Jesus and Paul, not Versus
- Thread starter Musicmaster
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
A person has to be naive to think that Paul didn't learn the basics of the gospel from disciples in Damascus immediately after his conversion and before his departure into Arabia. So when he wrote that he learned the gospel from revelation, he was referring to the depths of revelation that he knew probably better than anyone.
Those 4 rules are not requirements for us to follow (apart from abstaining from fornication). They were synagogue rules for proselytes of the gate to observe in order to attend synagogue, which is what gentile Christian believers did back then to learn about Christ.
The laws were made for atonement. That it started from the time of Abel. Adam was trying to atone for his disobedience that he offered God many things that will let them be back into God's presence. That none of them didn't give their best for an offering, except for Abel. That Abel picked the very best of his flock to give it to God, that God had accepted Abel's offering for atonement. But he was killed. and so, later God made the Hebrews to offer their best to Him as a reminder of Abel that was showing that mankind can be redeemable.
But the Hebrews kept on breaking the laws that God had to make more laws to redeem them from the ones they had broken. so, basically the laws were an act of grace that they had to pay for.
Moses had mediated up the mountain and down many of times for the Hebrews to figure out ways that the Hebrews can pay reparations for their law breaking to protect them from being destroyed.
But God made a promised to the descendants of Abraham that they can enter into God's Sabbath if they can keep themselves clean. That no one has never enter into it. Even Adam and Eve never entered that rest, that they have to work to live because of their disobedience. But now God is accepting admissions at the gate that was once sealed.
Hebrews 12:24
to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.
Exodus 32:30
The next day Moses said to the people, “You have committed a great sin. But now I will go up to the Lord; perhaps I can make atonement for your sin.”
Matthew 19:8
Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.
Exodus 32:32
But now, please forgive their sin—but if not, then blot me out of the book you have written.”
Hebrews 4:6
Therefore since it still remains for some to enter that rest, and since those who formerly had the good news proclaimed to them did not go in because of their disobedience,
But the water baptism was a Jewish custom that was a symbolic gesture of purifying the soul. That the Hebrews didn't know any other way to cleanse themselves from evil. God told them at MT Sinai to wash themselves before He comes. Ever since, they thought that cleanliness is next to godliness.
But the real baptism is being in the belly to be born again.
son of man means something that came forth from a man like a human. But Son of God is someone that came from a spirit like a spiritual being like a ghost
Acts 8:38
And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him.
Matthew 12:40
For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth
Paul spoke about categories of law other than the Law of God, such as works of the law and the law of sin, not about categories of law within the Law of God, such as the moral, civil, and ceremonial law. If a group of people were to create lists of which of God's laws they through best fit into the moral, civil, and ceremonial law, then they would end up with a wide variety of lists and none of those people should interpret the NT as if its authors had in mind a list of laws that they just created, especially when there is no way to establish that they ever considered those to be categories of law. For example, I've spoke with a number of people who consider just the Ten Commandments to be the moral law and everything else to be the ceremonial law or who debate whether the Sabbath is a moral or ceremonial law.
The existence of the category of moral law would imply that we can be acting morally while disobeying the laws that aren't in that category, however, there are no examples in the Bible where disobedience to any of God's law is stated as being moral and I see no justification for thinking that it can ever be moral to disobey God. Morality is in regard to what we ought to do what we ought to be doers of God's character traits by walking in His way, so all of God's laws are inherently moral laws. Legislators give laws in accordance with their understanding of what ought to be done, so to claim that some of God's laws are not moral laws is to claim that God made a moral error about what ought to be done when He gave those laws and is therefore to claim to have greater moral knowledge than God.
The distinction between the Law of God and the law of sin is a separate issue than in Acts 15.
Sin is what is contrary to God's character traits such as with unrighteousness being sin and sin is the transgression of the Law of Moses because it was given to teach us how to be a doer of His character traits, which are the fruits of the Spirit. Paul did instruct Gentiles to refrain from sin (Romans 6:14) and say that it is by the Law of Moses that we have knowledge of what sin is (Romans 3:20), so for the sake of clarity do you affirm or deny that Gentiles should refrain from doing what God has revealed to be sin through the Law of Moses?
