Water and Blood

[mman]

Originally posted by Snitzelhoff:
Mman,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
Find one time where "eis" wsa ever translated as because. It is used over 1700 times so that should be easy for you.

You can't do it because it is NEVER ONCE TRANSLATED AS "BECAUSE"!!!!

Perhaps it's never translated as the word "because," but:

Matthew 12:24--"The men of Ninveveh... repented at (eis) the preaching of Jonas."

Did they repent in order to hear the preaching of Jonah, Mman, or because of it?

You were right; with 1700-plus to pick from, that WAS easy!

I'll respond to the rest later, but my case is closed on the meaning of "eis."

Michael </font>[/QUOTE]Let us apply this spurious definition of eis to the 1 Timothy 1:16. In this context Paul affirms that the mercy he received from the Lord serves as an example to all that “should thereafter believe on him [Christ] unto (eis) eternal life.”

Note the language - “believe eis eternal life.” Is the apostle suggesting that one believes on the Lord because he already has eternal life? The very idea is preposterous.

Furthermore, Matt 26:28 tells us that the blood of Jesus was shed for (eis) the remission of sins.

For you to be consistent, you MUST argue that, Jesus' blood was shed because peoples sins were already forgiven. Is that what you teach?

As long as you deny that baptism is for the remission of sins you are also denying that Jesus blood was shed for the remission of sins.

If you can understand Matt 26:28 and I Tim 1:16, then you can understand Acts 2:38.

Also, you failed the test. Not once is "eis" ever translated as because of.

Here is another test for you. Find one translation that renders "eis" as "because of" in Acts 2:38.

There are many reputable translations. Surely one set of scholars got it "right". Go try and find one, I dare you.

As for Jonah and the Ninevites. Jonah preached and the people believed says Jonah 3:4 -5. And their faith was followed by repentance because Matthew 12:41 says, as rendered by Goodspeed, the Baptist scholar, 'When Jonah preached they repented'. The faith came first and then the repentance. What was the evidence of the repentance? Jonah 3:10 says, 'God saw their works that they turned from their evil ways'. Now this is what happened: when the people believed Jonah's preaching they repented and turned into the kind of life required by their repentance. 'God saw their works that they turned' and the word turned is synonymous with repentance in Matthew 12:41. Which way did they turn? Did they turn backwards? Was it retrospective or did they turn forwards? Here you see once again the preposition points forward and is never retrospective.

Here is another case for Acts 2:38. Let's compare Acts 2:38 and Acts 3:19. These are very similar verses. Do you think Peter changed his message between these two passages?

Acts 2:38 - "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins..."

Acts 3:19 - "Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out..."

Acts 2:38 = Acts 3:19
Repent = Repent
baptized = converted
for the remission of sins = that your sins may be blotted out

See how these two verses parallel. Surely you don't teach that one is converted because their sins have already been blotted out, do you?

Do "so that" equal "because of"?

Notice, conversion is at baptism.

The mental gymnastics required to explain this away is of olympic proportion. The simple truth is, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" - Mark 16:16

That is so simple, any third grader can understand it on their own and they would need help to misunderstand it.

 

[mman]

Originally posted by Snitzelhoff:
Oh, yeah, one more thing.

You still haven't answered my question about why the Lord's Supper is merely symbolic and baptism is not, based on Scripture.

Michael

Show me where the Lord supper is ever a requirement for salvation.

Improper regard of the Lord's supper can lead to spiritual death.

Have you not read, I Cor 11:27-32 "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.

Is that what you are talking about??????

 

[Snitzelhoff]

First, before I say anything else, I'm going to make a request: please read my post and THEN respond.

Mman, I'm talking about my first post on this thread, before you went off on your rant about Acts 2:38 and the meaning of "eis," as though my argument had mentioned that.

The Lord's Supper is merely symbolic in the New Testament, right? It isn't given any salvific properties, correct?

But wait!

John 6 clearly says that the eating of Jesus' body and drinking of His blood are requirements for salvation. Furthermore, Jesus clearly said at the Last Supper that the bread and wine were His body and blood. Therefore, going on nothing but a plain reading of Scripture, one can conclude that the Lord's Supper is a requirement for salvation.

Neither of us have any problems seeing the Lord's Supper as symbolic, seeing Jesus' words as metaphorical, and not ascribing the salvific properties to Communion that a plain reading of Scripture would appear to lend to it. However, you set up a dichotomy not apparent in Scripture between the apparent salvific properties of the Lord's Supper and the apparent salvific properties of baptism. My question is, why?

If the Lord's Supper is merely symbolic, why is baptism not so? That is the question you have heretofore not answered, despite my answers to all of your objections.

