ECT Acts realism vs MAD theoretics: Acts 16:3

S

SimpleMan77

New member
Acts realism vs MAD theoretics: Acts 16:3

steko said:
But.....it is going to happen.
Those that deny what GOD said through the prophets are calling GOD a liar.
Click to expand...

Jesus always knew that it wouldn't happen in His disciples' lifetimes, and he trained them before his departure in things concerning the KINGDOM OF GOD - the same kingdom that Paul said wasn't "eat or drink, but righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost". It wasn't His backup plan, it was His only plan, and he sent his 12 into the world.

However, His instructions were very clear - start in Jerusalem, then Judea, then Samaria, then the uttermost parts of the world. By the time they got to the last instruction it was a bigger task than 12 men, so God raised up Paul to help, then Barnabas, Silas, Timothy, Titus, Apollos, etc.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL
 
Last edited:
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
The Gospel does have a way of not needing the Law as Judaism did. That's why there are many accusations about that, although Paul shows he upholds it, as in Rom 3:31 or the circ of Titus. But Paul is not a Judaizer, nor a zealot, and we know from Phil 3 what he says about his previous Pharisaism.
 
Nick M

Nick M

Born that men no longer die
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
SimpleMan77 said:
Because it was converted Pharisees who were teaching things that Peter and James were not teaching
Click to expand...

Galatians 2

4 And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage),

11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.

So, why do you reject what the Bible teaches?
 
S

SimpleMan77

New member
Nick M said:

Galatians 2

4 And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage),

11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.

So, why do you reject what the Bible teaches?
Click to expand...

The situation with Peter happened after the conference at Jerusalem, and long after God had told Peter that He didn't make a difference between Jew & Gentile (in the experience with Cornelius).

The fact that Peter, in a moment of peer pressure and weakness, started declining to eat with Gentiles means that he wasn't perfect. He knew the plan of God, but under the pressure of people who weren't fully on board he caved and had to be rebuked for going back on his own preaching.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL
 
S

SimpleMan77

New member
Nick M said:

Galatians 2

4 And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage),

11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.

So, why do you reject what the Bible teaches?
Click to expand...

Oh, and the verses you conveniently left out (5-10) prove that Peter wasn't the one causing this uproar, and that what happened with him came after Him preaching at the conference that God had purified the Gentiles by faith without the law.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL
 
Jerry Shugart

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
SimpleMan77 said:
Jesus always knew that it wouldn't happen in His disciples' lifetimes, and he trained them before his departure in things concerning the KINGDOM OF GOD...
Click to expand...

Yes, they were with the Lord for forty days while He tutored them about the kingdom(Acts 1:3). And after being tutored by Him they expected that the kingdom would be restored to Israel:

"When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" (Acts 1:6).​

The Lord did not tell them that they were in error for expecting that to happen but instead only told them that they were not to know the time when it would happen.

So we can know that the Lord taught them that the kingdom would be restored to Israel and it will happen in the future.
 
Right Divider

Right Divider

Body part
SimpleMan77 said:
The situation with Peter happened after the conference at Jerusalem, and long after God had told Peter that He didn't make a difference between Jew & Gentile (in the experience with Cornelius).
Click to expand...
Why didn't Peter preach THIS to Cornelius?

Titus 3:5 (AKJV/PCE)​
(3:5) Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; ​

But instead preached THIS:

Acts 10:35 (AKJV/PCE)​
(10:35) But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. ​

How do you reconcile these two contradictory things?
 
heir

heir

TOL Subscriber
SimpleMan77 said:
However, it was the same Gospel that the other Apostles were preaching, starting at Jerusalem, and eventually leading the to other nationalities.
Click to expand...
Please show us all where Peter preached "that Christ died for our sins" as the good news and power of God in Acts 2 and 3 when he was preaching to all the house of Israel. If it's all "the same gospel" as you say, you will have no problem showing it from the scriptures. We'll wait.
 
S

SimpleMan77

New member
Right Divider said:
Why didn't Peter preach THIS to Cornelius?

Titus 3:5 (AKJV/PCE)​
(3:5) Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; ​

But instead preached THIS:

Acts 10:35 (AKJV/PCE)​
(10:35) But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. ​

How do you reconcile these two contradictory things?
Click to expand...

I'll answer that if you answer why that Paul required all of his converts to get water-baptized.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL
 
S

SimpleMan77

New member
heir said:
Please show us all where Peter preached "that Christ died for our sins" as the good news and power of God in Acts 2 and 3 when he was preaching to all the house of Israel. If it's all "the same gospel" as you say, you will have no problem showing it from the scriptures. We'll wait.
Click to expand...

Peter knew from his background that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins.

He presented the good news that they could have their sins remitted, knowing full well that the only reason for that was the blood of Jesus!!


Sent from my iPhone using TOL
 
heir

heir

TOL Subscriber
SimpleMan77 said:
Peter knew from his background that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins.

He presented the good news that they could have their sins remitted, knowing full well that the only reason for that was the blood of Jesus!!


Sent from my iPhone using TOL
Click to expand...
Please show us all where Peter preached "that Christ died for our sins" as the good news and power of God in Acts 2 and 3 when he was preaching to all the house of Israel. If it's all "the same gospel" as you say, you will have no problem showing it from the scriptures. We'll wait.
 
S

SimpleMan77

New member
Right Divider said:
He didn't.
Click to expand...

You mean to tell me that Silas taught the Philippian Jailer about baptism the night of the earthquake, and Paul was too timid to stand up to him and say "this is counter to the teaching of Grace"?

You mean to tell me that Paul's assistants taught the Corinthians about baptism in the 18th chapter of Acts, and Paul was too timid to stand up to them and say "this is counter to the teaching of Grace"? In fact a few of them were baptized by Paul personally, with many others baptized by his helpers.

You mean that Paul, in the 19th chapter of Acts, asked the disciples of John "how them were you baptized", then when his assistants started wading out into the water with them to re-baptize them, Paul was sitting there saying to himself "this isn't right, this isn't right... if only I had the nerve to tell them"?

Paul was in complete control on his missionary trips. Either he preached and taught it, or it didn't happen.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top