Shavout

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

It didn’t come by whim, but came by the Holy Ghost.

Recall what the Lord said to His apostles: The Holy Spirit will bring all things to your rememberance, whatsoever things I have said unto you.

Yes, Simon's preaching was under the unction and direction of the Holy Spirit, but the Spirit used what was already put in Peter by Christ.

Jesus told his disciples that they where to be delivered up to the counsels and not to think on what they would say because the Holy Ghost would let them know what to say. I personally don’t believe this situation was any different. Peter was just allowing God to use him. Acts 4:13 says that they marveled when they heard Peter and John speak because they knew they where unlearned and ignorant.

When Jesus said that to them, it had to do with being persecuted and tried by the San Hedrin, or by the rabbis in a synagogue. There, they are told not to pre-plan any of their statements. But preaching to a large, congregated mass at one of Israel's holydays?

Do you really think Jesus taught His chosen Twelve for 40 days prior to His Ascension regarding the things that pertain to the Kingdom of God, and He didn't say anything to any of them about the kinds of things He expected them to say? He didn't go open their understanding to all the things written of Him in the Law, Prophets, and Psalms? He let Simon wing it as best as he could with whatever amount of Scripture from the OT he already knew and hoped for the best?

That seems to be the logical conclusion of your line of thinking. I don't buy it.

As far as what the San Hedrin thought of Simon and company, just because they presumed, doesn't make it so. The Greek word for "they saw" is Θεωροῦντες (Theōrountes), from θεωρέω (theóreó), from whence we get our English word "theory", meaning to gaze at, to contemplate (for the purpose of analyzing).

See:

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/acts/4-13.htm
https://biblehub.com/greek/2334.htm

This means, the members of the San Hedrin were paying attention to Simon Peter, particularly to how bold he was in speaking, and they began to analyze the situation and contemplate in their minds just who this guy was, and what was his story, and they came to believe him to be ignorant and unlearned. But we are never told that for sure, and never in what way. Simon and Andrew and John and James ran a success fishing company, spoke more than one language for certain, and in Peter's case, he schooled his audience perfectly every time he opened his mouth. He was by no means a dummy.

You initially commented that we must be careful supposing what Peter knew or didn’t know. I agree with that, but I personally believe we can draw opinions based upon the text. That is how most people create context with the stories in the Bible. We simply have educated opinions about the setting that the scripture happened.

Opinions don't serve us well. We have to have the whole counsel of God and be led into all truth by the Spirit of Truth. Merely formulating opinions gets messy, especially when they don't take the entirety of the Scriptural accounts, into account. Do you really believe Simon Peter was so forgetful or daft, to make no connection to Acts 1:8 and the uttermost parts of the earth? Did the Holy Spirit not bring to Peter's remembrance what Jesus said about having "other sheep not of this pasture"? Acts 1:2 reads that Jesus, through the Holy Spirit, gave His apostles commandments. There is no way Simon preached in ignorance regarding the ramifications of what he said in Acts 2:39.

It would seem that you are now presenting that Peter full well knew what God’s plan was for there the gentiles in Acts 2:39.

Because Jesus already told them as much. That's the part you're missing. And unless Simon was Scripturally illiterate, he well knew the prophecies and promises of the Messiah, namely, that He would be a light unto the Gentiles (or nations in the LXX). Isaiah alone has more than a dozen prophecies promising God's salvation specifically to the Gentiles. Then there is Psalm 2 and the Son inheriting the nations as a gift from God. And the famous Amos prophecy about the Tabernacle of David, which James the Just quotes in Acts 15, specifically calling out the Gentiles and stating the name of YHVH will be called over them. The list goes on and on.

If that is the case, he seems very surprised at the conversion of Conrnelius household. Also why do you think he is being told to go to Cornelius house and what was the necessity of the vision of the clean and unclean. If Peter already knew that the gospel was for the gentiles why was he not Pursuing gentile converts before Acts 10? Also why did the apostles seem to reprimand Peter Acts 11 when they heard he companied with gentiles. To me if Peter knew all of this when he spoke what we read in Acts 2:39, then he was trying his best to get out of it.

