|
|
Post by hansen on Sept 2, 2022 1:07:29 GMT -8
Oh, it simple. It's because I've know the gospel. So, why do you come around? I doubt it's because you knowingly wish to spread and support error, even though you do that very thing. And I at least acknowledge that my beliefs are nothing new for Christ's followers, that others have laid the groundwork and others yet have witnessed to it down through the centuries because those beliefs have been around since the beginning, in fact, whereas yours have not, unless for perhaps some early antinomians who may not reflect your views exactly while being the nearest thing in pratical terms. Either way it's ironic that you should be so certain while opposing the full-true faith-reminds me a bit of Paul as a Pharisee. I once believed as you do; I later came to agree with the ancient churchs instead of the novel ones, by continuing to seek truth for myself. And unless you haven't noticed, there's not necessarily a great deal of like-mindedness on these forums, even where no Catholics are lurking and even where sola scriptura rules the day. That doctrine, alone, has arguably caused more division in Christianity than anything else. Luther predicted that it could. Anyway, if you don't like the heat, if the truth is uncomfortable... Actually Unlike you 1. I do not follow men. so I am open to the fact I may be wrong 2. I have learned many things in these chat rooms I either did not know before. or have changed my view because, again, I am open 3. I do not consider you giving me any heat.. I see no truth in you. I see you following men. and then trying to get over people who do not follow men. who do as God commanded. But hey.. My question still stands. Your not here to learn anything. so why are you here? Hey, you haven’t learned anything even though I’ve offered some of the wisdom of the Christian ages. Why are you here? You certainly sound like a preacher boy, more impressed with and fervent about your silly interpretations than someone willing to learn from anyone else, arguing with other Sola Scriptura adherents half the time. Apparently you won’t even go back and responsibly research Christian history including the early beliefs and practices of believers. Some people “learn” selectively. |
|
|
|
Post by eternallygrateful on Sept 2, 2022 3:09:16 GMT -8
Actually Unlike you 1. I do not follow men. so I am open to the fact I may be wrong 2. I have learned many things in these chat rooms I either did not know before. or have changed my view because, again, I am open 3. I do not consider you giving me any heat.. I see no truth in you. I see you following men. and then trying to get over people who do not follow men. who do as God commanded. But hey.. My question still stands. Your not here to learn anything. so why are you here? Hey, you haven’t learned anything even though I’ve offered some of the wisdom of the Christian ages. Why are you here? You certainly sound like a preacher boy, more impressed with and fervent about your silly interpretations than someone willing to learn from anyone else, arguing with other Sola Scriptura adherents half the time. Apparently you won’t even go back and responsibly research Christian history including the early beliefs and practices of believers. Some people “learn” selectively. lol No. I do not look at history for truth. The conquerer writes history. Once thing I did learns is the roman church DESTROYED any writings that disagreed with their teaching, and MURDERED people who they considered heretics (or in the least. sent them to prison where they could not speak what they considered heresy) Your history should make you sick.. But I guess you think murder in the name of God is ok...and destroying anything that would make it appear no one believes in anything but your theology is ok.. |
|
|
|
Post by gomer on Sept 2, 2022 4:49:26 GMT -8
1) The same people Peter commanded to repent was the same people he commanded to be baptized and the fact 1) both repentance and baptism are commanded and 2) both are connected by the conjunction "and" which makes BOTH of equal importance in obtaining remission of sins and no amount of grammatical gymnastic can undo or change what Peter commanded. No, it was not. Not everyone he spoke to God baptised. And in the greek he did not tell everyone to be baptized. You need to study up on Language skills As for eis. I take this from a document i read on baptism, concerning the word EIS Unfortunately, the most of us are restricted to the poverty of the English language. In doing so, we are robbed at times of the rich and exacting connections that are made in the original Greek. We are also at a loss at times to find the best word for certain translations. Am I saying that the traditional translation for Acts 2:38 is in error? No I am not. The trouble is at times that when translating a meaning for a word, exegetical experts like to translate on a word for word basis. What this means is, they pick the best single English word to replace the meaning of the singular Greek word in the passage. What happens here are that some Greek words would be better translated as several words to arrive at the best understanding of the passage in English. “For” the remission of sins is by far the best single word translation as is proven by its popularity in most translations.
Even in the English usage we can see there are different meanings as to how the word "for" is used and applied. This we will discuss later on in our discussion. Many read into this passage that the word for means “purpose of ” or “in order to obtain.” While this is a just interpretation that can be used in many cases, it is cannot be here. There are many options that can be used for the Greek word eis in this passage, especially ones that do not make this passage contradict hundreds of other Scriptures. It would be a better multiple word translation to interpret the meaning of eis as, “on account of,” “because of ” (Matt. 12:41; Luke 11:32), “in accordance ”or “with reference to," the remission of sins. This would be more appropriate since this would keep in harmony with the passages that assert that we are saved by faith and not by any works. (See Brown, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 3:1208; Perschbacher, The New Analytical Greek Lexicon, page 121, eis, (with reference to; as in 2 Cor. 10:13,); Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich, Greek Lexicon, page 230 , eis, (with respect or reference to); Moulton, The Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised, page 119, eis, (with a view to; with reference to; in accordance with).
Two bits of misinformation are used in an attempt to salvage baptism as a requirement for salvation. First, the misnomer that some have propagated, " eis never means "because of." This is emphatically proven wrong by the use of eis in Matt. 12:41. The other false claim is, "the word "eis" never looks backwards." Once again, this is proven to be patently false according to Matt. 12:41. Look at the example of Scripture they say never "looks backwards." " My children are with me in (eis) bed." Luke 11:7. They were already with him in bed, there is not any reference to the future. The argument which claims that eis in Acts 2:38 can only mean that baptism is required for salvation, is clearly a false, and is either propagated out of ignorance, or by deliberate deception. It only takes one example to prove their assertion is false!
The argument is made that the term cannot be used as "reference to," or "with reference to." In Romans 6: 3 we read, "that so many of us as were baptized into (eis) Christ were baptized into (eis) his death..." 1 Corinthians 10: 2, "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto (eis) Moses in the cloud and in the sea." "And that "baptized unto Moses" again uses the little preposition eis, so the Bible says, "baptized eis Jesus Christ," " baptized eis his death," and "baptized eis Moses." So if baptism puts the penitent sinner into Christ, then all the nation of Israel were put into Moses. If the one is literally put into, then the other is literally put into." False Doctrines, John R. Rice, Sword of the Lord Publishers, Murfreesboro, Tennessee. Page 92. The meaning of eis is clearly used as a term of being "in reference to"; a legitimate meaning of the word. So to argue that eis cannot mean "reference to" or "with reference to" in many passages of Scripture, and it cannot hold the same meaning in Acts 2:38, is to dodge reality.
"In reference to" can be seen in another example, this time in the English usage of the word. Here are a few expressions that show that there can be more than just one justifiable use of the word. We can "take an aspirin for a headache," and we can “get paid for our work.” We do not take aspirin “for the purpose of ” getting a headache anymore than we get paid “in order to obtain ”our work. The meaning of "because" or "on account of" makes more sense in these examples, just as on account of the remission of sins does in Acts 2:38.
We are told of a leper in Luke 5:13 that was healed by the touch of Jesus. In 5:14, Jesus tells him, “go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing. ”Notice that he was not ordered to make an offering “in order to obtain” this cleansing, this would not make sense, for the healed leper already had it!
Another illustration is as follows:
1. I phoned the Doctor for (in order to) some medicine.
2. I phoned the Doctor for (in behalf of) my child.
3. I phoned the Doctor for (on account of) my sickness.
4. I phoned the Doctor for (with respect to) the bill he sent. (Bob Ross, Acts 2:38 and Baptismal Remission, pp.45-48 , Pilgrim Publications, Pasadena, TX, 1987)
Just as English translation does not lock us into the idea that baptism is a prerequisite for salvation, the English does not assert or demand which of the meanings of "eis" we should choose. The laws of hermeneutics however, demand that “on account of the remission of sins” is the only Scripturally consistent translation to consider.
