Peter's Sermon On Pentecost

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Selene

New Member
Apr 12, 2010
2,073
94
0
In my house
The Holy Spirit that was in the Lord on earth, is the same Holy Spirit that animated and directed Paul. There is no difference between the two. The record is from the same Author.

Hello Fivesense,

The Holy Spirit that was in St. Paul is also in the rest of the Apostles (See John 20:22).

Where are these other baptisms recorded, of Gentiles by the Twelve, other than Cornelius and the Ethiopian eunuch? There are none. That means you form this conclusion, that the Twelve baptized other Gentiles, is false and not found in the Bible. At best, it is myth and conjecture. Without God specifically saying so, it cannot be truth, can it.?

In Acts 8:4-17 the Apostles Philip, Peter, and John baptized many people in Samaria (which is a Gentile country). And in Acts 11:20-21, some of the Apostles went to Cyprus and Cyrene and Antioch to preach the Good News. Again, these are Gentile countries. So, St. Paul was not the only one preaching to the Gentiles. Additionally, I gave you biblical Scripture and evidence showing you that St. Peter was in Rome. It was St. Peter who established the Christian community in Rome. I noticed that you have nothing to say about Strong's biblical translation of "Babylon," but instead you ignored it.

What is the baptism Paul preached? Do you know? Or, is it a mixture of truths, water and spirit, which makes it two. I can count as good as the next. There is only one baptism:

Ro 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

It is baptism into death, crucifixion with Christ, and not a drop of water is mentioned.

And exactly what is a baptism into death? Are you saying that we should get ourselves crucified? I don't think so. First of all, how was Christ baptized? Was it not by "water and spirit?" What does water symbolize in the Bible? Water symbolized life. It says so in the Bible by the Apostles John and Peter.

1 Peter 3:20-21 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ

This was what St.. Peter wrote and he wrote it to all the Gentile churches. How do we know? We know because St. Peter addressed his letter to all the Gentile converts at the very beginning of his letter. So, the Gentiles also received a baptism that is both water and spirit.

1 Peter 1:1 -2
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

As you can see, St. Peter was addressing the entire Gentile nation when he was in Rome. Jesus Christ was baptized with water and spirit, and He is our role model to follow. And for your information, when Jesus died at the cross, there was water:

John 19:34 But one of the soldiers with a spear opened his side, and immediately there came out blood and water.

1 John 5:6
This is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ: not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit which testifieth, that Christ is the truth.

As you can see, my brother, water symbolizes llfe because Christ came by water and blood.

In Christ,
Selene
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paul

fivesense

New Member
Mar 7, 2010
636
24
0
WI
Hello Fivesense,
"The Holy Spirit that was in St. Paul is also in the rest of the Apostles (See John 20:22)".

1C 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
1C 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
1C 15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
1C 15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time

My point was that the Holy Spirit gave utterance through Paul as the last channel of revelation to us. The Lord did not speak to us, He used the Twelve for the Jews, and Paul for the Gentiles. The latest revelations for us came only from Paul, no one else.

"In Acts 8:4-17 the Apostles Philip, Peter, and John baptized many people in Samaria (which is a Gentile country)".

Samaria was not of the nations. It is included by the Lord in His commission to them (Acts 1:8) and to the limits of the Land. After the ten tribes, whose capital was Samaria, were exiled, the king of Assyria sent colonists to repopulate the country (2Ki 17:24-27). They intermarried with the remaining Israelites and thus sprang the mixed race of the Samaritans. Because the Jews would not recognize them or allow them to help in rebuilding the temple, they stirred up the Persian king against the Jews, and hindered the work of restoration. They also built their own temple on mount Gerizim and worshiped according to the law. They recognized only the five books of Moses. Thus sprang up a jealous antagonism between them and the Jews, so that the latter refused to have any dealings with them. As they, however, worshiped Jehovah and taught the law and had a strain of Jewish blood, it was fitting that they should hear the proclamation of Christ, after Judea had been evangelized. Physically they were nearer the Jews than any other nation. Thus the widening testimony to the kingdom spread, until the evangel reaches the limits of the land. Then it is carried beyond by means of Saul, who at this time, was its chief opponent.

"And in Acts 11:20-21, some of the Apostles went to Cyprus and Cyrene and Antioch to preach the Good News. Again, these are Gentile countries. So, St. Paul was not the only one preaching to the Gentiles"

This statement, concerning the scattered of the persecution, is in direct contradiction to the Word of God.

Acts 8:1 . And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.

Ac 11:19 . Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only.

"Additionally, I gave you biblical Scripture and evidence showing you that St. Peter was in Rome. It was St. Peter who established the Christian community in Rome. I noticed that you have nothing to say about Strong's biblical translation of "Babylon," but instead you ignored it."

You provided no Scriptures to Peter's supposed Roman excursion, and it is not recorded in the Bible, so you must have obtained this errant information outside the word of God. I did not refer to any translation, since babuloni in Greek already has a translation, "Babylon". It is not spelled "rhomes", it is babylon, and if the Written Word is not sufficient and clear, then my ability to read must be impaired. I do not recall you referring me to Strong's interpretation.

So you see, Selene, what you present as truth, is not. At least the Holy Spirit does not support it. In fact, the opposite is true.

"And exactly what is a baptism into death? Are you saying that we should get ourselves crucified?I don't think so. First of all, how was Christ baptized? Was it not by "water and spirit?" What does water symbolize in the Bible? Water symbolized life. It says so in the Bible by the Apostles John and Peter.
This was what St.. Peter wrote and he wrote it to all the Gentile churches. How do we know? We know because St. Peter addressed his letter to all the Gentile converts at the very beginning of his letter. So, the Gentiles also received a baptism that is both water and spirit.
1 Peter 1:1 -2
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
As you can see, St. Peter was addressing the entire Gentile nation when he was in Rome."