Now, let me move onto your rhetoric about "eis."

You fail to understand that the word can have more than one definition. Let's take the English word "for" as an example.

You work for money.

You do jail time for crimes.

See? Now, by your logic, both of those instances of the word "for" have to mean the same thing. However, obviously they mean precisely opposite things. Ergo, given the range of definitions of "eis" and "for," your following point is moot:

There are many reputable translations. Surely one set of scholars got it "right". Go try and find one, I dare you.

The point is moot because "eis" and "for" can both mean "for the purpose of obtaining" or "for that which is already done or obtained."

Now, to work somewhat backwards in your post.

As long as you deny that baptism is for the remission of sins you are also denying that Jesus blood was shed for the remission of sins.

No, I really don't deny that. Go back to my little example with the English word "for," and realize that "eis" is obviously the same way in Scripture, based on the example of Jonah (your paragraph on which I will address momentarily). Christ's blood was shed for remission of sins. Baptism is for the remission of sins. One works for money--in order to obtain it. One does jail time for crimes--because of the crimes already done. I don't see the problem. Here's an example in English that works a bit better in context:

I wrote support letters for money.

I wrote thank-you letters for money.

Jesus' blood was shed for the remission of sins.

We are baptized for the remission of sins.

I still don't see the problem of understanding the meaning of the word "eis" differently in each passage when the range of definitions of the word CLEARLY allows for it.

As for Jonah and the Ninevites. Jonah preached and the people believed says Jonah 3:4 -5. And their faith was followed by repentance because Matthew 12:41 says, as rendered by Goodspeed, the Baptist scholar, 'When Jonah preached they repented'. The faith came first and then the repentance. What was the evidence of the repentance? Jonah 3:10 says, 'God saw their works that they turned from their evil ways'. Now this is what happened: when the people believed Jonah's preaching they repented and turned into the kind of life required by their repentance. 'God saw their works that they turned' and the word turned is synonymous with repentance in Matthew 12:41. Which way did they turn? Did they turn backwards? Was it retrospective or did they turn forwards? Here you see once again the preposition points forward and is never retrospective.

Goodness, you wrote a lot to miss my point. My point was simply this: The men of Nineveh repented "eis" the preaching of Jonah. Was it in order to obtain the preaching of Jonah, or was it because of hearing the preaching? Moreover, I could change that word to "for" and it would still work: they repented for the preaching of Jonah.

Now, on to your point about Acts 2:38 and Acts 3:19. Again, we see where repentance/faith--the act of being converted--is what is necessary for salvation. Metanoia would be a conversion in itself. Baptism would result from that conversion. Oh, yeah, and were those 5,000 believers in that passage saved or damned? Scripture never records baptism being mentioned to them, and Peter and John were arrested before they could baptize anyone.

So, in summary, you have no case that "eis" must always mean "for the purpose of obtaining," nor that the English word "for" must always mean "for the purpose of obtaining." I don't deny that it can mean "for the purpose of obtaining," merely that it ALWAYS means such, and I provided clear Scripture where it did not mean that. You have also not answered my question on why the Lord's Supper is purely symbolic and baptism is not.

Since you have a way of missing my points, I'll try to help you a bit for your next post:

1. Show me, using Scripture, why there is a dichotomy between the apparent salvific properties of the Lord's Supper, which I articulated at the beginning of this post, and my first post on this thread, and yet another post in this thread, and the apparent salvific properties of baptism.

2. Show me why "eis" should be translated "for the purpose of obtaining" in Matthew 12.


If you cannot answer number one, then you must either reject baptism as essential for salvation or embrace communion as essential for salvation. If you cannot answer number two, you have no case regarding Acts 2:38.

Michael

 

[mman]

Snitzelhoff:

Your logic is faulty through and through.

You think John 6 is talking about the Lord's supper? I see where you are confused. The Lord's supper had not been instituted at this time. If you read it in context, Jesus is clearly not talking about the Lord's supper, but in accepting Him.

Here is the context, if you don't want to look it up.

John 6:25When they found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him, "Rabbi, when did you come here?" 26Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. 27Do not labor for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal." 28Then they said to him, "What must we do, to be doing the works of God?" 29Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent." 30So they said to him, "Then what sign do you do, that we may see and believe you? What work do you perform? 31Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, 'He gave them bread from heaven to eat.'" 32Jesus then said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. 33For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world." (Note: not talking about the Lord's supper but Jesus Himself) 34They said to him, "Sir, give us this bread always."



35Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. (Note: He is not talking about eating the Lord's supper, but in coming to Jesus and totally and wholly accepting Him) 36But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. 37All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. 38For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. 39And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."

