DHK
I have dealt with it early on....
Actually...I offered Acts 13 in post 95......are you allergic to truth? I answered and your response avoided what i raised showing you really are not looking for an answer.
Really? Please demonstrate from Acts 13:14-41 where Paul used the law in his sermon to convince his audience that they were sinners.
Jn 3 is off topic....I do not see it as evangelism as much as correcting of a false teacher.
John 3 is one of the most popular passages used by preachers and evangelists to witness to people. You should know that. It tells people that they "must be born again." Unless one is born again they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven. That spiritual truth is not just for Nicodemus, but for every one of us.
The fact is that Jesus never used the law.
The conversation continues down through verse 16, probably the most quoted and used verse in the Bible as far as evangelism is concerned, and yet there is still no mention of the Law.
John 3:16 is the gospel in a nutshell. Let me remind you what it says:
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
--And yet you continue to affirm this is irrelevant to this thread.
i went initially to the samaritan woman, a clear evangelistic section. An explanation was given. many liked it, you did not.
I haven't checked but I don't remember commenting on John chapter four.
I speak honestly DHK......others like it, you do not.
You are responding to your ridiculous overuse of disparaging icons. And you call that speaking honestly??
Where did I say it "should not be in the bible?" Post where I said this or repent of once again speaking a lying false witness against a believer. I said no such thing. Saying i did is a LIE.
John chapter three is an integral part of this discussion. Now listen again to what I said:
You keep insisting that it should not be a part of this discussion
AS IF it should not be a part of the Bible. Do you understand what I said? I did not lie. If you think I did perhaps you need to study the English language more.
Jesus was revealing heavenly truth which Nicodemus could not understand. Looks like you cannot welcome it either.
Paul was revealing spiritual truth to the jailer when he said:
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."
Paul also revealed spiritual truth in Acts 13:14-41.
Peter revealed Spiritual truth to Cornelius in Acts 10, and also on the Day of Pentecost.
Every person who has ever been witnessed to in the world has had spiritual truth revealed to them.
That is what evangelism is all about--spiritual truth being revealed to the unsaved!!
It has been shown already, others liked it , you do not.
Again, you have yet to show where Paul used the Law in his sermon in Acts 13:14-41. Not you, not anyone else. You simply gave up and declared yourself right. Typical.
You can say what you like, your comments are void of substance.
I say what I believe to be true and you still have not refuted it. Here are the facts:
1. Jesus did not use the Law with Nicodemus.
2. Paul did not use the Law in Acts 13:14-41.
--You have not offered one iota of evidence to the contrary. Why do you carry on like this?
Do you think as THE TEACHER OF ISRAEL he might bhave known what the law said? Just a guess that he might have.
That is a red herring; one of you many bunny trails.
The important fact to note is that in the passage Jesus did not refer to the LAW in his conversation with Nicodemus. You might make a case for it when Jesus spoke with the rich young ruler, but not with Nicodemus.
yes and I have offered on it several times.
And concerning the OP, you have not demonstrated that either Acts 13 or John 3 have anything to do with the law. You have failed.
Nicodemus is in the covenant already...why would he need to be "evangelized'?
Accordingly then so was Ahab and Jezebel? Is that what you mean? What covenant?
But let's look at your belief a little closer.
Nicodemus came to Jesus. He wasn't saved, but an "unbeliever," and needed to be born again.
Nicodemus was also a member of the Sanhedrin, the very group that condemned Christ to be crucified. Had Nicodemus's life been changed, regenerated, at the time of that conversation he would have left the Sanhedrin as Saul did. Becoming a disciple of Christ and staying as a member of the Sanhedrin do not go hand in hand. If he was born again he was a "secret believer," if you believe in such a thing, and his life was not changed one iota. In fact when the Sanhedrin gathered together to condemn Christ, Nicodemus never said a word against it. So was he saved, regenerated? Doesn't sound like it!
The only time that the gospels give any evidence of spiritual life in Nicodemus is AFTER the death of Christ, when Nick and Joseph of Arimathea claim the body of Jesus and then along with some of the women take it to bury it in Joseph's sepulchre. NO, he wasn't a regenerated man. Jesus told him that that was his problem in the first place: "You must be born again."
Whatever Nicodemus thought about it was sort of like you and your posts....wrong. Jesus corrected him.
1. He did not correct him with the law, which is the point of the OP.
2. He did correct him because, though he was a teacher, he had no spiritual life in him.
I just speak what i see...you posting falsehoods, disrupting threads, bearing false witness like you did here....Or have you found a post that i made that suggests Jn 3 should not be in the bible???? still waiting for that one....
Ad hominems are not pointing out falsehoods, neither posting disparaging icons.
Even here you are leveling a false accusation against me due to a lack of understanding.