As you can see. Your thoughts about eis/for are wrong in any langiage
You are trying to use the English language to prove your point. In the NT they were not speaking English but Greek and Greek and English are NOT THE SAME. What may be true in English is not necessary true in Greek, even though "because" may mean "for" in English does not make it true in Greek. Koine Greek is a more specific language than English and this is why eis in the Greek is never translated "because" for in the Greek there are two separate distinct words for "because " and "for". Matt 26:28 Christ shed His blood FOR the remission of sins. The verse CANNOT ever mean Christ shed His blood BECAUSE sins have already been remitted for that creates an impossibility (Heb 9:22). Famed Baptist commentator A.T. Robertson therefore had no problem at all understanding "eis" means "for" in Mat 26:28. Yet when faced with the same phrase ("for remission of sins") in Acts 2:38 he all of a sudden is no longer sure of what "eis" means. Robertson writes in his commentary " One will decide the use [of the word “eis”] here [in Acts 2:38] according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not." The Bible cannot be mishandled this way where people read their own theological bias into a verse as Robertson and yourself read your theology into Acts 2:38. Grammar cannot be given a backseat to theological bias. That which proves too much proves nothing: If you claim 'eis' means 'because' and one is baptized because his sins are already remitted, then you must be consistent. That means 1 Tim 1:16 which reads men should believe on Christ UNTO (Eis) eternal life yet you have it read men believe on Christ BECAUSE they already possess eternal life.....you then have men saved BEFORE they believe, men saved in faithlessness just as you try and have men saved BEFORE being baptized. You cannot flip flop on the meaning of eis based on nothing more than your theological bias. " The argument presented in the correspondence alleged that the English word “for” has a variety of meanings, one of which is “because”; and since this particular definition suits the theological position espoused by the critic, he insisted that Acts 2:38 does not teach that one is baptized in order to receive forgiveness of sins, but that one is baptized “because of the remission of sins.” This, of course, has been the standard assertion of those seeking to disassociate baptism from the remission of sins, i.e., that baptism is not essential to God’s salvific plan of human redemption. The unwarranted assumption by our critic is that the Greek preposition eis exhibits the same extreme flexibility in meaning as the English word “for” exhibits. However, it must be remembered, English is not Greek.
Commenting on the Greek language of the New Testament, noted French theologian, Ceslas Spicq, writes, “This language has its own rules and its own vocabulary. One cannot understand it except in light of the usages of the Greek language as it was spoken and written in the oikoumene of the first century, which is called ‘Standard Koine’” (1994, pp. 7, 8). It has been noted by numerous scholars that the Koine Greek is the most precise language for expressing human thought in the history of mankind. Based upon the need for lucid and coherent revelation of the gospel, Koine Greek is understandably the logical choice in the providence of God for the New Testament." www.leipersforkchurchofchrist.com/the-greek-preposition-eis(my emp) In an earlier post, I gave a few reasons showing the impossibility of eis meaning because in Acts 2 which I do not see where you addressed those impossibilities. |
|
|
|
Post by gomer on Sept 2, 2022 5:14:31 GMT -8
eternallygrateful posted:
We are told of a leper in Luke 5:13 that was healed by the touch of Jesus. In 5:14, Jesus tells him, “go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing. ”Notice that he was not ordered to make an offering “in order to obtain” this cleansing, this would not make sense, for the healed leper already had it!
The Greek word used in Lk 5:14 is peri, not eis. The issue is about the word EIS not peri. .....show thyself to the priest and offer for (peri) the cleansing of you.... biblehub.com/text/luke/5-14.htm |
|
|
|
Post by eternallygrateful on Sept 2, 2022 6:03:50 GMT -8
You are trying to use the English language to prove your point. In the NT they were not speaking English but Greek and Greek and English are NOT THE SAME. What may be true in English is not necessary true in Greek, even though "because" may mean "for" in English does not make it true in Greek. Koine Greek is a more specific language than English and this is why eis in the Greek is never translated "because" for in the Greek there are two separate distinct words for "because " and "for". Matt 26:28 Christ shed His blood FOR the remission of sins. The verse CANNOT ever mean Christ shed His blood BECAUSE sins have already been remitted for that creates an impossibility (Heb 9:22). Famed Baptist commentator A.T. Robertson therefore had no problem at all understanding "eis" means "for" in Mat 26:28. Yet when faced with the same phrase ("for remission of sins") in Acts 2:38 he all of a sudden is no longer sure of what "eis" means. Robertson writes in his commentary " One will decide the use [of the word “eis”] here [in Acts 2:38] according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not." The Bible cannot be mishandled this way where people read their own theological bias into a verse as Robertson and yourself read your theology into Acts 2:38. Grammar cannot be given a backseat to theological bias. That which proves too much proves nothing: If you claim 'eis' means 'because' and one is baptized because his sins are already remitted, then you must be consistent. That means 1 Tim 1:16 which reads men should believe in Christ UNTO (Eis) eternal life yet you have it read men believe in Christ BECAUSE they already possess eternal life.....you then have men saved BEFORE they believe, men saved in faithlessness just as you try and have men saved BEFORE being baptized. You cannot flip flop on the meaning of eis based on nothing more than your theological bias. " The argument presented in the correspondence alleged that the English word “for” has a variety of meanings, one of which is “because”; and since this particular definition suits the theological position espoused by the critic, he insisted that Acts 2:38 does not teach that one is baptized in order to receive forgiveness of sins, but that one is baptized “because of the remission of sins.” This, of course, has been the standard assertion of those seeking to disassociate baptism from the remission of sins, i.e., that baptism is not essential to God’s salvific plan of human redemption. The unwarranted assumption by our critic is that the Greek preposition eis exhibits the same extreme flexibility in meaning as the English word “for” exhibits. However, it must be remembered, English is not Greek.
