Baptism is a work.

[Guojing]

The text does not go into detail as to WHY Moses and Elijah appeared. IMO it is speculation on both our parts to say we know the reason.

Would you agree that the 2 witnesses in Revelation are likely to be these 2 as well?

 

[rturner76]

I didn't say I know the reason.
They appeared and were talking with Jesus about his death

Who said they were doing that?

I thought that you were. If I misunderstood I sincerely spologize

I think there was more to it than that.
Why Moses and Elijah? Why not David, from whom Jesus was descended? Or Isaiah, who wrote about the suffering servant? At that point, Jesus didn't particularly need emotional support - not as much as he did in the Garden of Gethsemane, or when he was being nailed to the stake.

I am pretty sure they didn't appear to just have a chat.

If that's what you want to think, fine.
The text doesn't support that and I don't see what advice they would be able to give him; but no matter.

It seems that they were there for a reason. If not to support, advise, or consult with him what other reason could there be? As I said above, I'm pretty sure it wasn't just to have a chat.

They were talking with him about his passion, so they must have had something to say. But no one knows what.
The thought that came to me when I originally answered this was that Moses and Elijah then disappeared and all the (Jewish) disciples could see, was Jesus. Maybe it's saying that law and prophecies would be fulfilled by his death, and all people would need from then on, would be Jesus?

A good speculative point but like you also say "no one knows what."

 

[rturner76]

Would you agree that the 2 witnesses in Revelation are likely to be these 2 as well?

I would not know. I haven't studied much of Revelation, nor have I read The Church's theological conclusion. I have always seen Revelation as a work of divine art more than a document that teaches how to apply Christian thought to one's life. That notion may even go against my own Church but I wouldn't know as I said, it's my last priority in Bible study. There are all types of numbers and symbolism contained in Revelations. I'm not sure how anyone can make perfect sense of it.

 

[Guojing]

I would not know. I haven't studied much of Revelation, nor have I read The Church's theological conclusion. I have always seen Revelation as a work of divine art more than a document that teaches how to apply Christian thought to one's life. That notion may even go against my own Church but I wouldn't know as I said, it's my last priority in Bible study. There are all types of numbers and symbolism contained in Revelations. I'm not sure how anyone can make perfect sense of it.

I see, no wonder you have this view about why the 2 of them at the Transfiguration.

If you are able to accept Daniel's prophetic timetable, that Israel's promised Messiah will be cut off at the 69th week, you will understand better why these 2 figureheads of Israel needed to be there before the cut off.

 

[rturner76]

I see, no wonder you have this view about why the 2 of them at the Transfiguration.

If you are able to accept Daniel's prophetic timetable, that Israel's promised Messiah will be cut off at the 69th week, you will understand better why these 2 figureheads of Israel needed to be there before the cut off.

Would you mind unpacking that a bit more? I have read Daniel but I have not studied it verse for verse in comparison to the rest of the New Testament. I wouldn't know where to look for those prophecies but I'm sure an internet search could get me there. I would just save me some time (and effort) if you could point me to the relevant section. When I "debate" on these things, I do not approach it like I am a scholar. I have in my mind what I have gleaned and learned in, my studies but I hope I don't come across like I am the expert that everyone should yield to. There is always room to learn a new lesson.

I just always have to temper the interpretation I read with the interpretation of the Church whose teachings I choose to follow. So thanks in advance.

 

[Guojing]

Would you mind unpacking that a bit more? I have read Daniel but I have not studied it verse for verse in comparison to the rest of the New Testament. I wouldn't know where to look for those prophecies but I'm sure an internet search could get me there. I would just save me some time (and effort) if you could point me to the relevant section. When I "debate" on these things, I do not approach it like I am a scholar. I have in my mind what I have gleaned and learned in, my studies but I hope I don't come across like I am the expert that everyone should yield to. There is always room to learn a new lesson.

I just always have to temper the interpretation I read with the interpretation of the Church whose teachings I choose to follow. So thanks in advance.

Already did to you here Baptism is a work.

 

[rturner76]

Already did to you here Baptism is a work.

I went back and looked at that post and I didn't see anything quoting from the Book of Daniel.

