₦airaland Forum

adenine02:
I still dont get ur point bro
But u knw moses is a desendant of abraham (father of isaac and ishmeal) and mohammed is a decendant of abraham thru ismeal
Dis is wy i said d verse is talkin abt someone that is not israeli not Jesus

And the brethren referred to are the Israelites descended from Isaac; they were the audience of both Chapters 17 & 18

The Midianites are also descendants of Abraham so the reference to Arabs as brothers is not applicable in the chapters concerned. The only time they were so referred was when Israel was told not to attack them.

adenine02:
My brother may God bless your knowledge

Buh I tink u'v missed some tins
God words most make. Total sence
I belive u knw dt
So d verse u qouted their are 3 points their buh u only explain one
1.I will raise FOR THEM (isrelite) a PROPHET LIKE U (moses)
2. From among thir BROTHERS (a tribe close to d isrelite)
3. I will put my word in HIS mouth.
So d person d bible is talking about
-Is a prophet not a man like God
-E s humanly like moses
-E is not from moses tribe (israeil)
-E was given message (word of God) like moses
So let c this:
Moses is a prophet; Jesus is a SON OF GOD
Moses was born of both father and mother; Jesus only mother
Moses had a family of es own; Jesus not
The brother of d isrelite are d arabs (isaac and ishmeal) moses and jesus are israeli

Besides, the outstanding distinguishing mark Moses said to look out for was the Word and the way it was given!

Scholar8200:
Here is how God put words in Moses' mouth:
Exodus 4: 10,12
10 And Moses said unto the Lord, O my Lord, I am not eloquent, neither heretofore, nor since thou hast spoken unto thy servant: but I am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue.
(Then God replied Moses)
12 Now therefore go, and I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou shalt say.
The same was the manner with Jesus Christ:
John 8:28
28 Then said Jesus unto them, ... I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things
John 12:49
49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak..

adenine02:
My point here nw is not dt mohammed is d one d bible is talkin abt
I'm trying to prove to u d person is not Jesus
So read my modified post and respond
We can now proceed
Thanks

Of course it is Jesus apart from the Law where Moses called Him Prophet, there are prophesies by the prophets and psalms where He is called by other Names eg Priest. Should we look forward another Priest too who is not Him prophesied?

adenine02:
Pls bro we r not talking abt any king here
Jesus is not a forigner
Pls read my modify commet
Thanks

Yes. The same condition for selecting a king was applicable to the Prophet - of your brethren. The context of Deuteronomy 17 & 18 recognises other nations as foreigners. It wont be right to say the condition - of thy brethren - in chapter 17, is different from the condition -of thy brethren- in chapter 18!

adenine02:
My brother may God bless your knowledge
Buh I tink u'v missed some tins
God words most make. Total sence
I belive u knw dt
So d verse u qouted their are 3 points their buh u only explain one
1.I will raise FOR THEM (isrelite) a PROPHET LIKE U (moses)
2. From among thir BROTHERS (a tribe close to d isrelite)
3. I will put my word in HIS mouth.
So d person d bible is talking about
-Is a prophet not a man like God
-E s humanly like moses
-E is not from moses tribe (israeil)
-E was given message (word of God) like moses
So let c this:
Moses is a prophet; Jesus is a SON OF GOD
Moses was born of both father and mother; Jesus only mother
Moses had a family of es own; Jesus not
The brother of d isrelite are d arabs (isaac and ishmeal) moses and jesus are israeli

So also was Midian, Edom etc! The context of chapters 17 & 18, therefore, compressed all these nations as foreigners on issues of kingship and prophethood

adenine02:
My brother may /od bless your knowledge

Buh I tink u'v missed some tins
God words most make. Total sence
I belive u knw dt
So d verse u qouted their are 3 points their buh u only explain one
1. FOR THEM (isrelite) a PROPHET LIKE MOSES
2. From among thir BROTHERS (a tribe close to d isrelite)
3. I will put my word in HIS mouth.
So d person d bible is talking about is a prophet not a man like God
E s humanly like moses
E is not from moses tribe (israeil)
E was given message (word of God) like moses

Were kings in Israel also to come from other nations apart from Israel? How many non-Israelite king over Israel can you identify? And who were the foreigners intended to mean?

