Matthew 16: 17-18 (NLT)
"Jesus replied, "You are blessed , Simon son of John, because my Father in heaven has revealed this to you. You did not learn this from any human being. Now I say to you that you are Peter and, upon this rock I will build my church, and all the powers of hell will not conquer it.
Does it means that Jesus is building his church on Peter or what, Please I need someone to help me out.

all it meant was Jesus was going to use Peter to do his work!!!!!

Rubbish,Jesus left his ministry in the hands of his "consort",MARY MAGDALENE and not some Peter.
Let the debate begin!

kinglarry,

If you read the passages you quoted in context, the rock Jesus was talking about is the confessions of Peter, that Jesus is the Son of the Living God. Everyone who comes to believe this and confesses it while making Jesus their Lord, will become a part of His Kingdom.

Jagunlabi,

Where did you find the prrof of your asersions? Outbursts like that will never make people take you seriously.

TayoD:

kinglarry,

If you read the passages you quoted in context, the rock Jesus was talking about is the confessions of Peter, that Jesus is the Son of the Living God. Everyone who comes to believe this and confesses it while making Jesus their Lord, will become a part of His Kingdom.

Jagunlabi,

Where did you find the prrof of your asersions? Outbursts like that will never make people take you seriously.

From gnostic sources,tayoD.
Peter was never in the inner circle of Jesus's movements.Heck the guy never even understood Jesus's teachings during his ministry,so why would Jesus build his church on him.
Where was Peter when Jesus was arrested and crucified,by the way?did he not take off like the rest of the male apostles?
And besides,you ask for proof during a theological debate?I find that rather funny,because nobody can prove a damn thing when discussing theological issues,nobody.Where is the proof that Jesus said anything about building his church on Peter,apart from what was written in the canonical gospels?Afterall,anybody can write anything(and they do write) in the gospels and pass it for truth.
That passage in the NT giving Peter that authority was in all probabilities inserted by gospel writers who were pro Peter.
According to the gnostic gospels,there was a clash of personalities between Mary Magdalene and Peter,with Peter being very jealous and hostile towards her for being so close to Jesus and for having so much influence on him.
So say the gnostic gospels,not me.

Jagunlabi,

Gnostism is not Christianity, and none of the Gnostic books was ever believed nor claimed to be divinely inspired. By the way, the book of colossians written by Apostle Paul was directed mainly at the fallacy of gnostism.

I never claimed that the Church is to be built with Peter as the foundation. Quite to the contrary. The foundation of the church is the knowledge of the truth that Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God.

I will advise you acording to Paul's word in 1Co 4:6 - "And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another."

all your claims about mary magdalene, and recently, Judas goes beyond the scriptures and are not consistent with the Old Testament prophecies. And for your information, anyone present during Jesus crucifixion couldn't have been a disciple. If your gnostic friends were present as you seem to suggest, it only shows that they were never Christ disciples 'cos it is written: "I will strike the Shepherd and the Sheep will scatter". Peter desertion of Christ is consistent with that.

all your claims about mary magdalene, and recently, Judas goes beyond the scriptures and are not consistent with the Old Testament prophecies

Is the crucifixion of Jesus consistent with the OT prophesies?I think not,because a crucified messiah that rises on the third day is not in the jewish tradition,but outside of it.To be more precise,it is a PAGAN concept.
Most of the new testament is very inconsistent to the OT,anyway,so what's your point?

Gnostism is not Christianity, and none of the Gnostic books was ever believed nor claimed to be divinely inspired

The only reason why the gnostic texts cannot be called "christian" was that they did not make it into the canons,or else they are as valid as the ones in the NT.They talked about christ and his movement and that is just about good enough for their claim to validity.

By the way, the book of colossians written by Apostle Paul was directed mainly at the fallacy of gnostism.

and who the hell is Paul?He was not even an apostle,so does it really matter what he wrote about the gospels?Methinks not.

If your gnostic friends were present as you seem to suggest, it only shows that they were never Christ disciples 'because it is written: "I will strike the Shepherd and the Sheep will scatter".  Peter desertion of Christ is consistent with that

If that is so,then one can use the same logic of arguement to clear Judas of any wrongdoing,not so?Everything was predestined,so nobody was at fault.I think this is a very weak arguement.

