"Men and brethren, what shall we do?"

[CrochetOverCoffee]

That does not at all address my point. Jesus spent his life railing against the Pharisees, who enjoyed a "bean counting" legalistic approach to religion that ignored the big picture. Insistence on immersion is exactly the kind of legalistic nonsense Jesus would object to.

Let me ask you this: if Noah had used built the ark out of metal or mud, do you think it would have saved him and his family from the flood? What about if he had built it out of pine or oak? God told him to use gopher wood. If he had changed the pattern he was given by God, do you think for a moment that he would have been saved?

Here's another example: Nadab and Abihu offered fire that was from a source God did not authorize. He killed them on the spot and demanded they not be mourned. Was the pattern important here?

Finally, when the children of Israel were besieged by a plague of snakes due to their infidelity, God gave them a way out. They were to look upon a brass serpent that Moses had raised up on a pole. If anyone did not look at it, do you think he would have been saved from his snake bite, which was the just punishment for his sins?

These are three good examples which you can find in the Old Testament, patterns which, while they are different in their particulars, show God's insistence on obedience, and not just to the general plan, but to the exact pattern. When you mention Jesus's disputing with the Pharisees, it was because they had added their own traditions to the Law of Moses, things like a ceremonial washing of the hands before eating, and performing one's oaths before God. He wasn't saying that washing your hands before you eat was a bad thing, mind, but that it was of little importance in the grand scheme of things. That doesn't exclude obedience to those things which are commanded of us by God, doesn't mean that you don't have to do as you're told, because it is God who is telling you.

 

[CrochetOverCoffee]

I like where you're coming from, and I hadn't made the Noah's flood connection. ...But now that you have made the connection for me I think that it (this reference in John 3) could be a reference to the noahic covenant rather than to water baptism. Allegorically Christians bury ourselves in the flood and mud and only part of us is preserved just like Noah* is preserved. I view this as connected to self denial preached by Jesus, and I view self denial as part of baptism or possibly the important part of it.

*The noahic covenant is a covenant to be peaceful -- of not killing other people. Noah is preserved from the flood, because he is the only non-violent person left. He teaches his children to be like himself, and they all join in the covenant of peace.

The covenant between God and the earth after the flood was that He wouldn't destroy the world with water again.

Genesis 9:11
Thus I establish My covenant with you: Never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood; never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.

Just a few verses earlier, He says,
"Whoever sheds man’s blood,
By man his blood shall be shed;
For in the image of God
He made man."

 

[blü 2]

That’s a very particular interpretation; one that only really works, imo, if we assume Jesus was in control of the process, dictating the narrative of his own life.

It doesn't matter why he's determined to make sure he's killed ─ whether on orders that he chooses to obey, or for purposes of his own.

Nor did I write the scriptures that make it clear he went out his way to make sure he was killed. All four gospels carry the story of the moment where he goes into the garden and says, in effect, "Can I get off this hook?" And when the answer is, No, he accepts that, just as he'd accepted it at the start of his mission.

Jesus wasn’t on a death mission; that would make no sense, not least in the context of John 14:6

Don't argue with me about it ─ argue with the authors of the NT.

Their narrative has him ─

say at the start that his mission would lead to his death,

knowingly put himself in harm's way,

refuse to use his meeting with Pilate to avoid death,

refuse to escape while there was still time,

not resist his captors but rather asked they be left to go about their work.​

That is, he made sure it ended just like he said at the start it would.

I still have no idea why it might have been necessary, or what was said to be different after than before, but that's not what we're discussing.

 

[RestlessSoul]

It doesn't matter why he's determined to make sure he's killed ─ whether on orders that he chooses to obey, or for purposes of his own.

Nor did I write the scriptures that make it clear he went out his way to make sure he was killed. All four gospels carry the story of the moment where he goes into the garden and says, in effect, "Can I get off this hook?" And when the answer is, No, he accepts that, just as he'd accepted it at the start of his mission.
Don't argue with me about it ─ argue with the authors of the NT.

Their narrative has him ─

say at the start that his mission would lead to his death,

knowingly put himself in harm's way,

refuse to use his meeting with Pilate to avoid death,

refuse to escape while there was still time,

not resist his captors but rather asked they be left to go about their work.​

That is, he made sure it ended just like he said at the start it would.

I still have no idea why it might have been necessary, or what was said to be different after than before, but that's not what we're discussing.

Okay; what you seem to be saying is, you have your interpretation of the Gospels, and are unwilling to consider any others. You do see why this looks exactly like religious fundamentalism of the most intransigent kind?

 

[PruePhillip]

To be fair, Peter does not actually say that repentance and baptism are the only way to salvation. He just tells this particular audience to do these things.

How else can there be salvation? By saying one hundred Hail Marys ????
By saving whales or reducing world hunger?

 

[blü 2]

Okay; what you seem to be saying is, you have your interpretation of the Gospels, and are unwilling to consider any others. You do see why this looks exactly like religious fundamentalism of the most intransigent kind?

