Jump to content
IGNORED

THE CHURCH DID NOT START AT PENTECOST


douge

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Mars Hill
  • Followers:  12
  • Topic Count:  12
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  7,689
  • Content Per Day:  2.41
  • Reputation:   2
  • Days Won:  20
  • Joined:  06/30/2015
  • Status:  Offline

33 minutes ago, douge said:

The body of Christ was not revealed at the time Peter was preaching at Pentecost. It was not revealed until Paul was saved after Acts 9.

Few seem to realize this simple but obvious truth.

The gentiles being able to be, to be part of, to be in, the body of Christ

was hidden previous to being revealed through the Apostle Paul,  exactly as Yahuweh's Word Says.

It was beyond comprehension for ancient Hebrews/ Jewish thinking/ that the "dogs" (gentile pagans) in general

could become such Ekklesia - born again, circumcised hearts, set apart, all by the will of the Father in heaven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  1
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  47
  • Content Per Day:  0.03
  • Reputation:   39
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  05/20/2019
  • Status:  Offline

4 hours ago, douge said:

which leads to your question of a gospel for the uncircumcision and a gospel for the circumcision: the answer is yes, but only at that time.

Before I give a proper response, I want to make sure I'm clear on your position.  I asked you "Are you saying that there is a different gospel message of salvation depending on a person being circumcised vs. uncircumcised?"  And you answered "yes, but only at that time."  What I want to know is, do you believe that the message that Peter delivered in Acts 2... do you believe it had the same content as Paul's message in terms of how to be saved?  In other words, do you believe that both Peter and Paul, with Acts 2 included, preached the same way to be saved?  If not, in that regard, how were they different?  Forget the audience for now, I'm strictly speaking of the gospel message of how to be saved.

Or are you saying that they both have the same gospel message of how to be saved but it was only available to Jews for a time and then to Gentiles as well when Paul came along?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  354
  • Topics Per Day:  0.17
  • Content Count:  964
  • Content Per Day:  0.46
  • Reputation:   181
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  07/14/2018
  • Status:  Offline

1 hour ago, Kevin_1972 said:

Before I give a proper response, I want to make sure I'm clear on your position.  I asked you "Are you saying that there is a different gospel message of salvation depending on a person being circumcised vs. uncircumcised?"  And you answered "yes, but only at that time."  What I want to know is, do you believe that the message that Peter delivered in Acts 2... do you believe it had the same content as Paul's message in terms of how to be saved?  In other words, do you believe that both Peter and Paul, with Acts 2 included, preached the same way to be saved?  If not, in that regard, how were they different?  Forget the audience for now, I'm strictly speaking of the gospel message of how to be saved.

Or are you saying that they both have the same gospel message of how to be saved but it was only available to Jews for a time and then to Gentiles as well when Paul came along?

 

Hello

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. Acts 2:38

Peter (and the apostles) preached salvation unto eternal life by believing in the name of Jesus that he was Messiah, the Son of God (John 20:31). Baptism for the remission of sins to be cleansed to enter the kingdom and to receive the Holy Ghost to empower them for the kingdom (Acts 1:8).

Paul preached salvation unto eternal life through faith in Christ (Romans 3:22-30). Paul preached Christ died for our sins, was buried and rose again as the gospel (1 Corinthians 15:2-3).

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  1
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  47
  • Content Per Day:  0.03
  • Reputation:   39
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  05/20/2019
  • Status:  Offline

So, am I to understand that you believe that Peter's message was different from Paul's in the sense that it included water baptism in the name of the Lord for the remission of sins and that Paul's message did not include this?  Is that accurate to your belief?

Perhaps for the sake of clarity you could so some simple bullet point type comparisons so that I'm clear on the matter.  Something like:

 

Peter's gospel:

* Faith in Jesus Christ
* Being baptized in the name of the Lord

Paul's gospel:

* Faith in Jesus Christ only

 

Please list the differences in like manner so there's no confusion on my part as to what the differences are according to you.  I'm just trying to make sure I understand completely what your beliefs are so I can give an accurate response.  Thanks for your time on this.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  354
  • Topics Per Day:  0.17
  • Content Count:  964
  • Content Per Day:  0.46
  • Reputation:   181
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  07/14/2018
  • Status:  Offline

16 minutes ago, Kevin_1972 said:

So, am I to understand that you believe that Peter's message was different from Paul's in the sense that it included water baptism in the name of the Lord for the remission of sins and that Paul's message did not include this?  Is that accurate to your belief?