I cannot see it because it does not say it. The Greek word for stranger is xenos, not parepidemois.

"Jesus Christ was baptized with water and spirit, and He is our role model to follow."

1C 4:15 For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet [have ye] not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.
1C 4:16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.
1C 11:1 . Be ye followers of me, even as I also [am] of Christ.

Paul does not give us that option, to place the Lord's earthly ministry above his. The Lord's gospel was for the Jews, Paul's gospel is for us and the Jew who would believe his testimony.

" And for your information, when Jesus died at the cross, there was water:
John 19:34
But one of the soldiers with a spear opened his side, and immediately there came out blood and water.
1 John 5:6
This is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ: not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit which testifieth, that Christ is the truth.
As you can see, my brother, water symbolizes llfe because Christ came by water and blood."

This last portion is irrelevent and too ethereal to the discussion for value. I pass on it unless you can elucidate. fivesense

In Christ,
Selene
 

Selene

New Member
Apr 12, 2010
2,073
94
0
In my house
Hello Fivesense,

It would help if you could put your statements in the proper quotes. I will place your quotes in Green since I am unable to post your quotes since you put it together with mine.

From Fivesense: My point was that the Holy Spirit gave utterance through Paul as the last channel of revelation to us. The Lord did not speak to us, He used the Twelve for the Jews, and Paul for the Gentiles. The latest revelations for us came only from Paul, no one else.

My brother, the latest and last revelation came from St. John, not St. Paul. St. John wrote Revelations. The entire Bible is for all of us because the entire Bible is the Word of God. Surely, you don't think that only the letters that St. Paul wrote was the "Word of God?" St. Paul also spoke to the Jews just as I have pointed out to you in Acts 23-22. And what did you say about that? Nothing. As a matter of fact, when St. Paul finally arrived in Rome, did you not know that the first people he spoke to were the Roman Jews (see Acts 28:17-28). So again, here we have St. Paul preaching to the Jews FIRST because Christ did say that it is to the Jews that the Gospel will be preached first and then to the Gentiles.

Of course, by the time St. Paul arrived in Rome, we already know that there was already a Christian community there. How do we know? We know because of his letter to the Romans. When St. Paul wrote that letter to the Romans, he had never visited Rome yet, and he was writing his letter to a Christian Church in Rome.

From Fivesense: Samaria was not of the nations. It is included by the Lord in His commission to them (Acts 1:8) and to the limits of the Land. After the ten tribes, whose capital was Samaria, were exiled, the king of Assyria sent colonists to repopulate the country (2Ki 17:24-27). They intermarried with the remaining Israelites and thus sprang the mixed race of the Samaritans. Because the Jews would not recognize them or allow them to help in rebuilding the temple, they stirred up the Persian king against the Jews, and hindered the work of restoration. They also built their own temple on mount Gerizim and worshiped according to the law. They recognized only the five books of Moses. Thus sprang up a jealous antagonism between them and the Jews, so that the latter refused to have any dealings with them. As they, however, worshiped Jehovah and taught the law and had a strain of Jewish blood, it was fitting that they should hear the proclamation of Christ, after Judea had been evangelized. Physically they were nearer the Jews than any other nation. Thus the widening testimony to the kingdom spread, until the evangel reaches the limits of the land. Then it is carried beyond by means of Saul, who at this time, was its chief opponent.

My brother, our Lord Jesus Christ told all His Apostles to baptize all the nations. Yes, that would include Samaria and all nations beyond it. He did say that the Gospel will be preached to the Jews first and then to the Gentiles. That is what the Apostles including St. Paul had been doing. They preached to the Jews first and then to the Gentiles.

From Fivesense: And in Acts 11:20-21, some of the Apostles went to Cyprus and Cyrene and Antioch to preach the Good News. Again, these are Gentile countries. So, St. Paul was not the only one preaching to the Gentiles"

This statement, concerning the scattered of the persecution, is in direct contradiction to the Word of God.

How is that statement in contradiction to the Word of God when everything written in the Bible IS the Word of God? :blink:


From Fivesense: You provided no Scriptures to Peter's supposed Roman excursion, and it is not recorded in the Bible, so you must have obtained this errant information outside the word of God. I did not refer to any translation, since babuloni in Greek already has a translation, "Babylon". It is not spelled "rhomes", it is babylon, and if the Written Word is not sufficient and clear, then my ability to read must be impaired. I do not recall you referring me to Strong's interpretation.

Where do you think Babylon is? In Jerusalem? St. Peter wrote his letters in Babylon, which is defintely not in Jerusalem or in Israel. Did you not know that Jesus did many things that were not recorded in the Bible (See John 21:25), but that certainly does not mean that Jesus did not do them. It was simply not recorded.

John 21:25 There were many other things that Jesus did; if all were written down, the world itself, I suppose, would not hold all the books that would have to be written.

The fact that St. Peter wrote that letter in Babylon (Rome) is evidence enough that he was there. How he got there can easily be answered. He could have gone there by ship or journeyed there by land. Of course, we know that he didn't fly there because planes were not invented at that time. The fact is.....he was there in Rome. I did give you to Strong's bilblical translation in my post and I even posted the weblink. Here, I will post it again for you and include the weblink below:

Βαβυλών



Babylon = "confusion"

1) a very large and famous city, the residence of the Babylonian kings, situated on both banks of the Euphrates. Cyrus had formerly captured it, but Darius Hystaspis threw down its gates and walls, and Xerxes destroyed the temple of Belis. At length the city was reduced to almost solitude, the population having been drawn off by the neighbouring Seleucia, built on the Tigris by Seleucus Nicanor.