Also, do you affirm or deny that Acts 15:19-21 contains an exhaustive list of everything that is required for Gentile believers? If you deny it, then you can no longer try to use it to limit which laws Gentiles should follow. If you take the position that Paul called Gentiles to a higher standard than the Law of Moses by walking in the Spirit, then that is at the very least inclusive of the Law of Moses plus whatever else he raised the bar to, so you should be arguing in favor of obeying it.
Paul contrasting those who walk in the Spirit with with those who have minds set on the flesh who are enemies of God who refuse to submit to the Law of God is certainly not calling people to refuse to submit to it, but just the opposite. The context of other verses that you have incorrectly interpreted as speaking against obeying the Law of God does not nullify that Romans 8:4-7 is clearly supporting obedience to the Law of God. In Deuteronomy 13, the way that God instructed to determine that someone is a false prophet who is not speaking for Him is if they speak against obeying His law, so it is either incorrect to interpret Paul as doing that or he was a false prophet, but either way followers of Christ should follow his example of obedience to what God has commanded.
If it is legalism to take the position that followers of Christ should follow his example of obedience to what God, then legalism is good, but that is not what I think it means. In Acts 21:20-24, Paul planned to take step to disprove false rumors that he was teaching against obeying the Law of God and to show that he continued to live in obedience to it. In Acts 23:6, Paul claimed to be a Pharisee, which is a Torah observant sect of Judaism. In Acts 24:14, Paul testified that according to The Way, which they call a sect, he worship the God of their fathers believing everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets.
Walking in the Spirit does not involve doing anything that is not in accordance with walking in obedience to the Law of God there is nothing about calling for obedience to the Law of God that means that it is in place of being led by the Spirit.
In Jeremiah 31:33, the New Covenant involves God putting the Law of Moses in our minds and writing it on our hearts, and in Ezekiel 36:26-27, it involves God taking away our hearts of stone, giving us hearts of flesh, and sending His Spirit to lead us to obey the Law of Moses. In Luke 10:25-28, Jesus affirmed that the way to inherit eternal life is by obeying the greatest two commandments of the Law of Moses. There are many verses that repeatedly affirm that the New Covenant involves following the Law of Moses, that the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey it, and that obedience to it is the way to eternal life, so there must be something deficient about following the letter that causes it to lead to death rather than life. If following the letter referred to correctly following Christ's example of obedience to what God has instructed and that leads to death, then that would mean that God would be misleading us and should not be trusted.
In Titus 2:14, Jesus gave himself to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so the way to have faith in the Gospel that Jesus spent this ministry teaching and commissioned his disciples to spread to the nations and in what he accomplished through the cross is by repenting and becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to the Law of Moses (Acts 21:20). You are reading quite a bit into 2 Timothy 2:15 that has nothing to do with what Paul was speaking about.
The position that we are doers of the Law of God when led by the Spirit is agreeing with my position that we should obey it and it the opposite of the position that we are dead to it. We need to die to the law of sin in order to be free to obey the Law of God, not the other way around. I've not said anything about breaking it apart of to suggest legalistic obedience.
While Paul said that he received the Gospel from Christ and not from any man, he did not say that the Gosepl that he received from Christ was different from the one that Christ taught. In Galatians 1:23, they affirmed that he who used to persecute us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy, so he was not preaching something different. Likewise, in Galatians 2, Paul set before those who were influential in Jerusalem the Gospel that he had been proclaiming to the Gentiles to make sure that he had not run in vain and they did not add to it but extended the right hand of fellowship.
Please see post #46 where I quoted the scriptures showing Peter preaching one gospel and Paul another. The glaring difference is water baptism for the remission of sins. Peter's Kingdom Gospel clearly had that element, Paul's did not, as one will search in vain to find one place where Paul neither commanded it nor even mentioned it.
Paul revealed this to us:
1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
John the Baptist, on the other hand, declared this:
John 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
John preached the Kingdom Gospel AND he stated he was sent to water baptize. Paul, as you can see, was not.