41So the Jews grumbled about him, because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven." 42They said, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, 'I have come down from heaven'?" 43Jesus answered them, "Do not grumble among yourselves. 44No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. 45It is written in the Prophets, 'And they will all be taught by God.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me-- 46not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father. 47Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. 48I am the bread of life. (Note: He is not talking about eating the Lord's supper) 49Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh."

52The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" 53So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven, not as the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever."

He is clearly talking about accepting Jesus and abiding in Him. That is what is necessary for salvation. He is not talking about the Lord's supper.

If you are honest with yourself and want to know the truth, you study "eis" in Acts 2:38 and Matt 26:28. THE SAME GREEK PHRASE IS USED IN BOTH PLACES .

If "eis" in Acts 2:38 could mean "because of", why have NONE of the teams scholars who have produced the various translations ever translated the way you think it should be. Are you more learned and intelligent than all the teams of scholars? You have it right and the ALL got it wrong. You are only deceiving yourself when you try to equate the Greek word "eis" and the english word "for". I realize that is necessary in order that you can hold on to your current beliefs.

Sadly, I am coming to the conclusion that most people are not seeking the truth, but rather are seeking to twist the scriptures to fit what they want it to say.

Now, did Jesus really mean, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark 16:16)or did he mean something else? I don't have to twist this in any way.

Acts 2:38, Repent and be baptized... for the remission of sins - I accept this without any twisting required.

Acts 22:16 ... be baptized and wash away your sins - I accept this without any twisting

I Pet 3:21 ... baptism now saves you (no twisting)

Gal 3:27 ... baptized into Christ (no twisting required)

Rom 6:4 baptized into Christ (no twisting required)

These verses are not negated by and neither do they negate Eph 2:8-9, rather they are in perfect harmony with it.

 

[Snitzelhoff]

Mman,

If John 6 isn't talking about the Lord's Supper, then John 3 isn't talking about baptism, since neither were yet instituted.

Jesus said that eating His body and blood was necessary, then later defined His body and blood as the Lord's supper. Your implication that I haven't read the chapter is unfounded.

Incidentally, if it's not talking about the Lord's Supper, how does one have eternal life according to John 6:47?

The word "for" works fine in Acts 2:38. I showed where the Greek word could be used to mean "because of" and where the English word could be used to mean "because of." I don't see the problem. "For" can either mean "for the purpose of obtaining" or "for that which is already done," just as the Greek word from which it is translated, "eis". Furthermore, I never said that they were exactly equivalent, but "eis" contains both of those meanings for "for," as I demonstrated with Scripture.

Mark 16:16--Jesus meant exactly what He said. I don't need to do any twisting. You do need to add a whole new clause to tell me what happens, based on that verse, to unbaptized believers.

Acts 22:16 clearly and unambiguously separates baptism and washing away sins, and in any language, connecs washing away sins with calling on the name of hte Lord.

Galatians 3:27 and Romans 6:4 say nothing about salvation. In fact, the phrase "clothing yourself in Christ" is written, as a command, to believers in Romans 13:14. Either Paul didn't think those believers were saved, or clothing oneself with Christ must mean something else. Given the context of the Romans phrase, clothing oneself with Christ is accomplished through obedience after salvation. Baptism fits perfectly with that. Romans 6:4 does a wonderful job of explaining the symbolism behind baptism.

I Peter 3:21--Peter knew that his statement would be so shocking that he would need to clarify that baptism is NOT the putting away of the filth of the flesh (as further shown in Acts 22:16).

Sadly, I am coming to the conclusion that most people are not seeking the truth, but rather are seeking to twist the scriptures to fit what they want it to say.

Again, a hearty Amen. Some people are so stuck on their theology that no amount of discussion of the Word will change their minds. I am open, if it can be demonstrated in Scripture, to the possibility that all unbaptized believers--all those who are stuck in the situation of those 5,000 in acts 4--are damned. In fact, I once embraced that view, your view. But I do not believe that view is what the Scriptures teach.

You haven't answered my two questions. Now that I've demonstrated with Scripture that John 6 is connected to the Lord's Supper (or John 3 is not connected to baptism, and Galatians 3:27 isn't connected to Matthew 22), please answer why that dichotomy exists in your view. Furthermore, please tell me why "eis" should be translated "for the purpose of obtaining" in Matthew 12.

Oh, and for the third or fourth time (I've lost count), there is no issue with Matthew 26:28 and Acts 2:38. Jesus died for the purpose of obtaining (one meaning of "eis" and "for") the remission of sins, and we are baptized for already obtained (another meaning of "eis" and "for") remission of sins. You keep raising that objection, and I keep answering it.

Michael