- DRA - said:
If I am so far off with this thing that you call context, then perhaps you can go to Acts chapter 2 and explain to us what happened, who it happened to, how they responded to it, and how the Lord reacted to it. Why not give us something to work with?
I have DRA. I've shown you extra-biblical and Jewish documentation on this situation, yet you refuse it out-of-hand, because of the myopic nature of this project. What point is there to a dialogue if one side refuses to acknowledge the truth outside of the box?
DRA said:
The old covenant replaced the new (Heb. 8:13). Is this what that passage says? Isn't it the other way around?
Here is something for you to consider:
There is a process within the heavenlies where the lunar schedule is set upon 28 days. Within this lunar schedule, there are a number of different phases of the moon. One of these phases is the New Moon. Do you realilze that the word used for "New" in New Moon is the same word used when describing the B'rit Chadasha. I assure you that it is. Therefore, what insight can this give us? The very fact that the moon does not re-create itself every 28 days. Instead, the cycle is refreshed; it is RENEWED. The exact same thing is considered with the "reNEWed" Covenant. It's not a creation from scratch. It's a renewing. And in this situation, the contract is the same: the Torah.
DRA said:
Do you accept the N.T. as Scripture?
How many times do I need to explain my view of this? I view the B'rit Chadasha as inspired. However, there are different levels of inspiration (and this is even a Jewish consideration): the highest inspiration is the Torah. The next level involved the Tanakh, and thirdly, there is commentary. I rank the B'rit Chadasha somewhere between the Tanakh and the commentary.
DRA said:
What is your scriptural basis for using the Old Testament to interpret the New? It sounds to me like you are making up the rules as you go.
It's a Judaic concept. Something I would presume you can't understand.
DRA said:
The Old Testament contained the copies, shadows, and types of things under the New Testament (see Heb. 10:1, Rom. 5:14, 1 Pet. 3:20-21).
And? What's your point? Is that supposed to make the Tanakh suspect or of less meaning than the B'rit Chadasha? As I've mentioned numerous times, the only Scripture that Y'shua and Sha'ul held as "inspired" was the Tanakh. What's good enough for them is good enough for me. If you've got a problem with that, then I suggest you take it up with them.
DRA said:
If 2 Tim. 3:16-17 is referring to just the Old Testament, then you must believe that the Old Testament gives us what we need to "be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work" (verse 17). If so, then why the New Testament . . . the perfect law of liberty (James 1:25)?
Let me walk you through this passage:
James 1
22But prove yourselves
doers of the
word, and not merely
hearers who delude themselves.
23For if anyone is a
hearer of the
word and not a
doer, he is like a man who looks at his natural face in a mirror;
24for once he has looked at himself and gone away, he has immediately forgotten what kind of person he was.
25But one who looks intently at
the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful
hearer but an effectual
doer, this man will be blessed in what he does.
DRA, do you know what Ya'acov is referencing here? Let me show you, and then we'll discuss it:
Exodus 19
8(A)All the people answered together and said, "All that the
LORD has spoken we will do!" And Moses brought back the words of the people to the LORD.
Exodus 24
3Then Moses came and recounted to the people all the words of the LORD and all the ordinances; and all the people answered with one voice and said, "(D)All the words which the
LORD has spoken we will do!"
7Then he took (I)the book of the covenant and read it in the hearing of the people; and they said, "(J)All that the
LORD has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient!"
The Lord has spoken = to hear or be a hearer of the Word.
We will do = doer of the Word.
Therefore, what is Ya'acov talking about above with the "the perfect law, the law of liberty"? HE IS TALKING ABOUT THE
TORAH. And he admonishes us not to just be "hearers" of it, but also "doers". The Torah frees us from the "law of sin". This is the same thing that Sha'ul talks about; yet is so confused by people of a non-Jewish persuasion. Once again, this is why context is crucial.
DRA said:
Sorry, but I believe that Jesus is the one that came and blessed all families of the earth (see Gen. 12:3, Acts 3:25-26, and Acts 10:34-35). That is the reason He is presented as He is in Matt. 1:1 as the Son of Abraham.
You prove my point over and over again. You only see what fits your dogma. I don't care what your opinion is. I have presented Scripture with the fact of the matter. Salvation was available before 2000 years ago. It's visible in the Tanakh. If you can't accept that, then take it up with G-d.
DRA said:
Tell me about all the Jews that didn't obey what Peter told them in Acts 2:38? Did they have their sins taken away?
When you become G-d how about you let me know? As for me, I have no idea when a person's sins are taken away. Nor does anyone else for that matter. G-d is the One Who takes care of that issue.
DRA said:
Once again, why not take just a few minutes and explain to us what Romans 6:3-11 is discussing?
I've dealt with before. Sha'ul is talking about symbolism. Do you not recall that I asked you if believe you were
physically crucified and resurrected with Christ? It's called symbolism. Just like baptism: it's a symbolic expression of an inward heart condition. That's the part you can't get past.
DRA said:
You can talk all day long about this thing that you call context, but you don't address passages where baptism is discussed.