Gnostism is not Christianity, and none of the Gnostic books was ever believed nor claimed to be divinely inspired

Emphasis on CLAIM,because that is all what they are,claim of divine inspiration.Can you prove that the gospels that made it into the canons were actually divinely inspired,or just claimed to be so?
Anybody can claim divine inspiration on anything.

TayoD:

Gnostism is not Christianity, and none of the Gnostic books was ever believed nor claimed to be divinely inspired. By the way, the book of colossians written by Apostle Paul was directed mainly at the fallacy of gnostism.

Do any of the cannonical gospels claim to be divinely inspired?

all your claims about mary magdalene, and recently, Judas goes beyond the scriptures and are not consistent with the Old Testament prophecies. And for your information, anyone present during Jesus crucifixion couldn't have been a disciple. If your gnostic friends were present as you seem to suggest, it only shows that they were never Christ disciples 'because it is written: "I will strike the Shepherd and the Sheep will scatter". Peter desertion of Christ is consistent with that.

Leaving aside any arguments about prophecies and their fufillment, this verse disagrees with your premise, John 19:26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!

@jagunlabi,

You really seem to be nowhere. Since you have all the answers and are so passionate about your assertions, please tell me:

 ¤ how many of the gnostic documents have you read for youself to assert that "they are as valid as the ones in the NT?"

 ¤ what is the central message of the gnostic gospels from what you have personally verified, not the overblown media
    hoo-ha you often rely on?

 ¤ how consistent are the gnostic documents to even make one coherrent sense to you?

 ¤ what gnostic document have you found to be consistent with the OT prophecies proving/disproving Jesus' crucifixion?

 ¤ have you read the Bible for yourself to establish your assertions or you're just interested in recycling the worn and tattered
    prejudices of whatever sources feed your view?
   
 ¤ do you have any OT prophecies to disprove Jesus' crucifixion, death and resurrection, before asserting that they are
    not consistent with the OT prophecies?

 ¤ what do you know about the OT prophecies and the Jewish tradition?

I don't know it all, but do me the favour of answering those questions objectively rather than from your preconceived points of reference.

God bless.

TayoD:

kinglarry,

If you read the passages you quoted in context, the rock Jesus was talking about is the confessions of Peter, that Jesus is the Son of the Living God. Everyone who comes to believe this and confesses it while making Jesus their Lord, will become a part of His Kingdom.

Thank you brother, i'm very greatfull, though I know the answer before, I am just checking out if we have pople that studies the WORD with their heart here and not with their head.
Thank you and God bless.

@wellborn

¤ how many of the gnostic documents have you read for youself to assert that "they are as valid as the ones in the NT?"

I do not have to read them before i can believe in their validity.Historical documents and researches of biblical scholars have done all that for me,and that is good enough.
Did you verify objectively,the validity of texts in the NT before accepting them as the gospel truth?

what is the central message of the gnostic gospels from what you have personally verified, not the overblown media
     hoo-ha you often rely on?

The gnostic gospels have made it clear to me that there were alternative ideas about early christianity,and the institutionalizing of christianity was not as smoothsailing as purported by the NT.They showed that there was a fierce debate on what Jesus teachings were and their meanings.
They also made it clear that NT is just church propaganda.

how consistent are the gnostic documents to even make one coherrent sense to you?

How consistent are the documents in the NT?Do they make coherent sense too?Methinks not.

what gnostic document have you found to be consistent with the OT prophecies proving/disproving Jesus' crucifixion?

Gnostic documents are not needed for that.The jewish TALMUD disagrees with a dying and rising messiah,and neither is the concept of "Son Of God" a part of the jewish tradition.Such concepts are not of the jewish religion and tradition.Forget not that the OT is a version of jewish TORAH.Why do you think that the jews refused to accept Jesus as the true messiah?

have you read the Bible for yourself to establish your assertions or you're just interested in recycling the worn and tattered prejudices of whatever sources feed your view?