As much as Acts is a historical narrative in its own right, it's also a piece of literature, and as such, since the Lord already told Simon Peter the order of things--first, Jerusalem, then Judea, then Samaria, then the world--it stands to reason that Simon Peter would not go out of that order. He would have been remiss to seek out Gentile conversions before those of his fellow countrymen, or even among the Samaritans.

But note what Simon says regarding his trip to see Cornelius. He said that after the vision ended, and the three men arrived at the house of Simon the Tanner, the Spirit bid Peter to go "nothing doubting" (Acts 11:12). In Acts 10:17, Peter doubted the meaning of the vision. But once the knock at the door happened, he understood it perfectly. Once the vision was understood, Peter went the next day "without gainsaying" (Acts 10:29).

It wasn't that Simon didn't know about the Lord's plan to save the Gentiles, it was that the vision didn't make sense to him at first. Remember! Why was Simon Peter up on the housetop praying? He was hungry and waiting for lunch. So, of course he didn't get the symbolism until after the Spirit spoke to him. It doesn't make him ignorant. Rather, it makes him patient, to not presume to rush God on His plans to save people. Since there is no record of there being any previous unction from the Lord to approach Gentiles with the Gospels, even with Paul at that time, we know it wasn't time for that, until Jesus was ready.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

You are correct that Jesus told them to go into the whole world. That still doesn’t mean that the apostles comprehended that Jews and gentiles would be serving side by side in this kingdom of God.

Well, if you believe the apostles were Scripturally illiterate and not properly prepared for their mission by the Lord.

All the epistles let us know, that Jewish church struggled breaking free from mosaic law.

Personal, national, and cultural paradigmatic prejudices take a long time to overcome. You can know full well what the will of God is, and struggle with your flesh to obey. Obstinance is a naturally occurring human experience.

I will simply agree to disagree here.

Please don't take this personally, but I do not believe in agreeing to disagree. Can two walk together unless they be agreed? Although our communication is limited to this online forum, if you and I are both sons of God, then we are brothers, and in some capacity, we have to be able to walk together. Granted, we may not always agree, and that's fine, even normative, but we should always strive to try and agree with one another, reason with one another, as much as possible, to get to the truth together. Now, if you mean you want to drop it and move on to the original point of the thread, I can respect that.

Regardless our differing opinions my initial idea was that it is interesting that Jews today don’t accept the gospel of the kingdom when it is right under their nose. I am not saying that to be antisemetic, I have respect for many notable Jews through out history. I pray that the Lord will open there eyes for their salvation. PS I am sorry for my bad grammar. I am usually posting from my phone on breaks and in between responsibilities. I have always enjoyed the dialogue on AFF and thank you for keeping it going.

Many Jews today believe in Jesus, both in Israel and the USA. Many Jews throughout history have likewise. Many do not, or never have, as well. You have to remember, people are ordained to eternal life (Acts 13:48). No one comes to Christ unless the Father draws him (John 6:44). God will have mercy on whom He will have mercy.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by coksiw

Votivesoul,
What if Peter originally understood the words of Jesus about preaching the Gospel outside Israel as preaching to the diasporas? Thoughts?

I try not to deal in "what if" scenarios, except as mere thought experiments. However, regarding the diaspora, while it is possible Simon thought that way, I think it is unlikely.

They key verse is Matthew 28:19. Jesus told them to go and make disciples of ALL NATIONS.

The Greek here is πάντα τὰ ἔθνη (panta ta ethnē), literally "all the nations".

See: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/28-19.htm

ἔθνη (ethnē), from ἔθνος (ethnos) is most commonly translated as Gentiles/Nations, both in the NT and the LXX.

See: https://biblehub.com/greek/1484.htm

So, Jesus straight up told them to go and make disciples of all the Gentiles/Nations. Another way of looking at it is Jesus telling them to go and make disciples of all the races.