Deuteronomy 17:15

15 You shall surely set as king over you him whom the Lord your God will choose.[size=13pt] One from among your brethren [/size]you shall set as king over you; you may not set a foreigner, who is not your brother, over you.

CryptDarpick:
Note, God blessed Ishmael as well, and through his bloodline the last and most beloved of all prophets was begotten.

The blessing to Ishmael made no mention of a seed by whom ALL nations would be blessed! This was only in the promise/Oath to Abraham through Isaac till Jesus Christ came!

A fool is:
1. Any one who is willingly ignorant of that which he should not be (or ignorant as a result of failing to discern that which should be obvious to the studious) ; he who is inadvertently ignorant is called simple.
2. Any one who lives for time only and makes no provision for his eternal destination.
3. One who adopts a claim simply because it pleases him even if that claim is contradicted severally by other portions of the Truth.
4. One who in his choices appears to have signed a pact with the enemy of his soul and he hastens himself in that direction.
etc

Now none of this position is permanent;only God knows the heart hence a man cannot call another a fool because:
i) A fool today may cease to be so tomorrow;
ii) A wise man today may become a fool tomorrow;
iii) Point ii shows that humility demands that we be cautious since not all conditions are permanent;
iv) At one time or the other a person was a fool,so rather than judging, meekness demands intercession.

CryptDarpick:
So think about it this way, the covenant continued through ishmael but after him, the people lost touch and guidance. Think of it as what happened to Abraham repeating it self.
.

Note, God expressedly said to Isaac that he was the sole (of all Abraham's biological offspring) beneficiary of the Oath/Covenant. Hence the covenant did not continue through Ishmael or Midian or any other.

crusadistic:
better explanation than the nonsense malvisguy has been saying but do you remember there have been thousands of prophets this can easily also be applied to between the time frame of Moses and Jesus.what then makes the prophecy unique to Jesus

Indeed. However, the other specifics of Jesus Christ was missing in the life of these other prophets and in fact, they themselves prophesied of Jesus Christ some of His First Coming,others of His second coming, others of both dispensation.

Besides, between the OT and NT, there was a 400 period of Divine silence: no prophets emerged. Then came John the baptist according to the prophecies of Malachi and Isaiah. He was to be the forerunner of the Messiah. And John's work started a few years before Christ (though) already on earth, started.

Besides, the Jews (sincere ones) looked forward to a dispensation higher than the time of the Old Covenant as a mark of their deep understanding of God's promise to Abraham. Luke 2 gives an example of such:
Luke 2:25-32
25 Now there was a man in Jerusalem whose name was Simeon, and this man was righteous and devout [cautiously and carefully observing the divine Law], and looking for the Consolation of Israel;...
26 And it had been divinely revealed (communicated) to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord’s Christ (the Messiah, the Anointed One).
27 And prompted by the [Holy] Spirit, he came into the temple [[j]enclosure]; and when the parents brought in the little child Jesus to do for Him what was customary according to the Law,
28 [Simeon] took Him up in his arms and praised and thanked God and said,
29 And now, Lord, You are releasing Your servant to depart (leave this world) in peace, according to Your word.
30 For with my [own] eyes I have seen Your Salvation,
31 Which You have ordained and prepared before (in the presence of) all peoples,
32 A Light for [k]revelation to the Gentiles [to disclose what was before unknown] and [to bring] praise and honor and glory to Your people Israel.

crusadistic:
do you remember there have been thousands of prophets this can easily also be applied to before Jesus.what then makes the prophecy unique

Good point sire.

That just shows how God puts His Word in the mouth of a prophet clearly as a help to the succeeding generations who never met Moses to know exactly what that clause meant.