There was much turmoil in the early Church when a brand new group of "people of the way" who were all Jewish began to include Gentiles who followed no Jewish Laws in terms of keeping Kosher and Cleanliness. There was a big dispute in the early Chruch between the Jews in Jerusalem (the first major Church ever established and established by Jews) and the early Churches established by Paul who was a killer of Jewish Christians until his conversion. Peter was stuck in the middle as he wanted to accept these new Gentiles but did not want to offend "James's" Jewish Christian community which continued to practice Levitical Law. Not wanting to offend the Jews that were the backbone of the only major Church in Christiandom, The Church of Jerusalem, he refused to defile the Jewish table by eating with the unclean Gentiles. He was convinced by Paul to drop the Levitical law as a requirement so that the Church could be spread to all of the known world and not just the Jewish community.

After being a diplomat between the two communities, Peter agreed with Paul that the Gentiles would be "grafted in" with the Christian community

Bact to the name on your link the "Baptism is a work" It was a requirement of Jesus himself to be baptized as God the Father said he was "well pleased" by our Christ's decision to be baptized. If Jesus needed baptism, why don't WE also need baptism? Examp;e: John 3:5
“Jesus answered, 'I tell you the truth, unless a man is born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. '”

Was Jesus exaggerating? Did he lie? Was he telling the truth knowing that he has the full knowledge of God being 100% man AND 100% God? Did Jesus Christ error in this statement?

The post quoted above makes no mention of Daniel's prophecy.

 

[BeyondET]

Romans 8:20-21 NLT - "Against its will, all creation was subjected to God's curse. But with eager hope, the creation looks forward to the day when it will join God's children in glorious freedom from death and decay."

Water is part of "all creation." If all of creation is cursed (by the Lord), how can something cursed provide Purity, Righteousness, and Holiness?

Water is purified on a regular bases naturally, thus Water symbolizes that. In 2 kings 2. God instructs Elisha to place salt in the river to purify the water and its still to this day.

21 and Elisha went out to the spring, cast the salt into it, and said, “This is what the LORD says: ‘I have healed this water. No longer will it cause death or unfruitfulness.’ ”

22 And the waters there have been healthy to this day, according to the word spoken by Elisha.

 

[Guojing]

Bact to the name on your link the "Baptism is a work" It was a requirement of Jesus himself to be baptized as God the Father said he was "well pleased" by our Christ's decision to be baptized. If Jesus needed baptism, why don't WE also need baptism? Examp;e: John 3:5
“Jesus answered, 'I tell you the truth, unless a man is born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. '”

Was Jesus exaggerating? Did he lie? Was he telling the truth knowing that he has the full knowledge of God being 100% man AND 100% God? Did Jesus Christ error in this statement?

The post quoted above makes no mention of Daniel's prophecy.

As I stated in that post

1. For Israel to enter the kingdom of God, under the gospel of the kingdom, faith in Jesus + obeying the Law are required.
2. Daniel's 70th week will begin soon for Israel, since the Messiah will be "cut off" in week 69th.

So water baptism was commanded by Jesus to the nation of Israel, because Israel is to be a nation of priests during the millennial kingdom, which takes place when week 70 concludes.

But your error is that you assumed that Jesus was also speaking to us in John 3:5, he was not.

We were cut off from God and Christ and only restored after the fall of Israel (Ephesians 2:11-12), which took place sometime in the middle of Acts (Romans 11:11).

 

[Rose_bud]

They were talking with him about his passion, so they must have had something to say. But no one knows what.
The thought that came to me when I originally answered this was that Moses and Elijah then disappeared and all the (Jewish) disciples could see, was Jesus. Maybe it's saying that law and prophecies would be fulfilled by his death, and all people would need from then on, would be Jesus?

To add to this thought,

In my opinion the emphasis on the text appears to be on the voice of God: The witness and testimony comes from God Himself.

Luke 9:35 A voice came from the cloud, saying, “This is my Son, whom I have chosen; listen to him.”

… and only he remained. One greater than the Law and the Prophets.. it spoke about Him. God testifying to the promise of His Son, the suffering Messiah.

Only Luke's gospel mentions this:

Luke 9 30-31 Suddenly two men, Moses and Elijah, began talking with Jesus. They appeared in glory and spoke about His departure, which He was about to accomplish at Jerusalem.

Which He tried to explain to His disciples
The transfiguration passage is sandwiched between this two predictions of his death. He was preparing them (his disciples) for his death and resurrection.