Therefore, there is no way Jesus could have meant only the various Jews of the Diaspora, and it seems unlikely, even impossible, that the Apostles would have understood it incorrectly.

[good samaritan]

Recall what the Lord said to His apostles: The Holy Spirit will bring all things to your rememberance, whatsoever things I have said unto you.

Yes, Simon's preaching was under the unction and direction of the Holy Spirit, but the Spirit used what was already put in Peter by Christ.

Remembrance? In order for something to have to be remembered it must have first been forgotten. That is my point in the very first post. I personally don’t think Peter comprehended everything Jesus told Peter until after the fact. I am sure the teachings of Jesus made more sense to Peter as he actually seen it unfold. To think that the apostles had infalliable understanding of all that Jesus taught them is illogical.

When Jesus said that to them, it had to do with being persecuted and tried by the San Hedrin, or by the rabbis in a synagogue. There, they are told not to pre-plan any of their statements. But preaching to a large, congregated mass at one of Israel's holydays

As I stated, I understood the context of this command, but I believe the application can be in many scenarios. I don’t think Peter rehearsed his sermon on the day of Pentecost like a preacher today would draw a sermon outline, premeditating every point that he would make that day.

Do you really think Jesus taught His chosen Twelve for 40 days prior to His Ascension regarding the things that pertain to the Kingdom of God, and He didn't say anything to any of them about the kinds of things He expected them to say? He didn't go open their understanding to all the things written of Him in the Law, Prophets, and Psalms? He let Simon wing it as best as he could with whatever amount of Scripture from the OT he already knew and hoped for the best?

That seems to be the logical conclusion of your line of thinking. I don't buy it

.

What Jesus taught the apostle the forty days before ascending is only speculation besides what the scriptures reveal to us. I have been a pupil of the Word of God for over 20 years of my 40year old life and there are types and shadows that I am finding new all the time. If you believe that during those 40 days Jesus was able to impart to them the whole of his plan for all humanity then I am not buying it. If the apostles fully understood that they where gonna be preachers to the gentiles, than there would have been no explanation necessary for Peter to have given after the conversion of Cornelius house.

I am not buying it.

As far as what the San Hedrin thought of Simon and company, just because they presumed, doesn't make it so. The Greek word for "they saw" is Θεωροῦντες (Theōrountes), from θεωρέω (theóreó), from whence we get our English word "theory", meaning to gaze at, to contemplate (for the purpose of analyzing).

See:

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/acts/4-13.htm
https://biblehub.com/greek/2334.htm

This means, the members of the San Hedrin were paying attention to Simon Peter, particularly to how bold he was in speaking, and they began to analyze the situation and contemplate in their minds just who this guy was, and what was his story, and they came to believe him to be ignorant and unlearned. But we are never told that for sure, and never in what way. Simon and Andrew and John and James ran a success fishing company, spoke more than one language for certain, and in Peter's case, he schooled his audience perfectly every time he opened his mouth. He was by no means a dummy

.

C’mon. You are interjecting into the text far more than what you initially accused me of. I think it is self explanatory what the priest where thinking by what the text actually says they reasoned among one another. Where in scripture do we get a resume on how successful and Learned Peter and John where?

Opinions don't serve us well

.

We cannot base doctrine off opinion, but for me to believe that Peter didn’t have complete understanding of the whole council of God when he preached in Acts 2 is totally a different situation.

We have to have the whole counsel of God and be led into all truth by the Spirit of Truth. Merely formulating opinions gets messy, especially when they don't take the entirety of the Scriptural accounts, into account. Do you really believe Simon Peter was so forgetful or daft, to make no connection to Acts 1:8 and the uttermost parts of the earth? Did the Holy Spirit not bring to Peter's remembrance what Jesus said about having "other sheep not of this pasture"? Acts 1:2 reads that Jesus, through the Holy Spirit, gave His apostles commandments. There is no way Simon preached in ignorance regarding the ramifications of what he said in Acts 2:39

.