I set out relevant information about Jesus' behavior respecting his ultimate fate.

What part of it do you dispute?

 

[exchemist]

Well, that's a new one on me. Never heard of it. But still, physical dirt versus filth of the flesh. They're the same thing, stated differently. It means, this isn't just a bath to wash away dirt, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, and that it saves us through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The New Jerusalem bible is fairly widely used, mainly in the Catholic church. It is a recent (1980s) direct translation from original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic: New Jerusalem Bible - Wikipedia
It therefore uses modern language and tends to avoid the Shakespeare-era archaisms of the Authorised Version (KJV). Though I have an Authorised Version as well, as the language of that, often very beautiful, is deeply embedded in English literature.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The covenant between God and the earth after the flood was that He wouldn't destroy the world with water again.

Genesis 9:11
Thus I establish My covenant with you: Never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood; never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.

Just a few verses earlier, He says,
"Whoever sheds man’s blood,
By man his blood shall be shed;
For in the image of God
He made man."

The covenant comes with constraints. Without evil the covenant would likely not have been needed, and I think the chapters 6-9 imply that it only was because of evil. Following evil and the flood came laws against murder, listed in chapter 9. The covenant also specifies under what conditions the earth will not be destroyed, such that if these conditions cease then the earth can be destroyed.

2Peter mentions a situation in which the covenant with Noah has either paused or ceased: "6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly." (2 Peter 3:6-7) This may not be literal, but it may. If so then the covenant with Noah concerning planet Earth has at this time ceased, but what is 2Peter's reason that this will happen? "3 Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires." (2 Peter 3:3)

So the 'Covenant with God and the Earth' is more like a covenant that involves the people who live on the Earth, and if we don't keep our end then we can still be destroyed.

You've been plain with me, which I appreciate. Not everyone is. I believe it is talking allegorically about the destruction of Israel and not planet Earth, but putting that conjecture aside and even assuming it is talking about the planet Earth the concept is the same: Evil is the reason why the flood is sent to destroy everything, which brings me back to reasons to think the covenant has to do with keeping peace.

The flood story begins this way: "5 The LORD saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. 6 The LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled." (Gen 6:5 NIV)

What evil is the evil spoken of? 'Evil' here could simply refer to violence. "Refrain from anger and turn from wrath; do not fret--it leads only to evil." (Psa 37:8 NIV) It could be talking about war: "9 He makes wars cease to the ends of the earth. He breaks the bow and shatters the spear; he burns the shields with fire." (Psalm 46:9) It could be the evil of lawlessness, since it is the law which lists evils which come from within us.

 

[Colt]

After Peter delivered his first sermon to those gathered for the celebration of Pentecost in Jerusalem, convicting them of the murder of Jesus and convincing them that He was the Messiah, they asked him this question (Acts 2:37). He then tells them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Acts 2:38) Why then do so many deny that either repentance or baptism are requirements of salvation? (Scripture quoted from NKJV.)

Certainly, repentance from ongoing sin and the spiritual rebirth or birth of faith is fundamental, but the original Gospel preached by Jesus wasn't "Christ and him crucified" for the sins of the world. On Pentecost the gospel changed into a new Gospel about Jesus which replaced the old gospel of salvation by faith in the Father.

* Rejecting the original Gospel and killing Jesus was the will of the Devil and his children. Jesus never taught that the cross was a condition for forgiveness. The Father has always been forgiving to his sincere repentant child.

 

[exchemist]

How else can there be salvation? By saying one hundred Hail Marys ????
By saving whales or reducing world hunger?

Good works, perhaps?

 

[RestlessSoul]

I set out relevant information about Jesus' behavior respecting his ultimate fate.

What part of it do you dispute?

I dispute your interpretation of the text, as I have already explained. I think I was pretty clear, and have suggested an alternative interpretation which I think is more in keeping with the intent of the writers. But your mind seems pretty made up on your own somewhat idiosyncratic reading, or rather misreading.

 

[PruePhillip]

Good works, perhaps?

Atheists do 'good works' too.
'Good works' in the bible are often seen as a form of self righteous, that
is, your own righteousness.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Atheists do 'good works' too.
'Good works' in the bible are often seen as a form of self righteous, that
is, your own righteousness.

You are presumably aware of many verses in the Gospels where Jesus made almost exactly that point? For example, Matthew 6:1-4

 

[exchemist]

Atheists do 'good works' too.
'Good works' in the bible are often seen as a form of self righteous, that
is, your own righteousness.

Yes. But I for one am not willing to believe that people who are not baptised are condemned to go to hell. That would be most of the world's population.

 

[PruePhillip]

Yes. But I for one am not willing to believe that people who are not baptised are condemned to go to hell. That would be most of the world's population.

