biblical inerrancy

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You could argue that Paul, Peter, and james agreed on their beliefs and you may well be right, but you are neglecting the fact that there were other early Christian sects. For instance there was Marcionism, or the Ebionites. I'm sure you're also aware of the other writings and books of early Christians that did not make it into the Bible. So when he says "Pauline" Christianity he's either referring to what made it into the canonical Bible or something of that nature.

no, sounded like Ernest was saying Paul promoted himself enough that his version of the gospel won out over what was preached by Peter and James and the other apostles.

[Derek]

There is an interesting theory that Jesus was never meant for the non-Jews and many Matthew scholars would agree. I disagree with it, but there are several scholars who are far from fans of Paul. He perverted Christianity and the teachings of Jesus by expanding the gospel to Gentiles. Also, another notion is that Paul being blind meant that Paul did not see the truth. It is highly common for ancient mythology to refer to those who are wrong as blind. From there on out nothing Paul says should be taken as honest according to that notion. Again, I think Paul was well versed in rhetoric, but also feel he was an honest person who was converted from Judaism to Christianity in the late 40's. His first book was Thessalonians and it was written in 49.

[J. J.]

You do understand that the Pharisees had a much larger canon than simply the Pentateuch, don’t you? How do you not understand that the Sadducees only accepted the doctrinal authority of first five books of the bible but the Pharisees accept a much larger selection of books for doctrinal authority, which is why the Pharisees had no problem in accepting the resurrection of the dead?  Also, the Samaritans only acknowledge the first five books.

How do you not understand that the Gospels of Mathew. Mark, Luke, and John, the absolute foundation of the New Testament, were not agreed upon by the 1st Century Christians?

So, there was some commonality in accepted scriptures, just like today, but there was also differences, just like today.   And God did not wait for them to come to agreement, nor is he going to wait for us.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, as pointed out, it says nothing about the inerrancy.  Nor, as you have noted, was there agreement on what constituted the contents itself.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It also says:

You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

Deuteronomy 5:8

By claiming that the writing is inerrant, you have created the idol. 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You could argue that Paul, Peter, and james agreed on their beliefs and you may well be right, but you are neglecting the fact that there were other early Christian sects. For instance there was Marcionism, or the Ebionites. I'm sure you're also aware of the other writings and books of early Christians that did not make it into the Bible. So when he says "Pauline" Christianity he's either referring to what made it into the canonical Bible or something of that nature.

no, sounded like Ernest was saying Paul promoted himself enough that his version of the gospel won out over what was preached by Peter and James and the other apostles.

For whatever reason he chose to do so, Paul was one of the most widely traveled of the early church leaders, never choosing to shepherd a church in one specific spot.  The events surrounding the Jewish Revolts of the 1st and 2nd centuries, meant that the original core of the church in Jerusalem was destroyed and that the Jews largely turned their back on anyone who claimed messianic connections.  Under the historical circumstances, it is not surprising that the Church that survived was Gentile, that its corpus was written in Greek and not Aramaic, and that Paul, who was the most voluminous early writer about Jesus in Greek should become a key figure.

As for Paul's boasting about his sufferings and deprivations in the service of Christ, let me say this.  First, there have been many instances in history of similar behavior for a number of religions and ideologies in which the person has done so for reason either sincere or duplicitous.  Paul is hardly unique in his actions in that regard.  Secondly, such boasts directly contradict the teachings of Matthew 6.

"So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men." (Matthew 6:2)

"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full." (Matthew 6:5)

"When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show men they are fasting. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full." (Matthew 6:16)

It is of course, a conundrum that everyone who believes in Christ must face, how to spread His message without being boastful.  However, speaking of one's own afflictions and promoting that as a reason to believe is clearly not the answer to that conundrum.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Ernest,

You totally ducked explaining how Christianity is “Pauline” Christianity when Acts shows that Peter and James agreed 100% with what Paul taught.  Therefore, if those who spent 3 years being mentored by Jesus are in 100% agreement with what Paul taught, then what Paul taught was NOT his own version of Christianity, but rather Paul’s teaching reflected Christianity as Jesus Christ taught.  