Commenting on the Greek language of the New Testament, noted French theologian, Ceslas Spicq, writes, “This language has its own rules and its own vocabulary. One cannot understand it except in light of the usages of the Greek language as it was spoken and written in the oikoumene of the first century, which is called ‘Standard Koine’” (1994, pp. 7, 8). It has been noted by numerous scholars that the Koine Greek is the most precise language for expressing human thought in the history of mankind. Based upon the need for lucid and coherent revelation of the gospel, Koine Greek is understandably the logical choice in the providence of God for the New Testament." www.leipersforkchurchofchrist.com/the-greek-preposition-eis(my emp) Famed Baptist commentator AT Robertson had no problem at all understanding "eis" means "for" in Mat 26:28. Yet when faced with the same phrase (for remission of sins) in Acts 2:38 he all of a sudden is no longer sure of what "eis" means. Robertson writes in his commentary " One will decide the use [of the word “eis”] here [in Acts 2:38] according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not.” In an earlier post, I gave a few reasons showing the impossibility of eis meaning because in Acts 2 which I do not see where you addressed those impossibilities. see here you are being dishonest again. I did not just use the english language, I also also used the greek. Matt 12: 41 The men of Nineveh will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at (eis) the preaching of Jonah; and indeed a greater than Jonah is here. They repented ON ACCOUNT OF or BECAUSE OF.. Jonah preached BEFORE they repented Luke 11: 7 - and he will answer from within and say, ‘Do not trouble me; the door is now shut, and my children are with me in (eis) bed; I cannot rise and give to you’? Again, the children were not going TO BED they were already IN BED (past tense) as I showed earlier. I only need one example. here are two.... Also. Your stuck on the word eis (Which I have already PROVED can mean in reference to something that has already occurred) Yet you ignore the tense and person of the verbs..(As I already showed 2nd person plural and third person singular) which shows that there are two clauses in the verse (send person plural. commanded to ALL,, 3rd person singuar - Commanded to individuals) ... repent and gift of the spirit are all in unison.. Repent YE (plural) and Ye shall recieve the gift of the spirit Let everyone of YOU (singular) be baptized for (in reference to) remission of sin so even in the original English bibles we see a use of plural and singular separating the 2 clauses.. |
|
|
|
Post by eternallygrateful on Sept 2, 2022 6:09:16 GMT -8
The Greek word used in Lk 5:14 is peri, not eis. The issue is about the word EIS not peri. .....show thyself to the priest and offer for (peri) the cleansing of you.... biblehub.com/text/luke/5-14.htmsmh 14 And He charged him to tell no one, “But go and show yourself to the priest, and make an offering for your cleansing, as (eis) a testimony to them, just as Moses commanded.”You will oinly see what you want to see my friend.. |
|
|
|
Post by gomer on Sept 2, 2022 6:13:38 GMT -8
The Greek word used in Lk 5:14 is peri, not eis. The issue is about the word EIS not peri. .....show thyself to the priest and offer for (peri) the cleansing of you.... biblehub.com/text/luke/5-14.htmsmh 14 And He charged him to tell no one, “But go and show yourself to the priest, and make an offering for your cleansing, as (eis) a testimony to them, just as Moses commanded.”You will oinly see what you want to see my friend.. No, you should read what you posted. The author of that article was speaking about the "for" from the Greek word peri. He was speaking about the phrase "make an offering for (peri) your cleansing" he was arguing the man would show himself to the priest BECAUSE he was already cleansed....he would not show himself before he was cleansed. Here it is again: ” Notice that he was not ordered to make an offering “in order to obtain” this cleansing, this would not make sense, for the healed leper already had it!" See? He is speaking about "for" from the Greek word peri. |
|
|
|
Post by eternallygrateful on Sept 2, 2022 6:28:34 GMT -8
smh 14 And He charged him to tell no one, “But go and show yourself to the priest, and make an offering for your cleansing, as (eis) a testimony to them, just as Moses commanded.”You will oinly see what you want to see my friend.. No, you should read what you posted. The author of that article was speaking about the "for" from the Greek word peri. He was speaking about the phrase "make an offering for (peri) your cleansing" he was arguing the man would show himself to the priest BECAUSE he was already cleansed....he would not show himself before he was cleansed. Here it is again: ” Notice that he was not ordered to make an offering “in order to obtain” this cleansing, this would not make sense, for the healed leper already had it!" See? He is speaking about "for" from the Greek word peri. I gave 2 examples proving eis was used for something that happened BEFORE and you want to argue about a mistake the person made in ONE of the examples.. You said it is NEVER used that way "your words not mine" All I need to do to show that when you said NEVER, you were incorrect, was find one example.. I found at least 2 |
|
|
|