So if you believe in the God of the Bible, then how do these lost souls find salvation?
Doing 'good deeds' ???
There's this beautiful painting of a native American young woman, bowing before a
totem pole in the moonlight. Often wonder about that - it's said in the bible that God
knows who loves Him. And if people love God truly then we would expect they would
have to express that love in different ways. But it would be the same God, same Spirit,
same bond of love, same grace etc. that would unit such people with those who were
called 'the children of Israel.'
But good works? I doubt it. Even Hitler did good deeds.

 

[PruePhillip]

You are presumably aware of many verses in the Gospels where Jesus made almost exactly that point? For example, Matthew 6:1-4

True. Good works as a demonstration of the inner spirit, works
that don't come from our nature, but what has been put into us
through the spirit.

 

[Clara Tea]

After Peter delivered his first sermon to those gathered for the celebration of Pentecost in Jerusalem, convicting them of the murder of Jesus and convincing them that He was the Messiah, they asked him this question (Acts 2:37). He then tells them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Acts 2:38) Why then do so many deny that either repentance or baptism are requirements of salvation? (Scripture quoted from NKJV.)

Revelation says that those who attacked Babylon, Iraq will face God's wrath (like Revelation 15: Seven plagues). Yet, Jesus said that if you believe in Him (Jesus), you will have eternal life. God sent prophets to earth in modern times (when Iraq was recently attacked). I personally knew these prophets. They said that there is no salvation for those who supported the war against Iraq. This is because they had sinned horribly, and God was going to eventually destroy all life on earth as a result. In other words, the war in Iraq was not a typical sin, it was the ultimate sin (million innocents dead, torture camps, on God's holy ground where the Tower of Babel and Garden of Eden were).

I find it odd that Acts says that Jews crucified Jesus and that two recent popes denied that Jews said that Jesus should be crucified. Apparently, those popes disagree with Acts, which means, that in their view, Acts is wrong, and not a true part of the bible.

Revelation says that 144,000 Jews will be saved, and they don't have to convert. (Representing 12,000 from each of the extant 12 tribes of Israel).

During the Dark Ages, Jews were tortured into converting to Christianity, then murdered before they could convert back. Isn't it odd that Christians allowed torture, but didn't allow Jews to be Jewish?

Lets remember that the Christian and Muslim faiths are both spin-offs of the Jewish faith. Essentially, Christians and Muslims are Jews religiously (not ethnically).

 

[Clara Tea]

Which version are using, if I may ask? I use the NKJV.

My favorite english version is KJV because it is the oldest english version.

However, because KJV is a translation, and filled with errors (contrary to the assertions of many pastors who say that it was divinely inspired), I sometimes go back to Latin versions (or sometimes Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic).

For example, Matthew (in KJV) says that we must not be tempted by Satan's evil. But, older translations in Latin say that we must not be tempted by the evil in us. I knew that I had to research that verse, as I was arguing with my minister fiancee, because God offers free choice, and it is our choice of good and evil that we must make (not some devil influencing us).

However, Eve was tempted by an evil snake in Eden. So, apparently, even ancient Jews recognized that there were evil entities.

King James I, of England, took much of the power from the churches (Catholic and Anglican) by allowing English reading people to read and understand the bible. Before, the bible was only in Latin, and only understood by religious leaders. So, they were the only source of information about God.

 

[Clara Tea]

Well, that's a new one on me. Never heard of it. But still, physical dirt versus filth of the flesh. They're the same thing, stated differently. It means, this isn't just a bath to wash away dirt, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, and that it saves us through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Puts plastic flower in lapel, with squirt bulb (have to Baptize everyone whether they want it or not).

 

[Orbit]

Let me ask you this: if Noah had used built the ark out of metal or mud, do you think it would have saved him and his family from the flood? What about if he had built it out of pine or oak? God told him to use gopher wood. If he had changed the pattern he was given by God, do you think for a moment that he would have been saved?

Here's another example: Nadab and Abihu offered fire that was from a source God did not authorize. He killed them on the spot and demanded they not be mourned. Was the pattern important here?

Finally, when the children of Israel were besieged by a plague of snakes due to their infidelity, God gave them a way out. They were to look upon a brass serpent that Moses had raised up on a pole. If anyone did not look at it, do you think he would have been saved from his snake bite, which was the just punishment for his sins?

These are three good examples which you can find in the Old Testament, patterns which, while they are different in their particulars, show God's insistence on obedience, and not just to the general plan, but to the exact pattern. When you mention Jesus's disputing with the Pharisees, it was because they had added their own traditions to the Law of Moses, things like a ceremonial washing of the hands before eating, and performing one's oaths before God. He wasn't saying that washing your hands before you eat was a bad thing, mind, but that it was of little importance in the grand scheme of things. That doesn't exclude obedience to those things which are commanded of us by God, doesn't mean that you don't have to do as you're told, because it is God who is telling you.

The capacity of Christians to disregard Jesus never ceases to astound me.