The entirety of scriptures is what leads me to believe that Peter didn’t fully understand God’s plan for the gentile church. I am not saying that Peter had no inclination at all, but only he couldn’t fully comprehend what God had for the church. My take on Peter’s Acts 2 sermon doesn’t make him look forgetful, daft, illiterate, or ignorant. Instead, It makes him seem real. The apostles where human beings and not deities. Everything Jesus did and said to them seemed to later surprise them. Judas must of had a faith breakdown after hearing all of Christ’s teaching and seeing his miracles. When Jesus told them he would rise again the third day, why where they not all out there waiting to greet Jesus when it happened. Yet, you make it sound ludicrous that I believe that Peter may not have “fully” understood the extent of the promise of the Holy Ghost. Did Peter know that tongues was gonna be sign of the outpouring of the Spirit in Acts 2 or did he find that out after the fact?

Personal, national, and cultural paradigmatic prejudices take a long time to overcome. You can know full well what the will of God is, and struggle with your flesh to obey. Obstinance is a naturally occurring human experience.

These personal prejudices also affect our bias to interpretation. We all are guilty of interpretation through a lens. You must remember that Peter was just a man. Did Peter not deny Jesus 3 times after the Lord telling him that he would. It was until Peter heard that cock crow that he realized he did exactly what Jesus told him he would do. It wasn’t until after the fact that he understood.

Please don't take this personally, but I do not believe in agreeing to disagree. Can two walk together unless they be agreed? Although our communication is limited to this online forum, if you and I are both sons of God, then we are brothers, and in some capacity, we have to be able to walk together. Granted, we may not always agree, and that's fine, even normative, but we should always strive to try and agree with one another, reason with one another, as much as possible, to get to the truth together. Now, if you mean you want to drop it and move on to the original point of the thread, I can respect that.

We are dealing with opinion here on both our parts. I don’t find this as a doctrinal stance that we must have agreement on. This may be important if you are a Catholic and feel that Peter was the first pope and is infallible.lol

Many Jews today believe in Jesus, both in Israel and the USA. Many Jews throughout history have likewise. Many do not, or never have, as well. You have to remember, people are ordained to eternal life (Acts 13:48). No one comes to Christ unless the Father draws him (John 6:44). God will have mercy on whom He will have mercy

.

I hope I am not sounding like I am saying that all Jews are walking in darkness. The 120 in the upper room where Jews. Paul himself illustrated the the olive branch that is by nature being pruned off in reference to the nation of Israel, although he was a Jew himself. I am not antisemetic nor do I mean this as an offense to Peter or any of the early church. Instead, I just want to express some of the greatness of God. God uses people in larger capacities than what they are qualified and God’s plans are greater than we can ever imagine. Peter may or may not fully understood the extent of the promise of the Father and you have made some good points.

[diakonos]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Many Jews today believe in Jesus, both in Israel and the USA. Many Jews throughout history have likewise. Many do not, or never have, as well. You have to remember, people are ordained to eternal life (Acts 13:48). No one comes to Christ unless the Father draws him (John 6:44). God will have mercy on whom He will have mercy.

Whoops!

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Remembrance? In order for something to have to be remembered it must have first been forgotten.

You can't possibly mean the above. Do you have to forget your anniversary in order to remember the day and date you were married?

Look closely at the text:

John 14:26 (ESV),

But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

If what you're saying is true, it means that the Twelve forgot everything Jesus said to them. The Holy Spirit would bring to their remembrance ALL THINGS Jesus said to them. With your defintion, they would have had to forget the whole load of doctrine Jesus gave them for those 3.5 years.

No way that happened.

That is my point in the very first post. I personally don’t think Peter comprehended everything Jesus told Peter until after the fact. I am sure the teachings of Jesus made more sense to Peter as he actually seen it unfold. To think that the apostles had infalliable understanding of all that Jesus taught them is illogical.

Who said anything about infallible understanding? That's hyperbolic nonsense. The point is whether Simon Peter understood his own message to the people in Acts 2:39. You're claiming he spoke words he had no understanding of, until years later, because you claim to have had some sort of similar experience. I'm calling that out as nonsense. It is illogical to think Jesus left the men for whom the foundation stones of New Jerusalem are named so ill-equipped.

