Yeah, I really do not get his view .. not that I want to mind you.
I understand, this thread is largely an echo chamber so the benefits of agreeing and joining in with the "rest of the gang" is very strong.
Yeah, I really do not get his view .. not that I want to mind you.
If Israel did repent as in v19, obviously they are "hearing that prophet" right?
Yes, and they were not cut off from the people. This proves nothing of your case.
I was trying to say that if Israel repented of crucifying their Messiah and are willing to be baptized, even that sin would be blotted out.
That is what vs 19 literally says.
I understand, this thread is largely an echo chamber so the benefits of agreeing and joining in with the "rest of the gang" is very strong.
34 And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken.
Peter was widely acknowledged in the 4 gospels as the spokesman for all the other 11 apostles. The gospel accounts and even the first half of Acts, for such reasons, choose to focus mainly on what he said and did.
The obvious implication for us readers is that whatever Peter believed and said at those times is representative for all of the 12.
But if you want to split hair like that, I am not going to play this game with you. You are free to hold a view that only Peter did not believe, but the rest did.
If you were right it wouldn't have to be an echo chamber.
This does not state that they did not believe it.... you are twisting the verse to state something it does not state.
His words were clear....NONE OF THE 12 BELIEVED HE SHOULD DIE........If you were right it wouldn't have to be an echo chamber.
This does not state that they did not believe it.... you are twisting the verse to state something it does not state.
If you believe that MAKING the bible STATE something that is does not state and then being called on it = splitting hairs.....you have a VERY, VERY bad day coming pal when you stand before God!If you want to split hair, and insist that the 12 could be preaching something in Luke 9:6 that they did not understand, you are free to do so.
If you were right it wouldn't have to be an echo chamber.
This does not state that they did not believe it.... you are twisting the verse to state something it does not state.
The good news that the Son of God is finally sent to the flesh to Israel. Thru God's grace he came.
Israel needed to respond in faith to that grace, which is repent and be baptized.
If they respond in faith, Jesus as the Son of God would usher Israel into their promised kingdom.
It is then that their sins will finally be remitted (Acts 3:19)
What I read here is that the Cross Death Burial and Resurrection could have been averted if the Jews had believed?
What I read here is that the Cross Death Burial and Resurrection could have been averted if the Jews had believed?
You know that does not make sense.
No, Jesus would still have to die because it was prophesied in the OT.
But there are many other ways for Jesus to end up in the cross still, even if Israel accepted him. The Romans could have came in still since Jesus as their King would be a clear threat.
But all these "what ifs" don't matter since we had the benefit of being born in a future time and knowing what actually happened.
No, Jesus would still have to die because it was prophesied in the OT.
But there are many other ways for Jesus to end up in the cross still, even if Israel accepted him. The Romans could have came in still since Jesus as their King would be a clear threat.
But all these "what ifs" don't matter since we had the benefit of being born in a future time and knowing what actually happened.
But there are many other ways for Jesus to end up in the cross still, even if Israel accepted him. The Romans could have came in still since Jesus as their King would be a clear threat.
I think the whole thing was prophesied.
The plan of salvation as determined by God is not like a novel with multiple, possible, different endings and then the one that happened is the one that is written.
Free will vs determinism question: Just because God foresaw it, does not mean Man don't have free will.
Man was given a legitimate choice. Adam had the free will and could have rejected the fruit for example.
were, not are. The gospel of the kingdom that was preached, before Paul, required faith AND works.
Think of the 3 time periods where Scripture is placed: Time past, but now, the age to come.
We are in the But now time period, where it is faith apart from works.
God knows every choice we are going to make before it is made, therefore He is able to make His will come to pass.