God grants repentance to life

[Guojing]

Never happened.

You disagree with Mark 16:13-14 that Peter did not believe Christ rose from the dead, even after it happened?

 

[Aaron112]

AMP
All Scripture is God-breathed [given by divine inspiration]

 

[SabbathBlessings]

I never said that. Do you have a reading comprehension problem? We are talking about WHERE WE GOT OUR BIBLE. When you seem to have no understanding of at all. I well have AI explain it for you.

• The scribes are amazingly accurate but there is a story behind that also.

The Bible is a collection of books that was developed over centuries through a process of copying, canonizing, and translating:

• Oral tradition
  Scholars believe the Bible's stories were originally passed down orally as poetry and tales, possibly to help the tribes of Israel develop a collective identity.
• Written
  The stories were eventually written down, with the earliest manuscripts likely written in paleo-Hebrew on papyrus scrolls. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew, while the New Testament was written in Greek. Faithful scribes copied and translated the texts.
• Canonized
  Different religious communities compiled the books into official collections of scriptures, or biblical canons.
• Translated
  For example, in the 9th century, Cyril and Methodius translated the Bible into Slavonic using an alphabet Cyril designed called Cyrillic. This alphabet is still used today in the Russian language.
• 
  

That’s the problem, you keep going to outside sources for your information instead of going to God’s Word.

2 Tim 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for [a]instruction in righteousness,

You might also consider taking a read at the forum rules. I’ll ignore the remarks as more spiritual growth needed.

You are taking a Catholic approach to the scriptures, I am not Catholic, nor do I beleive in their teachings.

I’ll quote this once again from Jesus

What did Jesus quote? Scripture. And His Word is what we are to live by, not oral traditions.

4 But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’ ”

He is who I place my faith in alone. There is no greater Authority than Christ.

There’s no point in going back and forth so I will leave it as agree to disagree. I do wish you well in seeking Truth to God’s Word.

God bless.

 

[Ace777]

zzz

 

[SabbathBlessings]

AGAIN where do we GET the word of God??????????????????????????????

You must have been great at dodge ball, because you sure know how to dodge the issue.

We get it from God. 2 Tim 3:16. God promised He would preserve His Word and He did.

Again, you really need to read the forum rules.

 

[Ace777]

His Word is what we are to live by, not oral traditions.

Hello, His word WAS ORAL. Jesus did not write His words down. I do believe in the Red Letters. That really is all we need to read. If we would just read the Sermon on the mount that we believe was an exact copy of what Jesus said. Esp "Why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?"

This is a good example though. Because Luke records the sermon on the mount and he was NOT THERE. This is what you call an oral tradition.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Hello, His word WAS ORAL. Jesus did not write His words down. I do believe in the Red Letters. That really is all we need to read. If we would just read the Sermon on the mount that we believe was an exact copy of what Jesus said. Esp "Why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?"

This is a good example though. Because Luke records the sermon on the mount and he was NOT THERE. This is what you call an oral tradition.

The bible was written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit through His prophets and apostles. That is not called oral tradition its called the Word of God..

You misunderstand the gospels- they are told from their perspectives. All working in harmony, not against.

 

[Josheb]

You disagree with Mark 16:13-14 that Peter did not believe Christ rose from the dead, even after it happened?

Never said any such thing.

 

[Guojing]

Never said any such thing.

So let's summarize our discussion so far.

1. You agreed that Peter rebuked Jesus after Jesus tells him he would die
2. You also agreed that Peter did not believe that Jesus rose from the dead after others have reported that to him.

Yet, somehow you are able to reason to yourself that Peter could be preaching the death burial and resurrection of Jesus in Luke 9:6, simply because you assumed that he is able to do so.

And you still want to say that I am the one "reading the posts you've already made up your mind and nothing I post will change it"? Are you talking about yourself here?

 

[Josheb]

So let's summarize our discussion so far.

No, we won't be summarizing anything until you either prove I disagreed with Mark 16:13-14 that Peter did not believe Christ rose from the dead even after it happened, or you acknowledge your mistake. You do not get to jump from topic to topic, make stuff up as you go along, and never be accountable for any of it. You most definitely do not get to lie and pretend it never happened.


Make it right.

Yet, somehow you are able to reason to yourself that Peter could be preaching the death burial and resurrection of Jesus in Luke 9:6, simply because you assumed that he is able to do so.

Never happened.

I explained how what was preached in Luke 9 included the elements of the gospel (as defined in Post 33) even if those preaching it did not yet understand it. You do not get to misrepresent my posts, pretend what was posted never happened, then bear false witness, and expect me to permit you to avoid that dross so you can summarize your twisted version of things (especially after you were previously asked not to do that sort of thing).