As I stated, I understood the context of this command, but I believe the application can be in many scenarios. I don’t think Peter rehearsed his sermon on the day of Pentecost like a preacher today would draw a sermon outline, premeditating every point that he would make that day.

There are no applications outside of context. The moment you step outside of context, you've gone astray. Whether Simon Peter rehearsed or not, or drew up a sermon outline is immaterial. He clearly knew the Word well enough to engage his audience and tell them the truth of the Gospel and how to be saved. I nevet met anyone who could quote a verse from the Old Testament word for word, at length, who never studied, memorized, and worked hard to retain that knowledge.

How did Peter come upon this knowledge and understanding? Through the training in the Scriptures he received at home, at synagogue, and most especially, through the Messiah.

What Jesus taught the apostle the forty days before ascending is only speculation besides what the scriptures reveal to us.

It's a good deal more than that, brother. The text reads Jesus taught them things pertaining to the kingdom of God. We have the record of what Jesus said about the Kingdom in the Gospels. Those words were already spoken and taught. The 40 days worth of education was preparation for Pentecost and beyond. In Acts 2:42, it reads the people attended to the Apostle's Doctrine. They already had the teaching set and firmly in mind. Otherwise, they were merely muddling through hoping the Spirit would give direction.

I have been a pupil of the Word of God for over 20 years of my 40year old life and there are types and shadows that I am finding new all the time.

This appeal is meaningless. I'm sorry, but it is. It means you are holding up the quantity of your time studying the Bible and what you get out of it as some kind of standard with which others must be compared. There are all sorts of people throughout the history of the world who have studied the Scriptures for twice or three times as long as you, even from early childhood, and still come to false conclusions and believe false doctrines. It's not the quantity of study, the quality of the understanding, that matters. Some new convert, just out of the water speaking with other tongues as the Spirit gives utterance is just as likely to know more Bible, in certain respects, then someone whose sins have never been remitted and they haven't experienced the Holy Spirit in any meaningful way, solely because they have obeyed the Gospel and received correction Apostolic Teaching and Praxis regarding the New Birth.

If you believe that during those 40 days Jesus was able to impart to them the whole of his plan for all humanity then I am not buying it.

Never said/wrote that, did I? So why would you jump to such a conclusion? Do you know what a straw man is? Because you're building one in this thread.

If the apostles fully understood that they where gonna be preachers to the gentiles, than there would have been no explanation necessary for Peter to have given after the conversion of Cornelius house.

I am not buying it.

You keep missing the context clues. Remember! How many men of the circumcision did Simon Peter take with him? Six, right? Why did he do so? To have ample witness testimony to validate the vision of his trance and prove to others that God was going to save the Gentiles with the same Gospel that had saved them. Simon was thinking ahead. He knew what he was about.

C’mon. You are interjecting into the text far more than what you initially accused me of. I think it is self explanatory what the priest where thinking by what the text actually says they reasoned among one another. Where in scripture do we get a resume on how successful and Learned Peter and John where?

I have given you the Greek text and meaning. That isn't an interjection. That's exegesis.

We cannot base doctrine off opinion, but for me to believe that Peter didn’t have complete understanding of the whole council of God when he preached in Acts 2 is totally a different situation.

Funny. You wrote earlier that we form opinions based on context. You wrote that because of your personal experiences when preaching, that Simon Peter must have had happen to him in Acts 2:39 what you claim has happened to you. Which is it brother?

The entirety of scriptures is what leads me to believe that Peter didn’t fully understand God’s plan for the gentile church. I am not saying that Peter had no inclination at all, but only he couldn’t fully comprehend what God had for the church. My take on Peter’s Acts 2 sermon doesn’t make him look forgetful, daft, illiterate, or ignorant.

He just didn't understand what he was talking about and didn't know what he was saying or what "to them that are afar off" actually meant.

