Is there a final authority?

[Yeshua1]

His answer to that was that the man died before Christ died and ressurection- thus under the OT law - and baptism was not needed.

IF water baptism is now part of the Gospel message, as a requirement, why did none of the Apostles ever mention it in that saving sense?

What we seem to always have on this issue is people taking out of context what water baptism was referring too, or misunderstanding based upon accepting false church traditions regarding it, or just not knowing the original Greek language behind our English translations!

 

[David Kent]

Who would that be?

1 The Brethren and IFB's I have spoken to. In fact when I say that is not what the scripture says, they have insisted that it does.

Nobody has said generation does not mean generation. But several who are proficient in NT Greek have said that γενεά (genea) cannot be slavishly translated as "generation" but sometimes can mean "race" or "family" (even your pathetic Strongs says that!).

Not my Strongs. I have never used it. I read and understand the scripture. I read what Jesus said.

2

Who says that?

Futurists usually say that Dan 9 introduces the Antichrist. But of course it doesn't. The literal understanding is that it was fulfilled by the life, death and resurrection of Christ. In fact I have never met a futurist that doesn't believe the Antichrist is included here.

It wasn't. The western wall is still there. Of course, the prophecy was not referring to the entire temple mount, but we all already know that, don't we?

If you study history you will find that the Jews began to rebuild the temple in the second rebellion in the reign of Hadrian.

 

[Bro. James]

Final authority: God said it, that settles it. Whether we believe it or not is irrelevant. This authority is not vested in man. The New Testament Church, the pillar and ground of The Truth, led by The Holy Spirit bearing witness to The Word is the vested institution. Such doctrine did not come out of Rome, Geneva or Wittenburg.
Include Salt Lake City, as well.

Universal Church and baptismal regeneration are heresies which have a profound effect in Christendom. The Bride of Christ remains without spot or blemish or any such thing.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[TCassidy]

1 The Brethren and IFB's I have spoken to. In fact when I say that is not what the scripture says, they have insisted that it does.

And who are these namless "Brethren" and "IFBs?" Give me some names.

Not my Strongs. I have never used it. I read and understand the scripture. I read what Jesus said.

Well, use it. Look it up. And how many years of Greek study do you have to "read what Jesus said?" You are aware, are you not, that Jesus was not speaking English? In order to "read what Jesus said" you will have to read and understand Greek. If not you are reading what some translator who may or may not have even been saved said and understood.

Futurists usually say that Dan 9 introduces the Antichrist.

Really. I am a (limited) futurist and I have never said any such thing.

If you study history you will find that the Jews began to rebuild the temple in the second rebellion in the reign of Hadrian.

If you will study history (my Ph.D. is in Ecclesiastical History and Historical Theology) you will find that Herod the Great built the western wall and it was part of the temple complex during Christ's Earthly ministry.

 

[David Kent]

So why were all those people baptized before the cross? And did they have to be baptized again after the cross?

I suppose you are speaking about those Baptized by John?

They were not baptised into Christ.

 

[TCassidy]

They were not baptised into Christ.

Nobody has ever been baptized into Christ in the CoC sense.

But your statement begs the question. Was John's baptism scriptural NT baptism? If not, when were the Twelve scripturally baptized and who did the baptizing as Jesus didn't baptize. (although Jesus himself didn’t baptize, but his disciples), John 4:2.

 

[agedman]

Not my Strongs. I have never used it. I read and understand the scripture. I read what Jesus said.

Ok, I see a problem.

You will look at history books in an attempt to resolve in your mind some time line, yet you do not take the scholarship of language experts when it comes to Scriptures?

Isn't that being a bit disingenuous?

It would seem taking first hand information from one(s) who make the study and teaching of original languages their carrier trumps "I read and understand the Scriptures" when reading leads to an error in understanding.

I am not multi-lingual. I leave that up to other family members, but if I read English correctly, even the word "generation" isn't limited to a select group of people, but all that are in the family.

Look at it from a practical perspective. A baby is a different age then a the parent. The parent is of a different age then their own parents. Now two points.

1) Do you see the word "age." Does it mean era, generation, race, or dispensation? It could be ANY of those.
2) If one takes your view, what generation would not die out? The parents, the young adults, the babies? There is over 100 years just in that grouping alone.

My own father was born in 1907. I was born later. So, if Christ had been speaking to us, would it have been my father or my "generation."

