PETER DIDN'T PREACH THE DEATH AND RESURRECTION

[bdavidc]

We are to bear the name of Jesus................

This is a reply to all the false teachings you replied to me about.

You are not reading Scripture plainly. You are forcing it into a system that requires you to deny what the text explicitly says.

Peter did not merely “condemn Israel.” He preached Christ crucified and risen, and he did so as the basis for repentance and forgiveness. Acts 2:23–24 ties the crucifixion and resurrection together intentionally. Peter does not separate them. Scripture does not separate them. You are the one doing that.

You keep claiming Peter did not preach what Christ’s death accomplished. Yet Peter explicitly says repentance is required “for the remission of sins” in response to the crucified and risen Christ ~Acts 2:38. Forgiveness is the issue being addressed. You cannot preach remission of sins without preaching the atoning work that secures it.

You also keep shrinking the resurrection to “throne language,” as if resurrection were merely proof of kingship. Peter says God raised Jesus up because it was impossible that He should be holden of death ~Acts 2:24. That is not political language. That is victory-over-death language. Paul later says plainly that Christ “was raised again for our justification” ~Romans 4:25. Scripture interprets Scripture.

Your attempt to divide Peter’s gospel from Paul’s collapses in Acts 10. Peter tells Gentiles that Jesus was killed, raised, and that through Him remission of sins is preached to whosoever believes ~Acts 10:39–43. That is not Israel-only language. Peter explicitly says “whosoever.” You have to redefine words to escape that.

You then redefine “believeth in Him” to mean belief without the cross. Scripture never does that. Believing in Christ always includes believing the testimony God gave of His Son, namely His death and resurrection ~1 Corinthians 15:1–4, ~Romans 10:9.

Your claim that Acts 2:38 teaches water baptism as the gospel is false. Peter calls for repentance in response to Christ. Baptism follows. Scripture repeatedly says forgiveness is through faith, not ritual ~Acts 13:38–39, ~Ephesians 2:8–9.

Finally, your appeal to “the name of Jesus” is empty unless that name refers to the person and work of Christ. Scripture defines calling on His name as confessing the risen Lord and believing God raised Him from the dead ~Romans 10:9–13. The name is shorthand for the gospel, not a substitute for it.

You are not uncovering hidden truth. You are systematically denying plain statements of Scripture to preserve a doctrinal framework. That is not right dividing. That is twisting.

This is serious. Stop teaching this. It contradicts the clear testimony of the Word of God and misleads people about the gospel.

 

[Doug]

Peter did not merely “condemn Israel.” He preached Christ crucified and risen, and he did so as the basis for repentance and forgiveness. Acts 2:23–24 ties the crucifixion and resurrection together intentionally. Peter does not separate them. Scripture does not separate them. You are the one doing that

The point I was making was, as some say, Peter didnt preach Christ's death and resurrection as salvation unto eternal life.
Peter did indeed preach in order to bring repentance to Israel; when they asked him what to do he said repent. He answered them to be water baptized in Christ's name for forgiveness. The salvation Peter was preaching was that Christ rose to sit on David's throne; this gave Israel assurance that he would indeed establish his kingdom on earth in which believing Israel would reign with him...............[Acts 2:40 KJV] "And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation."............Peter was preaching for them to repent to save themselves and separate themselves from unbelieving Israel. John came preaching the same separation from apostate Israel and escape the wrath to come..............[Luke 3:7 KJV] "Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?"

 

[Doug]

You keep claiming Peter did not preach what Christ’s death accomplished. Yet Peter explicitly says repentance is required “for the remission of sins” in response to the crucified and risen Christ

He said to repent of them crucifying Christ and be water baptized for remission of sins. Water baptism remitted their sins. Water baptism cleansed them from their sins..................[Acts 22:16 KJV] "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

 

[Doug]

You cannot preach remission of sins without preaching the atoning work that secures it.