In addition, Moses brought the terms of the old covenant - the law, while Jesus Christ came in fulfilment of the New Covenant. Both covenants were in pursuance of God's promise to Abraham. And all those other prophets prophesied of Jesus Christ, the specifics of the prophecies which the Latter fulfilled.

malvisguy212:
God bless you friend. Thank you .I love it.

Glory to God and Father of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ!

/

Barnabaseloka:
I indeed understand you. But know that christians need spiritual understanding to be able to explain the things written in the bible correctly. It is not all about craming what is written in it.

Believing in Jesus Christ through 'faith' is a preliquisite for anyone to become a child of God (a believer). When one has now believed, then we talk of 'works' as you have written, but they are done through the help of the Holy Spirit. God sends the Holy Spirit into the life of anyone who believes in Christ Jesus to direct such a person. Faith and not 'works' brings one into Christ Jesus, while one needs 'works' to remain in Jesus if such a person wants to enter heaven at last.

Indeed true faith reveals itself by Love.

OLAADEGBU:
Is it right for a Christian to call someone a fool or not?
Matthew 5:22 and Matthew 23:17; Psalm 14:1
Do not call someone a fool:
"But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, 'Raca,' shall be in danger of the council; but whosoever shall say, 'You fool,' shall be in danger of hell fire" (Matthew 5:22).

If you read the progression in Matthew 5:22, you will see that it has to do with anger as a result of personal grievance or offence. Personal grievance occurs when our emotions are hurt or pride/ego is wounded (like Herodias was angry with John the Baptist because the latter spoke the Truth)or we are denied sth we believe we deserve.

Jesus was not angry with the Pharisees because they slandered Him;at the time of arrest He still healed the man whose ears was sliced; while on the cross (in excruciating pain) He still prayed for the crowd that gathered and mocked. But He was angry for their hardness of heart and misleading others to set aside the word and follow traditions (that's why He wept over Jerusalem). This had nothing to do with personal grievance.

Can a christian call a person a fool? No.

Here is how God put words in Moses' mouth:
Exodus 4: 10,12
10 And Moses said unto the Lord, O my Lord, I am not eloquent, neither heretofore, nor since thou hast spoken unto thy servant: but I am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue.
(Then God replied Moses)
12 Now therefore go, and I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou shalt say.

The same was the manner with Jesus Christ:

John 8:28

28 Then said Jesus unto them, ... I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things

John 12:49
49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak..

Romans 3:25

25 whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

Revelations 1:5

and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

He who believes and has been washed in the blood of the Lamb as indicated, can then, in obedience (like the Ethiopian Eunuch Acts 8,) be baptised in water.

alakaman:
This is clearly a Muslim vs. Christian debate. I believe it is quite different from Truth vs. Falshood debate. To my mind, the theological abstractions of our muslim brothers seem illusive and far-fetched. But there are, in fact , some contradictions and inaccuracies in our Bible. 1. Gal. 3:16 says the 'seed' that was promised to Abraham was in the singular, so that the 'seed' can be Jesus Christ. But in Genesis, all promises made to Abraham was to his DESCENDANTS , not DESCENDANTS.

The promise quoted by Paul in Galatians is this
Genesis 22:17,18
17 that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; 18 and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.
No mistake there.

2 . In Mk. 2:25, 26, Jesus is quoted as saying it was Abiathar who was the high priest when David took the shewbread. But according to 1 Sam. 21:1-6; 22:11-23, it was Ahimelech that was the high priest.

I believe that this is not a mistake because:
i) The same Ahimelech was called Ahiah in 1 Samuel 14:3 hence it is not impossible that father and son shared the same name (still happens today). For One who, at the age of twelve, confounded the doctors of the law, it is logical to say He was not mistaken. Luke 1:59 shows that they were going to call John the baptist Zechariah-his father's name. It was a normal practice.