Post by eternallygrateful on Sept 2, 2022 6:32:11 GMT -8
smh 14 And He charged him to tell no one, “But go and show yourself to the priest, and make an offering for your cleansing, as (eis) a testimony to them, just as Moses commanded.”You will oinly see what you want to see my friend.. No, you should read what you posted. The author of that article was speaking about the "for" from the Greek word peri. He was speaking about the phrase "make an offering for (peri) your cleansing" he was arguing the man would show himself to the priest BECAUSE he was already cleansed....he would not show himself before he was cleansed. Here it is again: ” Notice that he was not ordered to make an offering “in order to obtain” this cleansing, this would not make sense, for the healed leper already had it!" See? He is speaking about "for" from the Greek word peri. I should read what I posted.. No my friend YOU SHOULD READ "In reference to" can be seen in another example, this time in the English usage of the word. Here are a few expressions that show that there can be more than just one justifiable use of the word. We can "take an aspirin for a headache," and we can “get paid for our work.” We do not take aspirin “for the purpose of ” getting a headache anymore than we get paid “in order to obtain ”our work. The meaning of "because" or "on account of" makes more sense in these examples, just as on account of the remission of sins does in Acts 2:38. We are told of a leper in Luke 5:13 that was healed by the touch of Jesus. In 5:14, Jesus tells him, “go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing. ”Notice that he was not ordered to make an offering “in order to obtain” this cleansing, this would not make sense, for the healed leper already had it! He was referencing the English word "FOR" not the greek word EIS, in the exampled from that time.. including the english word FOR in Luke 5 |
|
|
|
Post by gomer on Sept 2, 2022 7:19:48 GMT -8
No, you should read what you posted. The author of that article was speaking about the "for" from the Greek word peri. He was speaking about the phrase "make an offering for (peri) your cleansing" he was arguing the man would show himself to the priest BECAUSE he was already cleansed....he would not show himself before he was cleansed. Here it is again: ” Notice that he was not ordered to make an offering “in order to obtain” this cleansing, this would not make sense, for the healed leper already had it!" See? He is speaking about "for" from the Greek word peri. I should read what I posted.. No my friend YOU SHOULD READ "In reference to" can be seen in another example, this time in the English usage of the word. Here are a few expressions that show that there can be more than just one justifiable use of the word. We can "take an aspirin for a headache," and we can “get paid for our work.” We do not take aspirin “for the purpose of ” getting a headache anymore than we get paid “in order to obtain ”our work. The meaning of "because" or "on account of" makes more sense in these examples, just as on account of the remission of sins does in Acts 2:38. We are told of a leper in Luke 5:13 that was healed by the touch of Jesus. In 5:14, Jesus tells him, “go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing. ”Notice that he was not ordered to make an offering “in order to obtain” this cleansing, this would not make sense, for the healed leper already had it! He was referencing the English word "FOR" not the greek word EIS, in the exampled from that time.. including the english word FOR in Luke 5 Luke 5:14 KJV And he charged him to tell no man: but go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer (1) for (peri) thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, (2) for (eis) a testimony unto them. The word "for" in English appears 2 times, yet the first time it is from the Greek word peri and the second time it is eis. The author of the article you posted wrote: "We are told of a leper in Luke 5:13 that was healed by the touch of Jesus. In 5:14, Jesus tells him, “go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer (1) for (peri) thy cleansing. ”Notice that he was not ordered to make an offering “in order to obtain” this cleansing, this would not make sense, for the healed leper already had it! (my emp)The author is clearly speaking about the word "for (peri)" the first time (1) it is used not the second (2) time. So he is not talking about EIS but PERI therefore a failed argument about EIS. |
|
|
|
Post by eternallygrateful on Sept 2, 2022 7:29:44 GMT -8
I should read what I posted.. No my friend YOU SHOULD READ "In reference to" can be seen in another example, this time in the English usage of the word. Here are a few expressions that show that there can be more than just one justifiable use of the word. We can "take an aspirin for a headache," and we can “get paid for our work.” We do not take aspirin “for the purpose of ” getting a headache anymore than we get paid “in order to obtain ”our work. The meaning of "because" or "on account of" makes more sense in these examples, just as on account of the remission of sins does in Acts 2:38. We are told of a leper in Luke 5:13 that was healed by the touch of Jesus. In 5:14, Jesus tells him, “go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing. ”Notice that he was not ordered to make an offering “in order to