Luke 9:22 And he said, “The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.”

Luke 9:44-45“Listen carefully to what I am about to tell you: The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men.” But they did not understand what this meant. It was hidden from them, so that they did not grasp it, and they were afraid to ask him about it.

Later they understood that they were the witnesses of Gods majesty, as much as the Law and the Prophets testified about this Great God. Along with them there would be additional witnesses to His Majesty.

2 Peter 1:16-18 For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. He received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.

 

[Jim Campbell]

You mentioned Abraham in your opening post. However, you didn't explain why Abraham, who is our "Father of Faith," could hold such a title if water baptism hadn't yet been instituted. While Abraham held true Faith, so did Job, Moses, Caleb, Joshua, Samuel, and David to mention a few.

What do you think is the basis for these people being Pure, Righteous, Holy, and Blameless? Water baptism was yet to be instituted into the Christian Faith, so how could these people hold a status of Purity? We should keep in mind that there is one God, one Faith, and one Baptism. Therefore, the Faith that Abraham had is the same Faith we are to have today. He is our model of Faith, though Christ hadn't lived, died, and resurrected from the dead.

What do you think of what has been offered above?

John, the first baptistising prophet, foretold of Jesus soon to arrive with HIS gospel that agreed with repentance and faith in the greater one, Jesus' preaching of repentance from sin and believing His good news (the Gospel), foretelling of the ministry of Jesus, but not having for-knowledge of the finishing of Jesus's ministry as a man on earth, dying for mankind, yet his ministry foretold of the death, burial, and rising from the dead. of Jesus. Satan (the Devil) didn't catch on to that finishing truth either. Had that end been fully understood, men, as well as Satan might have hidden Jesus away somewhere to prevent that future necessity required to save believers in Jesus and what He did for us as God coming to mankind as a mere man, demonstrating how people ought to live, believing properly upon God.

Keep in mind the episode of Philip and the Egyptian eunuch (Acts 8) who responded to the gospel, desiring to mark his faith by being water baptized AFTER becoming a believer in Christ Jesus. The water baptism was a SIGN of belief that was a very uncommon action emphasized by John as the hope of salvation, but not resulting in salvation. That act came after after repentance from sin, as a sign of commitment to that faith level. J

esus never preached John"s water baptism as necessary for salvation, though introducing the ultimate belief of being IN HIM by grace through faith, the spiritual baptism into the holy trinity of God. Israel was baptized unto Moses, but the baptism into God marked the requirement of dying to sin (repentance), being buried to the former life (increasing in holiness not by works), and rising up with Christ Jesus to a whole new existence with Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, and Father God. It was Jesus who introduced life via guidance of the Holy Spirit, a concept not preached by John, whose disciples had no knowledge of (Acts 19:6 +).

It was that baptism far greater than John's, empowering effective gospel ministry beyond the initial mark of willingness to depart from sin (repentance). Jesus preached repentance and belief, not a power of a pool of water to empower, yet a SIGN of fulfilling of all righteousness as taught by John. It is a sweet sign of testimony before someone else of your righteous decision for Christ, but ought not be your only testimony before people.

That is far greater than when I joined the Navy swearing to uphold the U.S. Constitution, which I have kept after that commitment, both actions clearly in memory. That former lasting oath was "I, James Campbell, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." It doesn't involve politics. I later solemnly affirmed allegiance to Christ and the word of God, and later adding specifically Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, and Father God, unto obeying what I hear of that Godhead. Military submission to leaders is marked with obedience and confirmed with a salute, while the eternal life is marked by us four, me on my knees in the company of the triune Godhead. Water baptism was like a salute, a sign of submission to greater, and obedience by law. The greater response is submission to God's word, His grace through faith, treasuring the commandments of the Lord Jesus to fulfill all by loving other people.

 

[FredVB]

There is the one baptism, it is spiritual in nature because every believer is with repentant faith and is in Christ, since each came to Christ, and so they all have this baptism. The water baptism is outward representation of that. The command for baptism was the command to Go and baptize those of every nation, those ones coming to Christ, and those who do submit to that outward expression being baptized, with water used when it's available, are not the ones fulfilling the command for that. There are a few without the baptism of water who still have the one baptism, the thief who was dying on a cross next to Jesus and repented is an example for that.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

But your error is that you assumed that Jesus was also speaking to us in John 3:5, he was not.

"Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again." (John 3:7) (KJV).

The T words (Thou, thee, thine) are written to one person (singular), and the Y words (Ye, you, yours) are written to two or more people (plural). These personal pronouns even line up with the Greek (Which are not present in most Modern Bibles). Anyway, the point here is that Jesus is basically saying, "Y'all must be born again" This is just the reality of the text that you cannot escape.

 

[Strong in Him]

"Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again." (John 3:7) (KJV).

The T words (Thou, thee, thine) are written to one person (singular), and the Y words (Ye, you, yours) are written to two or more people (plural). These personal pronouns even line up with the Greek (Which are not present in most Modern Bibles). Anyway, the point here is that Jesus is basically saying, "Y'all must be born again" This is just the reality of the text that you cannot escape.

Jesus was clearly speaking TO Nicodemus.
But his words are applicable to all his followers and those who wish to enter the Kingdom of God.

 

[Guojing]

"Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again." (John 3:7) (KJV).

The T words (Thou, thee, thine) are written to one person (singular), and the Y words (Ye, you, yours) are written to two or more people (plural). These personal pronouns even line up with the Greek (Which are not present in most Modern Bibles). Anyway, the point here is that Jesus is basically saying, "Y'all must be born again" This is just the reality of the text that you cannot escape.

See the next paragraph, Ephesians 2:11-12.

In Jews' perspective, we are still dogs then.

 

[Guojing]

Jesus was clearly speaking TO Nicodemus.
But his words are applicable to all his followers and those who wish to enter the Kingdom of God.

If you believe that, then you will also follow what Jesus said in Luke 12:32-33.

 

[Strong in Him]

If you believe that, then you will also follow what Jesus said in Luke 12:32-33.

In principle, yes.
Jesus was speaking to the rich young ruler. When asked which commands he kept, the ruler mentioned those which related to his neighbour. He did not quote the first command - you shall have no other God before me. Money was his god.
This principle applies to us too. If we put anything - church practice, hobbies, family, going out and having a good time, even writing on this forum - before our devotion and commitment to God, we are breaking the first commandment.
If we are not "exceedingly rich" and money is not our god, we are not called to give it up.
Money can do a lot of good to a lot of people. It's not wrong in itself.

 

[Guojing]

In principle, yes.
Jesus was speaking to the rich young ruler. When asked which commands he kept, the ruler mentioned those which related to his neighbour. He did not quote the first command - you shall have no other God before me. Money was his god.
This principle applies to us too. If we put anything - church practice, hobbies, family, going out and having a good time, even writing on this forum - before our devotion and commitment to God, we are breaking the first commandment.
If we are not "exceedingly rich" and money is not our god, we are not called to give it up.
Money can do a lot of good to a lot of people. It's not wrong in itself.

Luke 12:32-33 has nothing to do with the rich young ruler.

No idea why people always linked those 2 together.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

See the next paragraph, Ephesians 2:11-12.

In Jews' perspective, we are still dogs then.

So you don’t think Gentiles were not saved in the Old Testament?
What about the story of Jonah?
What about Rahab?
Did Jesus not help the Canaanite woman because of her great faith?
Or did Jesus still refuse to help her (despite her faith) because she was a dog?

Also, your point here really does not address the Bible that existed for hundreds of years long before Westcott and Hort showed up.
The word "Ye" is a plural in the King James Bible and it reflects that in the Greek. It is a fact. Just search at Perplexity.ai, Google, or Chat.openai.com and get back to me.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Jesus was clearly speaking TO Nicodemus.
But his words are applicable to all his followers and those who wish to enter the Kingdom of God.

Yes, He was talking to Nicodemus. That is why the word “Thee” is in the text, too. But when Jesus said, “Ye must be born again” He was saying “Y’all must be born again” referring to Nicodemus and the other Jews and even us today (Who would be reading this text in our Bibles).

It's a fact that the word YE is the plural form of you (similar to saying, "Y'all" like in the South).
Just search the internet and this will prove it to be true. Most Modern Bibles do not make this plural pronoun distinction, unlike the King James Bible. It is very valuable to know even if one does not believe the KJV is anything special. The plural pronouns are reflected in the Greek.