3. In Acts 7:15, 16, Stephen is quoted as saying Abraham bought a cave in Shechem. But according to Gen. 33:18, 19, it was Jacob that bought a place in Shechem, not Abraham. According to Gen. 23:9-20; 25:9; 49:30 and 50:23, it was in Machpelah, not Shechem, that Abraham bought land. Truth is truth, we do not need to accept it for it to be what it is.

After a brief study, I realised that this was something not new to the hearers and might be applicable to (2) above. Bear in mind that the events did not happen yesterday in our 21st century society.
Consider this:

What we see in this passage is simply that either Stephen in his sermon, or Luke in his recounting of the sermon, is telescoping the events of Abraham and Jacob together, as they are essentially similar subject matter, and are related chronologically and historically. Again, let us remember who Stephen's audience were - Hellenistic Jews who would to a certain degree have been Hellenised. As such, they would have been more receptive (and perhaps would subconsciously expect) a presentation in a Hellenistic style of rhetoric. It is doubtful that Stephen's audience would have even thought twice about Stephen's supposed error - they would have recognised the oratory device, and filled in the unspoken details themselves from their tacit knowledge of the stories and texts in question. This is made all the more likely because of the fact that most ancient cultures utilised high-context communication. Whereas we, in our low context society, feel the need to explicitly spell out exactly what we mean and leave little to the tacit knowledge of our audience, the ancients left much of the context of their words unspoken. The hearers or readers were expected to fill in the details from what they already knew, as Stephen would likely have expected his audience to do in this situation.

Of course, this telescoping device was not solely limited to Hellenistic venues. Hints of it also seem to appear in the Hebrew scriptures.
(christianity.stackexchange.com)

ichuka:
You have answered correctly.

Glory to God and Father of our Lord and Saviour Jesus!

sportsmaster:
simply answer the questions i asked?

Remember,Jesus,Paul,Moses they all inferred something.
Before anything(word,judgement) can be established there has to be at least 2-3 witnesses..

No account ever recorded that tongues were understood by men.
There are several accounts that records that tongues cannot be understand
1cor14:-
infact these whole chapter kept emphasizing that tongues cannot be understood except there be an interpretation.
mark16:17 the word "new" means strange,unheard off,
isaiah 28:11 "stammering" means unintelligible,another means strange and different.
better study well before you start making errors..

and besides you yet to answer my questions.

sportsmaster:
1cor14:2:-He that speaks in tongues,speaks no unto men but unto God for no man understands him.
This scripture simply explains that tongues cannot be understood by man.

Acts 2:4
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
And this other tongues were understood by people/proselytes from these other nations! The act was not just a session of exercise, the Spirit gave those utterance at that day for a purpose.

Acts2:13:-
why did the others mocked them saying they were drunk(filled with wine)?

Because there were people there who did not understand the languages but there were that understood. It did not say they all mocked.

Why is the the gift of interpretation of tongues if tongues can be understood?.

The gift of tongues and interpretation in the open assembly is not the same as the initial evidence of the Baptism.

Does speaking tongues edifies the hearer only or the congregation?

Read 1 Corinth 14

sportsmaster:
Dont run away from the questions i asked.
Answer them first.

Run away? I gave my answers but obviously you had yours too and promised to publish them! You even bid us be patient why do you contradict yourself? Every answer given was not correct. No problem. You have your answers and wonder why I ask a question?

Op, what's the purpose of the Baptism with the Holy Ghost?

OLAADEGBU:
Did Jesus abolish the Law or not?

Matthew 5:17 and Ephesians 2:14-15

No:

"Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the prophets; I did not come to destroy, but to fulfil" (Matthew 5:17).

After his creation, Adam received Life not Laws. When the Last Adam came, He did not set aside the Laws given by God but fulfilled it and met its righteous demands that through faith in Him they that believe in Him will receive His Life by the operation of the Law of the Spirit of Life, and have the righteous demands of the law fulfilled through them too (while they walk in the Spirit)

Yes:

"For He is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in His flesh the enmity, even the Law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in Himself of twain one new man, so making peace" (Ephesians 2:14-15).