Why do you suppose that is? If their gospel ministries were exactly the same, why this glaring difference in commands? We can refrain from assuming into the text an alleged requirement on the part of Paul simply because he actually DID baptize a very small number of people of all the thousands he encountered and preached. Baptisms declined in practice throughout Paul's ministry except for him dealing with the schisms beginning to form over whose NAME some were baptized into. That should never have become an issue, but was yet another of the petty things Paul had to deal with among the incest and other wickedness that sprang up among one of the churches he had planted.
The other element of mystery revealed through Paul that no angel nor even Satan knew about, was this:
Acts 28:28 Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it.
That it was sent unto Gentiles clearly shows to us that it was not available to them before. Had Satan known this was going to happen, we're also told this:
1 Corinthians 2:8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
So, we see mysteries, also inclusive of the rapture, revealed through Paul that not even the twelve knew anything about because none of it being revealed to them by Christ. We also see Paul preaching a gospel based solely upon grace through faith apart from works, which was NOT the gospel message preached by those who spoke Kingdom Gospel to Israel by Jesus and the twelve. The Kingdom Gospel required works, thus the glaring differences.
MM
Eternal salvation for the individual has always been and will always be by grace through faith. Acts 2:38 can be interpreted in various ways.
Your logic simply is not consistent with what's revealed in Galatians 1:11-12. There are indeed common elements within both gospels, which is Christ and Him crucified. Yes. We both agree with that, but ignoring the OTHER elements within the two gospels and their differences, THAT is the glaring dichotomy in the claim that they're both the same.
My Nissan is the same as a battle field tank in that they both have an engine, but that doesn't make them both exactly the same vehicle in every other sense to say...their both the same. That's just not intellectually honest dare we take it all into consideration. If you're going to say that the commonality of Christ having been crucified is the only ground for defining anything, at the exclusion of the requirement to be water baptized for remission of sins in one gospel and the lack of any such requirement within the other, how is that an honest assessment? My Nissan doesn't have a turret to fire projectiles, where tanks do. The use fuel in engines to give them motion and functionality, but the other defining elements that render them vastly different from one another cannot be honestly ignored to say they're both the same thing.
Please explain how the difference for the requirement for water baptism for something as important as the remission of sins doesn't render the two gospels different from one another, AND Paul's gospel being inclusive of Gentiles when the Kingdom Gospel was not...apart from Gentiles becoming Jews by joining with Israel. How is it just one and the same gospel considering these VAST differences between what Paul preached and what was preached by Jesus and the twelve? Saying it's just one gospel renders Israel's existence as being nothing all that important to the world, which is just another outplay of anti Semitism.
I appreciate your thoughts, but I hope you can also appreciate the difficulties you've presented.
MM
Ahhh, I think I see, now. So, deploying the "interpretation" battering ram is now cause for ignoring the glaring differences in the terminologies and definitions of the key words in the texts? I don't follow. How can anyone honestly interpret Acts 2:38 as meaning anything other than what it clearly states, compared to 1 Cor. 15:1-4? How can "interpretation" be employed to such an extent to try and make those passages out as allegedly saying the same thing in all the elements involved?
I would caution against the use of "allegory" because that abused system of interpretation has no absolute, universal rules for application of objective definition that governs "allegory."
MM
I'm not sure what this has to do with the topic of this thread. Did you mean to post this in another thread dealing with the Sabbath?
MM
Before I answer, tell me this: if there are indeed two different gospels, which one do you follow? Yes, it’s a trick question, lol.
The numerous falsehoods that fill pulpits and radio broadcasts of false teachings are so outlandish. One such falsehood is the claim, "We're under the New Covenant."
Not only are "testament" and "covenant" NOT synonymous with one another, the New Covenant has NOT yet come into fulfillment:
Hebrews 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
That so many completely miss the PRESENT TENSE of what that verse is clearly showing to us when it was written, which is LONG after the ascension of Christ Jesus, that shows to us how powerful wishful thinking really is in the minds of modern and historic peoples the things they WANT to believe that, in reality, simply are not so.
