Posted on 01/27/2018 6:52:30 AM PST by tiredofallofit
.
>> “That’s because only the original texts are inerrant...” <<
We have no “original” documents.
.
.
Confusion!
Matthew 7 is very clear that only doers of the word can be the beneficiaries of Yeshua’s blood. Those that have rejected the Torah have rejected his blood.
Read James letter for a deeper explanation. Grace is for those that follow the same love that James describes.
John’s first epistle also affirms this solidly.
.
Herod Achelaus was in power for 9 years after Herod the great and his rule included Judea. When Herod the Great died, Ceasar Augustus divided Herod the Great kingdoms into 4 parts according to his rule. Herod Achelaus was judged incompetent in 6 AD(when Quirinius was in power) and his rule given to another brother named Herod(Antipas). There...the contradiction is solved.
**The Mosiac Covenant worked that way, but the Messianic Covenant is based on faith in the grace of God through the sacrifice of Jesus.**
Is repentance necessary for salvation? Is repentance a work? (Acts 26:20)
**Ephesians 2:8-9 - For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.**
Excuse me, but Eph. 2:8,9 isn’t some stand alone scripture. It harmonizes with the scriptures. Do you believe (have faith) that it harmonizes with baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins? (Acts 2:38)
Baptism is symbolic of what has already happened to a person, acting somewhat like testimony.
The message of the scriptures taken as a whole is that man is totally and completely incapable of obeying God’s laws and so the only way for anyone to gain eternal life with the only holy God is if God provides everything he requires to the people he chooses to have mercy on.
To interpret any verse as saying we can do anything to earn salvation is a slap in the face of the author and finisher of our faith.
You are the most willfully blind cult follower I have ever enountered. Your soul belongs to Rood and he is headed in the opposite direct from where GOD offers Grace. Work your way I to hell if you insist. I can no longer pray for you.
es is firmly bound by the cult of Michael Rood. Reasoning with the cult mindset is fruitless.
My repentance questions went unanswered.
**The third and final passage is 1 Corinthians 10:2 and the phrase “baptized into (eis) Moses in the cloud and in the sea.” Again, eis cannot mean “in order to get” in this passage because the Israelites were not baptized in order to get Moses to be their leader, but because he was their leader and had led them out of Egypt. If one is consistent with the way the preposition eis is used in conjunction with baptism, we must conclude that Acts 2:38 is indeed referring to their being baptized “because” they had received forgiveness of their sins.**
Moses represented a type of Christ. He gave them instructions. The Israelites had to have the cloud. They had to pass through the Red Sea, or they would not have been delivered from the curse of bondage.
In Matt. 28:19, the one detailed item that Christ commanded is baptism. In Mark 16:16 he commands it. In John 20:23, the Lord tells his disciples that THEY would be remitting sins. Luke 24:47, shows the Lord commanding that repentance and remission of sins must be preached in his name, beginning at Jerusalem.
And God makes a way. Philip baptized the eunuch in the desert.
Acts 2:38 means just what it says. The gotquestions dude says a lot in order to meet his own personal opinion.
Faith like a little child doesn’t go into complicated evasive answers.
You clearly seek to assert that baptism is required for Salvation. Is baptism a work?
It appears you are arguing for a works oriented gospel. I disagree with that. Uncomplicated enough for you?
BTW, the repentance question was covered in my reply. Didn’t even need to mention it to cover it.
So the writers are incompetent boobs who can keep the characters straight?
We're taking about two historical figures that we have hard dates for outside the Gospel texts. One died 10 years before the other took power.
Luke was not a disciple of Yeshua, and got his information handed down to him by people that were not themselves literate.
So the texts can't be trusted? If they aren't reliable with regard to reportage, then there can't be any larger religious point it seems to me. How do we know ANYTHING?
I’m not the author of:
John 3:5
Matt. 28:19
Mark 16:16
Luke 24:47
John 20:23
Acts 2:38
Acts 22:16
1Pet. 3:20,21
Is baptism a work?
