Is Acts 3 to Jews and Proselytes only ?

[Blik]

Two very important points.
1. Abraham was the very most faithful man remaining amongst humanity when he was called out of Padan Aram. There were very few on the earth who even truly recalled God not to mention believed Him as did AAbraham.

2. The Children of Israel while in the wwilderness were disobedient, and by their disobedience salvation was gained by the nations.
The seonc point here is indicative of our Father's will from the beginning of creation. I believe so.

The Children of Israel were far from perfect from the beginning. Had Israel been perfect gentiles would never have gained salvation.

The true Israel, that is those who will rule with God, are all who believe Him.

I don't think the disobedience of Israel has anything to do with our salvation. The gift of salvation was decided for us the moment we lost it through the disobedience of Adam and Eve. The Lord told us in Lev. 17:11 that God gave blood on the altar for the atonement of souls, and although Christ's crucifixion was not know of for 4,000 years, the veil has been lifted and we know that blood was the blood of Christ.

What we are told to thank the Jews for is that they were chosen as a blessing to us, as the Lord used them to show His ways to all people.

 

[Guojing]

I don't think the disobedience of Israel has anything to do with our salvation.

You disagree with Romans 11:11?

 

[JaumeJ]

I don't think the disobedience of Israel has anything to do with our salvation. The gift of salvation was decided for us the moment we lost it through the disobedience of Adam and Eve. The Lord told us in Lev. 17:11 that God gave blood on the altar for the atonement of souls, and although Christ's crucifixion was not know of for 4,000 years, the veil has been lifted and we know that blood was the blood of Christ.

What we are told to thank the Jews for is that they were chosen as a blessing to us, as the Lord used them to show His ways to all people.

Understand, had Israel been perfect, the Israel of this age would have remained the People of God, Yahweh.

Their disobedience assured a better, perfect Israel to come.

 

[posthuman]

Gospel simply means ' good news ' .
When Paul says if someone comes and preaches another Gospel than the one he delivered ,then we best be certain that it is the Gospel he delivered and not go stri6nging together the 29 conversion accounts in the book of Acts to make doctrines out of .

everything other than the Salvation of our God is bad news

 

[Guojing]

everything other than the Salvation of our God is bad news

Genesis 9:11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

Would you consider this a "gospel" too?

 

[posthuman]

Genesis 9:11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

Would you consider this a "gospel" too?

Do you really not recognize the Salvation of our God when you see Him?

 

[Guojing]

Do you really not recognize the Salvation of our God when you see Him?

I don’t see salvation of God in that passage if that is what you were asking

It’s God making an unconditional promise never to flood the earth again

That to me is good news

 

[Scribe]

Not all ,as the book of Acts is regularly used as doctrines for the church today still .

All scripture is profitable for doctrine.

Plenty of doctrinal and theological foundational truths presented in the book of Acts. Luke traveled with Paul don't you think he knew doctrine? Luke wrote the Gospel of Luke first before Acts don't you think he was able to present only those events and details that supported his intentions for communicating that which was most important to establish church doctrinal, foundational truths?

You should google whether one can use Acts for doctrine and you will find excellent theological papers from seminary professors as to why the statement that Acts is historical and should not be used for doctrine was debunked a long time ago but people keep repeating it.

 

[Scribe]

This Thread like my last thread is based on a run through the Book of Acts and asking the questions about what's going on .
Is it a Jews and gentile message ? Are the apostles still anticipating the possibility of Israel accepting nationally their messiah and when is there last opportunity. When do the gentiles come into the picture ect ?

12And when Peter saw it, he
answered unto the people, Ye men of Israel, why marvel ye at this? or why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own power or holiness we had made this man to walk?

13The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go.

14But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you;

15And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.

16And his name through faith in his name hath made this man strong, whom ye see and know: yea, the faith which is by him hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all.

17¶And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers.

18But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled.

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

20And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:

21Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

All these threads and no one seems to understand what you are getting at. Do you think you might be more effective if you just presented your entire case in one post. You don't seem to be making many converts using your current methods.