Replacement theology has many ignoring the clear language of scripture wherever it's convenient. The Old Covenant is STILL active today, with the Law still standing as the indictment against unbelievers. So many ignore how God defined the New Covenant and with WHOM it will be established:
Jeremiah 31:31-34
31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
My fellow Israelis in Jerusalem and throughout all the world, we as a whole are NOT living under this reality stated in Jeremiah. The vast majority of my fellow Israeli's in Israel are still pagan unbelievers, as well as most of those in New York and all other areas of the world.
The New Covenant will become a reality at Christ's Second Coming! Period! That is AFTER the unbelievers are purged from the population of Israel in this earth:
Matthew 13:41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
MM
Not only are "testament" and "covenant" NOT synonymous with one another, the New Covenant has NOT yet come into fulfillment:
Hebrews 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
That so many completely miss the PRESENT TENSE of what that verse is clearly showing to us when it was written, which is LONG after the ascension of Christ Jesus, that shows to us how powerful wishful thinking really is in the minds of modern and historic peoples the things they WANT to believe that, in reality, simply are not so.
Replacement theology has many ignoring the clear language of scripture wherever it's convenient. The Old Covenant is STILL active today, with the Law still standing as the indictment against unbelievers. So many ignore how God defined the New Covenant and with WHOM it will be established:
Jeremiah 31:31-34
31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
My fellow Israelis in Jerusalem and throughout all the world, we as a whole are NOT living under this reality stated in Jeremiah. The vast majority of my fellow Israeli's in Israel are still pagan unbelievers, as well as most of those in New York and all other areas of the world.
The New Covenant will become a reality at Christ's Second Coming! Period! That is AFTER the unbelievers are purged from the population of Israel in this earth:
Matthew 13:41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
MM
Actually, it's a fair question, and I welcome it.
For salvation, I embrace Paul's gospel as the Gospel of Grace through faith for our salvation for today apart from any and all works of effort on our part. Salvation, which I REALLY want to emphasize here to try and keep at bay the false accusation of such things as "easy believism" and all the other false labels that usually fly out from those out there who lack understanding about what's being said. Water baptism could not remit my sins or anyone else's sins today nor back then to those who were under Paul's Gospel after it came into force after being revealed to him as preached unto Jews and Gentiles alike.
Please keep in mind that this is only about salvation, not the power sanctification toward holy living and imputed righteousness after the point of salvation, thus having become a new creature.
MM
I was just showing the main purpose of the laws. That it was made so we can be back into the presence of God and to show how far we have fallen away from not doing what he asks us to do.
But what makes us sinners, it's the law that makes us sinners. But f the laws were removed, then there's no sin been committed.
It's like if I were driving a 100 mph. But someone put a sign saying the speed limit is 65 mph, which that means I'm breaking the laws. but if someone removes the sign, then I'm not breaking the law.
Not being baptized isn't breaking a law. That was just under the law of Moses that a person must be consecrated. But bathing doesn't clean a person from evil. Just like if a person who eats pork doesn't defiled that person soul. But what wickedness that comes from the soul makes the person to become defiled.
Like the Jews wore tefillin to keep God words with them at all times. But wearing the tefillin made them to become righteous or made them to only acknowledge God? The tefillin didn't stopped them from straying away to other gods. Their minds were more set on other gods and coveting their practices.
But baptism was a Jewish ritual that it is used when someone convert or commit themselves over to God by washing away their old self to be filled with a new self in the Jordan river which Jordan means descend upon them which the river water represented the spirit of God, that the river was always murky and muddy like the mud that Jesus healed the blind man with But that didn't make them to be filled with the spirit. The spirit came later to those at Pentecost, but the spirit descended quickly into Jesus.
All God wanted the people to acknowledge Him. That he is everywhere like it that muddy waters
But if anyone wants to become a new person, all they have to do is give themselves a coffee enema twice a week
Galatians 2:14
When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?
