Look closely at that chapter. Peter first said “That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;”. But as he continued talking with NO mention of repentance but only the word “To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.” Immediately after which “the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word”. Now look at the next verse.
“And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.” Peter and those with him were astonished at how the Holy Ghost had fallen on them right after “whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins”. They were not expecting that. It’s obvious that is not what Peter expected. I believe it was at that point that Peter realized that all the “rules” they thought they had to follow didn’t apply any more. That’s why he rose to speak at the council of Jerusalem in Paul’s support.
>>That can be found in Acts 17 and Acts 20.<<
There Paul is talking to the Jews and those Gentiles who had converted to the Jewish faith. We know that those Gentiles had converted or they wouldn’t have been in the synagogue. In Chapter 20 he says this, “Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.” Can you tell me for sure that he didn’t say to the Jews “repentance” and to the Greeks “faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ”? In the Greek the words are not in the order they are in English so I’m not sure we can really tell from that verse.
>>That can be found in Acts 26.<<
There again, Paul is defending himself in front of King Agrippa after the Jews had accused him and he wanted to go before the king. He was defending himself because of accusations by the Jews who understood repentance. He was using their language if you will.
>>Then we have Paul saying below they all preach the same gospel<<
By the time he wrote to the Corinthians they were. That was written after the council of Jerusalem. And again I will say the use of “different gospel” is in my opinion the wrong terminology to use with regard to what Paul taught. It’s the same gospel, different dispensation.<<
It's going on 1am here and I am really tired. I will respond to the rest of your post and the others tomorrow if that's all right.
Perhaps we have come to the point where you need to firmly show a separate “Grace dispensation.” Frankly the goal posts have changed in space and time several times from your side. Perhaps because of multiple posters. I will say coming to a conclusion that Paul tells an assembled group of Jews and Greeks two different things, one Faith the other repent is truly absurd and borders on saying Paul promoted confusion. There were mixed families in the Diaspora. What would a young man whose mother was Greek and father was Jewish do if he heard such a confusing message of “hey Greeks follow Faith, you Jews still need to repent. And AFTER Peter in chapter 15 says it’s one gospel and is Grace. Does not add up.
So far I have been presented with changing timelines, no answers to what your definition is of the mystery, no definition of what you view is “Grace.” Another no one has touched is why are Jesus’ words and commands in Luke 24 seem to be side stepped by the apostles that He had to start another dispensation? You may argue that there are not two gospels but your presentation so far is strongly suggesting it. Perhaps establishing the above definitions first will assist in presenting your case for two dispensations within the NT church.