Speaking In Tongues Does Not Equal Salvation.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by mfblume

They had to repent of causing Christ's crucifixion, like all of us, only they directly caused it in a way we did not. But in general all who are lost have crucified the Lord since He died for our sins.

Acts 2:23 KJV Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

Acts 2:36-38 KJV Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. (37) Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? (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.

Peter didn't say they indirectly caused Christ's crucifixion because they had sinned. He didn't even imply an indirect causation being to blame. Peter said that they took and by wicked hands crucified and slain Christ. That is about as direct of an accusation as it gets. But the question is, who was they that did this? The men of Israel.(Acts 2:22) But as individuals or as a group? I say as a group and this is perfectly consistent with scripture for the men of Israel as a group were directly responsible for the crucifixion. But, as individuals I doubt the 3000 who converted were all directly responsible for the crucifixion, but they were part of the house of Israel which was responsible.

[Falla39]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Peter didn't say they indirectly caused Christ's crucifixion because they had sinned. He didn't even imply an indirect causation being to blame. Peter said that they took and by wicked hands crucified and slain Christ. That is about as direct of an accusation as it gets. But the question is, who was they that did this? The men of Israel.(Acts 2:22) But as individuals or as a group? I say as a group and this is perfectly consistent with scripture for the men of Israel as a group were directly responsible for the crucifixion. But, as individuals I doubt the 3000 who converted were all directly responsible for the crucifixion, but they were part of the house of Israel which was responsible.

Those who crucified Jesus were the children OF those who crucified every
prophet God had sent under the old covenant. The children said if they had
been back in the days of the prophets, they would not have killed them. But
Jesus told them they would fill up the cup of the wrath of God. He knew they
would crucify him. They were OF those who didn't believe the prophets!

They didn't believe Jesus was the Messiah. They were destroyed at the end
of that age of law-keeping and animal sacrifices. God poured out His wrath for
three and one-half yrs, until Jerusalem was utterly desolate! He destroyed
their city and their temple. The church had left Jerusalem because they heard
Jesus say that when they saw the armies surrounding Jerusalem, to get out.
He even gave a little "space of grace" for them to get out. Those that believed
Jesus WORDS got out and fled to safety. A remnant was saved. That's all God
needs today! A remnant to believe and obey the gospel of Jesus Christ! Jesus
Christ the same yesterday, and today and forever!

We had better believe Jesus words today because he told his disciples that the
words he spake unto them were "spirit and they are life"! Jesus words are still
important today.
We had better not only read them, but believe and obey them. He left simple
instructions with the Apostles. Instructions so simple, a little child could under
stand. He gave the Apostles a kingdom, just as he said his Father had given him.
It was to pass on to those that were afar off, even as many as the Lord their
God would call.
Thank You, Lord God, for including me and mine, and others!

Falla39

[Falla39]

Originally Posted by Falla39

Those who crucified Jesus were the children OF those who crucified every
prophet God had sent under the old covenant. The children said if they had
been back in the days of the prophets, they would not have killed them. But
Jesus told them they would fill up the cup of the wrath of God. He knew they
would crucify him. They were OF those who didn't believe the prophets!

They didn't believe Jesus was the Messiah. They were destroyed at the end
of that age of law-keeping and animal sacrifices. God poured out His wrath for
three and one-half yrs, until Jerusalem was utterly desolate! He destroyed
their city and their temple. The church had left Jerusalem because they heard
Jesus say that when they saw the armies surrounding Jerusalem, to get out.
He even gave a little "space of grace" for them to get out. Those that believed
Jesus WORDS got out and fled to safety. A remnant was saved. That's all God
needs today! A remnant to believe and obey the gospel of Jesus Christ! Jesus
Christ the same yesterday, and today and forever!

We had better believe Jesus words today because he told his disciples that the
words he spake unto them were "spirit and they are life"! Jesus words are still
important today.
We had better not only read them, but believe and obey them. He left simple
instructions with the Apostles. Instructions so simple, a little child could under
stand. He gave the Apostles a kingdom, just as he said his Father had given him.
It was to pass on to those that were afar off, even as many as the Lord their
God would call.
Thank You, Lord God, for including me and mine, and others!

Falla39

BUMP!

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Peter didn't say they indirectly caused Christ's crucifixion because they had sinned. He didn't even imply an indirect causation being to blame. Peter said that they took and by wicked hands crucified and slain Christ. That is about as direct of an accusation as it gets.

What am I missing here? THAT WAS MY POINT!

Read it again:

Originally Posted by mfblume

They had to repent of causing Christ's crucifixion, like all of us, only they directly caused it in a way we did not. But in general all who are lost have crucified the Lord since He died for our sins.