Let's not get into a discussion about who addresses who's arguments. I have been a lot more forthright in addressing your arguments and your tangents, then you ever have been of mine. The part that you fail to realize is the fact that you never counter my "context" argument. Do you realize that Y'shua (your Jesus) was a Jew in the first century, who was a Jewish rabbi? Do you cognitively comprehend that? If you do, then why not accept the context of the situation? If you don't, then at least admit it.
DRA said:
It sounds like you have formed an understanding of baptism under the gospel of Christ by looking at passages other than where baptism is discussed.
And you seem to ignore the myriad of passages that talk about salvation OUTSIDE of baptism. The proof is overwhelmingly on my side; not just by numbers, but also by substance.
DRA said:
Sorry, but that simply won't work for me. Take that passage that you have repeatedly brought up -- Isaiah 45:22. I accept that passage. I think that the Jews that had departed from faithfulness to God under the law of Moses and engaged in idolatry (determined by what I call context) needed to return to God.
It's addressed to Cyrus, a GENTILE Ruler. It's addressed to ALL THE NATIONS OF THE EARTH. That would include EVERYONE. Do you honestly miss that? It's not just the Jews.
DRA said:
However, when I look at the New Testament, I do NOT find that only repentance was required for salvation under the gospel. If ignoring all the N.T. passages that discuss salvation under the gospel is what it takes for you and I to stand on common ground, then it "ain't" gonna happen. End of story.
The Tanakh is all that was available to Y'shua and Sha'ul. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I will gladly ignore the B'rit Chadasha and take the Tanakh. You, unfortunately, do the exact opposite and ignore the Tanakh. And by doing so, you take the foundation out from underneath your feet. Without the Tanakh, you don't have a leg to stand on. And that, my friend, is context.
As far as salvation goes, I have also shown how it is addressed in the B'rit Chadasha. As you may recall (or may not), there are no verses in the Brit Chadasha that say "baptism is essential to salvation". I don't see that anywhere. I also don't see any verses where baptism and salvation are even in the same sentence. Even in your beloved KJV there is no verse where the two words are used together. I have given you figures that show that salvation is in the Tanakh more than two times the amount in the B'rit Chadasha. The word saved is used on a 1:1 basis. Yet, this makes no impression upon you? Is this sacred cow becoming a little too golden? Myopic is the only word I can think of to describe it.
DRA said:
I certainly don't categorize every example of conversion in the book of Acts as a "few scant Scripture verses."
Are we talking about conversion or instances of baptism. Let's talk about actual baptism occurrences in the B'rit Chadasha.
1) Matthew 3, Mark 1, Luke 3,
2) Luke 7
3) John 3
4) Acts 2
5) Acts 8:12
6) Acts 8:36
7) Acts 9
8) Acts 10
9) Acts 16:15
10) Acts 16:33
11) Acts 18
12) Acts 19
13) Acts 22
There are thirteen different occurrences within the B'rit Chadasha that discuss people getting baptised.
Now, let's look at the ones after the gospels, because these would supposedly be the baptism for this new forgiveness or remission of sins (explicitly stated by someone):
1) Acts 2 (check)
2) Acts 8:12 (no)
3) Acts 8:36 (no) *and btw, you do realize that "eunuch" is a mistranslation, correct?
4) Acts 9 (no)
5) Acts 10 (no) this time Kefa made no mention of "forgiveness/remission of sins"
6) Acts 16:15 (no)
7) Acts 16:33 (no)
8) Acts 18 (no)
9) Acts 19 (no)
10) Acts 22 (no)
Only one time is 'baptism' said to be for the 'remission of sins'; and even Kefa was not consistent in making this known. So, out of all this mess, there is only one verse that blatantly says, "be baptized for the remission/forgiveness of sins". I find that to be scant.
DRA said:
I am not condemning you. I am simply contending (Jude 3) for those things that the Lord says are necessary to be saved today under the gospel of Christ.
Color it however you want. Condemnation is condemnation. There is no reason why salvation would be any more intricate under the 'gospel of Christ' than it would have been before hand.
DRA said:
The necessary inference is that those who don't obey them are condemned by the Lord (see Heb. 5:9, 2 Thess. 1:8) -- not by me. Credit needs to go to whom credit is due!
The understanding of 'obedience' is even quite different between you and me.
DRA said:
If this is true, then you have obeyed the Lord (see Mark 16:16) and teach as those in the first century taught, right? Just like in Acts 8:35-39, right?
My goal is to operate under the example of Jewish rabbi 2000 years ago; not in how you would interpret it. I care much more about not being labed "lawless" than I do about your ideology of baptism.
DRA said:
How can baptism "for the remission of sin" be a product of 1800 years of manicuring when the apostle Peter commanded it in the first-century (Acts 2:38)?
Well, DRA, since Kefa only says this once, and it's only said by him that might lead to a lack of exegesis on the part of the folks within your congregation. That's not for me to evaluate, because I don't care. It's you who is trying to divorce Y'shua, Sha'ul, and the Apostles from being Jews; not me. Therefore, I can't help you on how you may or may not construe their messages.