Jesus taught one gospel: the Kingdom of God, repentance, faith, and obedience to God’s commandments. He sent the twelve to proclaim this gospel first to Israel, and after His resurrection, He commanded them to teach all nations to obey everything He had taught (Matthew 28:19–20). The message was always the same; it never became a separate “gospel” for Gentiles.
The Judaizers caused confusion by mixing obedience to the Law with faith in the Kingdom, but Jesus’ teaching remained clear: salvation is found in faith expressed through obedience. Disputes among men about circumcision, food, or ceremonies do not create a new gospel; they reflect human misunderstanding, not a change in what Jesus commanded. Peter, the twelve, and others faithfully preached Jesus’ Kingdom message to both Jews and the Gentiles God opened the way to, always pointing to repentance, faith, and obedience.
Paul’s ministry to the Gentiles shows a different focus. While he received revelation about Christ and spoke of His sacrifice, Paul often does not explain the path to salvation that Jesus repeatedly emphasized. Jesus clearly taught that faith alone is not enough; it must be joined with obedience to God’s commandments, keeping His words, and living according to the Kingdom. Without these, simply knowing about Christ’s sacrifice does not save, especially for Gentiles who had not been under the Law.
This difference explains why Paul could say, “I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ” (Galatians 1:12). His words were about Christ’s death and resurrection, but they do not carry the full Kingdom message that Jesus and His twelve taught—the one that requires faith, obedience, and living by God’s Word. When Paul preached to Gentiles, he emphasized Christ’s sacrifice, but he rarely stressed the practical, daily obedience that Jesus insisted on as the condition of eternal life.
The confusion that arose in the early churches does not point to a second gospel but to a misunderstanding of the one gospel Jesus taught. The one flock He described (John 10:16) is united, not divided, and the path to eternal life remains consistent: repent, believe, obey, and enter the Kingdom. Any teaching that departs from this, whether from Judaizers, human teachers, or misreadings of Paul, distorts Jesus’ message.
In practical terms, Jesus’ words show that salvation is a living process, not a one-time event. Faith must be active, expressed in obedience and in keeping His commands. Paul’s writings about grace and Christ’s sacrifice are important, but they do not replace the Kingdom gospel; they complement it at most, but alone they are insufficient for someone to be saved according to Jesus’ own teachings.
Ultimately, the gospel of Jesus is consistent, simple, and accessible: it calls all people, Jew and Gentile alike, to repent, believe, obey, and enter the Kingdom. Any human addition, misunderstanding, or partial teaching that omits obedience is incomplete and cannot substitute for the path Jesus laid out. Paul’s letters may speak of Christ’s sacrifice, but the full way to salvation, as Jesus taught, always includes faith, obedience, and keeping God’s Word. The Kingdom gospel, preached by Jesus and the twelve, remains the complete, true guide for life and eternity.
Yes. I agree. The strength of sin is the Law...period. Nothing else gives sin its power of death. Agree.
Ok. I'm with you on this.
Obedience to the word of God is indeed the mechanism by which they, at that time, under that dispensation, established their faith. It's always been faith, just as is the case today except that we are not required to perform works of effort to establish our faith. We are dead to the Law because we are forgiven to the uttermost.
Grace is how we can know that the man forgiven of one million murders in his past is forgiven, and not cast into Hell for stealing a candy bar in the future to his faith in Paul's gospel. That is what so many people out there are missing for us today. They look at the perseverance requirement of the past and of the future is somehow binding upon us today, it all ends up being a confounding and contradictory mess that they have somehow harmonized in their own minds.
Yes.
MM
I agree that Jesus taught only one gospel, but to assume that with the fall of Israel, the very ones who were allegedly supposed to spread Kingdom Gospel to the Gentiles who actually had to join with Israel to be saved, that's a little difference that remains overlooked by most. Let's look at what actually did happen:
Acts 11:19 Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only.
That covers the period of time and a people after the the ascension, after Pentecost and after Paul's conversion. If they were still required to preach to all, then why only to the Jews? Did something change? Yes it did.