obtain” this cleansing, this would not make sense, for the healed leper already had it! He was referencing the English word "FOR" not the greek word EIS, in the exampled from that time.. including the english word FOR in Luke 5 Luke 5:14 KJV And he charged him to tell no man: but go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer (1) for (peri) thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, (2) for (eis) a testimony unto them. The word "for" in English appears 2 times, yet the first time it is from the Greek word peri and the second time it is eis. The author of the article you posted wrote: "We are told of a leper in Luke 5:13 that was healed by the touch of Jesus. In 5:14, Jesus tells him, “go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer (1) for (peri) thy cleansing. ”Notice that he was not ordered to make an offering “in order to obtain” this cleansing, this would not make sense, for the healed leper already had it! (my emp)The author is clearly speaking about the word "for (peri)" the first time (1) it is used not the second (2) time. So he is not talking about EIS but PERI therefore a failed argument about EIS. He was speaking about the ENGLISH WORD FOR. not the GREEK WORD EIS or peri.. he was using an english example in the bible.. Are you going to continue to ignore the other two passages. or keep ignoring them because you think you have me cornered with this one passage? Which is it my friend. WIll you admit you were WRONG when you said eis is NEVER used the way I claim it is in Acts 2? |
|
|
|
Post by gomer on Sept 2, 2022 7:37:10 GMT -8
Luke 5:14 KJV And he charged him to tell no man: but go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer (1) for (peri) thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, (2) for (eis) a testimony unto them. The word "for" in English appears 2 times, yet the first time it is from the Greek word peri and the second time it is eis. The author of the article you posted wrote: "We are told of a leper in Luke 5:13 that was healed by the touch of Jesus. In 5:14, Jesus tells him, “go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer (1) for (peri) thy cleansing. ”Notice that he was not ordered to make an offering “in order to obtain” this cleansing, this would not make sense, for the healed leper already had it! (my emp)The author is clearly speaking about the word "for (peri)" the first time (1) it is used not the second (2) time. So he is not talking about EIS but PERI therefore a failed argument about EIS. He was speaking about the ENGLISH WORD FOR. not the GREEK WORD EIS Are you going to continue to ignore the other two passages. or keep ignoring them because you think you have me cornered with this one passage? Which is it my friend. WIll you admit you were WRONG when you said eis is NEVER used the way I claim it is in Acts 2? ---What specific two passages are you referring to and I will look at them. ---I posted the following in a post of mine earlier this week showing the impossibility of eis meaning because in Acts 2 which I have not seen you respond to. Here it is again: 1) The same people Peter commanded to repent was the same people he commanded to be baptized and the fact 1) both repentance and baptism are commanded and 2) both are connected by the conjunction "and" which makes BOTH of equal importance in obtaining remission of sins and no amount of grammatical gymnastic can undo or change what Peter commanded.
2) the underlying Greek word in Acts 2:38 is eis not kai. Eis does not mean 'because' therefore it is never translated 'because'. Mt 26:28 Christ did not shed His blood BECAUSE sin were already remitted, that would be impossible (Heb 9:22). Christ shed His blood in order (eis) for sins to be remitted. Heb 11:7 Noah did not build the ark because he was already saved from a flood that had not even occurred but in order (eis) to be saved.
--Peter tied repentance to baptism with the conjunction 'and'. If eis means because and one is baptized because he already has his sins remitted then one repents because one already has sins remitted which makes no sense.
--if those Jews were already saved PRIOR to verse 38 then why does Peter tell them to "save yourselves" in v40? And if they were saved prior to verse 38 can you pinpoint the verse in which they were saved and prove why/how they were saved at that point?
--Acts 2:41 "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized...". Those who rejected the gospel word preached by Peter rejected baptism logically implying rejecting baptism is rejecting the gospel. Water baptism is how the "gospel of Christ" (2 Thess 1:8) is obeyed. Those in Samaria believed and were baptized per (Acts 8:12 cf Mark 16:16). Acts 8:14 says "Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:" and those Samarians received the word of God by being baptized. The Gentiles in Acts 10 were commanded to be water baptized and Acts 11:1 says "And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God." Those Gentiles in Acts 10 also received the word of God by being water baptized. Again, rejecting water baptism is rejecting the gospel word....rejecting water baptism is rejecting obeying the gospel of Christ (2 Thess 1:8)......the fact that God, in flaming fire, will have vengeance upon those who "obey not" the gospel of Christ proves yet again obedience is necessary IN ORDER to be saved.