[Luke 3:3 KJV] "And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;"...........John didnt preach the atoning work, he preached Israel to repent of their unbelief and save themselves from the wrath to come on apostate Israel and be water baptized for remission of their sin

 

[Doug]

Paul later says plainly that Christ “was raised again for our justification” ~Romans 4:25. Scripture interprets Scripture.

You cant read Paul back into what Peter preached about the resurrection, this was not revealed to Peter only Paul

 

[Doug]

Your attempt to divide Peter’s gospel from Paul’s collapses in Acts 10. Peter tells Gentiles that Jesus was killed, raised, and that through Him remission of sins is preached to whosoever believes ~Acts 10:39–43. That is not Israel-only language. Peter explicitly says “whosoever.” You have to redefine words to escape that.

[Acts 10:43 KJV] "To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.".........Peter didnt preach the death and resurrection here as Paul does, but remission of sins came through his name. Yes Gentiles believed Peter and became part of the believing remnant of Israel. I always taught that they did, I dont know what you think this proves

 

[bdavidc]

[Acts 10:43 KJV] "To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.".........Peter didnt preach the death and resurrection here as Paul does, but remission of sins came through his name. Yes Gentiles believed Peter and became part of the believing remnant of Israel. I always taught that they did, I dont know what you think this proves

This is not complicated, and it is not a matter of interpretation style. It is a matter of reading what the text actually says. You say Peter did not preach the death and resurrection in Acts 10. That is flatly false. The passage says Peter testified that Jesus was slain and raised. Those are not implied ideas. They are stated facts. Remission of sins is explicitly tied to belief in the One who was killed and raised. You cannot separate the benefits from the work that accomplished them without rewriting the text.

You also say remission of sins came “through His name” rather than through His death and resurrection, as if those are different things. Scripture never treats them as separate. His name represents who He is and what He did. Paul says the same thing when he says we are justified by His blood and reconciled by His death. Peter and Paul are preaching the same gospel from different angles, not different gospels.

Your claim that Gentiles merely became part of a believing remnant of Israel is also not what Acts 10 teaches. Peter explicitly says God is no respecter of persons and that in every nation those who fear Him and believe are accepted. The Spirit falling on Gentiles before circumcision or law-keeping was God’s own testimony that this was not an Israel-only remnant issue. Peter himself explains this again in Acts 15 and says God made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

When Peter says “whosoever believeth,” the text means exactly what it says. You only escape that by redefining “whosoever” to mean “Israel only,” which the passage itself contradicts by its entire context. The audience is Gentile. The Spirit falls on Gentiles. The result is Gentiles receiving remission of sins the same way Jews do.

This proves exactly what it says it proves. There is one gospel. Christ died. Christ was raised. Remission of sins comes through Him to anyone who believes. Peter preached it. Paul preached it. Scripture does not support your attempt to divide them.

This is not my opinion. This is the text. And the text does not bend to fit a system.

 

[bdavidc]

You cant read Paul back into what Peter preached about the resurrection, this was not revealed to Peter only Paul

That claim is false, and it’s dangerous, because it pits Scripture against Scripture and turns Paul into a private oracle. The resurrection was not “revealed only to Paul.” God revealed it before Paul was even converted, and Peter preached it openly.

Peter preached the resurrection from the beginning. On Pentecost he said, “This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses” ~Acts 2:32. He said God raised Him to sit on David’s throne ~Acts 2:30–31. He preached it again after healing the lame man: “whom God hath raised from the dead” ~Acts 3:15. He preached it before the Sanhedrin: “whom God raised from the dead” ~Acts 4:10. He testified the same thing in Acts 10: “God raised him up the third day” ~Acts 10:40. That is Peter, not Paul.