Furthermore, the book of Acts, which surprisingly you think contradicts Paul, shows that Paul, whom Acts portrays as the biggest enemy of the early church, immediately began preaching the gospel and didn’t consult or learn it from the other apostles, just as Paul claimed he did in Galatians ch 1.

So, knowing Paul claims in Galatians ch 1 that he wasn’t taught Christianity by any man, but rather received it by revelation directly from the resurrected Jesus Christ...and seeing that Acts shows Paul immediately fully prepared and went immediately preaching Christianity in the synagogues…how do you explain how he came into a knowledge of Christianity that was 100% in agreement with Peter and James?


As to your objections of Paul recounting his sufferings:

Giving money to PersonA and announcing to PersonB or praying in public or announcing to everyone you are fasting, is TOTALLY different than unselfishly pouring yourself in service to PersonA and having later to remind PersonA how much love you have shown them when they start to stray.

What Paul did is the same thing as if your child started to go astray by listening to fools and starting to treat you as the fool and then you gently having to remind the child to show some consideration to you since you have proven to be the one who loves them the most as evident by having poured out your life in service to them.  And, yes, it always makes a parent feel foolish to have to remind their children of their service and it is always painful for the parent to have to stoop to that level, but sometimes it is the last resort and/or the best way to get your kids to reflect on the way they are acting. Paul shouldn’t have had to mention it, but the church was acting like a fool and entertaining fools, so Paul became a fool in order to get the church in Corinth to start examining their actions:

2Cor 11:1 “I hope you will put up with a little of my foolishness; but you are already doing that….[then starts to recount his love for them as demonstrated by his sufferings]”

In other words Paul was saying, “I’m going to have to get down to your level so that I can get your attention.”

Paul was simply asking for a little respect and a chance to be heard based upon what he had done for that church.  There’s nothing wrong with that.  I posted Paul’s defense to show that what Paul did in his ministry is the EXACT OPPOSITE of ”self-promotion” because he was the greatest servant of the church and his service brought him nothing but loss, misery, and torture.

And to fault him for not settling down and pasturing a church is really unbelievable considering the role of pastor and the role of missionary are both different and both required, and being a missionary is MUCH tougher and much more dangerous than being a pastor…Again, who in their right mind would fault a missionary for being selfish and self-promoting for not settling down and pasturing a church?!  In my experience, missionaries are much meeker than pastors (though I do not fault pastors for being pastors as it is a very required and respectful role in the church.)…again, your charge is simply unbelievable!  

But all of this should be obvious; but, instead, everything Paul does is a problem for you, because your unsupported conspiracy theories don’t allow him a fair hearing.  Might as well accuse him of burning Rome in 64AD.  But you’re not alone because there are very few people on this forum that give scripture a fair hearing:  JSojourner ducked the fact the NT says belief in Christ is the only way to be saved….Alex ignores the fact Rom ch1 is regarding those who know the word of God yet lust after the same sex…Gramps turns a blind eye to context…you are faulting Paul for recounting his suffering and calling him a self-promoter, etc, etc, etc.

I guess I should count my blessings in that at least among my Christian friends, I am surrounded by an absence of conspiracy theories and don’t duck scripture.  Even the night I was saved in Oct 92 started with a desire to honestly examine scripture and let the chips fall where they may.  I was tired of playing games, tired of ducking,  and knew I needed for once and for all check things out.  But I don’t think my being open to the bible was my own doing, I think it was simply part of God calling me,

I really really don’t understand why a lot of Christian sects are willing to throw overboard major tenants of the NT such as Christ being the only path to salvation and therefore is so important to spread the gospel.  And the tendency is that rejection of Christianity being the only path to salvation is followed by the acceptance of immorality.  But that should come as no surprise because that is EXACTLY what happened time and time again in the old testament – they would accept the legitimacy of other religions and the end result would be the acceptance of immorality.  And as I read about what other sects are accepting, I just feel that I am becoming more and more alienated from a growing share of Christian sects, but I understand I am not alone, for even great men in the bible felt alienated for Elijah complained, “Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me"? But Elijah was wrong because there are other believers still left and God responded to him and said, “I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal." (1Kings ch 19)  But, I have accepted the situation and have also accepted that is only going to get worse in the lead up to the second coming, as the NT warns.