Make it right.

 

[Guojing]

Make it right.

I rest my case, you can believe whatever you want about what the 12 were actually preaching in Luke 9:6.

 

[Josheb]

I rest my case, you can believe whatever you want about what the 12 were actually preaching in Luke 9:6.

Duh


Perhaps you haven't thought this through. The logical necessity of your protest is that Peter (and the other disciples) preached a gospel they did not believe, and because it did not include a hint of reference to the resurrection it was an incomplete gospel. They preached a different gospel than the whole gospel. They preached a gospel different than the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

2 Corinthians 11:3-4
But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ. For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully.

Galatians 1:6-9
I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

The one preaching the different gospel was to be cursed! Maybe Paul was being hyperbolic . There would also be adverse effect on the hearer of an incomplete gospel,

Acts 18:24-28
Now a Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by birth, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus; and he was mighty in the Scriptures. This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he was speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus, being acquainted only with the baptism of John; and he began to speak out boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately. And when he wanted to go across to Achaia, the brethren encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him; and when he had arrived, he greatly helped those who had believed through grace, for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, demonstrating by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.

Which is odd because even John knew about the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and he preached before the twelve were sent out in Luke 9. Some of the twelve had been disciples of John's before joining Jesus.

Luke 3:15-18
Now while the people were in a state of expectation and all were wondering in their hearts about John, as to whether he was the Christ, John answered and said to them all, "As for me, I baptize you with water; but One is coming who is mightier than I, and I am not fit to untie the thong of His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. "His winnowing fork is in His hand to thoroughly clear His threshing floor, and to gather the wheat into His barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire." So with many other exhortations he preached the gospel to the people.

If the baptism of the Holy Spirit was preached as part of the gospel prior to Jesus beginning his ministry then how is it six chapters later Jesus' disciples would preach a different gospel?

John 16:5-11
"But now I am going to Him who sent me; and none of you asks me, 'Where are You going?' But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart. But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you. And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment; concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father and you no longer see me; and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged."

So, which is more consistent with the whole of scripture, the disciples preached an incomplete and thereby incorrect gospel, or they taught the whole truth not yet fully grasping what they were preaching? They preached a gospel of the kingdom they incorrectly understood as a physical kingdom on earth when Jesus' kingdom is not of this world. They preached a gospel of eternal life not yet connecting the dots between the necessity of a perfect sacrifice and that eternal life. You've got them preaching a different gospel and the gospel changes every time they learn and later understand new information.

Isaiah 1:3
"An ox knows its owner, and a donkey its master's manger, but Israel does not know, My people do not understand."

Jeremiah 8:7
Even the stork in the sky knows her appointed seasons. The turtledove, the swift, and the thrush keep their time of migration, but My people do not know the requirements of the LORD.

The author of Hebrews listed many of the men and women of faith in chapter 11 of his epistle. Of these people he wrote,

Hebrews 11:13-16
All these died in faith, without receiving the promises, but having seen them and having welcomed them from a distance, and having confessed that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. For those who say such things make it clear that they are seeking a country of their own. And indeed if they had been thinking of that country from which they went out, they would have had opportunity to return. But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore, God is not ashamed to be called their God; for He has prepared a city for them.

They understood, and they believed.

Hebrews 11:35, 39-40
Women received back their dead by resurrection; and others were tortured, not accepting their release, so that they might obtain a better resurrection.... And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised, because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect.

But somehow, according to you, that could not possibly be part of the gospel preached in Luke 9:6, even though Luke 9:2 explicitly states they were preaching the kingdom of God and Luke 10 makes it clear people understood the gospel was about obtaining eternal life. Your argument says not only did the disciples of Jesus not preach this but no one in their Jewish audience understood what Old Testament saints had understood for centuries: the obtaining of a heavenly city and a better resurrection.

And the reason you think this way is, apparently, because you think temporal chronology is limiting and necessitates a different gospel being preached. The twelve could not possibly teach the same whole gospel not understanding its full meaning, but they could preach an incomplete, different gospel, and what Luke was really telling his readers in chapter 9 was the disciples were false teachers early on and they taught falsely with Jesus' knowledge and consent. Your case is a foolish one, but you can believe whatever you want about what the twelve were teaching in Luke 9:6.


All this time wasted since Post 33, and you still did not prove the gospel relevant to this op says nothing about the great victory Jesus achieved over death, and his being King of Kings. The gospel of the kingdom has no king, or the king being king has nothing to do with his death and resurrection. That is just sad.

Luke 16:14-16
Now the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, were listening to all these things and were scoffing at Him. And he said to them, "You are those who justify yourselves in the sight of men, but God knows your hearts; for that which is highly esteemed among men is detestable in the sight of God. The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John; since that time the gospel of the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it.

