Jesus Said "It Is Finished"

[rrobs]

Faith is not the end-all of believing that one is saved. Jesus knows, yes, who belong to Him. There are ways to follow Jesus. Some can be deluded.

What is the end-all?

Gal 3:1-3,

1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?​

Looks like Paul thought faith was the end-all, both to get saved and to be perfected afterwards. Thinking otherwise apparently is foolish.

1 Pet 1:23,

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
​

Surely you are not suggesting that God was mistaken in saying we are born again of incorruptible seed, that it can somehow corrupt?

Take care.

 

[Nova2216]

Yes. Exactly. They obeyed Roman 10:9-10. They confessed Jesus as their Lord and believed God raised him from the dead. and they were born again.

Rob - At that point Jesus baptized them in holy spirit

Nova - The text does not say that.

You are adding that to the text. (Deut. 4:2) (1Cor. 4:6) (Rev. 22:18,19)

 

[Nova2216]

Nope. No drowning. I am truly saved through faith in Jesus Christ, as you yourself are saved.

Taking Hebrews 9:10 as saying anything other than divers washings (Greek baptismos) was gone at the time of refreshing requires a complete abandonment of otherwise simple words and grammar.

By the way, you should allow Jesus to do the judging. God granted him that authority, not you. He knows who belongs to him and he is able to keep them until the end. Just stick to the scriptures and stop insinuating I, or any other brother, is somehow lost.

*The washing was that which they done before going into the tabernacle (OT) not NT Baptism. (Heb.9:10,11)


9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;
10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.
11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.


We are allowed to judge.

* (Jn 7:24) - Judge righteous judgment.

 

[e.r.m.]

The Jews had practiced their faith according to the OT for thousands of years. Suffice it to say, they got used to it. Then along comes Jesus and changes everything in a radically radical way. Is it reasonable to think the Jews suddenly understood the new program? I don't think so. It would take some time. Paul hadn't even written his letters when Phillip spoke with the eunuch, so there is no way he could have known the fullness of the change brought about at Pentecost.

Acts is a transition from the old to the new. The early church gradually came to understand all the changes, but it took some time. Here is one example of what they did not realize until Paul (or whoever wrote Hebrews) revealed the new truth:

Heb 9:9-10,

9 Which [was] a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;

10 [Which stood] only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed [on them] until the time of reformation.​

The words "divers washings" in verse 10 is the Greek word "baptismos." According to verse 9 then, baptism was a figure, not the real deal. That is of course true for virtually the entire OT. It is full of figures that foreshadowed the coming of Jesus. Those figures never never made anyone perfect, including water. Both John and Jesus said that whereas John baptized in water, Jesus would baptize in holy spirit.

Matt 3:11,

I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and [with] fire:
​

Acts 1:5,

For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
​

Acts 11:15-16,

15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.

16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.​

If these verses don't say holy spirit replaced water, then words have no meaning. To think otherwise is a clear example of the power tradition has over truth.

Matt 15:6,

And honour not his father or his mother, [he shall be free]. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
​

Since many Christians don't understand baptism in holy spirit at the time of the new birth, they of course are ignorant as to the manifestations of that gift of holy spirit. Read 1 Corinthians 12:7-10. What virtually all Christians call gifts, God calls manifestations. There is a difference. If you notice, 7 of those 9 are things Jesus did.

John 14:12,

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater [works] than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
​

Failure to understand our true baptism in holy spirit makes it quite impossible to carry out this directive. The orthodox church lacks true power because they don't believe John or Jesus regarding baptism in holy spirit. How sad that is. It's about time for a wake up call and for the church to shed tradition and replace it with the truth of God's word. Then we would see great signs, wonders, and miracles every day of the week.

By the way, it is almost certain that the words "...in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit..." were not in the original texts of Matthew 28:19. It is one of many examples where the translators changed the original so as to conform with preexisting ideas.

God bless

You're connecting dots and inferring. It sets the stage, but the actors don't appear. Why did no one in the Bible anywhere confirm this theory that you're suggesting? Why did no-one correct what Peter and Ananias said and did? Anybody can connect dots and make up a theory, it takes a verse that explicitly states that theory to confirm that it existed. No one in the Bible believed that baptism in water in Jesus's name for the forgiveness of sins/salvation, was in error because they never said so. Meats and drinks, and divers washings, is not baptism in Jesus's name.

 

[rrobs]

Rob - At that point Jesus baptized them in holy spirit

Nova - The text does not say that.

You are adding that to the text. (Deut. 4:2) (1Cor. 4:6) (Rev. 22:18,19)

1Pet 3:21,

The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
​

How does this verse say baptism and salvation are not inseparable?

It is quite true that Romans 10:9 does not directly address baptism, therefore you say I am wrong for equating baptism with salvation. You seem to feel quite free to put two or more verses together in order to arrive a some conclusion, but you apparently you require me to make an entire doctrine from one verse and only one verse.