Yes i have read the bible many times before,and there is nothing tattered about these assertions as they present a valid alternative.If anything can be described as "tattered assertions",they would be the divine inspirations behind the NT,'because they are getting old and less convincing.

what do you know about the OT prophecies and the Jewish tradition?

Do you want a lecture?Sorry,no time,but i will say that i know enough,from reading the old testament,watching docus and reading books written by jewish and non-jewish theological scholars.

I don't know it all, but do me the favour of answering those questions objectively rather than from your preconceived points of reference.

Rather funny that you of - all people - should demand for objectivity and abstinence from preconception!
As far as theological debates are concerned,every debater suffers from lack of objectivity and preconception,and that includes you!
Chiao!

Jagunlabi is way off the line. Im not against your using gnostic sources. Its a free forum anyway but the post is based on the bible so your gnostic source will not be enough to convince us.

However, that Bible passage was clear on this topic. Christ chose Peter as the head of his church on earth. No amount of twisting can change this. Even the apostles and the disciples respected this position conferred on Peter.

biggjoe:


However, that Bible passage was clear on this topic. Christ chose Peter as the head of his church on earth. No amount of twisting can change this. Even the apostles and the disciples respected this position conferred on Peter.

I would Jesus build his church on someone or anyone on earth, "TayoD" as done justice to the passage and thats the truth ,Jesus was talking about is the confessions of Peter, that Jesus is the Son of the Living God. Everyone who comes to believe this and confesses it while making Jesus their Lord, will become a part of His Kingdom.
ie everyone who believes that Jesus is the son of Living God and make him their Lord will be saved.

@jagunlabi

Obviously, you didn't make any research and your assertions are needless because I had suspected your biases were based on the overblown media hoo-ha that feed your own view and what you want to believe. Is there a need for me to provide you with an answer to your questions? If you're saying that the gnostic texts "are as valid as the ones in the NT", does that not show that you're clearly saying that the NT is also valid? So, where's your reason for preferring the former to the latter when you have not even read one of the gnostic texts?

I do not have to read them before i can believe in their validity.Historical documents and researches of biblical scholars have done all that for me,and that is good enough.
Did you verify objectively,the validity of texts in the NT before accepting them as the gospel truth?

Let me rest your heart - yes, I personally validated the NT text in my own experience. To date I have read over 49 gnostic documents (including over 39 English translations of the Gospel of Thomas), and I can dare say the NT says what it says and proves what it says in my life. I'll give you a few examples in the NT: (a) Jesus promised that those who believe will pray in His name and what they ask shall be granted (John 14:13 and 16:24) - that has been proven time and again in my life. (b) The NT promises that those who believe in Jesus will be born again and shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (John 1:12 and Acts 2:28) - that also has been proven in my life and is my daily experince. (c) In many NT texts, there are OT prophecies that have been fulfilled. For example, the resurrection of Jesus Christ is prophetically spoken of in Psa. 16:10 and Acts 2:24-27 speaks of its fulfillment. How do I know that they agree? Because the consequence of Jesus resurrection is that He ascended and poured the Holy Spirit so that those who believe might receive. I believed, and I also received. Anyone who has not experienced these facts can easily deny them - which is what your researchers have done for you: they have denied and sold their denials to you, and that's why you can as well refuse to personally validate your claims while relying on their denials. The strength of your own assertions would be that you personally check the documents out for yourself - not rely on secondary "research" that says next to nothing.

Before you launch your next protest, all I ask you to do is personally validate the NT for yourself - I did so for myself and that is why I can confidently speak of what you're reading. My challenges to you are -

(a) find for me only one promise in the gnostic documents that you or anyone else on this Forum can experience. If you have done research for yourself, you'll find that the scholars you might be referring to cannot state one promise in the Gnostic materials that they can prove in their lives as powerfully as the NT offers. Anybody can do research on any document; I challenge you and your scholars to bring out a verse from the gnostic documents that can match the NT promises. . . don't bother for two; just one verse will do for now.