2) of the territory of Babylonia

3) allegorically, of Rome as the most corrupt seat of idolatry and the enemy of Christianity

http://www.bluelette...ongs=G897&t=KJV

As you can see,Babylon is referred to as "Rome" in the New Testament. In Revelations, St. John spoke of Babylon referring it to the Roman Empire (Rome) - the enemy of Christianity. St. Peter was the one who established the Christian Church in Babylon (Rome) He was the only one who spoke of this church.

1 Peter 5:13 The [church that is] at Babylon, elected together with [you], saluteth you; and [so doth] Marcus my son.

From Fivesense: I cannot see it because it does not say it. The Greek word for stranger is xenos, not parepidemois

My brother, the word "strangers" is proof enough showing that these strangers are not Jews whom St. Peter was addressing. And if you read further, St. Peter was addressing strangers who were santified and chosen by God.....in other words, pagans who were converted into Christians.

From Fivesense: Jesus Christ was baptized with water and spirit, and He is our role model to follow."

1C 4:15 For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet [have ye] not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.
1C 4:16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.
1C 11:1 . Be ye followers of me, even as I also [am] of Christ.

Paul does not give us that option, to place the Lord's earthly ministry above his. The Lord's gospel was for the Jews, Paul's gospel is for us and the Jew who would believe his testimony.

Are you saying that we should follow ONLY St. Paul and NOT Christ? Is St. Paul higher than Christ? Do you not see, that St. Paul also followed Christ. It says so and I placed it in bold in your quote above.

1 C 11:1
Be ye followers of me, even as I also [am] of Christ.

As you can see, even St. Paul followed Christ. If St.. Paul does not follow Christ, are we to follow him? I don't think so. Even the Bible says that we are to follow God rather than men (See Acts 5:29).

In Christ,
Selene

 
  • Like
Reactions: Paul

fivesense

New Member
Mar 7, 2010
636
24
0
WI
Hello Fivesense,

My brother, the latest and last revelation came from St. John, not St. Paul. St. John wrote Revelations.

My brother, our Lord Jesus Christ told all His Apostles to baptize all the nations. Yes, that would include Samaria and all nations beyond it. He did say that the Gospel will be preached to the Jews first and then to the Gentiles. That is what the Apostles including St. Paul had been doing. They preached to the Jews first and then to the Gentiles.

From Fivesense: And in Acts 11:20-21, some of the Apostles went to Cyprus and Cyrene and Antioch to preach the Good News. Again, these are Gentile countries. So, St. Paul was not the only one preaching to the Gentiles"
This statement, concerning the scattered of the persecution, is in direct contradiction to the Word of God.
How is that statement in contradiction to the Word of God when everything written in the Bible IS the Word of God? :blink:

Where do you think Babylon is? In Jerusalem? St. Peter wrote his letters in Babylon, which is defintely not in Jerusalem or in Israel. Did you not know that Jesus did many things that were not recorded in the Bible (See John 21:25), but that certainly does not mean that Jesus did not do them. It was simply not recorded.

The fact that St. Peter wrote that letter in Babylon (Rome) is evidence enough that he was there.
As you can see,Babylon is referred to as "Rome" in the New Testament. In Revelations, St. John spoke of Babylon referring it to the Roman Empire (Rome) - the enemy of Christianity. St. Peter was the one who established the Christian Church in Babylon (Rome) He was the only one who spoke of this church.

1 Peter 5:13 The [church that is] at Babylon, elected together with [you], saluteth you; and [so doth] Marcus my son.

From Fivesense: I cannot see it because it does not say it. The Greek word for stranger is xenos, not parepidemois

My brother, the word "strangers" is proof enough showing that these strangers are not Jews whom St. Peter was addressing. And if you read further, St. Peter was addressing strangers who were santified and chosen by God.....in other words, pagans who were converted into Christians.

1C 4:15 For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet [have ye] not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.
1C 4:16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.
1C 11:1 . Be ye followers of me, even as I also [am] of Christ.

Are you saying that we should follow ONLY St. Paul and NOT Christ? Is St. Paul higher than Christ? Do you not see, that St. Paul also followed Christ. It says so and I placed it in bold in your quote above.
As you can see, even St. Paul followed Christ. If St.. Paul does not follow Christ, are we to follow him? I don't think so. Even the Bible says that we are to follow God rather than men (See Acts 5:29).
In Christ,
Selene

Ac 28:30 . And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him.

The death of Paul is not recorded in the Scriptures. No one knows when or where he died. It is never said his accusers saw his death, or that he was martyred for his faith. He may have outlived all the Apostles, and indeed was old, at the end of his ministry, which encompassed many years.

Ac 7:58 And cast [him] out of the city, and stoned [him]: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose name was Saul.

Phm 1:9 Yet for love's sake I rather beseech [thee], being such an one as Paul the aged, and now also a prisoner of Jesus Christ.

That he penned his prison epistles after John was exiled to Patmos is just as likely as not. You assume the Unveiling of John is the last revelation, you could not know that. John's Unveiling and revelation of Jesus Christ speaks to the Jews of the future, the nations being spoken of seldom in that revelation. It is prophetic and future and pertains to Israel's coming crisis and promise.

The Lord gave three commissions, in Jerusalem on the evening of the resurrection to the twelve and others (Luke 24:47), to the eleven as they sat at meat (Mark 16:15), and on a mountain in Galilee (Mat 28:19). That the apostles never went beyond "the limits of the land" is recorded and I have quoted the passages. It is irrefutable. It was Paul, called and chosen outside the land on the road to Damascus, who God chose to fulfill the evangel to the nations.

That "in Acts 11:20-21, some of the Apostles went to Cyprus and Cyrene and Antioch to preach the Good News" is false. It is contradicted by Acts 8:1 and even verse 19 of your quotation, the previous verse you left out.