 

[throughfaith]

All these threads and no one seems to understand what you are getting at. Do you think you might be more effective if you just presented your entire case in one post. You don't seem to be making many converts using your current methods.

We are talking about what the bible says.

 

[throughfaith]

All scripture is profitable for doctrine.

Plenty of doctrinal and theological foundational truths presented in the book of Acts. Luke traveled with Paul don't you think he knew doctrine? Luke wrote the Gospel of Luke first before Acts don't you think he was able to present only those events and details that supported his intentions for communicating that which was most important to establish church doctrinal, foundational truths?

You should google whether one can use Acts for doctrine and you will find excellent theological papers from seminary professors as to why the statement that Acts is historical and should not be used for doctrine was debunked a long time ago but people keep repeating it.

You want me to Google? Great, thanks.

 

[throughfaith]

All these threads and no one seems to understand what you are getting at. Do you think you might be more effective if you just presented your entire case in one post. You don't seem to be making many converts using your current methods.

My question basically was . Is Acts 2 speaking to Israel or Gentiles? The obvious answer is Israel . including Acts 2.38 . All of the bible is for us ,but not all the bible is to us .

 

[posthuman]

I don’t see salvation of God in that passage if that is what you were asking

It’s God making an unconditional promise never to flood the earth again

That to me is good news

Christ is the ark and and the arrow and the quiver; the bow and the mighty arm that draws it.

You really don't look for Christ when you read scripture? John 5:39 means nothing to you?

He is the Salvation of God, enfleshed - all those things in Genesis are about Him, it's the whole reason they were written

 

[Corban]

Peter was not taught the revelations of the Body of Christ, some of which includes

1. The rapture before the 2nd coming. (1 Thess)
2. Jews and gentiles being equal (Ephesians 2 and 3)
3. Christ in you, the hope of glory (Colossians)

So no, Peter could not have preached the same gospel as Peter, nor did he need to.

He preached Christ according to prophecy. Peter finds a rich Christology in the biblical passages he cites in early Acts. “All the prophets” predicted the events of the last days, which Peter says have arrived (3:18, 21, 24; cf. 2:17-21).

The prophets predicted the events of Christ’s life, including his suffering and death (3:18), his resurrection (2:24-31 [=Ps. 16:8-11]), his ascension to heaven to be enthroned at God’s right hand (2:34-35 [=Ps. 110:1]; 3:21), his Second Coming for the “restoration of all things” (3:21 [cf. e.g. Is. 35:1–10; 65:17–25]), and his rejection by most of Israel (3:18; 4:11 [=Ps. 118:22]).

Jesus’ identity as Lord and Christ is confirmed since he fulfilled these scriptural expectations of the Messiah (2:36)

On the other hand, Paul preached Christ according to the mystery, which includes the 3 numbered points above.

I can relate to what you are saying here and do not object. But the three points you named as revelations of the Body of Christ have little to do with the mystic Body of Christ.

1. The Rapture is first experienced by a Gentile - Enoch, next by a Jew - Elijah, and then by Jesus and Philip. It may be connected to the Body by our Rapture, but that is an escape from a time of trial, not because we are the Body of Christ
2. The Jews and Gentiles are only equal when they are created a New Man. Their blessings are different, one has Covenants while the other has none, one is judged by Law the other by conscience. But maybe you meant Jews and Gentiles are equal when they call upon the Lord Jesus (Rom.10:12).
3. It was Peter who wrote, in 2nd Peter 1:3-11, the whole process of having Christ and His virtues added to men for entrance into the Kingdom

The Church, the mystic Body of Christ, is revealed in John's gospel, Peter would have been privy to the teaching that John later expounded.

 

[throughfaith]

I can relate to what you are saying here and do not object. But the three points you named as revelations of the Body of Christ have little to do with the mystic Body of Christ.