Yes. But not man’s work.
.
You have a severe problem!
Did you trust your text books in school?
Can you personally affirm the accuracy of your history text?
.
Ah! So, "difference of opinion" is ok unless it's among those outside of the RCC? Do you think Catholics are "perfectly united in their minds and thoughts and there are no divisions"?
The "church" - the body of Christ, His bride, has always been guided and taught by the Holy Spirit in all truth but individuals and leaders of local assemblies can and do fall into error when they are led away by false prophets because of pride and greed. When this happens, which did centuries ago with the Roman Catholic church and within many Protestant ones, God ALWAYS reserves a remnant that stays faithful to Him alone. Our confidence is in the Holy Spirit NOT the assemblies. We can know the truth because God has ensured it is preserved in His sacred Scriptures - the TRUE buttress and support of that truth will uphold God's WORD.
The promise Christ gave will always be kept - indeed! HE is truth. The ideal will one day be the reality.
If one text tells me that William the Conqueror won the Battle of Hastings in 1066, and another text tells me that William II won The Battle of Hastings in 1100, I can tell you with 100% accuracy that at least one text is wrong.
No...just arguments amongst the historians....some place the death of Herod the great at 1 BC others say 4bc). It is also noted that Quirinius seems to have been hegemon (the word Luke uses was hegemon, not legatus which would have been the title of a full governor) of Syria (the first time around12 bc) and that several censuses(perhaps born out of the main Augustan decrees that took 4 decades or more to complete)took place in the Judean area between 12 bc and 6 ad. A Hegemon appears to be a Legatus’s chief enforcer in a territory wielding a governor’s power and conducting business in his name.
Quirinius seems to have been quite a soldier and able administrator who was told in 6 ad to displace Herod Achelaus as ruler and in the process Judea was made part of the full Roman province of Syria). There was a taxation in 6 AD that sparked a rebellion by Judas(spoken of in Acts 5) that Quirinius was tasked to put down and at that time he was made full governor(according to the historians) of Syria over which he ruled for 2 years until retiring to Rome. He died in 21 AD.
So which census, which period of office of Qurinius was Luke referring to? Qurinius in the 12 BC time period was also conducting a war in that time period in which he won and was granted a Triumph in Rome by Augustus. Which of the Herods? We know that Herod the great dies and Joseph could go back but since Archelaus according to Luke was still ruling in Judea, he was warned in a dream not to go there but he went back to Galilee and dwelt in Nazareth...(as Herod Archelaus did not rule there).
Since Archelaus was deposed and exiled in 6 AD when Quirinius was fully governor of Syria and tasked to do so by Augustus, we know that Joseph and family went to Galilee sometime before 6 AD. It appears then that Quirinius was already the “hegemonic”(using Luke’s term) commander in that region from about 12 bc on, and several census’ of the region took place between 12 BC to 8 ad of which he presided over. The confusion between the Luke texts and the Matthew texts was the issue over how the translators interpreted Luke’s use of the term “Hegemon” into the English term of “governor” in describing Quirinius.
The records indicate that Quirinius was Hegemon(he was conducting the aforementioned war in that region) in Syria in 12 BC, if that was the case, then Qririnius or “Cyrenius” was on site in that region for a long time. He had been active in that region almost 20 years with trips back and forth to Rome from time to time as he was also a Roman Senator, apparently.
Interestingly enough, a head stone was found in Rome belonging to a Roman Commander. The inscriptions included mention of the commander being tasked to conduct a census/tax of a Roman city by one Quirinius!. Augustus was known to have thought very highly of Quirinius.
The records from the Romans of the times are incomplete and depending on certain records, even the Dating of the death of Herod the great appears to be questionable which would push other dates back or forth. The date of the exile of Archelaus is known and it was known that it was Qurinius who affected the deed. Yet we do have records of Qurinius being in authority in that region from 18 years before 6 ad and that is the “hegemon” Luke may have been referring to....not from the 6ad date but a date much earlier.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.