AV Ac 8:1 . And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.

AV Ac 11:19 . Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only.

The word of God stands. Insertions do not. That the "Apostles went to Cypress and Cyrene and Antioch" is an insertion and addition to what is not written. It is false.

Jerusalem is Jerusalem, Rome is Rome, and Babylon is Babylon. Turning things into figures at a whim does not change the reality. Peter was in Babylon, no matter who says otherwise. Babylon is Babylon. No amount of conjecture or mental gymnastics changes truth.

I repeat what was overlooked, the Greek word for "stranger" is not parepidemois, it is xenos. The closest translation would render parepidemois" expatriates", not strangers. This can be seen through a concordant study of the words and the passages they are in (Heb 11:13, 1 Pe 1:1, 1 Pe 2:11).

Should God have elected not to provide Paul as our example, we would be in very difficult straits attempting to imitate the One Who cannot be imitated. The miracles, the healings, the words, the power, the glory, the humility, the slavery, the list is endless to which you nor I could ever hope to attain to. No, I think the desire to imitate Christ is wishful and desireable at it's core, and the drive to be conformed to His image is God-inspired in us. But imitation is all it would be. Paul's commands and doctrine are on par with our abilities, coupled with grace. It is through this Jewish prophet and priest that we have obtained all that we have, and Paul alone is the channel of Jewish blessing to the nations. Christ is the Head over all, but it is Paul's message what we believed on unto salvation, not the Lord's earthly message to His people while He was here. That is the Law, under the Son of David, the Heir to the throne, for the Lord never preached His message to the nations.

Mt 15:24-26 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast [it] to dogs.

The nations are the puppies, they are outside the house, they are not the children. This example of the future grace that would come with Paul's preaching is moving and prophetic. It is also a declaration of God the priorities of heaven, that salvation is of the Jews. It must always be this way on the earth. It is set in stone tablets.

Should an advanced and knowledgable saint you admire and respect advise and counsel you to do things a certain way in order to benefit you, would you refuse her instruction soley on the basis of her humanity? Would that be wisdom? Paul and the Lord are one, they are not divided, and you should not divide them on the basis of personal bias. They both spake the Word of God by Holy Spirit, and to dismiss one over the other is a mistake. But Paul in his wisdom knew the dangers of aspiring to the Lord "after the flesh" and modifies that with his command, not a request or selection, to be imitators of him, as he is of Christ Jesus. The Lord is not our example to follow, we are not Jewish, and are not headed for an earthly reward. Ours is in the heavens, where Christ is already, and our blessing are now, not in the future. The Jews will remain Jewish, in flesh, at His coming. We will be changed into the glorious image of the One Who is the Savior of all men, specially them which believe.

fivesense
 

brionne

Active Member
May 31, 2010
830
130
43
Australia
Question: was Cornelius saved under the "kingdom gospel (Abrahamic Covenant)" or the "gospel of the grace of God" as taught by Paul?

Cornelius was a blessing to Israel (Acts 10:2,22), and because of this God rewarded him with the hearing of the Word through Peter and receiving salvation. This is EXACTLY the way it was revealed to Abram in Genesis 12:3, "I will bless them [Gentiles] that bless thee" (Abram and his seed]. This is what James knew and so he quoted from Amos (Acts 15:12-19). Cornelius was saved through a saved Jew.

The Gentiles receiving salvation according to the Abrahamic Covenant under the preaching of the 12 were accepted as Jewish proselytes just as they always were under the Jewish law except this time the Gentiles were shown to be accepted "the same way that the Jews were in that they received the Holy Spirit when they believed in Jesus. This program will also be in effect at the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ as Israel's Messiah and the rebuilding of the Jewish Temple for the millennial reign of Christ. James knew accurately the program of God for Israel and the Gentile nations through the Jews. This is how we are to understand this passage in Acts 15:13-17. But the Jews, as a nation, rejected God's reign through Jesus and that reign has, temporarily, been set aside.

It does not refer to the Body of Christ and the Mystery revealed to Paul. Today we are not saved "through the Jews" since they have been blinded until the time of the Gentiles has been fulfilled. Today, all are saved by the grace of God only. The Acts 2 interpretation, that it refers to the Church, the Body of Christ, is wrong. This whole incident is based on God's Kingdom program for Israel. Cornelius had become a proselyte under the Jewish law when Peter "commanded" him, and his household, to be water baptized; a Jewish custom under the law.

Cornelius wasn't taught by Paul...he was taught by the Apostle Peter. So I would have to say that if you believe Paul and Peter were teaching different gospels, you would be mistaken.

There is no difference between the teachings of Paul and Peter.

Simple? easy to understand? I think not.
Mt 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.Mt 13:14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:Mt 13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and [their] ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with [their] eyes, and hear with [their] ears, and should understand with [their] heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.Mt 13:16 But blessed [are] your eyes,(the Twelve only) for they see: and your ears, for they hear.
Understanding the Lord's teachings were so difficult that the killed Him in their ignorance. His teachings are easy to mess up and turn into philosophies, but they are not easily understood by the carnal mind.

Paul used the same Isaiah "key" to lock the door to the Kingdom of the Beloved Son, keeping those of the Law out. (Acts 28:25)

fivesense

I understand what you are saying here, however, why did his disciples understand Jesus teachings? Was it not because they received the holy spirit which Jesus said he would send as a helper to them.

Where Gods spirit is, there is understanding. Those first century jews did not have holy spirit, nor were they basing their understanding on Gods word at that time. Most of them held to the 'oral law' which is what Jesus told them was something 'contrary' to Gods law. This is why Jesus said "For this people's heart is waxed gross, and [their] ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed"

If those Jews remained with Gods written word, they, like the disciples, would have seen Jesus for who he really was...their messiah and they would have understood.
 

fivesense

New Member
Mar 7, 2010
636
24
0
WI
Cornelius wasn't taught by Paul...he was taught by the Apostle Peter. So I would have to say that if you believe Paul and Peter were teaching different gospels, you would be mistaken.

