Featured You MUST give an invitation?

You think the bible was written in English? :laugh:

You need to look at a lexicon. Seriously.

You keep making thus ignorant assertion, and you're wrong every time.

 

Yes, they were added to the church. My point was that DHK added the words to verse 41

Just like many add the word that 3,000 were "saved"

 

If the people gathered in Jerusalem were only there in observance of practices established in Deuteronomy, then how do you believe they repented? To my understanding, the majority of "pre-cross" repentance and atonement carried with it sacrifice. As Christ was now the one-and-only sacrifice that was needed, these men following Mosaic Law would not have the same understanding of repentance as now presented to them through the preaching of Peter and the apostles.

 

Repentance is a change of mind. He said "This Jesus, who YOU crucified"

Did they drive the nails, or do you suppose they were part of the crowds which hot caught up into crying out "Crucify Him" ?? Only a week before, the crowds were singing Hosanna.

 

I'm just trying to understand your perspective, James, so please indulge me on a couple of other questions...

"Repentance is a change of mind." Okay, what is a person repenting of? Are they repenting of their sins? If so, then how do you reconcile "repentance is a change of mind" with the Biblical directive that "without shedding of blood is no remission?"

Considering that Pentecost is nearly two months after Passover and the crucifixion, do you hold to the thought that Mosaic Law commanded these men to "dwell in Jerusalem" for two months, forsaking their families and livelihoods in their own countries?

Also, the Bible doesn't tell us who, exactly, was in the mob crying out for Jesus's crucifixion. I doubt the soldiers of Roman would've allowed a non-Roman to execute a death sentence on someone else. I would actually find it more plausible that the crowds were kept at bay at Calvary until the crosses were raised, or the patibulum lifted and secured into place bearing Christ and the malefactors with him.

 

The Romans drove the nails into his hands. They were the only ones permitted to do so.
Either way it doesn't matter. Both groups were just as guilty as the other.
"His blood be upon our heads and the heads of our children," they said.
They took the responsibility. And I doubt very much if Annas and Caiaphas were the ones singing "Hosanna."

 

I have done plenty of study. Let's take "devout" and look at it from another perspective. Another person at another time.

[FONT=&quot]Acts 10:1 There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band,
2 A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway.[/FONT]

Was Cornelius saved? If so why did Peter have to go to him? Why did God have to convince Peter through a series of visions to go with Gentile men to preach the gospel to an unsaved Gentile man.
He was a Roman centurion that was not even a full proselyte to the Jewish religion. He was devout, meaning that he would be accepted in the court of the Gentiles and listen to the sermons. But he was not a full proselyte as the Ethiopian eunuch probably was. He probably wasn't circumcised. His light came from what he heard outside the actual synagogue. He couldn't enter in. His light was only partial.
The Lord sent Peter in answer to this unsaved man's prayer's so that he might have more light; enough light to hear the entire message of salvation. He was not regenerated. He was not saved. He did not have a clue about salvation whatsoever.

He was devout--religious.

--from Strong's.

Reverent doesn't make you saved. Neither does pious. Neither does being devout.



I checked this is the same word used in Acts 2:5


From Thayer's Lexicon:

Pious and dutiful. That doesn't regenerate a soul; it doesn't save anyone.

Devout has to do with being religious just as the English language conveys.

Don't read anymore into the word than it actually conveys.