Instead, It makes him seem real.

Nope. Real people don't spend three and a half years with Jesus, be especially chosen by Christ as the leading figure and representative of the church, watch him die, see him raised from the dead, get confronted on a beach about loving Jesus more than anything, get extra instruction for the next forty days about the Kingdom of God, stand up and lead a church meeting about how to replace Judas according to Scriptural guidelines, lead that same church in a nonstop prayer meeting, receive the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, demonstrate a master-level homiletic ability on Pentecost, tell people how to be saved, exhort people with many other words for a good chunk of the rest of the day, help baptize 3,000 people, and somehow, have a brain-fart and not understand something you said because it eeked out by the Holy Spirit without you realizing it, all because 2,000 years later someone anachronistically projects onto Simon Peter's sermon something they have personally experienced a few times while preaching.

The apostles where human beings and not deities. Everything Jesus did and said to them seemed to later surprise them.

Before the Cross and before Pentecost. Once the Resurrection happened and they were filled with the Holy Spirit, Simon Peter and the other apostles had boldness to speak and declare authoritatively on the Scriptures and on the New and Living Way Christ had inaugurated for the world.

Judas must of had a faith breakdown after hearing all of Christ’s teaching and seeing his miracles. When Jesus told them he would rise again the third day, why where they not all out there waiting to greet Jesus when it happened. Yet, you make it sound ludicrous that I believe that Peter may not have “fully” understood the extent of the promise of the Holy Ghost. Did Peter know that tongues was gonna be sign of the outpouring of the Spirit in Acts 2 or did he find that out after the fact?

Judas was a devil from the beginning (John 6:70). He was the son of perdition destined to be lost according to psalmic prophecy (Psalm 109 with John 17:12 and Psalm 41:9 with John 13:18).

As far as the Resurrection, you have to remember the context. Once Jesus rose from the dead, and showed Himself alive with many infallible proofs, the Twelve and those who were with them, believed. The truth is, none of them would have received the Holy Spirit if they didn't believe. By Pentecost, all the questions about who Jesus was, what His mission was, was pretty much settled. You have to see the transformative effects pre- and post-Pentecost.

As far as tongues are concerned, didn't Jesus say in the end of Mark that those who believe in His name shall, among other things, speak with new tongues? Or do you not believe the long ending of Mark is legit? So, yes, Simon Peter knew about speaking with other tongues. He even correctly identified that experience with Joel 2:28 ("This is that...").

(continued...)

[votivesoul]

(continued...)

These personal prejudices also affect our bias to interpretation. We all are guilty of interpretation through a lens. You must remember that Peter was just a man. Did Peter not deny Jesus 3 times after the Lord telling him that he would. It was until Peter heard that cock crow that he realized he did exactly what Jesus told him he would do. It wasn’t until after the fact that he understood.

We must work diligently to remove personal prejudices and allow the Holy Spirit to unclutter the mind of poor thinking. Yes, we have a lens, but how sad when that lens is clouded with human error...

For in many things we offend all. But if any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man... (James 3:2). This level of spiritual achievement is possible and available to us all. We cannot keep using our own weaknesses as crutches and make excusing for not reaching mastery of the Scriptures, just as Jesus said:

The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master (Luke 6:40).

Strive toward perfection, Good Samaritan.

We are dealing with opinion here on both our parts. I don’t find this as a doctrinal stance that we must have agreement on. This may be important if you are a Catholic and feel that Peter was the first pope and is infallible.lol

Thanks for the ad hominem.

I hope I am not sounding like I am saying that all Jews are walking in darkness. The 120 in the upper room where Jews. Paul himself illustrated the the olive branch that is by nature being pruned off in reference to the nation of Israel, although he was a Jew himself. I am not antisemetic nor do I mean this as an offense to Peter or any of the early church.

I don't think you're being anti-semitic. What does that really mean, anyway? Can't say anything that might reflect poorly about any Jew anywhere in the world for all time? Can't state the truth that many Jews actively and intentionally disbelieve the Gospel and do not like and in some cases, even hate Jesus, and teach their children to say "Cheese and Rice" instead of Jesus Christ because of the injunction in the Torah to not even say the names of any other gods?