So, I will continue to surrender to the scripture and let the chips fall where they may, as well as continuing to lay all my cards on the table even though I know I am one of the few who aren’t dealing from the bottom of the deck.

And I should note that the vast majority of strangers I meet in person are not as hostile to the gospel as this forum is.   I can strike up conversations with complete strangers as I go about running errands or shopping, and they are so genuinely thankful to hear an encouraging word and someone willing to strike up a conversation about Christ, even if they are not Christian.   And it is so sad to see people on this forum so openly hostile to the gospel that they are willing to step up to the table and openly deal from the bottom of the deck.

That’s not to say I think the members of this forum normally deal from the bottom of the deck with other people in their daily lives, rather they simply deal from the bottom of the deck when they confront their own beliefs.  Example:  I do not believe that you, Ernest, would ever view someone giving up everything and pouring themselves to others in  some secular cause and invent a bunch of conspiracy theories against the person and saying, “They’re just promoting themselves!”  That’s not the way you are.  But that’s the way you approach Paul.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

[cont....]

I don’t invent a bunch of conspiracy theories regarding religions I don’t believe in.  My unbelief in other religions has NOTHING to do with conspiracy theories.  If you ask me why I won’t even consider Islam I’ll simply tell you that there is no human history backing up Islam’s claims that Jesus and the prophets of the Old Testament were Muslims.  In fact, there are not any documents in recorded history supporting Islam prior to Mohammad.  That’s not a conspiracy theory, that's just simple fact.  The same goes for Mormonism.  

The reason why I am not a member of Judaism is because I believe I found something that is more in agreement with the Old Testament than Judaism is.  But I can make that conclusion while being an honest broker WITHOUT leveling a single conspiracy and without discrediting anyone.

As for Christian sects, the reason why I am not a member of an organized Christian denomination is because I haven’t found one that is more in agreement with scripture than the interdenominational church I already go to.  That’s not to mean I couldn’t become a member of a denomination if that was all that was available to me.  In fact, I became a Christian when I wasn’t a member of a church and after 5 months of self-study and attending my girlfriends church that I didn’t agree with, I decided it was time for me to be baptized.  So I made an appointment with a local Baptist minister and left work during lunch on a Wednesday to go meet him and be baptized…

(note of disclosure that I am not sure I have ever shared with this forum in regard to my testimony – I had previously met with this same Baptist minister when I decided to look into my girlfriend’s church and he recommended some reading material and within that material I got the idea to start my examination of the doctrine of my girlfriend’s  church with the book of Galatians.  And it was from this book of the New Testament that I was saved.  And after being saved I went back to this Baptist pastor and told him what happened.  He was very glad for me and both our hearts discerned the spirit of Christ within each other, so I was very respectful of this Baptist pastor and was very grateful for his guidance)

…so five months after being saved, I went to be baptized and met the Baptist pastor at his church.  We did a little catching up with what was going on with my witness to my girlfriend whose church was very legalistic, and then informed him that it had been 5 months since I was saved and I wanted to be baptized.  (Again, this was on a Wednesday during lunch).  He agreed to baptize me and told me that he would do it Sunday morning during service.  I told him that I had no problem being baptized in front of the congregation (I was very bold and open about my faith), but that I didn’t want to wait until Sunday, I wanted to be baptized then and there.  He said that the only way he would agree to baptize me then and there was if I came back and be rebaptized in front of the church on Sunday.  I told him I fully intended to be in church Sunday morning and make it my church, but that I felt no need to be rebaptized four days later in front of the church.