The Law has been fulfilled, Life has been restored, the Veil has been rent,the way into the Holy of Holies is now open. We do not need the shadows and the types anymore; the Substance is come. We have direct access to God through Christ by the Spirit.

sportsmaster:
Lemme deal with language..
read line upon line,precept upon precept.read with patience.read inbtwn lines

Acts2:4 and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost and began to Speak with other tongues,as the spirit gave them utterance.

The word "other" used in this verse,when i checked the greek,
The word "other" is the greek word "heteros".
"heteros" means "of uncertain affinity;strange"


Also from Isaiah's prophecy
Isaiah28:11- "for with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people"

The word stammering used here in the Hebrew means UNINTELLIGIBLE,
while the word another means strange and different

Mark 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe;In my name shall they cast out devils;they shall speak with NEW tongues.
When i checked the word "new"in the Greek. The word is KAINOS
"Kainos" means according to
1)Strong dictionaries
"of Uncertain affinity:new(especially in freshness)"
2)Thayer dictionaries
"fresh,unused,a new kind,unheard of"
3)Wordstudy dictionaries
"Newly made"
Note: NO ACCOUNT ever refer to tongues as some other language belonging to another culture different from the speak! Paul settles this with a well laid out explanation.

1cor14:2:- For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaks not unto men,but unto God:FOR NO MAN UNDERSTANDS HIM/b];howbeit in the spirit he speaks mysteries.

Something else to note
Acts2:13:- Other mocking said,
[b] These men are full of new wine..
lets analyse this statement.
Other said those people speaking with tongues are drunk(full of wine)..
Lets do simple analysis.
In which of these scenarios will someone say you are drunk.
1)You are speaking another man's language fluently or
2)You are just speaking gibberish,unconstructed statements,unintelligible words.
Obviously the answer is Option 2. Because wine cannot make you speak another man's language with respect to the Observers comment in this verse.
SELAH

Your analysis contradicts
Acts 2:11B
we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

Not singular but plural they heard and understood them.

ozzyuk:
@Scholar8200 no disrespect I don't think you are seeing the full picture of what this article or piece is about, to shed more light this message for those who believe in the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross, you need to shed more light or be specific about what Revelation 2, and 3 said about Jesus Christ.

Alright, I appreciate your patience.

The tenor of the op suggests (correct me if I am wrong) that we can go on indulging in our 'weaknesses' (actually sins) as long as we rest in the assurance of a covering.

Besides, the laying of hands on the head of the animal to be killed was not a covering but a laying of the guilt/defilement on the animal before it's killed.

The Spirit inspired Paul when he wrote that if while we seek to be justified by Christ we also are found sinners, is Christ then a Minister of sin (a party that encourages our continuance in sin) God Forbid! (was his response).
Romans 6:16 tells us we are the servants of who we obey whether sin unto death or obedience (to God) unto righteousness.

Revelations 3:4,3
4 Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy.
3 Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee.
Here Christ warns that if they continue with defilement thru carelessness, they will miss the Rapture.

Revelations 2:22,23
22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.
23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.

The above does not depict a Christ who would overlook sins which we would like to keep and indulge in while we christen them weaknesses. The highlighted suggests that after salvation, we have a responsibility to walk in the Spirit and live in holiness by His enabling; no hiding under Jesus as an excuse.

mustymatic:
Laws are implemented regularly, you christians hv the new n old testament, u believe it was sent frm god.
do u believe that ur god made mistakes and revealed another version through various authors?

Translation from one language to another does not imply there were mistake in the former. Eg Luther translating the Bible to German, Ajayi Crowther translating it to yoruba does not mean they were making correction to mistakes! But how about these questions?

sportsmaster:
you are still failing the point..
Proselytes are converts to the Jewish nation.So they will learn the language in this conversion because they were the strangers who sought to nationalize..
See the links below
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proselyte


www.google.com.ng/search?q=proselyte&client=ms-opera-mini&channel=new&gws_rd=cr&ei=04-BVbvxGqTIyAPL1oDYCQ


Why dont you just pay attention and let me explain..