God bless.

 

[rrobs]

*The washing was that which they done before going into the tabernacle (OT) not NT Baptism. (Heb.9:10,11)

Is that why God used the Greek word "baptismos" for "washings?"

We are allowed to judge.

* (Jn 7:24) - Judge righteous judgment.

John 5:22,

For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:​

1 Cor 4:5,

Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.
​

All good verses. While it may appear that John 7:24 contradicts John 5:22 and 1 Corinthians 4:5, they must fit together somehow. It would require a detailed study of judgment in the scriptures. Relying on tradition or feelings for the answer will surely lead to error.

 

[rrobs]

You're connecting dots and inferring. It sets the stage, but the actors don't appear. Why did no one in the Bible anywhere confirm this theory that you're suggesting? Why did no-one correct what Peter and Ananias said and did? Anybody can connect dots and make up a theory, it takes a verse that explicitly states that theory to confirm that it existed. No one in the Bible believed that baptism in water in Jesus's name for the forgiveness of sins/salvation, was in error because they never said so. Meats and drinks, and divers washings, is not baptism in Jesus's name.

Even though the word God used for "divers washings" is the Greek word "baptismos?"

Three different places we read where Jesus, unlike John's water, baptizes in holy spirit. Given that, how is it that you don't understand that baptism in Jesus name would be baptism in holy spirit?

 

[e.r.m.]

Even though the word God used for "divers washings" is the Greek word "baptismos?"

Yes, even though. Because they never referred to "baptismos" in Jesus's name in water, as a shadow of things to come -you did that.
You're transposing meats and drinks, and divers washings, to baptism in Jesus's name, they didn't.

Three different places we read where Jesus, unlike John's water, baptizes in holy spirit. Given that, how is it that you don't understand that baptism in Jesus name would be baptism in holy spirit?

Acts 10:47-48 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? [48] And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Because it is explicitly written. Explicitly stated verses such as this carry weight. Inferences, such as your Hebrews verse, don't.

Here's a question, did the New Testament ever explicitly state that baptism in water in Jesus's name is no longer in effect? Yes or no?

 

[rrobs]

Yes, even though. Because they never referred to "baptismos" in Jesus's name in water, as a shadow of things to come -you did that.
You're transposing meats and drinks, and divers washings, to baptism in Jesus's name, they didn't.

Acts 10:47-48 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? [48] And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Because it is explicitly written. Explicitly stated verses such as this carry weight. Inferences, such as your Hebrews verse, don't.

Here's a question, did the New Testament ever explicitly state that baptism in water in Jesus's name is no longer in effect? Yes or no?

Yes Peter did want to baptize with water. But this is the same Peter who just a short time before argued with God about a few things.

Acts 10:12-14,

12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.

13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.

14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.​

Of course God corrected him in this little matter and Peter learned his lesson. Just read the rest of chapter 10 and chapter 11 to see that. That is in absolutely perfect agreement with my argument that Acts is a book of transitions.

Not to disparage Peter, but he was always slow on the uptake when Jesus was here. I probably would have been even slower, but that's beside the point. Peter is the subject here and clearly it took some time before he figured out the true meaning of Jesus' death and resurrection. That was true of all the people of that time.

You are making a very real story into a fantasy. There is no way in this world that anybody could have instantly grasped the true significance of Pentecost. That is simply not real life. Therefore, we must understand the actions of those in the early church in light of the information that God gave to Paul well after Peter's experience with the Gentile Cornelius.

Paul made it clear that there is no unclean food and that water had been superseded by holy spirit. Based upon my limited knowledge of human nature, I'd think Peter got the message and stopped asking for water. Admittedly, that is conjecture, but I still think highly likely.

 

[rrobs]

You're transposing meats and drinks, and divers washings, to baptism in Jesus's name, they didn't.

No, no. I'm just quoting scripture. No transposing.

Acts 2:38,

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
​

The word baptized is the same root word as the divers washings. Are you suggesting that word meant different things in these two verses? If so, what?

 

[Nova2216]

1Pet 3:21,

The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
​

How does this verse say baptism and salvation are not inseparable?

It is quite true that Romans 10:9 does not directly address baptism, therefore you say I am wrong for equating baptism with salvation. You seem to feel quite free to put two or more verses together in order to arrive a some conclusion, but you apparently you require me to make an entire doctrine from one verse and only one verse.

God bless.

You add to scripture thoughts of your own which is not found in the Holy Scriptures.

It's called -
eisegesis
[ ahy-si-jee-sis ]
noun, plural eis·e·ge·ses [ahy-si-jee-seez] .

an interpretation, especially of Scripture, that expresses the interpreter's own ideas, bias, or the like, rather than the meaning of the text.

 

[e.r.m.]