I was more than willing to be baptized right then and there into a ditch full of dirty water if that was all that was available, so I was very disturbed by his requirement and I had already read the book of Acts and knew his requirement to be  baptized in front of the church was totally inconsistent with the examples of baptism in Acts.  I don’t remember everything that was said, but I left without being baptized (we may have agreed for me to come back on Sunday, I don’t really remember).  When I arrived back at work, a Christian lady who knew I had left to be baptized during lunch, asked me how it went.  I told her what happened and she replied, “I know a pastor who will baptize you today”  So she called her pastor and he agreed to meet me after work at his church.  We met and I told him my whole story, told him my interpretation of scripture and he and I were roughly in 95% agreement, and then he baptized me.  I came back to his church that night for Wednesday night service and he has been my pastor ever since.

I tell you this to show you that my choice of church has nothing to do with conspiracy theories or ducking scripture, for I was more than willing to be a Baptist and already had a good spiritual relationship with the Baptist pastor.  But when I saw that he was placing requirements on my faith that weren’t scriptural, I bailed on him and never looked back.  I had been saved and filled with the Holy Spirit while alone in my apartment reading the bible.  And since Christ was willing to baptize me with his Spirit while alone in my apartment because I simply came to believe in Him, why would I accept some legalistic requirement governing the conditions I could be baptized in water, as if water is more important than the Spirit, especially when the pastor’s restriction were not in place in the examples of baptism in the book of Acts?  It’s not like the baptismal in the Baptist church wasn’t working that day, there were no logistical reasons for not baptizing me.  He just had some dumb rule that in effect was throwing a wet blanket on someone’s hunger to be baptized.  If the Baptist church had happened to be full of people that day, I would not have hesitated to be baptized in front of them.  When I was baptized with the Holy Spirit, I felt that God was lifting me up in front of all creation, both physical and spiritual with the whole spiritual universe being made aware of me, so I certainly wouldn’t have shrunk back by refusing to be baptized in front of a bunch of people

So, my faith is impartial and has no need for conspiracy theories to choose what I believe, I was even more than willing to give my girlfriend’s church an honest hearing, but it didn’t match the scripture it claimed to be based off of, so I rejected it at the risk of losing not only my girlfriend whom I was madly in love with (and who would 18 months later become my wife), but also my closest friends who also went to her church.  Nor does what I believe require that I duck and hide from the scripture that defines my religion.  The choices I have made have been made by dealing from the top of the deck and giving everyone an honest hearing.  I wouldn’t want it any other way, for I don’t believe there is anything to be gained with taking another approach, but I do believe there is everything to lose.

[Derek]

Peter and Paul agreed about as much as we all agree on here. Please explain to me how it is possible that they would agree??? One knew Jesus and the other didn't but both spread the gospel. That is a perfect recipe for conflict. They hated each other and if they didn't they certainly weren't friends. Paul was the converter and Peter was the organzier. Peter wasn't supposed to be the first pope either. Matthew 20 is taken overly literal. It is what Peter says that is actually the rock of the church, not Peter himself.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Peter and Paul agreed about as much as we all agree on here. Please explain to me how it is possible that they would agree??? One knew Jesus and the other didn't but both spread the gospel. That is a perfect recipe for conflict. They hated each other and if they didn't they certainly weren't friends.

According to Acts 15, you have a very vivid imagination!!!

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

So, knowing Paul claims in Galatians ch 1 that he wasn’t taught Christianity by any man, but rather received it by revelation directly from the resurrected Jesus Christ...and seeing that Acts shows Paul immediately fully prepared and went immediately preaching Christianity in the synagogues…how do you explain how he came into a knowledge of Christianity that was 100% in agreement with Peter and James?

If he had always been in 100% agreement with them, why should there have even been a need for a Council of Jerusalem.  For that matter what group of men have ever been in 100% agreement?

If the Apostles were infallible and never considered changes in doctrine, why then did Paul write in Galatians 2:11-14 of Peter while in Antioch after the Council of Jerusalem of siding with the Judaizers?

