Not By Works

  • 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.
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 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 corrected my post - if they repented at that time then their sin is blotted out in EXACTLY the same way as Gentile sin is blotted out. If Caesar had repented his sin would have been blotted out.

None of what you are stating is contextually correct - your "doctrine" is foreign to the bible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dcontroversal
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.

If you were right it wouldn't have to be an echo chamber.

34 And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken.

This does not state that they did not believe it.... you are twisting the verse to state something it does not state.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dcontroversal
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.

Like I said....you comment was false...not ONE VERSE indicates that All 12 DID NOT BELIEVE HE SHOULD DIE....and JESUS only rebuked PETER....just more proof of how you embellish the word of God to spread that which is false.....I sincerely hope and pray that NO ONE SITS under you is you teach or preach......they are for sure led astray if they do!
 
  • Like
Reactions: EleventhHour
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 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.
His words were clear....NONE OF THE 12 BELIEVED HE SHOULD DIE........

Not one verse even comes close to indicating that they ALL BELIEVED that......
 
  • Like
Reactions: azamzimtoti
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 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 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.

I hate to admit this, for once he has a point - even Iamsoandso brought up them not understanding. But it does not help his "argument".

(Luke 24:20 And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him.)

(Luke 24:21 But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done.)

(Luke 24:22 Yea, and certain women also of our company made us astonished, which were early at the sepulchre)

(Luke 24:23 And when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was alive.)

(Luke 24:24 And certain of them which were with us went to the sepulchre, and found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw not.)

(Luke 24:25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken)

(Luke 24:26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?)

(Luke 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.)
 
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?
You know that does not make sense.
 
What I read here is that the Cross Death Burial and Resurrection could have been averted if the Jews had believed?

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.

So it's just happenstance that the husband men killed the son of the vineyard owner

(Mat 21:37 But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son.)

(Mat 21:38 But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.)

(Mat 21:39 And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.)

(Mat 21:40 When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?)
 
  • Like
Reactions: EleventhHour
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.

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.
 
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.
 
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.

God knows every choice we are going to make before it is made, therefore He is able to make His will come to pass.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dcontroversal
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.

This is another theory you have not supported with scripture.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dcontroversal