And it was not hidden doctrine only for Paul because Jesus Himself taught it before the cross. He said, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” ~John 2:19–22. He told the disciples plainly that He would be killed and rise again the third day ~Matthew 16:21, ~Matthew 17:22–23. The angels preached it at the empty tomb: “He is risen” ~Matthew 28:6. The risen Christ opened the Scriptures and taught that the Christ must suffer and rise from the dead ~Luke 24:46.

So no, this is not “reading Paul back into Peter.” It is letting the whole Bible speak. Paul and Peter preach the same risen Christ. Paul states one implication, justification, in Romans 4:25. Peter states the same reality, resurrection, as the foundation of forgiveness and faith in Acts 10. Different wording, same gospel.

Your method is the real problem. You are trying to protect a man-made divide by forbidding Scripture from interpreting Scripture. But the Bible commands the opposite. We compare spiritual things with spiritual ~1 Corinthians 2:13. When one passage is clear, it helps us understand another. That is not cheating. That is obedience.

Here is the conscience issue. If you must claim Peter lacked revelation to keep your system intact, you are no longer following Scripture. You are using Scripture.

The resurrection was preached before Paul, by Peter, by the angels, and by Christ Himself. Your statement that it was revealed only to Paul is not biblical.

 

[Doug]

You then redefine “believeth in Him” to mean belief without the cross. Scripture never does that. Believing in Christ always includes believing the testimony God gave of His Son, namely His death and resurrection ~1 Corinthians 15:1–4, ~Romans 10:9.

[John 3:18 KJV] "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."..............I dont say that believeth on him is not about the cross Jesus says nothing of the cross here. Believeth on him is only to believe in the name of the Son of God. You cant read Paul back into this, It says what it says nothing more

 

[Doug]

You say Peter did not preach the death and resurrection in Acts 10. That is flatly false.

This is incorrect I said Peter didnt preach the death and resurrection as Paul did , Paul preached it for justification unto eternal life for all

 

[Doug]

You also say remission of sins came “through His name” rather than through His death and resurrection, as if those are different things. Scripture never treats them as separate. His name represents who He is and what He did.

Scripture says otherwise. To believe on his name was to believe he was Christ, the Son of God..............[John 20:31 KJV] "But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name."
[1 John 5:13 KJV] "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God."

 

[Marvelloustime]

verily verily i do type unto thee , This sheep dont heed a word one of this YE gots to know ya greek stuff .
You asked a real good question my friend . So allow me to explain what that means .
Exactly what is written . SEE how simple that was . Beware of those who act as though
if ye know not ya greek or heed not they scholar then ye cant know the bible . cause they know not what they say .
And kinda funny how their greek always SUPPORTS their own so called teachings . JUST saying , and they own greek
contradicts some of the greek of another scholar . GUESS it depends on whose greek men
ya sit under ....................
Exactly . Aint nothing new under the sun .
EVEN pual warned us of THEY know nothing but DOTE about QUESTIONS and S TRIFES OF WORDS
EVER learning but OOPSY cant seem to come to the TRUTH .

@amigo de christo

 

[bdavidc]

Believeth on him is only to believe in the name of the Son of God. You cant read Paul back into this, It says what it says nothing more

This is simply false teaching. You are trying to redefine “believeth on Him” in such a way as to discard the work God sent His Son to do. Scripture never talks about believing in Jesus this way. Jesus defines what it means to believe in Him. “Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life” ~John 3:14–15. “lifted up” is speaking of His death. You cannot believe in Him and remove that.

You say we can believe “in the name of the Son of God” with no content beyond the name itself. Scripture does not support that view. “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life” ~John 3:36. To believe in the Son you have to believe His testimony, which Jesus plainly told us would be killed and raised again ~Matthew 16:21, ~Luke 24:46.

I am not “reading Paul back into Jesus.” Paul tells us the gospel God saves us by: “Christ died for our sins… was buried… and rose again” ~1 Corinthians 15:1–4. If you take the death and resurrection out you no longer have faith according to the Bible.

Scripture does not teach a Christ separated from the cross. The Word of God is clear on this and you stand in opposition to it.