You seem to have a view of the Apostles that holds them to be infallible demigods, incapable of error or change, yet Paul's own writings contradict that view.

And to fault him for not settling down and pasturing a church is really unbelievable considering the role of pastor and the role of missionary are both different and both required, and being a missionary is MUCH tougher and much more dangerous than being a pastor…Again, who in their right mind would fault a missionary for being selfish and self-promoting for not settling down and pasturing a church?!  In my experience, missionaries are much meeker than pastors (though I do not fault pastors for being pastors as it is a very required and respectful role in the church.)…again, your charge is simply unbelievable!

I wasn't faulting Paul for moving around, but pointing out that doing so made it far likelier for his writings and viewpoint to have survived the events associated with the Jewish Revolts in Judea.

That’s not to say I think the members of this forum normally deal from the bottom of the deck with other people in their daily lives, rather they simply deal from the bottom of the deck when they confront their own beliefs.  Example:  I do not believe that you, Ernest, would ever view someone giving up everything and pouring themselves to others in  some secular cause and invent a bunch of conspiracy theories against the person and saying, “They’re just promoting themselves!”  That’s not the way you are.  But that’s the way you approach Paul.

It's probably how quite a few chiefs of staff for various Congressmen got their start.  People engaging in sacrifice now in the expectation of reward later is a common enough occurrence. Depending upon the price a person puts on the sacrifice, and the value they place upon the expected reward, it's rational behavior, even if others may think otherwise because they assign a different price to the sacrifice or value to the reward.

Even before the reported conversion of Saul on the road to Damascus, he was by his own admission a person who placed great store on being able to tell people how to live their lives. That certainly did not change afterward.

If you ask me why I won’t even consider Islam I’ll simply tell you that there is no human history backing up Islam’s claims that Jesus and the prophets of the Old Testament were Muslims.

I can't say that I've ever studied Islam in depth, but as I understand it the core of Islamic theology is submission to God.  Indeed, the literal meaning of "Muslim" is "one who submits". In that sense, I think you would agree that Jesus and the prophets of the Old Testament were Muslims. That they would have agreed in all of the doctrines of the Quran, almost certainly not.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Peter and Paul agreed about as much as we all agree on here. Please explain to me how it is possible that they would agree??? One knew Jesus and the other didn't but both spread the gospel. That is a perfect recipe for conflict. They hated each other and if they didn't they certainly weren't friends.

According to Acts 15, you have a very vivid imagination!!!

According to Galatians 2, not so vivid, but Derek definitely is making some overly broad inferences.  At times, Peter and Paul did have doctrinal differences, but I don't think there is anything in the Bible to support the idea that they hated each other.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

If he had always been in 100% agreement with them, why should there have even been a need for a Council of Jerusalem.

If you don’t mind, I'd like to suggest a “better” question, “why weren’t the Gentiles preached to from the beginning”…and answering this question will automatically answer your question!

Jesus was only sent to the Jews:

Mat 15:24 "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."

But Jesus prophesied that the Gentiles would believe in the Messiah (of course this is also in agreement with the Old Testament )…

Gen 22:18 “through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed.”

Gen 49:10 “The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs and the obedience of the nations is his.”

Isa 42:1  "Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him and he will bring justice to the nations. 2 He will not shout or cry out, or raise his voice in the streets. 3 A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out.  In faithfulness he will bring forth justice; 4 he will not falter or be discouraged till he establishes justice on earth.  In his law the islands will put their hope."

Isa 51:5 “The islands will look to me and wait in hope for my arm.”

John 10:16 “I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.”


…but it’s just that the Gospel would first be preached to the Jews:

Luke 24:47 “and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.”


That’s why Paul always, when entering a city, went to the synagogues first and preached to the Jews before he preached to the Gentiles in the city.  So, in Acts,  the groundwork was laid by God when Peter converted the first Gentile in Acts 10, but it took until Acts 15 until James (and perhaps Peter) and a lot of the rest of the church fully understood what was going on and how the Law of Moses had been fulfilled.