Perhaps for the sake of clarity you could so some simple bullet point type comparisons so that I'm clear on the matter.  Something like:

 

Peter's gospel:

* Faith in Jesus Christ
* Being baptized in the name of the Lord

Paul's gospel:

* Faith in Jesus Christ only

 

Please list the differences in like manner so there's no confusion on my part as to what the differences are according to you.  I'm just trying to make sure I understand completely what your beliefs are so I can give an accurate response.  Thanks for your time on this.

 

Hello

I will simplify as best I can

Peter and the eleven preached salvation unto eternal life by believing Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; that is all that they had to believe at that time.

Paul preached salvation unto eternal life through faith in Christ (Romans 3:22-30). Paul preached Christ died for our sins, was buried and rose again as the gospel (1 Corinthians 15:2-3).

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  1
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  47
  • Content Per Day:  0.03
  • Reputation:   39
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  05/20/2019
  • Status:  Offline

So, in essence, you believe both Peter and Paul universally taught faith in Christ, but Paul's message was different because it spoke of Christ dying for our sins and being resurrected?  You believe Peter's message didn't speak of Christ dying for our sins and that He was resurrected?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  44
  • Topic Count:  229
  • Topics Per Day:  0.06
  • Content Count:  10,900
  • Content Per Day:  2.95
  • Reputation:   12,145
  • Days Won:  68
  • Joined:  02/13/2014
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  08/14/1954

17 minutes ago, douge said:

Peter and the eleven preached salvation unto eternal life by believing Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; that is all that they had to believe at that time.

 Paul preached salvation unto eternal life through faith in Christ (Romans 3:22-30). Paul preached Christ died for our sins, was buried and rose again as the gospel (1 Corinthians 15:2-3).

1 Peter 3:18  For Christ also hath once suffered for our sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: KJV 

Edited by BeauJangles
  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  354
  • Topics Per Day:  0.17
  • Content Count:  964
  • Content Per Day:  0.46
  • Reputation:   181
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  07/14/2018
  • Status:  Offline

3 hours ago, Kevin_1972 said:

So, in essence, you believe both Peter and Paul universally taught faith in Christ, but Paul's message was different because it spoke of Christ dying for our sins and being resurrected?  You believe Peter's message didn't speak of Christ dying for our sins and that He was resurrected?

Hello

Peter and the apostles and even Jesus preached believing in him. Jesus did not speak of his death and resurrection until toward the end of his earthly ministry. After the resurrection Peter also preached that Christ was raised to sit on David's throne. Peter and the apostles and Jesus preached the gospel of the kingdom on earth for Israel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  1
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  47
  • Content Per Day:  0.03
  • Reputation:   39
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  05/20/2019
  • Status:  Offline

douge,

Please forgive my frustration, but I'm asking you to contrast specifics in the differences between Peter and Paul's message.  I asked you pretty specific questions in my previous post about how Peter's message differed from Paul's and you responded with some general statements of what Peter and the apostles taught that still leaves things unclear.   All you had to do was say, "Yes, that's what I'm saying..." or "No, Peter taught this while Paul differed by teaching that."  Something like that.  Or Peter taught a,b,c and Paul taught x,y,z in a way that would show real contrast between them.  I don't know if you are afraid of narrowing it down to those kind of specifics because it will expose the inherent weakness of your position, or if you are just flat out unable to articulate the differences in specific terms, but the lack of clarity hinders the discussion.  Please understand that I am not trying to be mean here, it's just that the lack of clarity is frustrating.  In any case, I'll move forward with what you said earlier (quoted below) because I think it's the closest I'm probably going to get to the contrast that you see between Paul and Peter's message.  All of my proof texts will from the NIV.

4 hours ago, douge said:

Peter and the eleven preached salvation unto eternal life by believing Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; that is all that they had to believe at that time.

Paul preached salvation unto eternal life through faith in Christ (Romans 3:22-30). Paul preached Christ died for our sins, was buried and rose again as the gospel (1 Corinthians 15:2-3).

So looking at what you said above, and unless you are going to try and contrast the differences between "believing Jesus is the Christ" and "faith in Christ", the only real difference I see according to your quote is, in the case of Paul, that he additionally preached that Christ died for our sins, was buried and rose again.  So, in senescence, If I can build a case that Peter preached the same thing that Paul did (faith in Christ, Christ died for our sins, and he was resurrected) - if I can tie Peter to those three aspects, then he would be in agreement with what Paul teaches.