No, no. I'm just quoting scripture. No transposing.

Acts 2:38,

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
​

The word baptized is the same root word as the divers washings. Are you suggesting that word meant different things in these two verses? If so, what?

Well for one, they never baptized meats, drinks, and divers in Jesus's name. Baptism in water in Jesus's name was for people.
Acts 2;38 doesn't say
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and baptismos every meat, drink, and diver in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

You're saying baptism in water in Jesus's name was a shadow of things to come. No one in the Bible ever said baptism in water in Jesus's name was a shadow of things to come.

 

[Nova2216]

1Pet 3:21,

The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
​

How does this verse say baptism and salvation are not inseparable?

It is quite true that Romans 10:9 does not directly address baptism, therefore you say I am wrong for equating baptism with salvation. You seem to feel quite free to put two or more verses together in order to arrive a some conclusion, but you apparently you require me to make an entire doctrine from one verse and only one verse.

God bless.

(1Peter 3:20,21)

20. Eight souls were saved by water

21. likewise baptism now saves us

The good conscience comes b/c one obeys the will of God correctly.

Is the above information - TRUE or FALSE

 

[e.r.m.]

Yes Peter did want to baptize with water. But this is the same Peter who just a short time before argued with God about a few things.

Acts 10:12-14,

12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.

13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.

14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.​

Of course God corrected him in this little matter and Peter learned his lesson. Just read the rest of chapter 10 and chapter 11 to see that. That is in absolutely perfect agreement with my argument that Acts is a book of transitions.

Not to disparage Peter, but he was always slow on the uptake when Jesus was here. I probably would have been even slower, but that's beside the point. Peter is the subject here and clearly it took some time before he figured out the true meaning of Jesus' death and resurrection. That was true of all the people of that time.

You are making a very real story into a fantasy. There is no way in this world that anybody could have instantly grasped the true significance of Pentecost. That is simply not real life. Therefore, we must understand the actions of those in the early church in light of the information that God gave to Paul well after Peter's experience with the Gentile Cornelius.

Paul made it clear that there is no unclean food and that water had been superseded by holy spirit. Based upon my limited knowledge of human nature, I'd think Peter got the message and stopped asking for water. Admittedly, that is conjecture, but I still think highly likely.

explicit
[ ik-splis-it ]
adjective
fully and clearly expressed or demonstrated; leaving nothing merely implied; unequivocal:

You have not shared an explicit versus yet. You have shared Theory and deduction, and as you elegantly stated, conjecture.

Where is the book chapter and verse that explicitly states that baptism in water in Jesus's name is but a shadow of things to come, no longer in effect or obsolete?
After Peter, or Paul, or whoever else finally grasped the true significance of Pentecost, where did they go back and renege that baptism in water in Jesus's name is for forgiveness of sins? In what book chapter and verse did they say, we know better now and baptism in Jesus's name is...?

 

[rrobs]

explicit
[ ik-splis-it ]
adjective
fully and clearly expressed or demonstrated; leaving nothing merely implied; unequivocal:

You have not shared an explicit versus yet. You have shared Theory and deduction, and as you elegantly stated, conjecture.

Where is the book chapter and verse that explicitly states that baptism in water in Jesus's name is but a shadow of things to come, no longer in effect or obsolete?
After Peter, or Paul, or whoever else finally grasped the true significance of Pentecost, where did they go back and renege that baptism in water in Jesus's name is for forgiveness of sins? In what book chapter and verse did they say, we know better now and baptism in Jesus's name is...?

Are you claiming Peter was some bastion of truth, that he never got anything wrong?

 

[e.r.m.]

Are you claiming Peter was some bastion of truth, that he never got anything wrong?

The issue isn't whether or not Peter got something wrong. If he got that particular thing wrong, and either he or Paul later got it right, where is the book, chapter, and verse that corrects Acts 2:38, 10:47-48? "Baptism in water in Jesus's name is not, in fact, for forgiveness of sins, it is...." Acts 22:16 Ananias shouldn't have told me what he told me, what it really is..."

 

[Nova2216]

* Each and every conversion in the NT period must harmonize with (Acts 22:16).

If not, that person is not saved.

Was your sins forgiven at the same point as Pauls?

(Acts 22:16)

1. Arise
2. Be Baptized
3. Wash Away Your Sins


(Mark 16:16) (Acts 8:5,12,13,26-40) (1Peter 1:22,23 ; 3:20,21)


If a person can count to three they can tell when mans sins are forgiven by the blood of Christ. (Eph.1:7) (Rev.1:5)


(1Cor.1:10) -

10 ¶ Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

(Phil.3:16) - let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing


Two people cannot teach differing doctrines and both be right with God.

The reason why is found in (1Cor.1:10) (Phil.3:16).

 

[rational experiences]

We live as a bio life by human sex, we are a high percentile of water/oxygen by living conditions so water in our life is HOLY and also a self advice.

