Why did Peter say the Lord Jesus Christ was raised up?
Theology Club: Is MAD doctrine correct?
- Thread starter Bright Raven
- Start date
Why did Peter say the Lord Jesus Christ was raised up?
heir
TOL Subscriber
You go on and on about ad hominem and just look at ya...MADists are truly Mad. . .
Totally delusional and crazy, nasty, stubborn, in their unbelief.
heir
TOL Subscriber
Where did Peter preach that Christ died for our sins as the good news and the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth in "early Acts"? You know he didn't. You know he preached a murder indictment to all the house of Israel and when those people were pricked in their heart they asked what they must do. You know that Peter told them to DO something. In Acts 3, you know that Peter preached a message of a FUTURE blotting out of sins for Israel at what many refer to as the second coming of the Lord. ALL of the above differ from what Paul preached and you know why. It's because it's another gospel! It's other doctrine! Over and over on this site you have been shown the truth and over and over you deny what saith the scriptures. You reject the truth.
heir
TOL Subscriber
Show where Peter preached that Christ died for our sins as the good news in Acts 2 or 3? Show where Peter preached that God raised Him from the dead for our justification? You can't do it.
heir
TOL Subscriber
:singer: "Lies, lies, lies yah. They're going to get you."
Here is a hint. It is spoken of freely by the prophets. I don't expect rulz to answer with anything other than a cliché.
Isaiah 9
6 For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. 7 Of the increase of His government and peace There will be no end, Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom, To order it and establish it with judgment and justice From that time forward, even forever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.
Acts 2
29 “Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30 Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne
The Holy Spirit through Peter couldn't be clearer. He is using great plainness of speech.
The point is that he alludes to the death and resurrection of Christ in Acts 2 because there is no gospel apart from this.
I reject the sect of MAD, not truth. Acts 2 does talk about future restoration of national Israel, but so did Paul in Rom. 9-11. Acts 2 is about individual salvation leading to Jew/Gentile becoming one in Christ based on the death/resurrection of Christ. Being a primary Jewish audience, Peter contextualizes the gospel for the Jewish audience just as Paul did in Acts 17 without quoting I Cor. 15:1-4.
Acts 2:38 is often exegeted poorly by MAD, UPCI, etc.
Your theological understanding is shallow, so being stridently shrill and dogmatic is not persuasive to informed people. There is a good reason few have heard of MAD or embrace it.
We could use your arguments to show that Paul did not always preach this either. A sermon is not a didactic, theological treatise. A simple gospel tract can lead to salvation, but reading Romans, Hebrews, etc. will flesh out deeper theological detail. You are not considering all of Peter's letters, just one sermon (that most of us see the gospel in). Acts is transitional, selective history, not didactic like Pauline letters that flesh out the understanding in greater detail (not negate the rudimentary truths preached in public vs detailed letters later for discipleship).
MAD relies on proof texts out of context (in English, not Greek), a wrong paradigm, etc. It is bad theology, bad exegesis.
lain:More predictable than a quartz clock. The reason for saying "The point is" because what was said is not what is meant. And you don't want it to say what it says.
I don't get your point. Soteriological issues do not contradict eschatological issues (MAD mixes them up).
heir
TOL Subscriber
:blabla: You can't show it because Peter didn't preach it!
More predictable than a quartz clock. The reason for saying "The point is" because what was said is not what is meant. And you don't want it to say what it says.
I believe it, but it does not support MAD.
Acts 2; I Peter; II Peter (note that he uses past tense for 'born again', contrary to MAD; I Jn. uses present tense for salvation, contrary to MAD).
Right Divider
Body part
This is how you demonstrate truth? Alludes to it?
Paul screams it! Where is Peters "glorying in the cross of Jesus Christ"?
Galatians 6:14
[SIZE=+0]14[/SIZE] But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.
Your understanding is weak, to say the least.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Any one who denies proclamation of the crucifixion as being the gospel truth, has had their brains scrambled and their eyes blinded by the god of this age.
Pitiful to be so full of knowledge of scripture, and yet unable to see the glory of Jesus Christ!
Your denial of Peter's words is absolutely no different than Meschak denying the inspiration of Paul's words. Both of you only :blabla: :blabla: and take away from the Holy Scriptures with your bad teachings.
Right Divider
Body part
Nang, you suffer from an immense ignorance and yet you proclaim others ignorant.
We NOW know about FULL significance of the cross. We know this because God raised Paul and gave HIM this information. You seem to choose to remain ignorant even though there are many here trying to help you understand.
As I've said (and you ignore repeatedly) Peter never ONCE proclaims (in Acts 2-5) that the CROSS is GOOD NEWS. He simply accuses HIS people of MURDER.
You are a liar. WE proclaim the GOOD NEWS that Jesus Christ DIED FOR OUR SINS and that HE WAS RAISED AGAIN.
Instead of ranting and raving (like too many to here on TOL), why don't YOU show US the SCRIPTURE where Peter proclaims the GLORY OF THE CROSS in Acts 2-5.
Acts 2:23-24
23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: 24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
Please point us to the GOOD NEWS as Peter spoke it. Is telling them that they have "crucified and slain" the Lord the good new? (don't confuse this with what WE KNOW LATER by the revelation given to Paul).23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: 24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
Acts 2:35-37
36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. 37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
So, were they "pricked in the heart" by the GOOD NEWS that THEY had CRUCIFIED the Lord? Not hardly.... 36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. 37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
You would really do well to READ the scripture and understand what it ACTUALLY says.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Sorry, since you are blinded to the glory of Christ contained in this passage, nothing I say can convince you.
Isaiah 6:9-10
Right Divider
Body part
You can't even have a discussion about what is in the scripture because you ignore the scripture. Please comment SPECIFICALLY about the SCRIPTURE that I quoted. If you're a light to the blind then SHOW IT. Your ranting and raving like a lunatic is not godly. Stick to the SCRIPTURE. Explain the SCRIPTURE. You don't seem to be able to comment about the SCRIPTURE (only your incorrect interpretation).
Is their murder of the Lord GOOD NEWS to them? Because that's the only thing that Peter says.