NT's use of singular and plural

[Tambora]

That is irrelevant to your idea that the ministries of the Paul and the twelve were identical.

It is relevant.

Duh... again, Paul preaches this "instrument of death" as good news... Peter does not.

Hmm.
So you don't think Peter thought the cross was good for salvation.
I think he did.

Again, there is NO mention of "good news" regarding the cross in Acts 2. There is no "Jesus died for your sins" there either.

Doesn't have to be just in Acts 2 now does it?

Matt 15:24 (AKJV/PCE)
(15:24) But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Not only was that said before the cross and resurrection, but we also know Jesus Himself ministered to others besides Israel.

 

[Right Divider]

It is relevant.

No, it's not. See how I did that?

Hmm.
So you don't think Peter thought the cross was good for salvation.
I think he did.

What you think is fine, but it might be wrong.

Demonstrate from scripture that Peter was preaching the cross as good news in Acts 2. You cannot, because it's not there.

Doesn't have to be just in Acts 2 now does it?

Yes, it does. Because if it's not, then Peter was not preaching the same message as Paul. It's so obvious, but some cannot accept the truth.

Not only was that said before the cross and resurrection, but we also know Jesus Himself ministered to others besides Israel.

Again, Jesus sent the twelve AS His Father sent Him.

John 20:21 (AKJV/PCE)
(20:21) Then said Jesus to them again, Peace [be] unto you: as [my] Father hath sent me, even so send I you.

Why fight the truth?

Paul calls Jesus a MINISTER OF THE CIRCUMCISION. Do you disagree with that too?

 

[Tambora]

No, it's not.

Yes it is.

What you think is fine, but it might be wrong.

It can't possibly be wrong that Peter knew the cross was good for salvation since there could be no salvation without it.

Why fight the truth?

I don't.
And I won't let it bother me that others here no longer consider me their sister in Christ.
I will keep studying and keep considering differing perspectives as long as I live.

 

[JudgeRightly]

It can't possibly be wrong that Peter knew the cross was good for salvation since there could be no salvation without it.

Whether he knew it was good for salvation or not is irrelevant.

Again, the challenge to you was:

Demonstrate from scripture that Peter was preaching the cross as good news in Acts 2. You cannot, because it's not there.

It is, in fact, wrong that Peter taught that the cross was "good news."

“Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”

Bible Gateway passage: Acts 2:36, Acts 2:37, Acts 2:38, Acts 2:39 - New King James Version

“Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”

www.biblegateway.com

You don't get "cut to the heart" when you hear that you've done something good
You don't repent of something that is supposed to be a good thing!

In other words, they were convicted of the bad thing they had done. And so when they asked what they should do, Peter said to repent and be baptized for the remission of their sins!

That's condemnation, not something to uplift!

 

[Tambora]

Whether he knew it was good for salvation or not is irrelevant.

Wow.

Sorry, but I don't confine the gospel of the cross for salvation to Acts 2 only, but you can if you want to.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Wow.

So can you answer the challenge posed to you?

Sorry, but I don't confine the gospel of the cross for salvation

What is "the gospel of the cross for salvation"?

Care to define it from scritpure?

to Acts 2 only, but you can if you want to.

The problem isn't restricting one gospel to certain portions of the Bible, Tam.

The problem is that you're not recognizing that there is more than one gospel, and that different people under each taught similar things in different ways.

 

[Idolater]

... The problem isn't restricting one gospel to certain portions of the Bible, Tam.

The problem is that you're not recognizing that there is more than one gospel, and that different people under each taught similar things in different ways.

Singular ...

Romans 1:16

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

It doesn't seem as though Paul here is recognizing that there is more than one gospel. It seems like he's hitting "puree."

 

[Tambora]

The problem isn't restricting one gospel to certain portions of the Bible, Tam.

Then why ask me to?

The problem is that you're not recognizing that there is more than one gospel, and that different people under each taught similar things in different ways.

There is one gospel of salvation which was ordained before the world was.
That scripture records different stages of history that all lead to the fulfillment of the gospel of salvation.
All those stages were patterns of how it all falls into place.

 

[Tambora]

Romans 1:16
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

It doesn't seem as though Paul here is recognizing that there is more than one gospel. It seems like he's hitting "puree."

Amen.
One Savior (salvation) of all believers.

Acts 15
(11) But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Romans 1:16

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

It doesn't seem as though Paul here is recognizing that there is more than one gospel. It seems like he's hitting "puree."

Or, He's simply not mentioning the other, because that's not what his letter to the romans, who wouldn't even know about the other one, is about.

Why would he teach the Romans about the gospel for the circumcision, to the uncircumcised?

 

[Idolater]

Or, He's simply not mentioning the other, because that's not what his letter to the romans, who wouldn't even know about the other one, is about.

Why would he teach the Romans about the gospel for the circumcision, to the uncircumcised?

" ... the gospel ... to the Jew first ... "

How is the gospel "to the uncircumcised" to the Jew first?

 

[JudgeRightly]

" ... the gospel ... to the Jew first ... "

How is the gospel "to the uncircumcised" to the Jew first?

A gospel went to the Jews first, and then to the Gentiles. "From faith to faith."

To correct what I said above...

The "Gospel of Christ" contains two gospels. The first is the dispensation of law, given to Israel. The second is the dispensation of grace through Paul to the Gentiles.

Thus "to the Jew first" refers to the dispensation of Law, and thus, "and the Gentiles also," to the dispensation of Grace, for Paul was the minister to the Gentiles.

 

[Tambora]

Or, He's simply not mentioning the other, because that's not what his letter to the romans, who wouldn't even know about the other one, is about.

Why would he teach the Romans about the gospel for the circumcision, to the uncircumcised?

They wouldn't know about another gospel because there wasn't another one.
Paul taught the same gospel the prophets spoke of, which is why all of the apostles incorporated so much of the OT scriptures to prove that Jesus was the Savior of the world.

Romans 1:1-7​

Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations, including you who are called to belong to Jesus Christ,​

To all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.​

Paul hasn't even been to Rome yet, and yet there had been a thriving church of faithful believers there already.

Romans 1:8-9​

First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.​

For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers;​

 

[Right Divider]

" ... the gospel ... to the Jew first ... "

How is the gospel "to the uncircumcised" to the Jew first?

WHICH GOSPEL?

Rom 1:16-17 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:16) For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. (1:17) For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

Paul is talking about THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST. Who did Christ come to FIRST? ... The JEWS!

Paul was NOT talking about the "gospel to the uncircumcised". You are either dumb or dishonest in this case.

Also note that the FOR in verse 17 continues the previous verse.

 

[Nick M]

So you don't think Peter thought the cross was good for salvation.

8 So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, 9 and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they.”

Future tense. God is clearly not dealing with nations at this time. Peter was speaking of the nation of Israel. This is years after Paul's conversion and new message. They got together because Paul was not telling people to be converted (circumcised, repentance). Peter kept the law years after Pentecost. He said "Not so Lord! I have never eaten something common or unclean" In Acts 10.

5 And there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven. 6 And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were confused, because everyone heard them speak in his own language.

22 “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know— 23 Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; 24 whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it. 25 For David says concerning Him:

Peter isn't telling them they have been reconciled by God. He was telling them what the Holy Spirit dictated to tell them.

36 “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”

37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?”

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

Change your mind and change your ways.

19 Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord,