Poll on what Acts 2:38 was intended to mean

[Cow Poke]

Hi Jeff,

When I look at the Greek word here in question it seems to mean 'entrance into' in other words, this eis that, this enters one into that. And so your interpretation, in looking at the Greek, is accurate, IMO. However, the assumes that we understand what baptism is, or salvation for that matter. I offer that true baptism has been lost, so yes, the anti's here are correct. The baptism that occurs in most churches does not allow one to enter into the remission of sins. This baptism is powerless, and so is only for show.

I also offer that we are arguing here as though there is only one way to get that get out of hell free card. I offer that there is no get out of hell free card, and so there is no one way to get it or to get forgiveness or anything. Forgiveness of sins can come via many forms, no single means of transmission or acquisition, or giving and receiving, is necessary for forgiveness nor for salvation. The scripture lists abundant means whereby we might access the forgiveness of sins necessary to free us to walk the path to salvation. And all that are listed are accurate. God's Mercy is so grand that it is offered and delivered through all means possible, through Jesus' Blood, through true baptism, through confession and repentance, through good works. None of this is salvation, but merely frees us from bondage so that we might seek and find the Truth that will make us free.

(A little secret that is little known...most people do not want salvation. They do not know what salvation is, and if they did, they would not want it, and so a salvation that appeases the beast has been created, or rather an idea of salvation that appeases the beast has been created. And so most of the arguments here are about ideas of forgiveness of sins and salvation, not the real deal.)


Shalom!

Viv

Well, then! That clears EVERYTHING up, and we can close the thread!

[nrajeff]

Hi Jeff,

When I look at the Greek word here in question it seems to mean 'entrance into' in other words, this eis that, this enters one into that. And so your interpretation, in looking at the Greek, is accurate, IMO. However, the assumes that we understand what baptism is, or salvation for that matter. I offer that true baptism has been lost, so yes, the anti's here are correct. The baptism that occurs in most churches does not allow one to enter into the remission of sins. This baptism is powerless, and so is only for show.

I also offer that we are arguing here as though there is only one way to get that get out of hell free card. I offer that there is no get out of hell free card, and so there is no one way to get it or to get forgiveness or anything. Forgiveness of sins can come via many forms, no single means of transmission or acquisition, or giving and receiving, is necessary for forgiveness nor for salvation. The scripture lists abundant means whereby we might access the forgiveness of sins necessary to free us to walk the path to salvation. And all that are listed are accurate. God's Mercy is so grand that it is offered and delivered through all means possible, through Jesus' Blood, through true baptism, through confession and repentance, through good works. None of this is salvation, but merely frees us from bondage so that we might seek and find the Truth that will make us free.

(A little secret that is little known...most people do not want salvation. They do not know what salvation is, and if they did, they would not want it, and so a salvation that appeases the beast has been created, or rather an idea of salvation that appeases the beast has been created. And so most of the arguments here are about ideas of forgiveness of sins and salvation, not the real deal.)
Shalom!Viv

Hi, Viv, and thanks for the comments. I think you made some good points. You are welcome to cast your vote in the poll if you want to.

[Catholicity]

you know Jeff, I don't fully agree with Sparko's view of Act's 2:38 either, but I don't see the need to create a whole lot of drama over it like you are doing. Attempting to manipulate someone's behavior or twist their word's to prove a point just isn't helpful in a debate. You know you don't sound like a good missionizing mormon, you sound like a really bad politician who cries every time someone points out the flaws in his speech and frankly I'm tired of it.

[nrajeff]

Some questions I was planning to ask:

When did the allegedly wrong idea of "baptism so that remission of sins will occur" first get introduced into Christianity as a doctrine? How early in Christianity's history? Who introduced it? Is that person's punishment (such as excommunication) for introducing (what Sparko apparently claims to be) this "heresy" recorded in the history of Christianity? And what is the date of the earliest known independent documentation that "baptism BECAUSE your sins have already been remitted, even before you repented" was the nominal official doctrine of Early Christianity?

Apparently, Tertullian was one Early Christian who believed and taught, circa 200 A.D., that remission of sins was something that occurred after a person's baptism:

"A treatise on our sacrament of water, by which the sins of our earlier blindness are washed away and we are released for eternal life will not be superfluous.....taking away death by the washing away of sins......Baptism is itself a corporal act by which we are plunged in water, while its effect is spiritual, in that we are freed from sins. (On Baptism 1; 5; 7) ...no one can attain salvation without Baptism, especially in view of the declaration of the Lord, who says: "Unless a man shall be born of water, he shall not have life." (On Baptism 12)"

Also: "And so "the baptism of repentance" (Acts 19:4) was dealt with as if it were a candidate for the remission and sanctification shortly about to follow in Christ: for in that John used to preach "baptism for the remission of sins," (Mark 1:4) the declaration was made with reference to future remission; if it be true, (as it is,) that repentance is antecedent, remission subsequent; and this is "preparing the way."
(On Baptism10)

While not strictly about the issue of which is the correct interpretation of "baptism for the remission of sins," rhetorical questions such as 'The Lord Himself, though no "repentance" was due from Him, was baptized: was baptism not necessary for sinners?" (ibid. 12) is at least indirectly helpful, since the idea that baptism is necessary for (something) supports the timeline that militates against the Sparko interpretation. (IMO, of course)

P.S.--Tertullian's treatise on baptism can be found at http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0321.htm

[nrajeff]

you know Jeff, I don't fully agree with Sparko's view of Act's 2:38 either

Then I trust you will grace us with your opinion by voting "yes" or "no."

but I don't see the need to create a whole lot of drama over it like you are doing.

And that's okay. You don't need to see that need. This thread is for finding out whether you agree or disagree with a stated exegetical position. Sparko was the one who created the actual automatically-tabulating poll, and I didn't object. After you indicate your agreement or disagreement, you are of course welcome to share any reasons for voting as you did.

Attempting to manipulate someone's behavior

You will have to explain exactly what you are talking about there if you want a meaningful response.

or twist their word's to prove a point just isn't helpful in a debate.

Again, CFR re this alleged word-twisting. Of course, you can do that after you cast your vote. Or you can just refrain from posting in this thread.

You know you don't sound like a good missionizing mormon

Did I claim that to be what this thread is about? If you don't like the way I am attempting to gather information regarding people's positions on the interpretation of a Bible verse, I don't know what I should tell you.

you sound like a really bad politician who cries every time someone points out the flaws in his speech and frankly I'm tired of it.

Tired enough to stop complaining?

[Cow Poke]

If John Reese's opinion is that your version of what the verse is really saying is incorrect, what do you plan to say in response?

I guess we don't have to worry about that, eh?

[nrajeff]

How dense can you be, Jeff?

I dunno; how insulting can YOU be?

It's not about a "mistranslation".

You'd better tell that to anyone who is under the impression that eis is a foreign word, and who thinks that it would be a good idea to understanding the meaning of that foreign word.

OK, you may have SOME clue, but you don't apply it.

Like you may have some clue about what it means to be a Christian, but you don't apply it?

My "thinking" isn't wrong, Jeff.

Okay, maybe it's just "incorrect" then.

[nrajeff]

I guess we don't have to worry about that, eh?

The night is young. He might change his mind after consideration of additional evidence. Some people actually do such things, I am told.

[Xru]

Hi losers!

BTW, looks like the LDS Forum is just about in the condition that I left it when I went off precipitously to kill Zombies.












Edit: I'll vote . . . . I vote OTHER - I don't care;)

[Cow Poke]

Hi losers!

BTW, looks like the LDS Forum is just about in the condition that I left it when I went off precipitously to kill Zombies.












Edit: I'll vote . . . . I vote OTHER - I don't care;)

Well, look whut the cat drugged in!!!! Howdy X!

[Xru]

Hi Cowboy:)

[nrajeff]

Hi losers!

BTW, looks like the LDS Forum is just about in the condition that I left it when I went off precipitously to kill Zombies.












Edit: I'll vote . . . . I vote OTHER - I don't care;)

That was....helpful....in some way....possibly....

[Xru]

Hi Jeff:)

[nrajeff]

Hi Jeff:)

Hi yourself.

[Sparko]

So Jeff, I said I would agree with whatever John Reece said since he was an expert on Greek.

Now that he said the same thing I said, are you honorable enough to do what you asked of me? Admit you were wrong and accept John's expertise on the matter?