled. It was from that point that belief in Christ was required of all men. In the meantime God was justifying Gentiles who had no knowledge of baptism. And by the time the apostles brought Christ to the Gentiles baptism had been done away.

Roo

[Allyn]

Aug 23, 2010 15:46:21 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

And by the time the apostles brought Christ to the Gentiles baptism had been done away.

Roo

Where specifically are studying this from? If its Romans chapter 2 then I don't see it.
Thanks Roo

[Once4all]

I'm going to attempt to locate the discussions on baptism that have taken place over the past couple of days and move them here. Only the most recent posts that discuss baptism directly. The reason is that the topic is now being discussed in multiple threads and it will be easier on everyone if it's all in one location.

[kangaroojack]

Aug 23, 2010 16:25:37 GMT -5 Allyn said:

Aug 23, 2010 15:46:21 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

And by the time the apostles brought Christ to the Gentiles baptism had been done away.

Roo

Where specifically are studying this from? If its Romans chapter 2 then I don't see it.
Thanks Roo

Allyn,

Paul said that the gospel had to be preached to the Jew "FIRST." They had to fulfill this mandate before they could even think about taking Christ to the Gentiles and it took them nearly a whole generation to reach the Jews.

The reason why you can't see it is understandable because of the erroneous translations we must rely upon. For instance, on basis of erroneous translation the church has taught us that Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles (Eph. 3:1). This was not so. He was the apostle to the nations of Israel who had been outside the covenant. They were called "the nations." The Greek word "ethnos" means "nations." The word "ethnos" should not be translated "Gentiles" unless the context requires it. See Young's Analytical Concordance. It says that the Greek word "ethnos" is literally "nations."

But our translations say that Paul was a prisoner of Jesus Christ "for you Gentiles." This is not historically accurate at all. Paul was referring to his house arrest which was the result of his preaching hope to Israel (Acts). The "nations" (or Israel) for which Paul was under house arrest was that part of Israel that was outside the covenants of promise. Paul had just referred to them in chapter 2. I am going to cite the passage and translate "ethnos" as "nations" according to its literal meaning:

11 Therefore remember that you, once nations in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands— 12 that at that time you 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 you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

14 For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, 15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, 16 and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity. 17 And He came and preached peace to you who were afar off and to those who were near. 18 For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father. 2:11-17

The "nations" here had reference to the uncircumcised of Israel. They were "without hope" and they were "strangers from the covenants of promise." Now I show the proof that they were Israelites. It says that Christ came and preached to them. Wait a minute! Christ did not come and preach to Gentiles. He came only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

In its historical context the "nations" that were called the "Uncircumcision" were those OF ISREAL who had broken the covenant by their uncircumcision and were therefore "without hope." They were not legally God's people because their uncircumcision "cut them off from God and the people" (Abrahamic covenant). But Christ reconciled both the Circumcised and the Uncircumcised OF ISRAEL in His body. The Gentiles had not even come into the picture yet.

There is no biblical evidence that Christ was brought to the Gentiles before the "JEW FIRST" mandate was completed. Please note that it is Jewish Christians that James said were the "firstfruits" of the harvest. You don't start gathering the rest of the crop until you FIRST have gathered ALL the firstfruits (of Israel).

In the meantime God was justifying Gentiles who had only the revelation of God in nature and who had heard nothing of Christ or baptism.

Roo

[didymus]

Aug 23, 2010 17:18:02 GMT -5 Once4all said:

I'm going to attempt to locate the discussions on baptism that have taken place over the past couple of days and move them here. Only the most recent posts that discuss baptism directly. The reason is that the topic is now being discussed in multiple threads and it will be easier on everyone if it's all in one location.

Bev,

I think that would be a mistake. Comments are made in a certain context. For example, how does baptism relate to the Cross of Christ and Preterism? If you remove them, that might not make sense outside of that context.

Just my opinon.

[Once4all]

Aug 23, 2010 17:40:43 GMT -5 @didymus said:

Aug 23, 2010 17:18:02 GMT -5 Once4all said:

I'm going to attempt to locate the discussions on baptism that have taken place over the past couple of days and move them here. Only the most recent posts that discuss baptism directly. The reason is that the topic is now being discussed in multiple threads and it will be easier on everyone if it's all in one location.