The answer is very simple, but I'll leave that to all the myriad of assumptions that so many out there foster without any regard for scripture and what it clearly teaches to us in a more holistic panorama. Many out there simply don't like learning that they've been wrong all along about a number of things, and many are not about the change their minds no matter what scripture says. I'm not putting you in that category, but there are quiet a few out there who inadvertently align with that very sentiment while refusing to make the admission.
[/QUOTE]...but Jesus’ teaching remained clear: salvation is found in faith expressed through obedience.[/QUOTE]
I fully agree. Paul, on the other hand, did not teach such, which again shows to us the uniqueness of his gospel given to Him by that same Jesus. Paul's gospel was not what he had learned from men, but ONLY from Christ Jesus. He stated that in Gal. 1:11-12. Paul knew and persecuted the early church on the basis of what he knew was the gospel preached by Jesus and the twelve. I've pointed this out to you and you've ignored it. Why?
1 Corinthians 15:1-4
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
As you can see, there's nothing in Paul's Gospel of salvation that points back to including the things Jesus commanded of Israel. What Paul preached in these passages is what was given to him directly from Christ Jesus, with not one thing stated about any requirement for water baptism for the remission of sins, as was the case for Israel preached to them by Peter in Acts 2:38, and yet you believe they are one and the same gospel? How do you get that? Why ignore the difference?
By ignoring the requirement upon Israel for them to receive remission of their sins through water baptism, don't you agree they had salvation ONLY after the remission of their sins through water baptism?
Gentiles, on the other hand, once salvation had come unto them, which clearly means it was not available to them directly before, have no such requirement upon them without one trying to illegitimately jam into the text what was addressed to Israel before her fall.
Please discuss this from your perspective in reading what's stated in scripture, especially what's quoted here. I've already agreed with you about what Jesus preached to Israel. What I take issue with is the illegitimate practice of transplanting His commands upon Israel over upon Gentiles and Jews under the Gospel of Grace when there's no evidence whatsoever in the texts that Paul was in any way remiss in his gospel of salvation to them.
Thanks
MM
It could be understood as:
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for (ice) the remission [that is available through faith alone].
The Greek word for "for" is "ice", and is rendered various ways. It doesn't have to mean that repentance & baptism 'caused' the remission to happen.
Example 1. And while they looked stedfastly toward (ice) heaven as he went up ... Acts 1:10 (KJV)
Their stedfast looking didn't 'cause' heaven to happen or come into existence.
Example 2. I indeed baptize you with water unto (ice) repentance ... Matt 3:11 (KJV)
John's baptism didn't 'cause' their repentance to happen.
It appears that they came to saving faith between being pricked in their heart and asking, "What shall we do?".
Then they that gladly received his word [they were saved at the point of gladly receiving] were baptized ... Acts 2:41 (KJV)
I understand what you're getting at, but pointing at other definitions and comparative synonyms from other isolated contexts that end up changing the clear meaning of how the translators rendered it in English in Acts 2:38 is a subjective handling of this specific context.
Please understand that I have considerable experience with Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses who have tried justifying their respective alterations to key texts by this same tactic while trying to build up backing for their particular choice of false beliefs. That ALL is a subjective handling of the Greek coupled with the context and the grammatical construct of the relevant passages. The process of translation isn't so subjective as you seem to think it is. If that were the case, then we can't trust ANY translation apart from the accusation for subjectivity on the part of the translators.
Again, this analysis of yours isn't rooted in scholastic backing for translation. It's the classic arm chair expert escape of which I too am guilty for having perpetrated in years past, but have since come to learn that proper and accepted hermeneutics for understanding the texts demands first the literal, if that doesn't work then the comparative, and if that doesn't work then the allegorical approach that has no absolute rules and thus being the more dangerous roadway. Even with the comparative method, one must ensure they are comparing apples to apples, so to speak. In other words, comparing context to similar context with equivalent, contextual topic and directional focus. Otherwise, it's all a word game rooted in purely subjective manipulations.
Additionally, please understand that I'm not at all suggesting support for the modern belief by some groups that salvation today comes through water baptism because of their adherence to Peter's commands issued to Israel as being in force upon us today. Water baptism today is nothing but a public declaration of an inner work that has already taken place by grace through faith.
MM