When a story against occultism as a practice says, life was irradiated attacked by manifestation of evil spirits from spatial causes, the deep pit of space, and it comes into our atmosphere burning gas light, not cooled like we own.....then it was how it was explained.

Humans did it to humans, in the past Rome owned controlled of the Temple/pyramid science technologies. Which AI in psyche conditions, the hearing of voice states was trans mutation. Taking God stone fusion SION mass from a body condition into transformation, remove and made disappear some of the gases/spirit in the stone mass. Stone remained but was emptied out of its spirit, for they were not only inventing gold, they traded gold.

It was a commodity in the ancient times....and covering everything with gold in their Temples that proof.

That condition of radio wave/radiation mass use unnaturally environmentally between Temple mountain transmitters, to ground Temple to pyramid interaction mutated life. So it was termed trans mutation.....life became cellular sacrificed as unnatural masses of radiation/radio waves were passed through the life body in Nature.

So they told a theme that animals and then humans became sacrificed on the stone altar of GOD...and there is only one GOD...the O stone Earth planet.

Knowingly were advised....just as science is today, fully human aware of cause and effects for choosing such evil occult practices...but do it anyway based on economy and invention and human elitism.

So Rome is a reviewed historical event, and the documents are WRITTEN after the fact of it all...including Jesus Second coming/returned event. As the science practice was restarted...then Holy Wars to bring down the Temple sciences was achieved....it is all relative to history.

Rome, being attacked had to then of agreed that it was an evil practice for history says that in greed and want, science ignores relative self science advice and argues until it is too late. So we are meant to be reminded of the historic event and claim humanity in our religious spiritual teachings and never allow it again.

Yet it is proven to be recurring.

If a teaching said ICE returned and newly born every year 12 position is why the life of a holy human baby and animals are born in a STABLE status....then it was...the holding of WATER in a frozen state to contradict extra attacking out of space radiation mass...the UFO that keeps entering our atmosphere as Earth science heated it in space via GOD the EARTH mass conversion.

So as we are stuck on a cycle O Earth as a body moves back into the spatial radiation heating …..as caused by Earth science.

Exactly how it was known and explained...as MASS of energy is the GOD O planetary body itself...and science was taking the MASS and removing it from held cold fusion.

If you get irradiated and then survive as a human who had an experience to tell a story then you do and did. If science or any human thinks it a miracle to survive radiation attacking, in radiating upper fall out of burning gases...then think it miraculous....yet if you were the human owning the experience, like I was, you never would ever preach it a miracle.

So humans should stop being so dishonest about personally not ever wanting to be a Jesus sacrifice of life victim....which is a huge human appraisal of every condition suffered by any human life today. None of you would want to live the life of that victim.

And hence a human fake preaching event incurred.....it was their karma they claimed...yet those humans were born from a parental choice of human sex.

Now if today you believe in baby Jesus in the Earth atmospheric Immaculate spiritual conception......then would you not also be claiming, oh look how sick little babies are born badly mutated and suffering and then see images of little babies in the atmosphere.....when babies are conceived by sperm as material and an ovary as material?

How would you not claim that you today are not living mind affected, believing in themes such as human Immaculate baby conception of a God? It is proven that to believe such a story you are subliminally encoded to believe it due to baby images floating up in the cloud mass.

What artificial machine radiation/radio wave transmitting between their science buildings caused.....loss of the humanity ability to use and think and infer rational human explanations, and instead use group cult teaching themes against naturally aware humans as an enforced lack of being honest and truthful in natural human life.

 

[YoursTrue]

What is the end-all?

Gal 3:1-3,

1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?​

Looks like Paul thought faith was the end-all, both to get saved and to be perfected afterwards. Thinking otherwise apparently is foolish.

1 Pet 1:23,

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
​

Surely you are not suggesting that God was mistaken in saying we are born again of incorruptible seed, that it can somehow corrupt?

Take care.

By the word of God -- to gain salvation through works of Law is impossible. It is only by having faith in Jesus Christ can we have a standing with God. There was a problem in the Galatian congregation, Paul knew it. Chapter 2 helps to explain what that situation was.
"Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek.4This issue arose because some false brothers had come in under false pretenses to spy on our freedom in Christ Jesus, in order to enslave us. 5We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you.6But as for the highly esteemed--whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism--those leaders added nothing to me. 7On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted to preach the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised. 8For the One who was at work in Peter’s apostleship to the circumcised was also at work in my apostleship to the Gentiles."

 

[YoursTrue]

@rrobs - the "end-all" is eternal life.
Isaiah 65:17,18 encapsulates it:

"For behold, I will create
new heavens and a new earth.
The former things will not be remembered,
nor will they come to mind. But be glad and rejoice forever
in what I create"

Have a good night.