Bev,

I think that would be a mistake. Comments are made in a certain context. For example, how does baptism relate to the Cross of Christ and Preterism? If you remove them, that might not make sense outside of that context.

Just my opinon.

Too late. Sorry! I just don't like to see such targeted discussion topics lost under an unrelated heading.

Soon I'll be taking a nice long break. Maybe I need it!

[Once4all]

Aug 23, 2010 17:28:03 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

Aug 23, 2010 16:25:37 GMT -5 Allyn said:

Where specifically are studying this from? If its Romans chapter 2 then I don't see it.
Thanks Roo

Allyn,

Paul said that the gospel had to be preached to the Jew "FIRST." They had to fulfill this mandate before they could even think about taking Christ to the Gentiles and it took them nearly a whole generation to reach the Jews.

The reason why you can't see it is understandable because of the erroneous translations we must rely upon. For instance, on basis of erroneous translation the church has taught us that Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles (3:1). This was not so. He was the apostle to the nations of Israel who had been outside the covenant. They were called "the nations." The Greek word "ethnos" means "nations." The word "ethnos" should not be translated "Gentiles" unless the context requires it. See Young's Analytical Concordance. It says that the Greek word "ethnos" is literally "nations."

But our translations say that Paul was a prisoner of Jesus Christ "for you Gentiles." This is not historically accurate at all. Paul was referring to his house arrest which was the result of his preaching hope to Israel (Acts). The "nations" (or Israel) for which Paul was under house arrest was that part of Israel that was outside the covenants of promise. Paul had just referred to them in chapter 2. I am going to cite the passage and translate "ethnos" as "nations" according to its literal meaning:

11 Therefore remember that you, once nations in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands— 12 that at that time you 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 you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

14 For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, 15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, 16 and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity. 17 And He came and preached peace to you who were afar off and to those who were near. 18 For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father. 2:11-17

The "nations" here had reference to the uncircumcised of Israel. They were "without hope" and they were "strangers from the covenants of promise." Now I show the proof that they were Israelites. It says that Christ came and preached to them. Wait a minute! Christ did not come and preach to Gentiles. He came only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

In its historical context the "nations" that were called the "Uncircumcision" were those OF ISREAL who had broken the covenant by their uncircumcision and were therefore "without hope." They were not legally God's people because their uncircumcision "cut them off from God and the people" (Abrahamic covenant). But Christ reconciled both the Circumcised and the Uncircumcised OF ISRAEL in His body. The Gentiles had not even come into the picture yet.

There is no biblical evidence that Christ was brought to the Gentiles before the "JEW FIRST" mandate was completed. Please note that it is Jewish Christians that James said were the "firstfruits" of the harvest. You don't start gathering the rest of the crop until you FIRST have gathered ALL the firstfruits (of Israel).

In the meantime God was justifying Gentiles who had only the revelation of God in nature and who had heard nothing of Christ or baptism.

Roo

I've heard this before, presented in slightly different ways, that the "Gentiles" in the NT refer to the lost tribes, or the diaspora Jews, or the disobedient Jews. Have non-Jews (which would include us) latched onto something that was neither about them nor ever intended to include them to begin with?

Should we start a new thread about this?

[didymus]

Aug 23, 2010 6:08:21 GMT -5 @didymus said:

Folks,

I have been doing much study in recent days. Aand I have come to the conclusion that Kangaroo Jack in 100% correct.

Let me set it up this way. At the cross, Jesus was the sacrificial lamb. I think that is pretty much a given. After His resurrection, He became our our High Priest. And when He ascended into heaven, He did exactley what Roo said he did. He went to the Father and carried out His High Priestly duties.

Hebrews 9.11-28, NASB:

11But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation;

12and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.

13For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh,

14how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

15For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

16For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it.

17For a covenant is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives.

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

19For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses to all the people according to the Law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people,

20saying, "THIS IS THE BLOOD OF THE COVENANT WHICH GOD COMMANDED YOU."

21And in the same way he sprinkled both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry with the blood.

22And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

23Therefore it was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

24For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us;

25nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own.

26Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.

27And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment,

28so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.

- Biblegateway.com

It seems plain, based on verse 11 as high priest entered the greater more perfect tabernacle not of this creation. Verse 12 states that He enetered the holy place "once for all" having obtained eternal redemption. He had to obtain eternal redemption Himself so He could act as our High Priest. And, if you look at verse 14, there is your answer for a clean conscience.