1. The Rapture is first experienced by a Gentile - Enoch, next by a Jew - Elijah, and then by Jesus and Philip. It may be connected to the Body by our Rapture, but that is an escape from a time of trial, not because we are the Body of Christ
2. The Jews and Gentiles are only equal when they are created a New Man. Their blessings are different, one has Covenants while the other has none, one is judged by Law the other by conscience. But maybe you meant Jews and Gentiles are equal when they call upon the Lord Jesus (Rom.10:12).
3. It was Peter who wrote, in 2nd Peter 1:3-11, the whole process of having Christ and His virtues added to men for entrance into the Kingdom

The Church, the mystic Body of Christ, is revealed in John's gospel, Peter would have been privy to the teaching that John later expounded.

Do you think Peter shows any evidence of understanding in Acts 2 ? or Acts 3 ? Or anytime before Paul or Acts 11 ? Acts 15 ? I would have no case to suggest he did . Paul is given the understanding directly that was not known prior.

 

[Corban]

I would concour with #16

My question was in posting #11.

The reason I'll wait is that you have the clever tactic of a trial lawyer. You ask a string of one-line questions, which when answered trthfully, can be used later to create a backlash. It is a well known procedure in the selection of Elite Troops. They go round and round with one liners until you seemingly contradict an earlier statement. The trick is that the context of the earlier question is nt included in the fatal question. You know me by now. I'll answer your questions via DIALOG - not by short one liners that you don't comment on. So, you made a statement that we should not develope a doctrine on how to preach the gospel from Acts of the Apostles. I answered that the accomplished student of scripture studies all mentions of it to form his doctrine.

Of course, you do not have to answer that, but then it remains hanging, and further dialog is stopped.

 

[throughfaith]

Don't you think that the accomplished student of the Bible will consider all narratives of how the gospel was preached?

How have I not answered this ?
I said it depends which good news one is referring to ? I think the issue occurs because of the assumption Peter is saying the same thing as Paul .

 

[Corban]

We need to understand the details of the Jew/gentile problem when we understand the background and overall goal of God for creating a Jew.

When God created this special race, the world consisted of nearly 100% idol worshippers. Abraham's father's work was manufacturing idols. Abraham was promised to be a blessing to ALL people, including gentiles. Israel was not created to be the only people God loved and cared for. They were shown the eternal ways of the Lord, but gentiles were not excluded and told not to learn of those ways.

In fact I discovered 124 verses that mostly tells gentiles to listen to what God spoke to Israel about. God called the gentiles the strangers or the sojourners.

Are not these 124 mentions directed at Gentiles who took up residence within the borders of Israel? I don't thing Israel crossed their borders to spread the Law. But in one thing I agree. The Law shows the Mind of God. Many a daily decision can be influenced by the Law, WITHOUT actually being under Law. I know a brother who is a farmer. He follows the Law of the Sabbath for the Land. That is, he rotates his fields so that each field gets a Sabbath. It lies fallow for that year. His neighbors think he is mad, as production is everything. But the strange thing is that his crops, when tested by the local agricultural laboratories, show consistent better quality than his neighbors with consistenly lower pest problems, and the crop yields in six years on his lands, exactly the same as seven years on his neighbors'.

He does not advocate it as a Law, he does not try to convince his neighbors, and he is a Christian who appreciates that he is not under Law. But somehow the land appreciates it. The Law can be a very practical guide to men without making it a Law unto righteousness.

 

[JaumeJ]

Understand, had Israel been perfect, the Israel of this age would have remained the People of God, Yahweh.

Their disobedience assured a better, perfect Israel to come.

PS.. It is important to distinguish between the Jews, those of the tribe of Judah, and Israel, all Twelve Tribes of Israel.

 

[Corban]

How have I not answered this ?
I said it depends which good news one is referring to ? I think the issue occurs because of the assumption Peter is saying the same thing as Paul .

OK. Thanks for that. You are flying to Mozambique to stay with a missionary in the African bush. On the flight you sit next to a Jewish scientist who is an evolutionist - that is, he lives his Jewish culture and Laws, but actually does not believe them. What is your doctrine on how to preach the gospel to both educated infidel Jew and primitive African teenager who has been taught ancestor-worship?