Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Wonder Warthog

“And you appear to have forgotten when Paul and Barnabas appeared before the Apostles to be confirmed in their roles as bishops (by the “laying on of hands”-—aka the Sacrament of Holy Orders).”

I must have missed this. Where do you find this in the scriptures?

“On his visit to Jerusalem “to see Peter and James”, Paul spent fifteen days closeted with PETER”

You forgot he was also with James, the Lord’s brother. I think he would have learned more from him than Peter.

“Peter traveled to found Churches just as Paul did.”

List just one church that Peter founded. It wasn’t the Jerusalem church since that was established by the Apostles and they selected James, brother of John, as the first leader and then James, the Lord’s brother. It certainly was not Rome since there is no mention of him in Paul’s letter.


108 posted on 05/04/2008 4:50:22 AM PDT by blue-duncan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies ]


To: blue-duncan

Such annoyingly pesky facts! LOL.


163 posted on 05/04/2008 9:44:13 AM PDT by Quix (GOD ALONE IS GOD; WORTHY; PAID THE PRICE; IS COMING AGAIN; KNOWS ALL; IS LOVING; IS ALTOGETHER GOOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies ]

To: blue-duncan
"I must have missed this. Where do you find this in the scriptures?"

There's a LOT of Scripture that you Protestants "missed".

Acts 13:3 says, "And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on (Barnabas and Paul), they sent them away."

"You forgot he was also with James, the Lord’s brother. I think he would have learned more from him than Peter."

The relevant verse mentions James not at all.

A Galatians 1:18 "Then after three years I went to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days."

""List just one church that Peter founded. It wasn’t the Jerusalem church since that was established by the Apostles and they selected James, brother of John, as the first leader and then James, the Lord’s brother. It certainly was not Rome since there is no mention of him in Paul’s letter."

Geez--do you actually believe that all the Churches the apostles founded got mentioned in the New Testament?? How stupid. And as the Peter not being in Rome because Paul doesn't mention him proves nothing. There is plenty of hard historical evidence that proves beyond question that Peter was indeed in Rome, and died there. Of course, since that's "not in the Bible", you'll blow it off (but that's one of the reasons that "sola scriptura" is asinine).

446 posted on 05/05/2008 5:41:31 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel-NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson