Posted on 10/21/2006 4:52:03 AM PDT by NYer
And who is the devil?
You know what it is.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/crucified
And I'm the one who is smug?
Nope, I don't know what that is. Something from the Clone Wars maybe? But I suspect you might have meant crucifixion and I do know what that means.
So answer the original question about Peter being a Christian. Thanks.
Well, you believe that your own personal interpretation of scripture is perfect, but that the combined scholarship of 1900 years of Catholics (including many saints) is apparently riddled with errors.
Yep, I'd call that smug.
Example: The Book of Romans
The Epistle is intended to serve as an introduction to a community with which the author, though he has not founded it, desires to form connexions (i, 10- 15; xv, 22-24, 28-29). For years his thoughts have been directed towards Rome (xv, 23). The Church there had not been recently established; but its faith had already become known everywhere (i, 8) and it is represented as a firmly established and comparatively old institution, which Paul regards with reverence, almost with awe.
Source: Catholic Encyclopedia
Now, that isn't to say he had no part of helping in the Roman Church, but he didn't establish it. St. Peter did.
Nope. Even Peter would have disagreed with you, because he recognized all of Paul's Epistles to all of those Gentiles as Scripture, particularly Galatians 2:9 where we read: "When James, Cephas, and John ... perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship that WE SHOULD GO TO THE GENTILES, and they unto the circumcision".
That directly contradicts the Book of Acts, IMO. St. James and St. Peter never made such an explicit statement as they were now solely responsible only for the Jews. Nor did St. John.
I tell you what I see though. St. Paul got really MIFFED at the Jews and said, "Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean: from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles!" Now that's in chapter 18 of Acts. Acts 15 is where James, John and Cephas "supposedly" give this ministry to the Gentiles soley to St. Paul.
Another piece of Bible trivia for you. St. Paul spent 7 of his years of ministry in jail. Who was spreading the gospel to the Gentiles then?
Did it just stop because St. Paul was behind bars?
The question is nonsensical. They could not believe Jesus was Christ, the Son of God, before the Crucifixion and Resurrection?
Can't answer my post 317? Wrong spelling and all? I'm awaiting for your superior intellect.
'm awaiting for your superior intellect.
A wise decision for you.
"They could not believe Jesus was Christ, the Son of God, before the Crucifixion and Resurrection?"
They could believe he was the son of God.
What about him being crucified before he was? Or what about the other requirement that he ascended into heaven and reappeared?
How could you qualify being a Christian before the last two I mentioned?
Qualify? Is there some kind of standards board?
Please don't offer up such incorrect and spurious translations as the above. You know better than that.
Spurious? Incorrect? I would say that the one who is offering an incorrect and spurious intrepretation is the one that DENIES the Trinity and calls it a heresy. You are in disagreement with more the overwhelming majority of Christendom.
I'm asking what your "Church" believes.
Does Your Church believe a Christian is based only on Peter's confession that Jesus was God?
What?
He was crucified before He was?
Or what about the other requirement that he ascended into heaven and reappeared?
Requirement of whom?
You really should stop. You're embarrassing yourself.
How am I embarrasing myself?
Seeing how the question again is nonsensical, my guess would be no.
I have a serious question for you and RC historians here. What happened to papal lineage, when the nasty Pope(s) who practiced Satan worship (Black Sabbath, etc.) and other depravity was extant, and then afterwards?
Is it that they just kept getting elected by Cardinals?
Something really bothers me that you do. You constantly refer to our Lord Jesus Christ as JC. I'm sorry, but I think that sounds disrespectful. Like He's your "homeboy" you are high fiving!
I demonstrated that in the post.
He himself was an Apostle, the "least of the Apostles", not one of the Twelve; Christ appeared to him last. (1 Cor 15:7-9)
Who ordained the Gentiles in Acts 10:47-48?
They were not there ordained. They were baptized.
How much evil has entered this church of yours "by way of succession"?
None. Evil enters the church only by disobedience, especially the disobedience of rebellion against Christ's appointed authorities.
Wouldn't a better standard be that which Jesus Himself was identified by?
I don't understand this question.
If they do not speak according to this Word, it is because no light is in them.
Whose interpretation? That's the question Protestants conveniently sweep under the rug.
-A8
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.