--In Acts 2:21 Peter quotes Joel's prophecy "And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved." This was fulfilled in v38:
call upon the name of the Lord>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>saved
repent & be baptized >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>saved/sins remitted
Two points:
1) "calling on the name of the Lord means DOING what the Lord says (Lk 6:46) and the Lord said to repent (Lk 13:3) and be baptized (Mk 16:16). Jesus is not Lord of those who disobey what He says.
2) one calls on the name of the Lord IN ORDER to be saved not BECAUSE one is already saved. Since the prophecy is IN ORDER to be saved then the fulfillment in v38 of that prophecy must also be IN ORDER to be saved/sins remitted.
|
|
|
|
Post by eternallygrateful on Sept 2, 2022 7:44:04 GMT -8
He was speaking about the ENGLISH WORD FOR. not the GREEK WORD EIS Are you going to continue to ignore the other two passages. or keep ignoring them because you think you have me cornered with this one passage? Which is it my friend. WIll you admit you were WRONG when you said eis is NEVER used the way I claim it is in Acts 2? ---What specific two passages are you referring to and I will look at them. You must have passed over my post. here is what I said. Matt 12: 41 The men of Nineveh will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at (eis) the preaching of Jonah; and indeed a greater than Jonah is here.
They repented ON ACCOUNT OF or BECAUSE OF.. Jonah preached BEFORE they repentedLuke 11: 7 - and he will answer from within and say, ‘Do not trouble me; the door is now shut, and my children are with me in (eis) bed; I cannot rise and give to you’?
Again, the children were not going TO BED they were already IN BED (past tense)as I showed earlier. I only needed one example. here are two.... |
|
|
|
Post by gomer on Sept 2, 2022 8:56:03 GMT -8
---What specific two passages are you referring to and I will look at them. You must have passed over my post. here is what I said. Matt 12: 41 The men of Nineveh will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at (eis) the preaching of Jonah; and indeed a greater than Jonah is here.
They repented ON ACCOUNT OF or BECAUSE OF.. Jonah preached BEFORE they repentedLuke 11: 7 - and he will answer from within and say, ‘Do not trouble me; the door is now shut, and my children are with me in (eis) bed; I cannot rise and give to you’?
Again, the children were not going TO BED they were already IN BED (past tense)as I showed earlier. I only needed one example. here are two.... There is nothing in either verse that proves eis means "because" and cannot mean anything other than "because". In other words, there is no interpretation that can be placed upon either verse that can rule out eis to mean "in" or "at". In Matt 12:41 the word repent means to change, hence when they repented AT the preaching of Jonah it carries the idea that changed their life IN ORDER to fit the righteous preaching of Jonah. Just as when Peter and Paul preached to the lost, men repented at their preaching, that is, men changed their life IN ORDER to fit the gospel as preached by them. People did not repent for the sake of repenting, that is, a person cannot just repent of his sin of adultery and do nothing more, but he must repent by changing his life into fitting the Christian life as taught in the NT. "They repented into the preaching of Jonah. This is not idiomatic English, but it conveys the exact thought a Greek would derive from the original. The term “preaching” is put for the course of life required by the preaching, and it is asserted that they repented into this. Their repentance, in other words, brought them into the course of life required by the preaching, and it is asserted that they repented into this (1875, 113)." J.W. McGarvey "The New Testament Commentary — Matthew and Mark." (my emp) So there is nothing wrong with Luke 11:7 being translated "in" for people do get "in bed". Below gives a portion of what Prof. Daniel Wallace, a well noted Greek expert, has to say about the 'causal' use of eis: "Before one can argue, therefore, that Matthew 12:41 contains this alleged exception, he must be absolutely positive there is no interpretation that can be placed upon the text in which eis carries its general, forward-looking thrust.
It is not an honest approach to the Scriptures to take an isolated text, and twist it into conformity with an interpretation that one seeks to defend due to a theological predisposition, e.g., the dogma of salvation by faith alone.
Professor Daniel Wallace is associated with the Dallas Theological Seminary in Texas. From a personal theological perspective, he does not believe that baptism is required as a condition for the remission of sins. This is important to keep in mind. Dr. Wallace is the author of the highly acclaimed work, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Therein he has a discussion of the so-called causal use of eis. He contends that studies have shown that “the linguistic evidence for a causal eis” falls short of proof. He stingingly calls this misguided twisting of the preposition an “ingenious solution” that “lacks conviction” (1996, 370-371).