I will be explaining pentecost in my next POST.

Proselytes have had a place in Judaism from early times.[10] The Law of Moses made specific regulations regarding the admission into Israel's community of such as were not born Israelites.[11] The Kenites, the Gibeonites, and the Cherethites and Pelethites were thus admitted to levels of Israelite privileges. Thus also we hear of individual proselytes who rose to positions of prominence in the Kingdom of Israel, as of Doeg the Edomite, Uriah the Hittite, Araunah the Jebusite, Zelek the Ammonite, Ithmah and Ebedmelech the Ethiopians. According to the Books of Chronicles, in the time of Solomon (c.971-931 BCE) there were 153,600 proselytes in the land of Israel[12] and the prophets speak of the time as coming when the proselytes shall share in all the privileges of Israel.[13] Accordingly, in New Testament times, we read of proselytes in the synagogues.[14] WIKIPEDIA.

A proselyte is a convert to Judaism and could be from any nation except Israel. Notice that the names mentioned still retained their nationalities.
Remember:
Matthew 23:15

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
Those proselytes in Acts 2 were from the nations indicated.

Besides, can we focus on the weightier matters? speaking in tongues, good as it is , is a peripheral part of the Gift of the Spirit.

I'm afraid this piece does not seem to refer to the Lord Jesus that spoke in Revelations 2 and 3, but to another.

malvisguy212:
excellent question my good friend, God bless you.

Glory to God!

sportsmaster:
all these answers are offpoint
You ended up failing the whole point..
what is that tongue of angels.?.
When angels appeared to unto men..
See Judges14 ,Acts 10..
The spoke the regular human language.
You cannot even define the your so-called tongue of angels..

I will now show you that all the people in acts 2 are of Jewish origin.

Thats y its Good to study with patience

So because they spoke regular human language means that is the only they can speak? Or would you say that language of men spoken is the lingua franca in Heaven? Define tongue when already it is called unknown when spoken?

Acts 2:8-11
8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? 9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judæa, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, 10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

The gathering included Jews and proselytes. No jew can be called a proselyte! Besides, a look at Nehemiah 13:24 will show you that no jew will proudly own another nation's language like these did.

The household of Cornelius is a striking illustration of all I have been saying; thankfully, Peter said these:

Acts 15:8,9
8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; 9 and put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

Note that all these took place before they were baptised in water as a demonstration of the above:

Acts 10:44-48
44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47 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.

They had already been saved and purified and filled with the Spirit before water baptism ever came up!

italo:
Very easy to reconcile.

Matt26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said to them, Repent, and let every one of you be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Both statements are true. One who is baptized has accepted Jesus (if he's up to the age of reason) and his blood.

One who rejects baptism has rejected Jesus (and his blood) who commanded us to be baptized.

What do you say?

That Acts2:38 is an error? Baptism is not for remission of sin?

As regards the highlighted, are you saying all who get baptised are automatic believers? And would you opine that all who partake of the Lord's supper partake of it worthily or are made worthy by partaking when scripture clearly talks of those who partake unworthily and lists some of the consequences.

Pls go through the Acts of the Apostles and show me one person who was baptised before his confession of faith in Christ. Remission of sins takes place at that point when, after repentance, we believe with our heart, in the Redemption in His Blood.
Romans 3:25
25 whom God hath set forth to be a[b] propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past[/b], through the forbearance of God;

If we will remain within the scripture (and not squeeze in our own beliefs) this is what I believe reconciles both. Else why did Peter respond to their cry with the command Repent?

Baptism was an act carried out as a figure/type/symbol of the resultant spiritual events that occurred to the convert, as a response to his confessing with his mouth that which he believed with his heart.