(b) find for me any verse in the gnostic documents that you have personally read that refers to an OT prophecy being fulfilled. One thing you have to realise is that the gnostics did not believe in the OT nor in Jewish tradition or religion. So, I'll wait for you to read the OT for yourself, then match them with any number of gnostic material you can find, and try to explicate and match them in terms of fulfillment. I reserve my comments until you have done so.

The gnostic gospels have made it clear to me that there were alternative ideas about early christianity,and the institutionalizing of christianity was not as smoothsailing as purported by the NT.They showed that there was a fierce debate on what Jesus teachings were and their meanings.
They also made it clear that NT is just church propaganda.

It's easy to write off the NT as Church propaganda if you've neither read the NT nor any gnostic documents for yourself. That's what I had challenged you to do, and until you do so your assertions will continue to grow weak on the premise that some "researchers" have helped you with your ideas. Second, whoever was telling you that early Christianity had a smoothsail from the start didn't do his homework properly. Just read the book of Acts, and if all you find is smoothsail before you get to the 10th chapter, then your researchers would have a point. Your claim to have read the Bible is weakened here by this brouhaha about smoothsail - no one can miss this point from a mile off if they have truly read the Bible for themselves, not claiming that they have.

How consistent are the documents in the NT?Do they make coherent sense too?Methinks not.

Oh brother! Read the NT - not the novels that feed your agenda. You're only throwing tantrums without having read what you're decrying.

Continuing. . .

Gnostic documents are not needed for that.The jewish TALMUD disagrees with a dying and rising messiah,and neither is the concept of "Son Of God" a part of the jewish tradition.Such concepts are not of the jewish religion and tradition.Forget not that the OT is a version of jewish TORAH.Why do you think that the jews refused to accept Jesus as the true messiah?

Good question. The Jews refused to accept Jesus as the Messiah for the very same reason that their own Scriptures tell us: they would be blinded for a season until the fulness of the gentiles is accomplished. You didn't leave me any quotes, but here - let me help you on a few from the OT - Isa.6:9-12 & 53:1.

First, If you understood Jewish tradition and history, you'd not make the mistake of thinking that the Jews based their religious life solely on the Talmud (also known as the Oral Law or "Aggadah"; but rather on the TANACH - which is a compendium of the Torah, Neviim, Ketuvim (that is, the Five Books of Moses, Prophets and The Sacred Writings). It is the TANACH that the Jews regard as the entire God-given Holy Scriptures, not subject to editing, updating or alterations; as was the case of the Talmud, which was later updated and further extended over a few hundred years to later be called the Gemara.

A proper Jew never rested his faith on the Talmud, but rather on the TANACH. And when you examine this document for yourself, you'll surely find the concepts of "a dying and rising messiah", as well as the teaching on the concept of "Son Of God" - whether or not they believed this to be the Christ. What you denied are actually in the Jewish holy books.

Yes i have read the bible many times before,and there is nothing tattered about these assertions as they present a valid alternative.If anything can be described as "tattered assertions",they would be the divine inspirations behind the NT,'because they are getting old and less convincing.

"Getting old and less convincing" is the borrowed slogan of classic doubters. I guarantee you that when you have experienced the promises found in the Bible for yourself, your doubts would long be well taken care of. Reading the Bible 'many times before' is not the same thing as experiencing the power of God. Atheists have read the Bible more times than you know - but not one of them that I know of has tested out the challenges offered in the Bible. Experience God's power for yourself and know the difference - complete your inquisitiveness by believing what the Bible says and then you can know if God's promises are tattered.

Do you want a lecture?Sorry,no time,but i will say that i know enough,from reading the old testament,watching docus and reading books written by jewish and non-jewish theological scholars.

Your claims here are not convincing; or you might have been reading the wrong books, watching the wrong documentaries and reading scholars who missed the point. As an example, I just told you the difference between the TALMUD and the TANACH - they are not the same and no Jewish scholar worth his salt will tell you that the TALMUD is the authority for the Jewish religion and tradition.

Rather funny that you of - all people - should demand for objectivity and abstinence from preconception!
As far as theological debates are concerned,every debater suffers from lack of objectivity and preconception,and that includes you!