You asked what they had to repent about, and I told you. Crucifying Jesus. You said there was nothing stated that they had to repent over. I showed you were wrong. I said they directly caused the crucifixion, where as we did indirectly.

But the question is, who was they that did this? The men of Israel.(Acts 2:22) But as individuals or as a group? I say as a group and this is perfectly consistent with scripture for the men of Israel as a group were directly responsible for the crucifixion.

Right, and that was what they had to repent about.

But, as individuals I doubt the 3000 who converted were all directly responsible for the crucifixion, but they were part of the house of Israel which was responsible.

Right. But that was what they had to repent over. Was not the point the question of what specific thing did they have to repent about? You said nothing was told to them, and I say it was.

Originally Posted by jfrog

There wasn't one sin he told them to repent of that day.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by mfblume

What am I missing here? THAT WAS MY POINT!

Read it again:




You asked what they had to repent about, and I told you. Crucifying Jesus. You said there was nothing stated that they had to repent over. I showed you were wrong. I said they directly caused the crucifixion, where as we did indirectly.



Right, and that was what they had to repent about.



Right. But that was what they had to repent over. Was not the point the question of what specific thing did they have to repent about? You said nothing was told to them, and I say it was.

It is highly doubtful that those 3000 were all directly involved in the crucifixion of Christ. That is the only way they could have been directly responsible. Therefore it is highly doubtful that those 3000 were all directly responsible for the crucifixion of Christ.

You cannot repent for something that you did not do. Peter didn't tell a bunch of people to repent of something that they didn't do. It just makes no sense that he would have or that they could have. What does make sense is that he told the people of Israel to turn to God by believing on Christ so that they wouldn't be like their brethren that were directly responsible for the crucifixion of Christ. Peter never ever insinuated that anyone was indirectly responsible for Christ's death.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by jfrog

It is highly doubtful that those 3000 were all directly involved in the crucifixion of Christ. That is the only way they could have been directly responsible. Therefore it is highly doubtful that those 3000 were all directly responsible for the crucifixion of Christ.

Peter told them they crucified the Lord, and that is what he meant when he told them to repent. It matters not how we assess the picture, that is what Peter meant. You asked for the sin, I gave it per Peter's words.

You cannot repent for something that you did not do. Peter didn't tell a bunch of people to repent of something that they didn't do.

He said "YOU" crucified Him and said "YOU" repent. You just have to disagree with Peter.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Peter told them they crucified the Lord, and that is what he meant when he told them to repent. It matters not how we assess the picture, that is what Peter meant. You asked for the sin, I gave it per Peter's words.



He said YOU crucified Him and said YOU repent. You just have to disagree with Peter.

They did not crucify Jesus therefore that can't be what Peter meant.

[Falla39]

Originally Posted by jfrog

It is highly doubtful that those 3000 were all directly involved in the crucifixion of Christ. That is the only way they could have been directly responsible. Therefore it is highly doubtful that those 3000 were all directly responsible for the crucifixion of Christ.

You cannot repent for something that you did not do. Peter didn't tell a bunch of people to repent of something that they didn't do. It just makes no sense that he would have or that they could have. What does make sense is that he told the people of Israel to turn to God by believing on Christ so that they wouldn't be like their brethren that were directly responsible for the crucifixion of Christ. Peter never ever insinuated that anyone was indirectly responsible for Christ's death.

If you want to know who was responsible for Christ's crucifiction, read Acts
6 and 7. The children of those who killed every prophet in the Old Testament.
They were OF their father. The fruit will show what/who the "father" was.

Those who are OF THE FATHER will know His name! They will hear His Voice.
They will follow HIM. Those who refuse to hear HIS Voice will not follow Him,
neither will they be called by His Name! The Word says the Lord knows those
who are His.

The pear may tell his friends all day long, "I am a peach". But that doesn't
make it so.
If we call ourself a Christian, don't you think it ought to show. If it really
makes no difference, How the people gonna know!
You'll know them by their fruit. Love, peace, joy...for starters!

Falla39

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by jfrog

They did not crucify Jesus therefore that can't be what Peter meant.

He told them they did!

Acts 2:23 KJV Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:


Acts 2:36 KJV Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Do not stretch reason, bro. However way one slices it, Peter said they crucified the Lord. Accept what Peter said and adjust your thoughts accordingly.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by mfblume

He told them they did!

Acts 2:23 KJV Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:


Acts 2:36 KJV Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Do not stretch reason, bro. However way one slices it, Peter said they crucified the Lord. Accept what Peter said and adjust your thoughts accordingly.

They as individuals did not crucify Jesus though. Definetely not directly which is what Peter claimed someone did. Therefore Peter wasn't saying they did something that they didn't do.

They as a nation did crucify Jesus.