There is no difference between the teachings of Paul and Peter.



I understand what you are saying here, however, why did his disciples understand Jesus teachings? Was it not because they received the holy spirit which Jesus said he would send as a helper to them.

Where Gods spirit is, there is understanding. Those first century jews did not have holy spirit, nor were they basing their understanding on Gods word at that time. Most of them held to the 'oral law' which is what Jesus told them was something 'contrary' to Gods law. This is why Jesus said "For this people's heart is waxed gross, and [their] ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed"

If those Jews remained with Gods written word, they, like the disciples, would have seen Jesus for who he really was...their messiah and they would have understood.

Did they, at the time of His walking amongst the people preaching the nearness of the Kingdom, receive Holy Spirit? Or did that come at another place, and another time later? We know when they received Holy Spirit, it was at Pentecost. Up until that point, God opened their eyes from above, the Holy Spirit having not yet come into the earth. Peter was able to declare Him the Christ, the Son of the Living God. The Lord said, Blessed are you Peter for flesh and blood hath not revealed unto thee, but my Father, which is heaven.

Where the spirit of the Lord is there is liberty, not understanding (2 Cor 3:17). Understanding comes from receiving light from above. It is an activity of the intellect, not the Spirit. I do not recall ever reading that the disciples understood because they had "remained with Gods written word". That would be conjecture, not established fact, and not a statement of truth. Their eyes were shut, and their ears were closed because the Father made them that way, in order to show mercy to everyone.

Cornelius was a Jewish proselyte. He had already become a participant in the Jewish customs by reason of seeking God through faith. As such, he was allowed certain privileges and rights to the Covenant Promises. Peter's Gospel was and is not the same as Paul's, and I suspect you are not able to apprehend that. So it make little difference to you whether or not he is considered a Body member, since in your mind all are in the Body of Christ, which is not true. Cornelius will be resurrected to life among the faithful of Israel to live and do divine service on earth when the Lord returns. He will not be in heaven with us as a sons of God.

fivesense

.
 

brionne

Active Member
May 31, 2010
830
130
43
Australia
Did they, at the time of His walking amongst the people preaching the nearness of the Kingdom, receive Holy Spirit? Or did that come at another place, and another time later? We know when they received Holy Spirit, it was at Pentecost. Up until that point, God opened their eyes from above, the Holy Spirit having not yet come into the earth. Peter was able to declare Him the Christ, the Son of the Living God. The Lord said, Blessed are you Peter for flesh and blood hath not revealed unto thee, but my Father, which is heaven.

I would ask why Jesus apostles and others recognized him as the messiah while others did not? What was different about those who believed in Jesus and put faith in him and those who did not?
The holy spirit is something which works in different ways at different times. Faith is said to be a product of holy spirit...its one of the many 'fruits' of that spirit such as 'love, joy, peace, mildness, kindness, goodness & Faith.
Jesus could identify a person with such fruits and he was drawn to them. I would say that some people are more godlike then others and they display these qualities of the holy spirit in themselves. And I would also say that the holy spirit was the reason why some people could identify Jesus as being the messiah (even if they didnt fully understand everything about the messiah before Pentecost) while others could not.

There are also examples of ancient Isrealites who had Gods spirit upon them such as Moses, Joshua, king David, the prophets and the many women of faith such as Sarah and others who displayed the qualities of the holy spirit in their life courses.

Where the spirit of the Lord is there is liberty, not understanding (2 Cor 3:17). Understanding comes from receiving light from above. It is an activity of the intellect, not the Spirit. I do not recall ever reading that the disciples understood because they had "remained with Gods written word". That would be conjecture, not established fact, and not a statement of truth. Their eyes were shut, and their ears were closed because the Father made them that way, in order to show mercy to everyone.

I agree with you on the point of understanding. However, the ones whom Jesus referred to as having their eyes closed were those who were also called 'sons of the devil' This was because as Jesus said to them
"you wish to do the desires of that one" rather then live with God in their hearts, they were living with hate and had left the God of their forefathers. God didn't make them that way....they made themselves unworthy of receiving understanding from God because they did not have the fruits of love in their lives.

Cornelius was a Jewish proselyte. He had already become a participant in the Jewish customs by reason of seeking God through faith. As such, he was allowed certain privileges and rights to the Covenant Promises. Peter's Gospel was and is not the same as Paul's, and I suspect you are not able to apprehend that. So it make little difference to you whether or not he is considered a Body member, since in your mind all are in the Body of Christ, which is not true. Cornelius will be resurrected to life among the faithful of Israel to live and do divine service on earth when the Lord returns. He will not be in heaven with us as a sons of God.
fivesense

If Cornelius was a proselyte, he would have been circumsized but the fact is that he wasnt. The account in acts distinguishes this fact in Acts 10:44 While Peter was yet speaking about these matters the holy spirit fell upon all those hearing the word. 45 And the faithful ones that had come with Peter who were of those circumcised were amazed, because the free gift of the holy spirit was being poured out also upon people of the nations.."

If Cornelius was a true proselyte, then this comment would make no sense. Peter would not have referred to Cornelius as a person of the 'nations' because Proselytes were considered Jews.

Also if you read Chpt 11, the Jewish christians were not happy with Peter for eating with an 'uncircumsized' gentile
Acts 11:1 "Now the apostles and the brothers that were in Ju‧de′a heard that people of the nations had also received the word of God. 2 So when Peter came up to Jerusalem, the [supporters] of circumcision began to contend with him, 3 saying he had gone into the house of men that were not circumcised and had eaten with them."

