ECT The Gospel Preached at Pentecost

I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Jerry Shugart said:
Peter did not even know that the Lord Jesus was going to die until shortly before the Cross:

"And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again. And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken" (Lk.18:34).​

So anyone in their right mind knows that the gospel which they were preaching at Luke 9:6 said nothing about the Lord Jesus' death being for sin.
Click to expand...



total nonsense Jerry. What are lambs for in Judaism? He was the Lamb of God. You think you can skip back and forth between death and death for sin, but you can't because Christ is one. 2P2P is divided, dividing, double-minded, unstable.

Peter blew up at Christ because he thought 'messiah' did not mean his death for others, for their sins, like Dan 9 or Is 53. That it meant a monarchy and Peter would have a Minister of _____ chair.

Your comments are worthless.
 
Jerry Shugart

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
intojoy said:
Wrong.
The heart and soul of the kingdom is that the Messiah will lead Israel to finally fulfill their calling to represent God to humanity.
Click to expand...

Before that could happen the children of Israel had to first know that the Lord Jesus is the promises Messiah.

And you still have not been able to tell the difference between Damascus and Arabia. The truth must be hidden from you1
 
Jerry Shugart

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
Your comments are worthless.
Click to expand...

Why do you continue to run and hide from the following facts which prove that two different gospels were preached during the Acts period?:

Not long after Paul was converted on the Damascus road he preached the following message to the Jews:

"And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.....proving that this is the very Christ" (Acts 9:20,22).​

At that time Paul had not yet received the gospel which he was to preach among the Gentiles. Later he wrote the following:

"But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus" (Gal.1:15-17).​

When Paul received a gospel from the Lord Jesus on the Damascus road he immediately went to Damascus (Acts 9:6-8). But when he received the gospel which he preached among the Gentiles he went immediately into Arabia. That can only mean that two different gospels were preached during the Acts period.

You have seen these facts previously but so far all I hear are the crickets. Cat got your tongue?
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Jerry Shugart said:
Why do you continue to run and hide from the following facts which prove that two different gospels were preached during the Acts period?:

Not long after Paul was converted on the Damascus road he preached the following message to the Jews:

"And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.....proving that this is the very Christ" (Acts 9:20,22).​

At that time Paul had not yet received the gospel which he was to preach among the Gentiles. Later he wrote the following:

"But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus" (Gal.1:15-17).​

When Paul received a gospel from the Lord Jesus on the Damascus road he immediately went to Damascus (Acts 9:6-8). But when he received the gospel which he preached among the Gentiles he went immediately into Arabia. That can only mean that two different gospels were preached during the Acts period.

You have seen these facts previously but so far all I hear are the crickets. Cat got your tongue?
Click to expand...



He immediately went to Arabia and did not preach anything! It's right there! You are just silly. Preaching that he was the Christ was also the message for the Gentiles, because he meant what the OT meant, not your ID stuff.

Well, you needed to do this to get away from the mess about Peter, I know. There is no way they did not know his death was to be the new Lamb of God. That is mindless theologs imposing themselves on the NT.
 
Jerry Shugart

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
He immediately went to Arabia and did not preach anything!
Click to expand...

After Paul's encounter on the Damascus road with the Lord Jesus he preached to the Jews the good news (gospel) that Jesus is the Christ. After that encounter he went immediately to Damascus.

But when he received the gospel he preached to the Gentiles he immediately went to Arabia.

That means that the gospel which he preached to the Jews, that Jesus is the Christ, was not the same gospel which he preached to the Gentiles.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Jerry Shugart said:
After Paul's encounter on the Damascus road with the Lord Jesus he preached to the Jews the good news (gospel) that Jesus is the Christ. After that encounter he went immediately to Damascus.

But when he received the gospel he preached to the Gentiles he immediately went to Arabia.

That means that the gospel which he preached to the Jews, that Jesus is the Christ, was not the same gospel which he preached to the Gentiles.
Click to expand...




That does not mean it was different. You are thinking the words are some kind of magic formula that mean the opposite of Christ died for our sins. you do this all the time. It is ridiculous. It's the only thing he came to do. That is all through the gospel accounts, and is why Peter rebuked him.

It's because you don't know what Judaism was like then. To say that Jesus (the person who was just crucified in Jerusalem) was Messiah as such, was pretty much against what Judaism wanted to think. Because it had nothing to do with a monarchy and theocracy. Nor did they like the main purpose of it. He was saying the exact same thing.

You are so obtuse. Do you realize that you going to the same passage that says there is only one? Why do you 'plain meaning' experts keep going to those passages that say those kinds of things and find the opposite to expound?

By the way, the usual understanding of the first preaching stoppage is that he had to overcome the rejection that he was getting, 9:23, 29. He went to Tarsus but also went to Arabia until his time.

Please notice that Gal 1:23 says he was preaching the (single) faith he once tried to destroy. Not two beliefs. Not 2 gospels. He now preached the one thing, which Peter had preached. That's why Acts 2,3 are so much like 13's sermon.
 
intojoy

intojoy

BANNED
Banned
Jerry Shugart said:
Before that could happen the children of Israel had to first know that the Lord Jesus is the promises Messiah.

And you still have not been able to tell the difference between Damascus and Arabia. The truth must be hidden from you1
Click to expand...

Meanwhile hiding in plain sight ...
“and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name unto all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.”
??


Sent from my iPhone using TOL
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
'Messiah' is not undefined content, Jerry. The only meaning it ever had was the sacrifice for sins and then Lord of the universe for doing so. AKA the Servant of the Lord.

You are using 'Messiah' as though it was intended to be undefined. That's why you think stating 'Jesus was the Christ' was a sort of formula to be said that saved people at one point in the NT period and not in another when another gospel came along.

That is not the meaning.
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
'Messiah' is not undefined content, Jerry. The only meaning it ever had was the sacrifice for sins and then Lord of the universe for doing so. AKA the Servant of the Lord.

You are using 'Messiah' as though it was intended to be undefined. That's why you think stating 'Jesus was the Christ' was a sort of formula to be said that saved people at one point in the NT period and not in another when another gospel came along.

That is not the meaning.
Click to expand...

Rationalization...
 
Jerry Shugart

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
intojoy said:
Meanwhile hiding in plain sight ...
“and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name unto all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.”
Click to expand...

Let us look at what "gospel" Peter was preaching in Jerusalem following that command of the lord Jesus. We have an uninterrupted sermon preached by Peter on the day of Pentecost beginning at Acts 2:14 and ending at Acts 2:36. In that sermon there is not a word about God's "grace" and there is not a word about the purpose of the Lord Jesus' death on the Cross.

Instead, Peter summed up his sermon with the "good news"(gospel) in the following way:

"Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ" (Acts 2:36).​

You will not deny that this fact is indeed "good news" or gospel will you, especially to the Jews?

The Jews who believe the good news that Jesus is the Christ were born of God and saved the moment when they believed that truth.

But you deny that this fact was "good news" or gospel to the Jews even though belief in that fact brought salvation to everyone of those who believed that truth!

According to you Peter was preaching that Christ died for our sins in that sermon despite the fact that nothing in his sermon even hints that is true. And then to make it worse you cannot even understand that it was indeed "good news" to those who heard Peter declare that Jesus is the Christ.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top