The main issues .

Acts picks up where the end of Luke leaves off: on the mount of Olives, near Bethany, where Jesus ascended from.

Some of the people from the places listed below are from gentile locations.

Acts 2:9-11
9Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, 10Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, 11Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

Acts 2:14
14But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:

Acts 2:21
21And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

You do realize that the rest of this chapter that both Jewish and gentile people are present and Peter proceeds to preach the gospel to them, right?

Acts 2:41
41Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Three thousand souls were saved. I'm going to have to utterly dismiss your claim that Acts is useless for doctrine.

///
Acts picks up where the end of Luke leaves off: on the mount of Olives, near Bethany, where Jesus ascended from.

Some of the people from the places listed below are from gentile locations./// What does ' locations ' have anything to do with it ,other than to show this is where the Jews were ? Where in Luke are Gentile people being preached the Gospel to, by the disciples? Firstly there not preaching the death ,burial and resurrection ,until after the resurrection . Luke 24 ,5-12 and secondly ,please show a verse where a gentile is being preached to ?

Did i add ' useless ' anywhere? USED for doctrines yes . Then I state some of those.

Acts 2:5
5And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, OUT OF every nation under heaven.

Yes. They were dwelling at Jerusalem.

And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, OUT OF every nation under heaven.

His point is that the verse is telling you that, Jews out of every nation are currently in Jerusalem for the Pentecost event.

Every nation does not mean gentiles are in Jerusalem for Pentecost, it makes no sense for them to come to "Jewish" event.

I get that, but as far as I can tell that isn't saying they're ethnic Jews.

Really what I am trying to say is that the conversion to Christianity is identical for a Jew as it is for a gentile. There isn't a separate gospel. There is only one name under heaven by which we can be saved, Jesus, and one way, truth, life.

That's why I disagree that saying "oh those are just Jews, not gentiles" isn't a good reason to not use Acts for doctrine about converting to Christianity.

I get that, but as far as I can tell that isn't saying they're ethnic Jews.

Really what I am trying to say is that the conversion to Christianity is identical for a Jew as it is for a gentile. There isn't a separate gospel. There is only one name under heaven by which we can be saved, Jesus, and one way, truth, life.

That's why I disagree that saying "oh those are just Jews, not gentiles" isn't a good reason to not use Acts for doctrine about converting to Christianity.

Repent and be baptized then receive the Holy Spirit? Or does one receive the Holy Spirit upon believing the gospel? Or does one receive the Holy Spirit with the laying of hands? All is in the book of Acts. Which one is true today?

In the beginning of acts, the kingdom of heaven was still at hand and the early believers lived in expectation that the kingdom was coming at any time.

With Acts 2:38 shows what they were to do because they believed the gospel. If they repented and got baptized in the name of Jesus Christ then they did so because of their sincere belief in it. Acts 2 isn't an exhaustive theological breakdown on receiving the Holy Spirit upon belief. We can study other scriptures for that.

Acts 2:44
44And all that believed were together, and had all things common;

Notice in Acts 8:26-38 the same model of discipleship followed: the Ethiopian eunuch had the gospel preached to him, he believed, then he got baptized.

Note: some Bible versions omit Acts 8:37 from the text, but in the KJV it's still there.

Again, this is why it's dangerous to set church doctrine from the book of Acts.

Since Christ disabused His apostles about the restoration of the kingdom of Israel before He ascended, I am sure "the apostles doctrine" would have been consistent with this. They were given the mandate to preach the Gospel to every creature (which also applies to us) so that was their focus. At the same time, since Christ promised the Rapture in John 14, the apostolic churches did expect the Rapture at any time (imminent). And we too can expect the same.

While Acts does show the transition of the Church from Jews to Gentiles, any attempt to divide the book into what applies to Jews and what applies to Gentiles (as taught by Hyper-Dispensationalists) is incorrect. And any attempt to ignore Acts 2 as not being applicable to all churches in all times is total nonsense. God's pattern for the preaching of the Gospel and the establishment of churches is given right here.

Also the Jewish believers (who observed the Torah strictly) needed time to see how the Old Covenant had been replaced by the New Covenant. It was a huge adjustment for them until the epistles of Paul began circulating in the churches, and the doctrine of the Church was understood. Peter had a very hard time initially (and even later) accepting the fact that God had abolished the difference between Jew and Gentile at the cross. Even there Paul made allowance for those who would observe days, and months, and years, and sabbaths, as long as they did not insist that all Christians were required to do so.

In your words, what is dangerous about repentance, believing the gospel of Christ, and getting baptized for church doctrine?

In your words, what is dangerous about repentance, believing the gospel of Christ, and getting baptized for church doctrine?

And yes I'm aware of all the tap dancing that has to happen to verse 38 to make it match Paul's letters on salvation .

Is this church doctrine for today? 17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

Water baptism is not needed to receive the Holy Spirit. In this age, one receives the Holy Spirit upon believing the gospel of Jesus Christ.

This was not the norm even in Acts, and it was only while the apostles were alive that they had special powers and authority (which is no longer the case). Acts 10 shows us exactly what Acts 2 shows, that the moment sinners believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, they receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

In the case of the Gentile believers speaking in tongues in the house of Cornelius, once again it is the exception rather than the rule. Believing Jews with Peter needed the evidence because Gentiles were supposedly outcasts. But in Acts 2, those 3,000 who were saved did not speak in tongues. Rather it was the apostles and the disciples with them.

You seem to be forgetting that the Holy Spirit was speaking through Peter on the day of Pentecost as much as He was speaking through Paul in His epistles.

When we read Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38, we get the impression that baptism is necessary for salvation. But when we put those verses in the context of the actual teaching of Christ and of Paul, we see that water baptism was to be inseparable from conversion, but it does not save anyone. And that is how it is seen throughout the book of Acts. Yet, today, even Baptist churches rarely make conversion and baptism inseparable, and some teach that baptism is for church membership.

In any event, all Scripture is to be interpreted in the light of other Scriptures which apply. Peter preached the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, just as Paul did. This is the heart of the Gospel, and there is never any conflict within Scripture.