Peter did not claim that the sin of the Crucifixion was on them. He merely pointed out that they had played a role in the death of Jesus. The fact is that Jesus asked the Father to forgive them of that particular sin.
Sorry, Marlowe. Unlike you, the Jews heard Peter words, understood the implications (that unless they repented and turned from their culpability in killing Messiah they would be eternally lost), and believed Peter's message by turning to the Messiah.
Whether they had participated directly or indirectly in the crucifixion would have no bearing whatsoever on whether or not they were eternally lost. Each was born with the stain of sin and each had committed other sins so that they were eternally lost without Jesus no matter what their prior sins. Their lost condition was not dependent upon Crucifying Christ. They did not take his life, He laid it down for them.
You are in denial of these things because they do not fit into your nice, neat theology.
And I suspect you think that you think you are a better Christian for your eschatology than us Pre-mils? Shall we continue with this mind reading game?
You would rather have God punish millions for no reason, rather than acknowledge the linkage in Scripture between actions and consequences.
Shall I include this line in my evidence that you guys think your eschatology makes you better Christians, or more "obedient" as Mr. Smedley says? We now have at least two who have shown that attitude. Are there any others?
Why do you insist on softening Peter's language? He does not say they "played a role". He says they "killed the Prince of life". You sound more like a psychologist trying to help the Jews deal with their "feelings".
Peter was preaching the gospel. He was talking about sin, and repentance, and forgiveness in Christ. The Jews realized the heinousness of their sin against Almighty God and the King of kings. They repented and came into the kingdom of Christ.
Whether they had participated directly or indirectly in the crucifixion would have no bearing whatsoever on whether or not they were eternally lost.
You obviously missed the point, which was that by the preaching of truth, and demonstrating the particular sin of killing Christ, many Jews were converted to Him. Peter didn't have to appeal to "original sin". He could point to something quite concrete that all his hearers could identify with. They heard and repented.
They did not take his life, He laid it down for them.
Take it up with Peter. Why not both? As I'm sure our friend buggman would point out, such an either/or position is a decidely Greek way of looking at the thing.
And I suspect you think that you think you are a better Christian for your eschatology than us Pre-mils? ... We now have at least two who have shown that attitude.
Give it a rest. It sounds like just so much whining.