Cornelius was the first uncircumsized gentile to be baptized. This was the point where the gentiles began to be grafted onto the olive vine as explained by Paul at Romans 11
17 However, if some of the branches were broken off but you (gentiles), although being a wild olive, were grafted in among them...
24 For if you were cut out of the olive tree that is wild by nature and were grafted contrary to nature into the garden olive tree how much rather will these who are natural be grafted into their own olive tree!

He thus likened the non-Jews who would be admitted into the Abrahamic covenant to shoots, from a wild olive tree that would be grafted onto the trunk of a “garden olive tree.” They would replace the natural branches that had been lopped off, these representing the fleshly Jews who had been rejected because of their lack of faith.
 

Selene

New Member
Apr 12, 2010
2,073
94
0
In my house
Ac 28:30 . And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him.

The death of Paul is not recorded in the Scriptures. No one knows when or where he died. It is never said his accusers saw his death, or that he was martyred for his faith. He may have outlived all the Apostles, and indeed was old, at the end of his ministry, which encompassed many years.

Ac 7:58 And cast [him] out of the city, and stoned [him]: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose name was Saul.

Hello Fivesense,

The last recorded journey of St. Paul was in Rome and that was in Scripture (Acts 28). There are outside documents showing that St. Paul was beheaded in Rome. If you are really interested in learning about the Apostles, you can do a research on them both in Scripture and outside Scripture. After all, do you think that the name "Israel" exist only in Scripture. The ancient name of Israel was also found in the Rosetta Stone of Eygpt. That is an archaelogical fact. That is the ONLY recorded name of Israel that you will find outside of the Bible BEFORE 1948. That is a historical fact.

How do we know that Ghengis Khan existed when his name is not recorded in the Bible?. Ghengis Khan is recorded in historical records. The Apostles of Christ are real men just like Ghengis Khan who existed thousands of years ago. If there are records showing the accounts of Ghengis Khan, then there are documents of the Apostles. Why? Because they were actually REAL people who existed not only in the Bible but also in the REAL world just like George Washington. St. Paul was beheaded in Rome and St. Peter was crucified in Rome. St. Paul and St. Peter died in 67 A.D. St. John outlived all the Apostles. He was the last Apostle to live and the last one to receive a revelation from God. All you had to do was do your own research. As I told you, St. John revealed to us that not all things are recorded in the Bible .

Jerusalem is Jerusalem, Rome is Rome, and Babylon is Babylon. Turning things into figures at a whim does not change the reality. Peter was in Babylon, no matter who says otherwise. Babylon is Babylon. No amount of conjecture or mental gymnastics changes truth.

My brother, I already provided proof that Babylon is Rome, so the evidence is on my side. So far, you have not refuted the evidence in Strong's biblical translation.

Peter's Gospel was and is not the same as Paul's

This is false. St. Peter also preached a gospel of Grace. Below is the evidence from biblical scripture, which you cannot go against;

Acts 15:7-11 ........ Peter rose up and said to them: "Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 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? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we shall be saved in the same manner as they."

As you can see, from the Word of God, St. Peter also preached a Gospel of Grace exactly like St. Paul. St. Peter says that through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, they are saved in the same manner as the Gentiles. My brother, you go against the Bible when you say that St. Peter's Gospel is not the same as Paul;s.

In Christ,
Selene




 

Grat

New Member
Feb 18, 2008
58
2
0
62
Sydney, Australia
A couple of brief replies:
Sorry, you are both wrong. The last/final revelation is by the Holy Spirit to each and every believer individually. One of the jobs of the Holy Spirit is to reveal Christ in/through/to us.

Grat
 

Grat

New Member
Feb 18, 2008
58
2
0
62
Sydney, Australia
I'm also going to disagree about Peter & Paul's revelation. The underlying assumption here is that the mechanism for salvation is different.
As was already commented, watch the timeline. There was some 15+ years between Pentecost and Paul starting his ministry. During this time the Church was going on its merry way. During this time God was working on this marvellous joke. The fire-breathing, “super” zealot originally called Saul was being changed into Paul, God’s not-so-secret weapon/tool against religion and primarily to the Gentiles. During this time Peter, the itinerate fisherman was being modelled into God’s secret weapon to the Jews! Doesn’t this have you ROFL?
At the end of this, Paul went first to Jerusalem to SUBMIT himself to the brothers there. James, not Peter, seemed to have been in charge and accepted Paul’s revelation with open arms.
The only time Paul & Peter seemed to have had some altercation was when Peter backslid when a bunch of religious so-and-so’s used guilt to control Peter. Paul straightened him out.
What’s with the titles? What do you honestly believe is more important to our Father? A title or someone’s salvation? Read the Bible, both old and new testaments, God doesn’t give hoot about religion, practice or titles. He cares only about one thing – us. He moved the world for us in Christ and continues to for each of us today. We are his sole concern. The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.

Grat
 

jiggyfly

New Member
Nov 27, 2009
2,750
86
0
63
North Carolina
"For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay no greater burden on you than these requirements: You must abstain from eating food offered to idols, from consuming blood or eating the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual immorality. If you do this, you will do well. Farewell."
 

bling

New Member
May 5, 2009
135
5
0
Pegg and Selene you are doing a great job, but they are set in their ways.



Fivesenses said:
The word of God stands. Insertions do not. That the "Apostles went to Cypress and Cyrene and Antioch" is an insertion and addition to what is not written. It is false.


It says: Acts 11:20 Some of them, however, men from Cyprus and Cyrene, went to Antioch and began to speak to Greeks also, telling them the good news about the Lord Jesus.
Converts did go on and teach gentiles.

The idea is Jewish Christians were preaching to Gentiles before Peter or Paul took up that task. If Cornelius was a Jewish proselyte then there would be no reason for Peter to have his vision and he would have been going to a fellow Jew.
 