Now I want to jump to verse 23. The writer tells us it was necessary for the "copies" of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with the blood of the animal scarifices. Verse 24, for Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one. The true one being in Heaven. I do believe Roo made the point that the physical tabernacle was but a copy of the heavemly tabernacle. I think verse 24 is a key to understanding this. It tells us the Jesus went into Heaven itself "to appear in the presence of God for us." Now why is that important? Is it not true that only the high priest could go into the holy of holies? And why is that? Because God was in the holy of holies, and only the high priest could go into the presence of God. This tells us that Christ went in to the presence of God to do His duty as High Priest. Now the high priest went in to the holy of holies year after year with blood not his own. But Christ went in to the presence of God with His own blood. And because Christ was a perfect sacrifice, He did not have to go into the Holy of Holies year after year, for if He did , as the text tells us, He would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world.

Now there is a reason I am using the New American Standard, instead of my normal use of the New King James. It is because of the latter half of verse 26, which says, "but now once at the consumation of the ages, He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself."

I would like to get into a bit of preterism here. The reason I used the NASB is the word, "consumation." The Greek word is "sunteleia." There is more to this word than a simple ending. It indicates bring everything to an appinted climax. In English, consumation indicates something being consumated, such as a marriage.

So often, when I used to discuss fulfilled prophecy with people, I would get all kinds of questions that I could not answer. Now I have an answer to one of them. When did the marriage of the lamb take place? My unintelligent answer was always 70AD. Now my intelligent answer is 70AD. And it it weren't for Roo bringing this subject in to this discussion, I probably would not have studied this, then I would not have discovered what I'm about to share with you.

The sequence of event goes like this, starting with the crucifixion. Christ was crucified, he was buried, and somewhere he was raised from the dead. Then he spent 40 days with His disciples, and of course, the Marys. He continued to teach them about the kingdom. Then He ascended into heaven to carry out His duty as a the High Priest, and in the presence of God the Father did the spiritual cleansing and purification, just as Roo has been telling us. But, who did he do this for? Not Himself. He did this as intercessor "for us." Or, to be more precise, for His bride. And when the temple was destroyed, that was a sign that God had finalized His divorce from Israel. Then, immediately after the tribulation of those days, Christ came to comsumate His marriage to His bride. And God the Father gave eternal life as a wedding gift. And then in Rev. 21.9, the best man introduced the bride to John as the wife of the lamb. Thus the marriage to the lamb was consumated in 70AD. You might say, from the ascension to 70AD was the betrothal period.

Have a blessed day, for we are the wife of the Lamb.

Case in point Bev,

This reply has nothing at all to do with baptism, yet here it is.

Do you have any idea how long it took me to put this together? I have been considering and studying this ever since Roo introduced the idea. It took me hours to put this together. I was up all night working on this.

This is a reply to what Roo has introduced. And all that is still in the original thread. Roo also replied to this, and that too is is in the original thread.

To put it back together, you will have to do it by date and time, because the reply numbers have been changed.

I am sorry Bev, but I have invested much time into this ever since Roo brought it up. Now I feel that my time has been wasted.

[Allyn]

Aug 23, 2010 17:28:03 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

Aug 23, 2010 16:25:37 GMT -5 Allyn said:

Where specifically are studying this from? If its Romans chapter 2 then I don't see it.
Thanks Roo

Allyn,

Paul said that the gospel had to be preached to the Jew "FIRST." They had to fulfill this mandate before they could even think about taking Christ to the Gentiles and it took them nearly a whole generation to reach the Jews.

The reason why you can't see it is understandable because of the erroneous translations we must rely upon. For instance, on basis of erroneous translation the church has taught us that Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles (3:1). This was not so. He was the apostle to the nations of Israel who had been outside the covenant. They were called "the nations." The Greek word "ethnos" means "nations." The word "ethnos" should not be translated "Gentiles" unless the context requires it. See Young's Analytical Concordance. It says that the Greek word "ethnos" is literally "nations."