Instead, I just want to express some of the greatness of God. God uses people in larger capacities than what they are qualified and God’s plans are greater than we can ever imagine. Peter may or may not fully understood the extent of the promise of the Father and you have made some good points.

God is great and greatly to be praised.

Peace be with you.

Aaron

[good samaritan]

As far as tongues are concerned, didn't Jesus say in the end of Mark that those who believe in His name shall, among other things, speak with new tongues? Or do you not believe the long ending of Mark is legit? So, yes, Simon Peter knew about speaking with other tongues. He even correctly identified that experience with Joel 2:28 ("This is that...").

After the outpouring of the Spirit was manifested, the Holy Ghost brought the prophecy of Joel to Peter's remembrance (this is my belief). I do not believe that they gathered in the upper room with the knowledge of how the promise of the father was going to be fulfilled. this is much like everything that I have been saying. We may not always understand the process by which God's words are fulfilled, but we proclaim them by faith anyways. We later see, what may was at the moment a walk of faith.

I believe the apostles where prepared because of the Holy Ghost and not because of a systematic theology. I personally believe that the apostles theology was simple and became more and more in depth as they grew in the Lord.

[good samaritan]

We are dealing with opinion here on both our parts. I don’t find this as a doctrinal stance that we must have agreement on. This may be important if you are a Catholic and feel that Peter was the first pope and is infallible.lol

Thanks for the ad hominem.

I assure you that I was meaning this to be light hearted, and a joke. Thank you for the diaologue.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

After the outpouring of the Spirit was manifested, the Holy Ghost brought the prophecy of Joel to Peter's remembrance (this is my belief). I do not believe that they gathered in the upper room with the knowledge of how the promise of the father was going to be fulfilled. this is much like everything that I have been saying. We may not always understand the process by which God's words are fulfilled, but we proclaim them by faith anyways. We later see, what may was at the moment a walk of faith.

I believe the apostles where prepared because of the Holy Ghost and not because of a systematic theology. I personally believe that the apostles theology was simple and became more and more in depth as they grew in the Lord.

According to this, it seems there is no need for teaching at all. Once you get the Holy Ghost, you just run on divine inspiration. Before that, you can't understand anything anyway. So, no need for teaching at all. Jesus was wasting His time for 3 and a half years, the apostles wasted their time, you are wasting your time, all in this inefficient and insufficient and and ineffective and pointless exercise called "teaching".

On the other hand, if teaching IS valuable and worthwhile, then it is presumptuous and unreasonable to assume the apostles were total idiots who couldn't grasp anything Jesus was teaching them.

The thing the disciples couldn't grasp was Messiah's DEATH AT THE HANDS OF THE GOVERNMENT. They didn't understand His references to that because they didn't understand the prophecies concerning that nor did they WANT to believe He was going to die. When He died they were shocked and shaken. When they witnessed Him resurrected they were stunned and happy. Then He taught them for 40 days about the Kingdom.

THEN they ask Him if AT THAT TIME was the Kingdom being restored to Israel. He did not upbraid them for holding on to antiquated and erroneous beliefs. Rather He told them the details of the prophetic calendar weren't for them to know.

I can't find a single scripture that suggests they were the 12 Stooges.

Did Peter know what would happen on Pentecost? I doubt he knew that would be the day the Spirit would be poured out. But that WHENEVER it happened it would produce ecstatic utterances? Absolutely. The prophecy says "and they shall prophesy." The 70 elders including Eldad and Medad prophesied. Saul prophesied. That's what usually happens when the Spirit takes control of a person.

When they broke out in tongues Peter understood "this is that". Did he know that by revelation? Or knowledge of Scripture? Or both? It often takes revelation to confirm what has been studied, to give the true and real interpretation. The two work together as Jesus said:

John 14:23-26 KJV
Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. [24] He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me. [25] These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. [26] But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.