RichardBurger

New Member
Jan 23, 2008
1,498
19
0
90
Southeast USA
Pegg and Selene you are doing a great job, but they are set in their ways.



Fivesenses said:
The word of God stands. Insertions do not. That the "Apostles went to Cypress and Cyrene and Antioch" is an insertion and addition to what is not written. It is false.


It says: Acts 11:20 Some of them, however, men from Cyprus and Cyrene, went to Antioch and began to speak to Greeks also, telling them the good news about the Lord Jesus.
Converts did go on and teach gentiles.

The idea is Jewish Christians were preaching to Gentiles before Peter or Paul took up that task. If Cornelius was a Jewish proselyte then there would be no reason for Peter to have his vision and he would have been going to a fellow Jew.

I don't think anyone said Cornelius was "already a Jewish proselyte". I think it was said that he was made a jewish proselyte when Peter preached to him.
 

fivesense

New Member
Mar 7, 2010
636
24
0
WI
Pegg and Selene you are doing a great job, but they are set in their ways.



Fivesenses said:
The word of God stands. Insertions do not. That the "Apostles went to Cypress and Cyrene and Antioch" is an insertion and addition to what is not written. It is false.
It says: Acts 11:20 Some of them, however, men from Cyprus and Cyrene, went to Antioch and began to speak to Greeks also, telling them the good news about the Lord Jesus.
Converts did go on and teach gentiles.
The idea is Jewish Christians were preaching to Gentiles before Peter or Paul took up that task. If Cornelius was a Jewish proselyte then there would be no reason for Peter to have his vision and he would have been going to a fellow Jew.

Ac 11:19 . Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only.

The scattered abroad are Jewish, from Jerusalem. This verse is coupled with the next. To add they "were preaching to Gentiles" is a fabrication. It is a false statement and is indicative of something wrong in your reasoning. That it is an idea is correct, because it is not truth.

Ac 11:20 And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus.

The mistranslation in the KJV of Hellenists, which were Jewish foreigners from outside the land of Promise,

AV Ac 6:1 . And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.

If they were "Gentiles" it would be impossible to be eating at the same table with others of the Jewish faith. The word is "Hellenist" not Grecian.

Greeks and Hellenists are those whose religious practices and beliefs were compromised from being outside the Holy City and the Land. They read Moses in their synagagues out a Greek manuscript they were so accustomed to the society they were living in. Merchants, tradesmen, laborers, ex-military personnel, etc.

fivesense.

 

Grat

New Member
Feb 18, 2008
58
2
0
62
Sydney, Australia
Sorry, maybe I’ve missed something, but why does this matter? Both Paul and Peter were apostles. Both of them wrote various letters to various churches that they had worked with or wanted to. Peter himself admits the overlaps to their ministries (especially in later years). In fact Peter refers to Pauls writing as scripture – one of the very few references to NT writings as scripture.
[bible]2 Peter 3:15-16 3:15 And regard the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as also our dear brother Paul wrote to you, according to the wisdom given to him, 3:16 speaking of these things in all his letters. Some things in these letters are hard to understand, things the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they also do to the rest of the scriptures.[/bible]
 

fivesense

New Member
Mar 7, 2010
636
24
0
WI
I don't think anyone said Cornelius was "already a Jewish proselyte". I think it was said that he was made a jewish proselyte when Peter preached to him.


I would assume by the record, that he was a convert, uncircumcised, to the Jewish faith. Holy Spirit says he feared "God", not another, and that he was devout. Unusual for a Gentile. It also say he obtained his vision at the time that the Jews normally set themselves to scheduled prayer. To me that would indicate observance of customs to the Hebrew faith. The fact that he did "alms", a Jewish requirment, is also telling. That these things that he did were acknowledged and rewarded by God speaks of approval and recognition. And salvation is of the Jews, there being no other way to God up til that point ever. Note that Cornelius' response was "What is it, Kurios", that is an appellation reserved for the Christ in almost all instances. It is almost impossible that he was not a Jewish proselyte.

Ac 10:1-4 Now a certain man in Caesarea, named Cornelius, a centurion out of a squadron *|called~ "Italian,"
devout and fearing God together with his entire house, doing many alms to the people and beseeching God continually,perceived in a vision manifestly, as if about the ninth hour of the day, a messenger of God entering toward him and saying to him, "Cornelius!"Now he, looking intently at him, and becoming affrighted, said, What is it, lord?" Now he said to him, "Your prayers and you alms ascended for a memorial in front of God.



Sorry, maybe I’ve missed something, but why does this matter? Both Paul and Peter were apostles. Both of them wrote various letters to various churches that they had worked with or wanted to. Peter himself admits the overlaps to their ministries (especially in later years). In fact Peter refers to Pauls writing as scripture – one of the very few references to NT writings as scripture.

Well Grat, I am firmly convinced that unless one is able to understand the different gospels, the entire "New Testament" is enigmatic in many places, and the truth will remain incorrectly partitioned. Of course, this all has to do with coming into a realization of God as Father and His plan for all mankind, so it is essentially about knowledge, and not "spiritual", so to speak. However, I believe that when the mind and heart are attuned to the word of God through a knowledge of the Scriptures, then light, when offered from the Father of lights, comes into the mind, it is more easily apprehended and outfits the new creation more completely for the day of change that we are expecting. That's all.

fivesense
 

Selene

New Member
Apr 12, 2010
2,073
94
0
In my house
Sorry, maybe I’ve missed something, but why does this matter? Both Paul and Peter were apostles. Both of them wrote various letters to various churches that they had worked with or wanted to. Peter himself admits the overlaps to their ministries (especially in later years). In fact Peter refers to Pauls writing as scripture – one of the very few references to NT writings as scripture.
Bible Verse: 2 Peter 3:15-16 3:15 And regard the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as also our dear brother Paul wrote to you, according to the wisdom given to him, 3:16 speaking of these things in all his letters. Some things in these letters are hard to understand, things the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they also do to the rest of the scriptures.