But our translations say that Paul was a prisoner of Jesus Christ "for you Gentiles." This is not historically accurate at all. Paul was referring to his house arrest which was the result of his preaching hope to Israel (Acts). The "nations" (or Israel) for which Paul was under house arrest was that part of Israel that was outside the covenants of promise. Paul had just referred to them in chapter 2. I am going to cite the passage and translate "ethnos" as "nations" according to its literal meaning:

11 Therefore remember that you, once nations in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands— 12 that at that time you 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 you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

14 For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, 15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, 16 and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity. 17 And He came and preached peace to you who were afar off and to those who were near. 18 For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father. 2:11-17

The "nations" here had reference to the uncircumcised of Israel. They were "without hope" and they were "strangers from the covenants of promise." Now I show the proof that they were Israelites. It says that Christ came and preached to them. Wait a minute! Christ did not come and preach to Gentiles. He came only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

In its historical context the "nations" that were called the "Uncircumcision" were those OF ISREAL who had broken the covenant by their uncircumcision and were therefore "without hope." They were not legally God's people because their uncircumcision "cut them off from God and the people" (Abrahamic covenant). But Christ reconciled both the Circumcised and the Uncircumcised OF ISRAEL in His body. The Gentiles had not even come into the picture yet.

There is no biblical evidence that Christ was brought to the Gentiles before the "JEW FIRST" mandate was completed. Please note that it is Jewish Christians that James said were the "firstfruits" of the harvest. You don't start gathering the rest of the crop until you FIRST have gathered ALL the firstfruits (of Israel).

In the meantime God was justifying Gentiles who had only the revelation of God in nature and who had heard nothing of Christ or baptism.

Roo

I promise that I will take a close look at this post when things settle down this evening for me.

[Once4all]

Aug 23, 2010 18:20:59 GMT -5 @didymus said:

Aug 23, 2010 6:08:21 GMT -5 @didymus said:

Folks,

I have been doing much study in recent days. Aand I have come to the conclusion that Kangaroo Jack in 100% correct.

Let me set it up this way. At the cross, Jesus was the sacrificial lamb. I think that is pretty much a given. After His resurrection, He became our our High Priest. And when He ascended into heaven, He did exactley what Roo said he did. He went to the Father and carried out His High Priestly duties.

Hebrews 9.11-28, NASB: - Biblegateway.com

It seems plain, based on verse 11 as high priest entered the greater more perfect tabernacle not of this creation. Verse 12 states that He enetered the holy place "once for all" having obtained eternal redemption. He had to obtain eternal redemption Himself so He could act as our High Priest. And, if you look at verse 14, there is your answer for a clean conscience.

Now I want to jump to verse 23. The writer tells us it was necessary for the "copies" of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with the blood of the animal scarifices. Verse 24, for Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one. The true one being in Heaven. I do believe Roo made the point that the physical tabernacle was but a copy of the heavemly tabernacle. I think verse 24 is a key to understanding this. It tells us the Jesus went into Heaven itself "to appear in the presence of God for us." Now why is that important? Is it not true that only the high priest could go into the holy of holies? And why is that? Because God was in the holy of holies, and only the high priest could go into the presence of God. This tells us that Christ went in to the presence of God to do His duty as High Priest. Now the high priest went in to the holy of holies year after year with blood not his own. But Christ went in to the presence of God with His own blood. And because Christ was a perfect sacrifice, He did not have to go into the Holy of Holies year after year, for if He did , as the text tells us, He would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world.

Now there is a reason I am using the New American Standard, instead of my normal use of the New King James. It is because of the latter half of verse 26, which says, "but now once at the consumation of the ages, He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself."

I would like to get into a bit of preterism here. The reason I used the NASB is the word, "consumation." The Greek word is "sunteleia." There is more to this word than a simple ending. It indicates bring everything to an appinted climax. In English, consumation indicates something being consumated, such as a marriage.

So often, when I used to discuss fulfilled prophecy with people, I would get all kinds of questions that I could not answer. Now I have an answer to one of them. When did the marriage of the lamb take place? My unintelligent answer was always 70AD. Now my intelligent answer is 70AD. And it it weren't for Roo bringing this subject in to this discussion, I probably would not have studied this, then I would not have discovered what I'm about to share with you.