There's no need at this point to address faith/belief in Christ since both preached this.  So, moving onto the other two aspects...


Forgiveness Of Sin Through Christ's Death

In terms of Christ dying our sins, the significance of Christ's blood being poured out for the forgiveness of sins would not have been lost on any of the disciples (including Peter):

(Mat 26:27)  Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you.
(Mat 26:28)  This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

In all of the gospel accounts where Jesus said this to His disciples - not one account says the disciples didn't understand what Christ was saying.  In fact, because they are Jews, and because of the many, many animal scarifies that were made for the transgression of sin under the Old Law, I think this would have been a very profound, eye-opening moment for Jesus to say this about His own blood.

Besides that, Peter himself says in his own words:

(1Pe 2:24)  "He himself bore our sins" in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; "by his wounds you have been healed."
(1Pe 3:18)  For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit.

So, well before Acts 2 ever happened, Peter was aware that Christ would die for the sins of people - this significance would not have been lost on him and Peter's 1st epistle shows that indeed he understood this.  Now, just because it's not specifically mentioned in Acts 2 in those few sentences does not mean that those Jews were somehow unaware of the significance of the death of Jesus Christ.  That tiny, tiny speech ... you act as if what was said in Acts 2 in those few sentences was all that was taught to them.  Consider this verse about those people after they were baptized into Christ:

(Act 2:42)  They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.

When it says that they devoted themselves to the apostles teaching, do you honestly believe that this is only referring to those few recorded sentences from Peter in Acts 2?  There's just no way that Peter would as say those few sentences and then neither he nor the other apostles teach them anything more about Christ.  No way.  Because Peter knew before hand that Christ would give his blood for peoples' sins (Lord's Supper) and because he specifically spoke about that very thing in later teachings addressed to Jews in 1 Peter, the burden of proof would be on you to show that this would not have been discussed at some point in the further teachings about Christ to the new converts in Acts 2.


Jesus Christ Being Resurrected

This part is very easy as it was literally covered in Peters own words in Acts 2:

(Act 2:24)  But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.

And in Peter's epistle:

(1Pe 1:21)  Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God.

This shows that Peter, without question, preached that Christ was raised from the dead, and also the significance of that.  And bear in mind what I said above about the Acts 2 crowd receiving further teaching from the apostles.  The Acts 2 crowd "devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching."  There's no way that they didn't receive further teaching about Christ after Peter's few sentence in Acts 2.  And the significance of the resurrection was not lost on Peter in terms of what it meant to the believer - look at the above scripture again (1Peter 1:21).  Because of Christ's resurrection, this gave believers "faith and hope in God."  Why would it give them hope in God?  Because of this:  Since God raised Christ from the dead, so to will God raise them up from their death unto eternal life - just as Paul says.  It's right there in that scripture - they have reason to hope because of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  And since this significance was not lost on Peter, there would have been plenty of opportunity to explain the significance of what Christ's resurrection meant for the believers in Acts 2 in the further teachings that I spoke of.


Conclusion

Both Peter and Paul taught faith in Christ, forgiveness of sins through Jesus' death, and that He was resurrected.  Same message.  And it started at Pentecost.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  354
  • Topics Per Day:  0.17
  • Content Count:  964
  • Content Per Day:  0.46
  • Reputation:   181
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  07/14/2018
  • Status:  Offline

10 hours ago, Kevin_1972 said:

douge,

Please forgive my frustration, but I'm asking you to contrast specifics in the differences between Peter and Paul's message.  I asked you pretty specific questions in my previous post about how Peter's message differed from Paul's and you responded with some general statements of what Peter and the apostles taught that still leaves things unclear.   All you had to do was say, "Yes, that's what I'm saying..." or "No, Peter taught this while Paul differed by teaching that."  Something like that.  Or Peter taught a,b,c and Paul taught x,y,z in a way that would show real contrast between them.  I don't know if you are afraid of narrowing it down to those kind of specifics because it will expose the inherent weakness of your position, or if you are just flat out unable to articulate the differences in specific terms, but the lack of clarity hinders the discussion.  Please understand that I am not trying to be mean here, it's just that the lack of clarity is frustrating.  In any case, I'll move forward with what you said earlier (quoted below) because I think it's the closest I'm probably going to get to the contrast that you see between Paul and Peter's message.  All of my proof texts will from the NIV.