This also shows that St. Peter was writing his letter to the Gentiles whom St. Paul converted.
 

pastorlesofm

Community Guide
Jun 28, 2008
326
17
0
79
Central New York State
Hello Richard,

All 12 Apostles went to the Gentiles. Christ told all of them to go out into the world and Christ does not go back on His word because He is Truth. However, it was St. Paul who converted and baptized MOST of the Gentiles; therefore, we call him the Apostle of the Gentiles. St. Peter, on the other hand, was the FIRST to baptize the Gentiles (See Acts 10:44-48). All the Apostles went out into the world and all of them except St. John were martyed. St. John died about 100 A.D. most likely in Ephesus. Both St. Paul and St. Peter were martyred in Rome.

No, the Catholic Church never taught that the Christian church was built on the 12 Apostles. It taught that the Christian Church was built on the Apostle Peter according to Matthew 16:18. It was St. Peter whom Christ gave the keys to Heaven and to whom He put in charge of His entire flock (John 21:15-17).




Read carefully what Galatians 2 is telling you. Chapter 2 started out with a problem that came up. Below is the entire Scripture:

Galatians 2:4-9 The question came up only because some who do not really belong to the brotherhood have furtively crept in to spy on the liberty we enjoy in Christ Jesus, and want to reduce us all to slavery. I was so determined to safeguard for you the true meaning of the Good News, that I refused even out of deference to yield to such people for a moment. As a result, these people who are acknowledged leaders - not that their importance matters to me, since God has no favourites - these leaders, as I say, had nothing to add to the Good News as I preach it. On the contrary, they recognized that I had been commissioned to preach the Good News to the uncircumcised just as Peter had been commissioned to preach it to the cirumcised. The same person whose action had made Peter the apostle of the circumcised had given me a similar mission to the pagans. So, James, Cephas, and John, these leaders, these pillars, shook hands with Barnabas and me as a sign of partnership: we were to go to the pagans and they to the cirucmcised.

(Taken from the Jerusalem Bible)

The issue at hand was the Good News, which was the Gospel, that St. Paul was preaching. St. Paul said that nothing new was added to the Gospel because he safeguarded it and refused to believe those leaders. When the Apostles learned that what St. Paul preached was the same thing that they preached, they shook hands and allowed him to preach to the Gentiles.

However, there was never a restriction placed on St. Paul or on St. Peter and the Apostles. We know there was no restrictions for St. Paul to preach ONLY to the Gentiles because we see St. Paul preaching to the Jews in Acts 22. We also know that there never was any restrictions on St. Peter to preach ONLY to the Jews because we see St. Peter going to the Gentiles from place to place in Acts 9:32-43. We also know that St. Peter wrote his letters while he was in Rome (1 Peter 5:13).

As for water baptism, all the Apostles including St. Paul practiced it. Water baptism did not come from man. It came directly from Heaven. It came from God (See John 1:33 and Matthew 21:25). It was God who ordered St. John the Baptist to start water baptism, and Christ allowed His Apostles to continue this practice (John 4:1-2). Water baptism came from God and it was never rescinded by God. God bless.

In Christ,
Selene


Selene, the Church of Jesus Christ (His Bride) was not built on Peter , the Rock Jesus referred to was Peter's answer, when Jesus asked ;" Who do you say I am?" Matt.16:16; not Peter as is taught by the RC and other religions. The "Rock" (18), on which Christ would build His Church, is not Peter, but the Truth to which Peter confessed , that Jesus is the Son of God, The deity of Jesus is the foundation on which the Church rests, the fundamental creed of Christiandom. Many years ago the RC church would not allow the congregant interprut the Gospel, only the priest was allowed, therefore many were mislead. Love You in Jesus Name and pray that you seek truth in the Gospel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paul

Selene

New Member
Apr 12, 2010
2,073
94
0
In my house
Selene, the Church of Jesus Christ (His Bride) was not built on Peter , the Rock Jesus referred to was Peter's answer, when Jesus asked ;" Who do you say I am?" Matt.16:16; not Peter as is taught by the RC and other religions. The "Rock" (18), on which Christ would build His Church, is not Peter, but the Truth to which Peter confessed , that Jesus is the Son of God, The deity of Jesus is the foundation on which the Church rests, the fundamental creed of Christiandom. Many years ago the RC church would not allow the congregant interprut the Gospel, only the priest was allowed, therefore many were mislead. Love You in Jesus Name and pray that you seek truth in the Gospel.

Hello Pastor,

I respect your position as a man of God, and I ask your forgiveness in disagreeing with you. Christ was referring to St. Peter because He changed Simon's name to "rock." Peter means "Rock" in "Aramic. If Christ was only referring to St. Peter's confession, He did not have to change his name. According to Scripture:

Matthew 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Christ never spoke Greek. He spoke Aramic. So, when Christ spoke to St. Peter, He was actually saying, "Thou art Cephas (Rock) and upon this cephas (rock) I will build my Church." Christ gave St. Peter and only St. Peter the keys to Heaven. Those keys symbolized "power and authority." Christ also told St. Peter and only St. Peter to take care of His entire flock (See John 21). The Church of Babylon, which St. Peter mentioned in his letter (1 Peter 5:13) was the Church that he established. It was the Roman Church. The Churches that St. Paul established are the Orthodox Churches today. Our Orthodox brothers can trace their lineage to the Apostle Paul, and we can trace our lineage to the Apostle Peter.

In Christ,
Selene