The sequence of event goes like this, starting with the crucifixion. Christ was crucified, he was buried, and somewhere he was raised from the dead. Then he spent 40 days with His disciples, and of course, the Marys. He continued to teach them about the kingdom. Then He ascended into heaven to carry out His duty as a the High Priest, and in the presence of God the Father did the spiritual cleansing and purification, just as Roo has been telling us. But, who did he do this for? Not Himself. He did this as intercessor "for us." Or, to be more precise, for His bride. And when the temple was destroyed, that was a sign that God had finalized His divorce from Israel. Then, immediately after the tribulation of those days, Christ came to comsumate His marriage to His bride. And God the Father gave eternal life as a wedding gift. And then in Rev. 21.9, the best man introduced the bride to John as the wife of the lamb. Thus the marriage to the lamb was consumated in 70AD. You might say, from the ascension to 70AD was the betrothal period.

Have a blessed day, for we are the wife of the Lamb.

Case in point Bev,

This reply has nothing at all to do with baptism, yet here it is.

Do you have any idea how long it took me to put this together? I have been considering and studying this ever since Roo introduced the idea. It took me hours to put this together. I was up all night working on this.

This is a reply to what Roo has introduced. And all that is still in the original thread. Roo also replied to this, and that too is is in the original thread.

To put it back together, you will have to do it by date and time, because the reply numbers have been changed.

I am sorry Bev, but I have invested much time into this ever since Roo brought it up. Now I feel that my time has been wasted.

Tom, I can move this post back to the other thread. Do you want me to?

Moving posts is not an easy task because the interface only shows you a couple of lines from the post to determine if it is one you want to select to move or not. That's how I managed to move an incorrect post here. But, as I said, I will gladly move it back.

Also, I'd appreciate it if people not use red text. It's near impossible to read on the background color I use. I did a test once and determined that TEAL is the only color (other than black) that shows up well on all the different background color choices offered here. And even it is not the best unless it is also bold.

[kangaroojack]

Aug 23, 2010 18:08:45 GMT -5 Once4all said:

Aug 23, 2010 17:28:03 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

Allyn,

Paul said that the gospel had to be preached to the Jew "FIRST." They had to fulfill this mandate before they could even think about taking Christ to the Gentiles and it took them nearly a whole generation to reach the Jews.

The reason why you can't see it is understandable because of the erroneous translations we must rely upon. For instance, on basis of erroneous translation the church has taught us that Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles (3:1). This was not so. He was the apostle to the nations of Israel who had been outside the covenant. They were called "the nations." The Greek word "ethnos" means "nations." The word "ethnos" should not be translated "Gentiles" unless the context requires it. See Young's Analytical Concordance. It says that the Greek word "ethnos" is literally "nations."

But our translations say that Paul was a prisoner of Jesus Christ "for you Gentiles." This is not historically accurate at all. Paul was referring to his house arrest which was the result of his preaching hope to Israel (Acts). The "nations" (or Israel) for which Paul was under house arrest was that part of Israel that was outside the covenants of promise. Paul had just referred to them in chapter 2. I am going to cite the passage and translate "ethnos" as "nations" according to its literal meaning:


The "nations" here had reference to the uncircumcised of Israel. They were "without hope" and they were "strangers from the covenants of promise." Now I show the proof that they were Israelites. It says that Christ came and preached to them. Wait a minute! Christ did not come and preach to Gentiles. He came only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

In its historical context the "nations" that were called the "Uncircumcision" were those OF ISREAL who had broken the covenant by their uncircumcision and were therefore "without hope." They were not legally God's people because their uncircumcision "cut them off from God and the people" (Abrahamic covenant). But Christ reconciled both the Circumcised and the Uncircumcised OF ISRAEL in His body. The Gentiles had not even come into the picture yet.

There is no biblical evidence that Christ was brought to the Gentiles before the "JEW FIRST" mandate was completed. Please note that it is Jewish Christians that James said were the "firstfruits" of the harvest. You don't start gathering the rest of the crop until you FIRST have gathered ALL the firstfruits (of Israel).

In the meantime God was justifying Gentiles who had only the revelation of God in nature and who had heard nothing of Christ or baptism.

Roo

I've heard this before, presented in slightly different ways, that the "Gentiles" in the NT refer to the lost tribes, or the diaspora Jews, or the disobedient Jews. Have non-Jews (which would include us) latched onto something that was neither about them nor ever intended to include them to begin with?

Should we start a new thread about this?

Bev,

I said nothing about the Uncircumcision being the "lost tribes." They were Israelites who were "uncircumcised in the flesh" and therefore cut off from Israel. The Abrahamic covenant dictated that the uncircumcised be "cut off from the people."

