Saul of Tarsus was saved in Acts 9. He immediately preached to Jews at Damascus that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God:
Acts 9:19-22 And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus.
20 And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.
21 But all that heard him were amazed, and said; Is not this he that destroyed them which called on this name in Jerusalem, and came hither for that intent, that he might bring them bound unto the chief priests?
22 But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ.
Then Saul went to Jerusalem.
From there he went to Caesarea .... interestingly BY-PASSING Cornelius ....
and then into Tarsus, his hometown:
Acts 9:26-30 And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple.
27 But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus.
28 And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem.
29 And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians: but they went about to slay him.
30 Which when the brethren knew,
they brought him down to Caesarea,
and sent him forth to Tarsus.
‘Mid-Acts-ers’ use Gal 2:7 to say that Paul and Peter preached 2 different gospels:
Gal 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that
the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me (Paul),
as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
‘Mid-Acts-ers’ ignore the verse in the chapter before, that shows that ‘if they did preach 2 different gospels, then Peter would be accursed’:
Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
But .... for the sake of argument .... let’s see how absurd the ‘mid-Acts 2 different gospels’ doctrine works in the case of Cornelius and his kinsmen and near friends (Acts 10:24), who were the first Gentiles to receive the gospel after God declared them clean (Acts 10:15).
‘Mid-Acts-ers’ teach that God started a new church .... with Paul (the apostle of the Gentiles) in Acts 9 .... called ‘the body of Christ’. But they cannot give an answer why God picked PETER - NOT PAUL - in Acts 10 to go to the Gentiles .... just after Saul/Paul was saved.
Peter testified that God specifically chose him to take the gospel to these Gentiles .... which he did in Acts 10 .... just after Paul went right through the same area (Caesarea):
Acts 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago
God made choice among us,
that the Gentiles by my (Peter’s) mouth
should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
Here are some questions for ‘mid-Acts-ers’.
Did Peter take the gospel OF the circumcision .... TO the UNcircumcised .... since that was the gospel that was committed to him?
(In other words, did Peter give the gospel OF the Jews .... TO the Gentiles .... since that was the only gospel he had?)
- OR -
Did Peter take the gospel OF the UNcircumcision .... TO the UNcircumcised .... since they were UNcircumcisied?
(In other words, did Peter give the gospel OF the Gentiles .... TO the Gentiles .... since that was the gospel that belonged to them, being Gentiles?)
If God had begun a new entity with Saul/Paul in Acts 9 .... Peter would not have been the one God sent to the Gentiles in Acts 10.
Don’t forget that Peter also testified that the Jews would be saved through grace, the same as the Gentiles:
Acts 15:11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
Does that sound like a different gospel to you?
Not to me!
Peter paved the way to the Gentiles .... before Paul.
This is David Dowell saying, "Think about it!"
