Search results

I'm asking whether it is the case that God letting Peter lead the Church, with preaching and teaching that he himself conformed to (which would mean he was teaching the Jewish believers (the only people anyone knew could be saved at the time) that they were to keep the dietary law, as he himself...

I'm just asking them why timelines of Acts always have Cornelius's salvation taking place years after Christ's death and resurrection--what Scriptural and/or other historical evidence they are basing that on.

I'm still waiting to hear back from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. In the meantime, the timelines of the Book of Acts I've seen have ranged, on Cornelius's salvation, from 36AD to 42AD. If these timelines are correct, it would mean that Peter didn't fully understand the Gospel, and God...

"Sit at my feet, Grasshopper" is putting it mildly--it's more like, "Worship at my feet!"

I took one look at his avatar (some "secret knowledge" for sure), started reading his off-topic boasting attempting to commandeer the thread, and placed him on ignore.

Painfully obvious.

Gotta get back to you in a bit on this.

Which Seminary or University would you prefer I reach out to?

Commentary. I guess I can call a university if you're really that interested.

Jesus was sent only to the house of Israel... and? Irrespectively, Peter did not understand the Gospel between Pentecost and the time of the vision and Cornelius's conversion. Not sure, other than the fact that you don't "like" what is being said, why this should be considered controversial.

It's irrelevant, because whether it is two or three years later doesn't affect my argument--ie, that the Apostles' understanding of the Gospel developed over time.

I've only read that it was "years" after Pentecost.

Irrelevant.

It's been made abundantly clear. You're just either not paying attention, you don't really care to have the conversation, or else you're pretending you don't understand.

Keep your personal vendettas and scraps out of my threads. It is rude.

And the response was given to your response. I was saying "even if John taught slightly differently, I'd accept it", not that he actually did, and I said that another view could be that he simply places different emphasis. Don't know why I have to keep repeating this. Then I said that the...

That's beside the point. My point was that we have a precedent that the understanding of the Gospel unfolds over time, and someone could argue that, taking John's writings alone, you may be more likely to end up with a Monergist view, and we know that John was the oldest by the time he wrote his...

Anyway, Peter was in error for years, and only after those years was he corrected, so the precedent is set that the understanding of the Gospel develops over time--evinced, again, in that the Jewish believers took issue with Paul's Gospel, and his teaching that Jews were not obligated to serve...

Years. The exact number is irrelevant to my point.

You obviously don't know the timeline. Peter eating with the Gentiles, but not when the Jews were around, occurred AFTER the vision--before the vision, whereby he had justified his having eaten with Gentiles in their home, Peter had not eaten any unclean thing (according to the account of the...