Paul assured the "Uncircumcision" that Christ had abolished the law of commandments contained in ordinances:

For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, 15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace,

The abolition of ordinances meant nothing to the Gentiles. Not even squat! It was the uncircumcised OF ISRAEL who had been "afar off" from the promises just as the Abrahamic covenant dictated.

Roo

[kangaroojack]

Hi All,

It's time to travel long distance and take my daughter back to College. See you all in a few days.

Bev,

Please think about the fact that Paul assured the "Uncircumcision" of their acceptance into Christ BECAUSE He had abolished in His flesh "the law of commandments contained in ordinances." The abolition of the ordinance of circumcision didn't mean squat to the Gentiles. But it meant a whole lot for the uncircumcised OF ISRAEL who had been "cut off from the people."


Roo

[Once4all]

Aug 24, 2010 10:17:34 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

Aug 23, 2010 18:08:45 GMT -5 Once4all said:

I've heard this before, presented in slightly different ways, that the "Gentiles" in the NT refer to the lost tribes, or the diaspora Jews, or the disobedient Jews. Have non-Jews (which would include us) latched onto something that was neither about them nor ever intended to include them to begin with?

Should we start a new thread about this?

Bev,

I said nothing about the Uncircumcision being the "lost tribes."

I know. I said that was one of the ways I'd heard it explained before.

Aug 24, 2010 10:17:34 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

They were Israelites who were "uncircumcised in the flesh" and therefore cut off from Israel. The Abrahamic covenant dictated that the uncircumcised be "cut off from the people."

Paul assured the "Uncircumcision" that Christ had abolished the law of commandments contained in ordinances:

For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, 15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace,

The abolition of ordinances meant nothing to the Gentiles. Not even squat! It was the uncircumcised OF ISRAEL who had been "afar off" from the promises just as the Abrahamic covenant dictated.

I agree that the abolition of ordinances would mean nothing to the Gentiles.

Please don't use red text.

[Once4all]

Aug 24, 2010 10:27:44 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

Hi All,

It's time to travel long distance and take my daughter back to College. See you all in a few days.

Have a safe trip, Roo.

[MoGrace2U]

Hi Roo,
I happen to agree with you here. There can be no children forthcoming until the Bride was made ready and given in marriage to the Bridegroom. That necessitated all Israel being gathered first from among the living and then from among the dead. The teachings today are that we non-Israelite believers are the Bride, when it is that we are the children who have come from this union and thus share in their inheritance which is Christ.

[Allyn]

Aug 24, 2010 10:27:44 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

Hi All,

It's time to travel long distance and take my daughter back to College. See you all in a few days.

Bev,

Please think about the fact that Paul assured the "Uncircumcision" of their acceptance into Christ BECAUSE He had abolished in His flesh "the law of commandments contained in ordinances." The abolition of the ordinance of circumcision didn't mean squat to the Gentiles. But it meant a whole lot for the uncircumcised OF ISRAEL who had been "cut off from the people."


Roo

My time is limited but I think it is worth my while to look closely at at this Baptism issue from your angle. Not to say I am giving in to it but I am always open to the truth no matter how it does me in.

[Once4all]

Aug 24, 2010 11:14:04 GMT -5 MoGrace2U said:

... The teachings today are that we non-Israelite believers are the Bride, when it is that we are the children who have come from this union and thus share in their inheritance which is Christ.

Robin, I've never heard this before. Do you have some scriptural support for it?

[Once4all]

Aug 24, 2010 12:12:15 GMT -5 Allyn said:

Aug 24, 2010 10:27:44 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

Please think about the fact that Paul assured the "Uncircumcision" of their acceptance into Christ BECAUSE He had abolished in His flesh "the law of commandments contained in ordinances." The abolition of the ordinance of circumcision didn't mean squat to the Gentiles. But it meant a whole lot for the uncircumcised OF ISRAEL who had been "cut off from the people."

Roo

My time is limited but I think it is worth my while to look closely at at this Baptism issue from your angle. Not to say I am giving in to it but I am always open to the truth no matter how it does me in.

I'm not seeing how Roo's statement about the abolishment of the OT ordinances has anything to do with baptism into Christ. Allyn, can you help me? You seem to be seeing something that I am not.

We know that John's baptism for repentance was being preached to the Jews, but Christ's baptism extended beyond that. Is the great commission only for Jews?