So looking at what you said above, and unless you are going to try and contrast the differences between "believing Jesus is the Christ" and "faith in Christ", the only real difference I see according to your quote is, in the case of Paul, that he additionally preached that Christ died for our sins, was buried and rose again.  So, in senescence, If I can build a case that Peter preached the same thing that Paul did (faith in Christ, Christ died for our sins, and he was resurrected) - if I can tie Peter to those three aspects, then he would be in agreement with what Paul teaches.

There's no need at this point to address faith/belief in Christ since both preached this.  So, moving onto the other two aspects...


Forgiveness Of Sin Through Christ's Death

In terms of Christ dying our sins, the significance of Christ's blood being poured out for the forgiveness of sins would not have been lost on any of the disciples (including Peter):

(Mat 26:27)  Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you.
(Mat 26:28)  This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

In all of the gospel accounts where Jesus said this to His disciples - not one account says the disciples didn't understand what Christ was saying.  In fact, because they are Jews, and because of the many, many animal scarifies that were made for the transgression of sin under the Old Law, I think this would have been a very profound, eye-opening moment for Jesus to say this about His own blood.

Besides that, Peter himself says in his own words:

(1Pe 2:24)  "He himself bore our sins" in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; "by his wounds you have been healed."
(1Pe 3:18)  For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit.

So, well before Acts 2 ever happened, Peter was aware that Christ would die for the sins of people - this significance would not have been lost on him and Peter's 1st epistle shows that indeed he understood this.  Now, just because it's not specifically mentioned in Acts 2 in those few sentences does not mean that those Jews were somehow unaware of the significance of the death of Jesus Christ.  That tiny, tiny speech ... you act as if what was said in Acts 2 in those few sentences was all that was taught to them.  Consider this verse about those people after they were baptized into Christ:

(Act 2:42)  They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.

When it says that they devoted themselves to the apostles teaching, do you honestly believe that this is only referring to those few recorded sentences from Peter in Acts 2?  There's just no way that Peter would as say those few sentences and then neither he nor the other apostles teach them anything more about Christ.  No way.  Because Peter knew before hand that Christ would give his blood for peoples' sins (Lord's Supper) and because he specifically spoke about that very thing in later teachings addressed to Jews in 1 Peter, the burden of proof would be on you to show that this would not have been discussed at some point in the further teachings about Christ to the new converts in Acts 2.


Jesus Christ Being Resurrected

This part is very easy as it was literally covered in Peters own words in Acts 2:

(Act 2:24)  But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.

And in Peter's epistle:

(1Pe 1:21)  Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God.

This shows that Peter, without question, preached that Christ was raised from the dead, and also the significance of that.  And bear in mind what I said above about the Acts 2 crowd receiving further teaching from the apostles.  The Acts 2 crowd "devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching."  There's no way that they didn't receive further teaching about Christ after Peter's few sentence in Acts 2.  And the significance of the resurrection was not lost on Peter in terms of what it meant to the believer - look at the above scripture again (1Peter 1:21).  Because of Christ's resurrection, this gave believers "faith and hope in God."  Why would it give them hope in God?  Because of this:  Since God raised Christ from the dead, so to will God raise them up from their death unto eternal life - just as Paul says.  It's right there in that scripture - they have reason to hope because of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  And since this significance was not lost on Peter, there would have been plenty of opportunity to explain the significance of what Christ's resurrection meant for the believers in Acts 2 in the further teachings that I spoke of.


Conclusion

Both Peter and Paul taught faith in Christ, forgiveness of sins through Jesus' death, and that He was resurrected.  Same message.  And it started at Pentecost.  :)

Hello

Not quite the same

Forgiveness of sins:

For Peter under the law forgiveness depended on forgiving (Matthew 6:15). Under the new covenant they still had to keep the law (Ezekiel 36:27).

For Peter forgiveness would not be until the fulfillment of the new testament at the coming of the Lord Jesus (Jeremiah 31:33-34 Acts 3:19).

For Paul forgiveness is now through the blood (Colossians 1:14).

The cross:

For Peter the cross was an offence against their Lord and Christ (Acts 2:23).

For Paul it was glory (Galatians 6:14).

For Peter the death on the cross was for the new testament for Israel (1 Peter 2:24-25 Isaiah 53:5-6).

For Paul the cross was salvation to all freely (Romans 3:24).

The Resurrection:

For Peter the resurrection was a lively hope for the coming of Jesus for salvation in the kingdom (1 Peter 1:3-5).

For Paul it was for our justification (Romans 4:25). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...