 

[Doug]

That claim is false, and it’s dangerous, because it pits Scripture against Scripture and turns Paul into a private oracle. The resurrection was not “revealed only to Paul.” God revealed it before Paul was even converted, and Peter preached it openly.

This is not pitting scripture against scripture. Peter acknowledged Paul's apostleship and gave the right hand of fellowship in Galatians 2

Show me where God revealed Jesus's resurrection was for the justification unto eternal life before Paul

 

[Doug]

And it was not hidden doctrine only for Paul because Jesus Himself taught it before the cross. He said, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” ~John 2:19–22. He told the disciples plainly that He would be killed and rise again the third day ~Matthew 16:21, ~Matthew 17:22–23. The angels preached it at the empty tomb: “He is risen” ~Matthew 28:6. The risen Christ opened the Scriptures and taught that the Christ must suffer and rise from the dead ~Luke 24:46.

This doesnt say what his resurrection accomplished

 

[Doug]

Your method is the real problem. You are trying to protect a man-made divide by forbidding Scripture from interpreting Scripture

Peter and John didnt have all scripture; they only knew what God revealed to them. We simply go by what they knew and wrote at that time. When we read what they wrote it is evident they didnt have to believe on the cross at that time, it wasnt given them to believe that at that time

 

[Doug]

“lifted up” is speaking of His death.

Does it say that? No and neither does the surrounding verses.
Here is a passage that does say it, but not what his death accomplished.............
[John 12:32 KJV] "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all [men] unto me."
[John 12:33 KJV] "This he said, signifying what death he should die."

 

[Doug]

I am not “reading Paul back into Jesus.” Paul tells us the gospel God saves us by: “Christ died for our sins… was buried… and rose again” ~1 Corinthians 15:1–4. If you take the death and resurrection out you no longer have faith according to the Bible.

Thats right for our dispensation but it wasnt for them

 

[Doug]

The resurrection was preached before Paul, by Peter, by the angels, and by Christ Himself. Your statement that it was revealed only to Paul is not biblical.

Saying that the resurrection would happen and did happen is just relaying the event not what it accomplished. Only Paul reveals what it accomplished

 

[amigo de christo]

This is simply false teaching. You are trying to redefine “believeth on Him” in such a way as to discard the work God sent His Son to do. Scripture never talks about believing in Jesus this way. Jesus defines what it means to believe in Him. “Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life” ~John 3:14–15. “lifted up” is speaking of His death. You cannot believe in Him and remove that.

You say we can believe “in the name of the Son of God” with no content beyond the name itself. Scripture does not support that view. “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life” ~John 3:36. To believe in the Son you have to believe His testimony, which Jesus plainly told us would be killed and raised again ~Matthew 16:21, ~Luke 24:46.

I am not “reading Paul back into Jesus.” Paul tells us the gospel God saves us by: “Christ died for our sins… was buried… and rose again” ~1 Corinthians 15:1–4. If you take the death and resurrection out you no longer have faith according to the Bible.

Scripture does not teach a Christ separated from the cross. The Word of God is clear on this and you stand in opposition to it.

Spot on right my friend .
WHY , when God spoke abraham BELEIVED what HE SPOKE and thus obeyed .
GOD spoke to adam too .
And it seems for a season Adam and eve b eleiv ed GOD .
But along came a serpent . Who did eve choose to beleive then . WHOSE words DID eve choose to beleive then .
And if we take a good long look
at why ISRAEL was NOT FIRST allowed INTO the land of canan
WHY it was not because they came and said , HEY there is no such thing as GOD
BUT rather THEY DIDNT BELIEVE GOD and were fearful .
OH yes my friend . IF a man BELIEVETH NOT JESUS , NOT HIS WORDS
THEN HE BELEIVETH not ON JESUS . Its a dead faith at best . WHO we beleive , well we had BELEIVED HIS WORDS .