Right Divider
Body part
Instead of DODGING... simply show us where Peter (or anyone else) preached the GOOD NEWS OF THE CROSS anywhere in Acts 1-5.
This should be so simple based on what you've been telling us.
MARK 1:1 THE SON OF GOD
- Thread starter DougE
- Start date
This should be so simple based on what you've been telling us.
Hi
I am confused about all this conflict stuff...If you mean that Peter and Paul preached differing gospels (Peter the gospel of the circumcision....Paul the gospel of the uncircumcision) but they each allowed the other to have their separate ministries and knew each was approved by God as were their gospels then I AGREE
csuguy
Well-known member
Already done so. Again, if you can't recognize the Good News laid out by Peter in Acts 2 - you are simply blind and don't know what the Gospel is. If you did, you'd know that Peter was sharing the Gospel. It isn't the term "gospel" which is important, which is merely a term to encapsulate the message of Christ, but the content thereof. If they preached the message, it is the same gospel - regardless of them using the term "gospel." Here we seem they preaching of the cross. End of story.
Right Divider
Body part
No you didn't. You can claim that you did, but you didn't. So many like you use this childish tactic.
You can continue to make these EMPTY claims all day long. I'm still... we are ALL still... waiting for YOU to show us where Peter (or anyone else) preaches the CROSS AS GOOD NEWS in Act 1-5.
You continue to move the goal posts time and time again. We can all see this.
"End of story"... is typical when someone has NO actual argument and must appear superior.
Put up or shut up.
csuguy
Well-known member
Lay out what you think the gospel is and then we'll compare to the message shared by Peter in Acts 2.
Right Divider
Body part
Quit changing the issue. Quit playing games.
Show where Peter PREACHED THE CROSS as GOOD NEWS in Acts 1-5.... if you don't even know what that means, you have problems.
"Mentioning" the cross as a MURDER WEAPON is NOT good news.
csuguy
Well-known member
This isn't a game: put forth what you think the gospel is. If Peter teaches the same, regardless of whether or not he happens to use the term gospel in the passage, he is preaching the same gospel.
Right Divider
Body part
You are trying tilt the playing field in your favor. I'm not going to play your game.
Show us all where Peter (or anyone else) preached the CROSS AS GOOD NEWS anywhere in Act 1-5.
Since you have refused to do that on multiple occasions, it is clear to all that you cannot.
csuguy
Well-known member
Ha! You are afraid of being shown to be wrong so you won't even lay out the Gospel message. To say the least, you are approaching these debates with the wrong spirit. Winning should be getting at the truth, not upholding your doctrine.
At any rate, my point stands: if Peter teaches the same things that are in the gospel, then Peter is teaching the gospel. The explicit usage of the term "gospel" is irrelevant. A rose by any other name, as it were.
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
You still cannot find it. Got it.
I was not asking for a "term".
Peter did not preach the cross as good news in Act 1-5. You've been asked many times to show it, but you cannot.
All of your bluff and bluster didn't help you. You try to change the rules.... etc. etc. etc.
Your myths are busted, but you will just continue to spout them anyway.
csuguy
Well-known member
Too afraid of answering, lest you "tilt the playing field in your favor" :ha:
I provided you such a passage where Peter preached the cross. If you can recognize it as the gospel, then you are blind.
Right Divider
Body part
Just show us where Peter (or anyone else) preached the CROSS AS GOOD NEWS anywhere in Act 1-5.
Peter preached the cross as BAD NEWS.... as a MURDER WEAPON..... your complete lack of understanding is amazing.
You can continue to dodge... it's the only thing that you have.
csuguy
Well-known member
Again, the presence or absence of the term "gospel" is irrelevant. If Peter taught the contents of the gospel then he is teaching the gospel. End of story.
The cross was used to kill the Lord. Paul doesn't teach any different. Whether this is good news or bad news is in the eyes of the beholder. Both Peter and Paul taught it as good news - for it is through Christ's death that we have forgiveness of sins, reconciliation with God, eternal life, etc.
1 Corinthians 1:20-24 Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
Right Divider
Body part
I'm not asking for the "term". Once again you try to distract. End of Story :rotfl:
No kidding.
Paul preached the CROSS as GOOD NEWS. Peter did NOT do this in Act 1-5!
Lame equivocation.
Then why is this GOOD NEWS of the CROSS completely absent in Act 1-5?
We ALL know that Paul preached, so that does not change a thing.
YOU need to show where Peter preached the CROSS AS GOOD NEWS before Paul comes along.
The truth is that Acts 1-5 is a continuation of the prophetic program for Israel.
csuguy
Well-known member
This conversation is going nowhere. I've put forth scripture that shows Peter preaching the cross. The presence or absence of the term gospel (good news) is irrelevant. You can refuse to acknowledge such a simple and obvious truth all day long - you only make yourself look a fool