But by the time the curtain closed on the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15, James Peter and Paul were on the exact same page, with Paul’s version of the Gospel he had preached among the Gentiles having survived without alteration.

---

If the Apostles were infallible and never considered changes in doctrine, why then did Paul write in Galatians 2:11-14 of Peter while in Antioch after the Council of Jerusalem of siding with the Judaizers?

You seem to have a view of the Apostles that holds them to be infallible demigods, incapable of error or change, yet Paul's own writings contradict that view.

I never claimed that the apostles or anyone else is infallible.  But you are misrepresenting Gal 2:11-14:

Gal 2:11-14 When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. 14When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?"

Verse 12 shows that Peter withdrew out of FEAR of the Judaizers, not because Peter agreed with them.  And verse 14 shows that Peter lived as a Gentile would, free from the Law of Moses!!! Which is why Peter was acting like a hypocrite(verse 13) by shrinking back out of fear and reverting back into the Law.  And since others were following Peter’s example, Paul had to confront Peter in front of them all in order to put a stop to it.

Remember Peter’s vision in Acts 10 before he converted the Gentile, and that both Peter and the Gentile had a vision from God to lay the groundwork for Peter to meet the Gentile?….God didn’t give the gentile convert a vision that told that told the gentile to start living like a Jew, rather God gave Peter a vision giving Peter permission to start eating unclean meats and to consider gentiles acceptable to God.

---

I can't say that I've ever studied Islam in depth, but as I understand it the core of Islamic theology is submission to God.  Indeed, the literal meaning of "Muslim" is "one who submits". In that sense, I think you would agree that Jesus and the prophets of the Old Testament were Muslims. That they would have agreed in all of the doctrines of the Quran, almost certainly not.

Believing that one should be submissive to God does NOT equate to accepting the teachings of Islam.  I am sure I share at least a few common beliefs with most any randomly chosen religion, but that doesn’t mean I am in agreement with that randomly chosen religion.

[J. J.]

Do you claim that that the Bible is inerrant?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Remember Peter’s vision in Acts 10 before he converted the Gentile, and that both Peter and the Gentile had a vision from God to lay the groundwork for Peter to meet the Gentile?….God didn’t give the gentile convert a vision that told that told the gentile to start living like a Jew, rather God gave Peter a vision giving Peter permission to start eating unclean meats and to consider gentiles acceptable to God.

I remember us arguing over the interpretation of that vision before, and neither of us convinced the other before, nor do I think either of us will convince the other now concerning either the previous argument, nor the current one.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Remember Peter’s vision in Acts 10 before he converted the Gentile, and that both Peter and the Gentile had a vision from God to lay the groundwork for Peter to meet the Gentile?….God didn’t give the gentile convert a vision that told that told the gentile to start living like a Jew, rather God gave Peter a vision giving Peter permission to start eating unclean meats and to consider gentiles acceptable to God.

I remember us arguing over the interpretation of that vision before, and neither of us convinced the other before, nor do I think either of us will convince the other now concerning either the previous argument, nor the current one.

really, I don't remember that.  did I mention that if the vision didn't also mean that all food was clean, that it would make it a negative analogy and it would be the only negative analogy in the entire bible?

what is your religion anyway?

[Derek]

Ok maybe they did not hate each other there is no way to be certain. However, in those times religious leaders were usually at odds unless they were from the same sect. I will not interfere on that particular notion.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Ok maybe they did not hate each other there is no way to be certain.

which is why you shouldn't spout off by smearing their relationship, because, actually, there is every indication in the new testament that they were friends (Gal 1:18), and they both accepted each other's ministry (Acts 15; Gal 1-10; 2Pet 3:15-16).