The time line approach as you desire to defend just is not as secure as imagined. It doesn't even survive the English test!

So, David, why not attend to the scholarship of those who actually do work and teach in the languages?

Futurists usually say that Dan 9 introduces the Antichrist. But of course it doesn't. The literal understanding is that it was fulfilled by the life, death and resurrection of Christ. In fact I have never met a futurist that doesn't believe the Antichrist is included here.

John states that there were MANY antichrists in his day.

So what is the point?

Your statement about the antichrist does not disprove anything of the "futurist" thinking. There have been and will be antichrists. Some will be renown, some in the neighborhood of which believers live.

Doesn't disprove that one day there will be a mighty powerful antichrist, just as John wrote about.

If you study history you will find that the Jews began to rebuild the temple in the second rebellion in the reign of Hadrian.

Oh my!
They DID NOT begin to "rebuild the temple." As far as they got was some money gathering and some per-planning.

For the readers who do not know here is some source information on-line.
HADRIAN - JewishEncyclopedia.com

The Bar-Kokhba Revolt 132-135 CE)

 

[David Kent]

And who are these namless "Brethren" and "IFBs?" Give me some names.

The Brethren elders of the assemblies I have been in always taught it.

Several Fundamentalist Baptist sites I have been on. Some are mow defunct.

They don't like us posting links to other boards on here.

One has now gone practically dead as many left because they don't like us 'heretics' on there.

Well, use it. Look it up. And how many years of Greek study do you have to "read what Jesus said?" You are aware, are you not, that Jesus was not speaking English? In order to "read what Jesus said" you will have to read and understand Greek. If not you are reading what some translator who may or may not have even been saved said and understood.

Was Jesus speaking in Greek?

Really. I am a (limited) futurist and I have never said any such thing.

I have never heard of a limited futurist. What is that?

If you will study history (my Ph.D. is in Ecclesiastical History and Historical Theology) you will find that Herod the Great built the western wall and it was part of the temple complex during Christ's Earthly ministry.

Bully for you. College learning. I have read a lot of history and on one occasion told someone what I have discovered, and he said I have a history degree and I didn't know that. I am now old and forgetful now and don't have the chance to get to the libraries in London that I used in the past.

Herod used used fantastic stones. The mishmash of the west wall cannot be Herod's work. He was an experienced temple builder. The west wall has been described as reused stones from many ages.

 

[agedman]

Was Jesus speaking in Greek?

That isn't the question. The ORIGINAL language the Gospels were written in was ------ Greek.

"The oldest known manuscripts of Matthew and Mark are in Greek. According to recent scholarship, Greek fragments of these two Gospels have been verified as dating from as early as the 60s A.D. Some scholars have argued that these Gospels were originally written in Aramaic and later translated into Greek. If that is the case, no extant copies or fragments of the Aramaic text have been found. The only evidence we have is that the original text of Matthew and Mark was in Greek." Taken from The Language of the Gospel
​

Here is a document that gives good perspective on the topic of just what language were the gospels originally written.
In What Language Were the Synoptic Gospels Written
Note: the conclusion states that it was GREEK.

 

[David Kent]

Nobody has ever been baptized into Christ in the CoC sense.

But your statement begs the question. Was John's baptism scriptural NT baptism? If not, when were the Twelve scripturally baptized and who did the baptizing as Jesus didn't baptize. (although Jesus himself didn’t baptize, but his disciples), John 4:2.

John was the last of the OT prophets.

• 24And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.
• 25This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.
• 26And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.
• 27And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace:
• 28For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.

 

[TCassidy]

The Brethren elders of the assemblies I have been in always taught it.

Just some nameless people? How convenient.

Several Fundamentalist Baptist sites I have been on.

Which are?

Some are mow defunct.

How convenient.

They don't like us posting links to other boards on here.

Who is "they?" Links are posted here all the time.

One has now gone practically dead as many left because they don't like us 'heretics' on there.

How convenient.

Was Jesus speaking in Greek?

Was the New Testament inspired in Greek?

I have never heard of a limited futurist.

There is a whole list of things you have never heard of.

What is that?

Someone who believes only part of the prophecies of the NT are yet future in their fulfillment.

Bully for you. College learning.

You are the one who told me to study history. I did.

I am now old and forgetful now and don't have the chance to get to the libraries in London that I used in the past.

