Hi Alex, I hope you don't mind if I make a comment or two, I'm sure you remember me from introducing your first book here on CF.
Although the disciples of course already believed before this day, they did not receive the Messiah’s baptism until Pentecost. For various reasons, the Messiah’s promised Spirit baptism did not begin immediately after the resurrection but at Pentecost, just as Jesus said several days earlier:
How does this passage fit in with your theory?
John 20:21 Again Jesus said to them, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent Me, so also I am sending you.” 22
When He had said this, He breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
Tertullian speaks of this portion of scripture when he lays down the prescript that Jesus here refers to water baptism:
“without baptism, salvation is attainable by none,” (chiefly on the ground of that declaration of the Lord, who says, “Unless one be born of water, he hath not life”),…
[1]
Wouldn't that thought of his be a lack of understanding how people are born, through water (amniotic fluid)?
There is nothing here about water baptism saving anyone—it’s believing in the Messiah and thereby receiving the spirit washing. This is the Messiah’s baptism, where the believer is washed/baptized and is then ready to receive the Holy Spirit infilling (Acts 2:4; 8:14–17; 9:17; 19:6).
I want to understand explicitly what you are stating here. Are you saying that you need to be immersed/baptised first in preparation to receive
Then, on the day of the resurrection, they prove they did not have a complete understanding because
they refused to believe Mary Magdalene and the other women who said that Jesus had risen from the dead (just as he had promised) and that they had seen him. Jesus strongly reproves them for this:
NAS
Mark 16:14 And afterward He appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining
at the table; and
He reproached them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because
they had not believed those who had seen Him after He had risen.
I've highlighted some parts of your statement above. You are using the Apostles reaction as proof they had little understanding of things. It is well known that for such a huge thing that he had indeed returned from the dead that these men would not believe mere women. I think that is what Yeshua was reproaching that about, as it specifies that they did not believe those who had seen him, which were the women. I don't think it was so much that they didn't believe the message as the messengers.
Out of all of the apostles, Paul was the most advanced at moving into a better understanding of the New Covenant. The scriptures show that he was also the best Bible scholar with the most revelations (
2 Corinthians 12:7;
Galatians 2:11;
2 Peter 3:15). Paul was educated in the scriptures under Gamaliel, apparently from a young age (Acts 22:3).
Yet he never actually gives a revelation specifically like John did who I would say gave the most and direct. Also as far as studying under Gamaliel it is only Luke who says that, Paul in all his letters and boasting of his credentials never mentions it once in all his letters both to the communities and to individuals.
We have also seen that, early on in his ministry, Paul spent eighteen months in Corinth, where he founded and built up the Corinthian Church (Acts 18:7–11). During those eighteen months, he baptized only a handful of believers because he understood the truth on water baptisms very early on. He wrote to the Corinthians, later saying that “Christ did not send me to baptize.” He also wrote to the fellowship in Ephesus and declared that there is only
one baptism,
not two important baptisms (
Ephesians 4:5).
You mention this because you believe that the Original Apostles did not understand about immersion. I would beg to differ. There are many done in the mikvah to show a change of state. I would suggest that after one believes and repents (which is often ignored, but is most essential) they are then filled with the Holy Spirit and then mikvah to show the change within.
Acts 10
44 While Peter yet spake these words,
the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? 48And
he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
In his very first letter to the Corinthians (after saying that Christ did not send him to baptize), he tells them what the
one remaining baptism is and that it is the Messiah’s Spirit baptism:
NAS
1 Corinthians 12:13 For
by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.
Paul also said somewhere that all Israel was baptised when they went through the Red Sea, but they went through on dry land, same when they went into the land, over Jordan, again dry.
Paul is teaching the Messiah’s promised Spirit baptism here, not a water one. Yet, we see other times where Paul does fulfill certain Old Covenant requirements for the sake of the ministry, to not stumble others, or for various other reasons. He wrote that he became as a Jew that he might win them (
1 Corinthians 9:20). Thus, he sometimes went along with certain religious norms so that he could continue to minister to certain groups. One example of this is where Paul follows certain requirements of the law, such as giving notice of his ritual purification to enter the Temple with the appropriate animal sacrifices offered:
NAS Acts 21:26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day, purifying himself along with them, went into the temple, giving notice of the completion of the days of purification, until the sacrifice was offered for each one of them.
I've always wondered how one who is born a Jew becomes a Jew? have you ever wondered what he meant by that, besides the P'[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]?
Paul was actually commanded by James to do that because there was a lot of uproar about Paul teaching the Jews to not keep the commandments of Moses. I don't think that was an idle gossip either.
Another example in the Book of Acts is where Paul has Timothy circumcised, even though Paul actually taught against circumcision (Acts 21:21;
1 Corinthians 7:18–19;
Galatians 5:2–4). He had Timothy circumcised so they could freely minister to certain Jewish groups who would otherwise have been concerned with ritual purity:
NAS Acts 16:3 Paul wanted this man to go with him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.
And there you have seen that Paul taught against circumcision, which was not about ritual purity it was about the covenant. I never understood what Timothy having a Greek father had to do with him being circumcised and did they actually check them?
So there were various times when requirements of the ceremonial law were adhered to so as to freely enter the Temple in Jerusalem or minister to those who had not yet received the truth.
Which truth are you speaking of? Certainly some commandments today cannot be fulfilled because the temple is not in existence (at least not yet) however there are commands that are perpetual, and such as circumcision were done before the Torah came into effect for the nation.
…11You are to circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, and this will be a sign of the covenant between Me and you. 12 Generation after generation, every male must be circumcised when he is eight days old, including those born in your household and those purchased from a foreigner— even those who are not your offspring. 13Whether they are born in your household or purchased, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh will be an everlasting covenant.…
This was especially important at that time period after the Greek occupation and the whole 'epispasm' being done in the time of the Maccabees.
Thus, when we see Paul having Timothy circumcised in Acts 16:3, we would not use that to prove God requires circumcision today. Or, when we see Paul enter the Temple after the ritual purification (even having an animal sacrifice offered for him), it does not mean that God requires animal sacrifices for us today. When we see Peter refusing to eat with Gentiles at various times, we would not say this is a requirement for today. And if we still see them water baptizing (required for entering the Temple and for any Gentile conversion), this does not prove that God requires this washing for us today, because we now have the New Covenant washing—the spiritual washing that the Lord Jesus provides.
You don't need the case with timothy to prove anything, the Torah is all the 'proof' you need.
The thing with Paul in the Temple need not be used as there is no Temple standing right now.
As far a Peter, the vision was of unkosher animals, Peter refused to eat because Kosher laws were and are still in effect (I'm currently writing a book about that subject) and the scene in Galatia I believe was because Paul was teaching it was OK to eat food offered to idols, that is what the men from Jerusalem came to tell them and why all the Jews with Peter (it wasn't just Peter as Paul makes it out to be) refused to eat what the Gentiles were eating. Time-wise this is upheld by the Revelations given to John in two instances in the two churches that it is still an abomination.