The gospel of the kingdom had been preached long before the disciples were sent out in Luke 9.

Galatians 1:9
As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!



There is only one gospel by which any are saved. One, and only one. The disciples may not have fully understood what they were preaching, but they did not teach a different gospel that changed every time new information was received.

 

[Ace777]

preached a gospel they did not believe

They did not believe that you have to believe to be saved?
That makes about as much sense as a screen door on a submarine

 

[Josheb]

They did not believe that you have to believe to be saved?

Ask the other poster. He is the one mistakenly saying I said they believed what they did not believe and did not believe what they believed. He is the one arguing Luke 9's gospel could not possibly have included what I posted in Post #33 because scripture later reports his refusal to believe Jesus would/could/should die.

That makes about as much sense as a screen door on a submarine

I agree. You'll have to take up that matter with the other poster. I was simply pointing out that nonsense is the logically necessary end of his own protest. It's his argument that is irrational.

 

[Ace777]

Ask the other poster. He is the one mistakenly saying I said

So they said that you said that he said. Didn't they make a movie out of that?

 

[Guojing]

There is only one gospel by which any are saved. One, and only one. The disciples may not have fully understood what they were preaching, but they did not teach a different gospel that changed every time new information was received.

As I already said to you, the post that you chose to ignore for reasons the rest of us can see

1. You agreed that Peter rebuked Jesus after Jesus tells him he would die
2. You also agreed that Peter did not believe that Jesus rose from the dead after others have reported that to him.

Yet, somehow you are able to reason to yourself that Peter could be preaching the death burial and resurrection of Jesus in Luke 9:6.

The 12 were preaching the gospel of the kingdom (Matthew 3:2; Matthew 4:17; Luke 10:9) to Israel in Luke 9:6, which did not need to include the death burial and resurrection of Christ.

No one can understand why you stubbornly refuse to concede this point.

In this aspect, Jesus said it correctly in John 10:37-38

If I am not doing the works of My Father, then do not believe Me. 38But if I am doing them, even though you do not believe Me, believe the works themselves, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I am in the Father.”

Israel saw the signs of Christ at his first coming, and as the author of John would conclude, those signs were written that they may believe he is the Christ, the Son of God (John 20:30-31).

And that is the gospel of the kingdom.

 

[Guojing]

They did not believe that you have to believe to be saved?
That makes about as much sense as a screen door on a submarine

If Peter rebuked Christ for telling him about the latter's coming death

If Peter refused to believe Christ rose from the dead after the 3rd day, when his friends told him he did rise from the dead,

can you actually believed Peter could be preaching 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, at the time of Luke 9:6?

I hope that makes more sense to you.

 

[Josheb]

As I already said to you, the post that you chose to ignore for reasons the rest of us can see

1. You agreed that Peter rebuked Jesus after Jesus tells him he would die

Peter did attempt to rebuke Jesus (Jesus is never actually rebuked because he never does anything wrong ).

1. You also agreed that Peter did not believe that Jesus rose from the dead after others have reported that to him.

Peter did not believe Jesus had risen from the dead.

Yet, somehow you are able to reason to yourself that Peter could be preaching the death burial and resurrection of Jesus in Luke 9:6.

Yep, and I explained it. You just do not understand you, and you blame me for your own failure.

The 12 were preaching the gospel of the kingdom (Matthew 3:2; Matthew 4:17; Luke 10:9) to Israel in Luke 9:6,

Which includes the promise of resurrection and eternal life, according to information already provided in the Old Testament in veiled form.

which did not need to include the death burial and resurrection of Christ.

Sure it did. It's you who has screwed up.

David, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, David foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of God's anointed one, that Jesus was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his flesh see corruption (Acts 2:30-31). The Sadducees rejected the premise of life after death, but the Pharisees believed otherwise. Neither understood the resurrection was a person, but their lack of understanding did not change the fact, or the meaning of the promises.

That is the gospel. David spoke of the resurrection. The apostles may not yet have understood it, but they preached the promise of an eternal kingdom, an eternal throne, and a resurrection to eternal life.

No one can understand why you stubbornly refuse to concede this point.

Speak for yourself. You may not understand it, but anyone who uses their God-given cognitive faculties can understand it.

 

[Guojing]

Speak for yourself. You may not understand it, but anyone who uses their God-given cognitive faculties can understand it.

Like I said, I rest my case, and let you believe whatever you want to believe.

 

[Josheb]

Like I said, I rest my case, and let you believe whatever you want to believe.

And like I said, your case is irrational and wrong, but you can believe whatever you want.