So you are too old to learn? You are too old to support your baseless assertions? Then perhaps you shouldn't post them.

The mishmash of the west wall cannot be Herod's work.

Except it was. The "mishmash" as you call it was capstones and other decorative effects added later, some as late as the 7th century AD.

The west wall has been described as reused stones from many ages.

No, the stones that expanded the temple base are all of the same age. Started by Herod the Great and completed shortly after his death. The other stones were added later for decorative effect. But the west wall was complete prior to the start of the 1st century AD and were part of the temple complex during Christ's Earthly ministry.

 

[TCassidy]

24And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.

And your point is?

 

[David Kent]

That isn't the question. The ORIGINAL language the Gospels were written in was ------ Greek.

"The oldest known manuscripts of Matthew and Mark are in Greek. According to recent scholarship, Greek fragments of these two Gospels have been verified as dating from as early as the 60s A.D. Some scholars have argued that these Gospels were originally written in Aramaic and later translated into Greek. If that is the case, no extant copies or fragments of the Aramaic text have been found. The only evidence we have is that the original text of Matthew and Mark was in Greek." Taken from The Language of the Gospel
​

Here is a document that gives good perspective on the topic of just what language were the gospels originally written.
In What Language Were the Synoptic Gospels Written
Note: the conclusion states that it was GREEK.

We know that. That is not the question, which was "Did Jesus speak in Greek" If so please give evidence. If not it was a translation into Greek.

 

[TCassidy]

If not it was a translation into Greek.

If Jesus did speak in Aramaic (we have no irrefutable evidence He did so) and the NT was transcribed in Greek, that transcription was done under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and is therefore inerrant.

Unless, of course, you are suggesting the Holy Spirit does not understand Greek. Is that what you are insinuating?

 

[David Kent]

And your point is?

]

I should thought that you, and intelligent man would have understood from that, John's baptism was not into Christ, but to OT repentance. John was the Elijah who was to come and was an OT prophet. The greatest prophet as he Baptised the Christ.

• Matthew 11:11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

 

[agedman]

We know that. That is not the question, which was "Did Jesus speak in Greek" If so please give evidence. If not it was a translation into Greek.

NO!

The apostles were multilingual, typical of Orthodox Jews even in this day.d

The Gospels which recorded the ministry of Christ were (by majority evidence and earliest documents) WRITTEN IN GREEK.

The ONLY statement that Jesus could actually write was that made about when He wrote on the ground.

So, the gospels were not “translations” when written, but ACCOUNTS of the facts.

Matthew, was the first to write followed by Mark, then Luke, and finally John. The place in the NT is by order of writing.

Each writer had a specific goal and each (two being actual apostles) wrote in the most common language read in the world of that time. Much like English (American style) is the common language of the market world of this day.

Although some suggest that because Matthew wrote to Jews that he must have written in Hebrews, but there are nothing of substance to support that thinking. It is mere conjecture. There is nothing to indicate any other early writing then Greek.

 

[agedman]

]

I should thought that you, and intelligent man would have understood from that, John's baptism was not into Christ, but to OT repentance. John was the Elijah who was to come and was an OT prophet. The greatest prophet as he Baptised the Christ.

• Matthew 11:11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

Again, your point is???

 

[David Kent]

If Jesus did speak in Aramaic (we have no irrefutable evidence He did so) and the NT was transcribed in Greek, that transcription was done under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and is therefore inerrant.

Unless, of course, you are suggesting the Holy Spirit does not understand Greek. Is that what you are insinuating?

I agree. and I also agree that the English bible was also inspired by the Holy Spirit who also understands English.

I also looked up Matt. 24:34 in my wife's French Ostervald version. This is an update of Olivetan's first French bible of 1533.

Je vous dis en vérité que cette généreration ne passera point que toute ce choses ne soint arrivées.

That is "I tell you truthfully" the truth, mark you, "that this generation will not pass without all these things having happened"

So it seems the HS also understands French.

 

[David Kent]

Matthew, was the first to write followed by Mark, then Luke, and finally John. The place in the NT is by order of writing.

Maybe, but maybe not.

Farrah Fenton in his translation placed the gospel of John first as he believed it was the first written.

My dad always said that Mark was the first because it said

• Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;

 

[David Kent]

Except it was. The "mishmash" as you call it was capstones and other decorative effects added later, some as late as the 7th century AD.

So it wasn't part of Herod's temple.