The celebrated Baptist scholar, H.B. Hackett, rendered the Greek phrase, eis aphesin hamartion in Acts 2:38, as “in order to the forgiveness of sins,” and referenced Matthew 26:28 and Luke 3:3 as parallel texts (1879, 54).
The question now engaging our attention is this: is there any reasonable view of Matthew 12:41 that allows the careful student to assign eis its normal, forward-pointing meaning? The answer is yes; clearly there is." www.christiancourier.com/articles/1152-the-use-of-the-preposition-eis-in-matthew-12-41And as I gave above, there is a reasonable view of Mt 12:41 using eis in its normal meaning "at". You cannot change the normal meaning of eis (at, unto, looking forward) based on theological bias by isolating these two verses. Again, you provided no proof in either verse that "eis" must mean "because" and can mean nothing else but "because". |
|
|
|
Post by eternallygrateful on Sept 2, 2022 9:29:05 GMT -8
You must have passed over my post. here is what I said. Matt 12: 41 The men of Nineveh will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at (eis) the preaching of Jonah; and indeed a greater than Jonah is here.
They repented ON ACCOUNT OF or BECAUSE OF.. Jonah preached BEFORE they repentedLuke 11: 7 - and he will answer from within and say, ‘Do not trouble me; the door is now shut, and my children are with me in (eis) bed; I cannot rise and give to you’?
Again, the children were not going TO BED they were already IN BED (past tense)as I showed earlier. I only needed one example. here are two.... There is nothing in either verse that proves eis means "because" and cannot mean anything other than "because". In other words, there is no interpretation that can be placed upon either verse that can rule out eis to mean "in" or "at". In Matt 12:41 the word repent means to change, hence when they repented AT the preaching of Jonah it carries the idea that changed their life IN ORDER to fit the righteous preaching of Jonah. Just as when Peter and Paul preached to the lost, men repented at their preaching, that is, men changed their life IN ORDER to fit the gospel as preached by them. People did not repent for the sake of repenting, that is, a person cannot just repent of his sin of adultery and do nothing more, but he must repent by changing his life into fitting the Christian life as taught in the NT. "They repented into the preaching of Jonah. This is not idiomatic English, but it conveys the exact thought a Greek would derive from the original. The term “preaching” is put for the course of life required by the preaching, and it is asserted that they repented into this. Their repentance, in other words, brought them into the course of life required by the preaching, and it is asserted that they repented into this (1875, 113)." J.W. McGarvey "The New Testament Commentary — Matthew and Mark." (my emp) So there is nothing wrong with Luke 11:7 being translated "in" for people do get "in bed". Below gives a portion of what Prof. Daniel Wallace, a well noted Greek expert, has to say about the 'causal' use of eis: "Before one can argue, therefore, that Matthew 12:41 contains this alleged exception, he must be absolutely positive there is no interpretation that can be placed upon the text in which eis carries its general, forward-looking thrust.
It is not an honest approach to the Scriptures to take an isolated text, and twist it into conformity with an interpretation that one seeks to defend due to a theological predisposition, e.g., the dogma of salvation by faith alone.
Professor Daniel Wallace is associated with the Dallas Theological Seminary in Texas. From a personal theological perspective, he does not believe that baptism is required as a condition for the remission of sins. This is important to keep in mind. Dr. Wallace is the author of the highly acclaimed work, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Therein he has a discussion of the so-called causal use of eis. He contends that studies have shown that “the linguistic evidence for a causal eis” falls short of proof. He stingingly calls this misguided twisting of the preposition an “ingenious solution” that “lacks conviction” (1996, 370-371).
The celebrated Baptist scholar, H.B. Hackett, rendered the Greek phrase, eis aphesin hamartion in Acts 2:38, as “in order to the forgiveness of sins,” and referenced Matthew 26:28 and Luke 3:3 as parallel texts (1879, 54).
The question now engaging our attention is this: is there any reasonable view of Matthew 12:41 that allows the careful student to assign eis its normal, forward-pointing meaning? The answer is yes; clearly there is." www.christiancourier.com/articles/1152-the-use-of-the-preposition-eis-in-matthew-12-41And as I gave above, there is a reasonable view of Mt 12:41 using eis in its normal meaning "at". You cannot change the normal meaning of eis (at, unto, looking forward) based on theological bias by isolating these two verses. Again, you provided no proof in either verse that "eis" must mean "because" and can mean nothing else but "because". Like I said, You will believe whatever you want no matter what. I can't help you. Nor can I agree with you Good day sir.. |
|