[Derek]

Rom 1:11 directly states that Paul was the founder of the Roman Church and not Peter. Plus, remember their differences on circumcision. Paul's stance would've been highly controversial amongst the early Christians. I'm not saying they were enemies. At this time to have 2 sects so early in a religion's roots would create tension. Both Peter and Paul wanted others to believe in Christ though.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Moderators,

Please run an IP check on this guy, his is too much of a hack to be a real poster.

---

Rom 1:11 directly states that Paul was the founder of the Roman Church and not Peter.

Rom 1:11 “11I long to see you so that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to make you strong— 12that is, that you and I may be mutually encouraged by each other's faith.”

Rom 1:11 says no such thing.  In fact, the previous verse says that Paul had yet to visit them:
Rom 1:10 “I pray that now at last by God's will the way may be opened for me to come to you”.

Also, in Rom 15:19, Paul states that Illyricum (in the Balkans)is the farthest he has preached the gospel and that he delayed coming to Rome because he didn’t prefer to preach Christ where someone else had already had spread the word(Rom 15:19) and that he planned to finally visit Rome on his way to Spain Rom 15:23-24.

---

 

Plus, remember their differences on circumcision. Paul's stance would've been highly controversial amongst the early Christians. I'm not saying they were enemies. At this time to have 2 sects so early in a religion's roots would create tension.

Have you totally missed the discussion in this thread regarding the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15?  Peter and Paul were on the exact same page in regard to circumcision and Peter himself no longer follow the Law of Moses (Gal 2:11-14) . 

Learn to read, I am tired following up after you on this forum in order to continually change your diaper.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Moderators,

Please run an IP check on this guy, his is too much of a hack to be a real poster.

You request an IP check cause he doesn't agree with you? 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Yeah, he is probably real, no one could make that kind of stuff up

[J. J.]

Moderators,

Please run an IP check on this guy, his is too much of a hack to be a real poster.

You request an IP check cause he doesn't agree with you? 

You have to forgive him.  The book he prays to has a mirror behind it.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Moderators,

Please run an IP check on this guy, his is too much of a hack to be a real poster.

You request an IP check cause he doesn't agree with you?  

You have to forgive him.  The book he prays to has a mirror behind it.

I see you are familiar with scripture, for it does claim to be just that – a mirror:

James 1: 22 ”Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. 23Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like a man who looks at his face in a mirror 24and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like.”

And that is exactly why I read it – it provides a mirror so that I see myself according to how God sees me so that I can change myself to be a reflection of his word, and by being a reflection of his word, I am closer to being a reflection of him

---

J.J. can you find me a SINGLE EXAMPLE in scripture where it ridicules someone attempting to follow scripture? You must know of at least one or two of them since you are so confidently ridicule those who attempt to pattern their life to reflect scripture.   Because I am sure I could probably rattle off several dozen verses that instruct believers to abide by scripture going back to when the very first scripture was handed down, though I doubt anything written in the bible could convince you to change your thinking.

Do you have any clue as to how utterly ridiculous it sounds to claim to be a Christian yet mock those who attempt to obey the bible?  How did obeying scripture become soo foreign to you that you find it strange?  Do you think DISobeying the New Testament makes one a Christian?

[Derek]

define hack and if I am a hack what of it?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

define hack

a "Christian" that rejects the New Testament

---

and if I am a hack what of it?

it's your problem

[J. J.]

James 1: 22 ”Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. 23Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like a man who looks at his face in a mirror 24and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like.”

And that is exactly why I read it – it provides a mirror so that I see myself according to how God sees me so that I can change myself to be a reflection of his word, and by being a reflection of his word, I am closer to being a reflection of him

The way you use it, it provides a mirror you pray to.  Your interpretation, not those of the early Christians or even the Bible itself. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You have already pointed out that even the first Christians didn't agree on the scriptures.  You have elevated them to be the scriptures (and in all fairness, so have others).

You woefully don't understand, the Bible doesn't make these claims as to what is or isn't scripture.  Men, far removed in time (and often space) are the people claiming "These are the scriptures."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't mock anyone who attempts to obey God; I do not mock those who have faith in God.  I do mock those who take the works of man and elevate it to godhood.