Granted - but you're top on the list! You should rather have backed up your claims by telling us what you know for yourself, not what you have ferreted from secondary sources. At least, that would have been a bit more objective and not preconceived. You made so much noise about the Gospel of Judas without having read it for yourself; when I did read it (I have an English translation now), I was so sorry to note that the media blew the whole story out of proportion.

If you don't know about the Jews, ask them - they will tell you what their tradition and history is all about. And until you read the gnostic gospels for yourself, relax and don't assume you know just because somebody told you so.

Peace.

However, that Bible passage was clear on this topic. Christ chose Peter as the head of his church on earth. No amount of twisting can change this. Even the apostles and the disciples respected this position conferred on Peter.

We know what the bible says,but are we sure that Jesus actually said that.A lot of fake passages have been added into the NT gospels,too many to make them credible sources.Sorry.

@wellborn
First of all,i am not the one throwing tantrums but you.What i did was merely presented my own point of view,and what was your own response?Tirades.It is very obvious in your posts that you are the angry one,angered by the opinions of others because they differ with yours.
After writing all that epistle of circular reasoning that least convinces,why are you against catholism then when you believe so much in Peter's authority?
On one hand you support catholism,the next you are calling them pagan worshippers.You are really a very confused person.
Sorry that i do not have time to write looog epistles like yours because that is just excersise in futitility.I get dizzy very quickly when i am going round and round in senseless circles of debate.

I will leave you with this,though;
Over a couple centuries,biblical scholars have found out and established that Jesus never left his church for Peter to continue,and i tend to believe them because their arguements obtained from their various researches of texts from the canonical gospels and the gnostic manuscripts support that.
The passage that says,"Upon this rock i build my church" has been agreed to be a later add on,and i believe them.I can give you links to support this arguement,but you probably won't look at them because it goes against your belief,and that i respect and understand,so i won't bother.
One thing that you must know,whether you like it or not,alternative christian traditions that are way different from what you have been thought are coming out and gaining ground.
So you will be the one throwing tantrums on this forum and not me,when threads are opened on these traditions.So dress warm.I won't have problems with them because i am far more openminded than you are in this matters.
Oh,by the way,the Magdalene is still the consort and favoured apostle of Jesus christ.Afterall she was the one with the epithet of "Apostle of all apostles".You can throw tantrums on that all you want,it won't change anything.
Chiao!

@jagunlabi,

I never expected you'd come back with anything but such weak idiosyncracies. It's characteristic of people who have nothing worthwhile to say but just want to make some noise - which is not a right I deny you in an open forum.

Oh brother! You read me as an angry person? You're the one who needs to dress warm - I'm a very happy person. But when I debate issues, you'll notice it's not my style to make flimsy statements that I can't sustain. That's why, yes, I take my time to write my "epistles" and contain all points that are raised. I didn't see you addressing my challenges though - not even one; just excuses that I'm "angry" - at what, or who. . . you? Don't make me laugh! 

Now let me clear some things you muddled up -

jagunlabi:

First of all,i am not the one throwing tantrums but you.What i did was merely presented my own point of view,and what was your own response?Tirades.It is very obvious in your posts that you are the angry one,angered by the opinions of others because they differ with yours.

  ¤  no one has complained that I'm angered by the opinions of others which differ from mine - you'd be
      the only feeling that way. As an example, Rev. Fletcher's opinions quite differ from mine, but take a
      look at my recent posts and see the "anger" you're describing that doesn't exist!

jagunlabi:

After writing all that epistle of circular reasoning that least convinces,why are you against catholism then when you believe so much in Peter's authority?
On one hand you support catholism,the next you are calling them pagan worshippers.You are really a very confused person.

  ¤  my "epistles" are not based on 'circular reasoning' (did you mean 'secular reasoning' instead?); and
      certainly, my write ups are convincing enough to debunk what you stated earlier. Your claim that the
      the concepts of a dying messiah and of "Son of God" were not of the Jewish religion and tradition is
      convincingly debunked by the fact that what you denied were actually in the Jewish books, religion,
      and tradition.

  ¤  Nowhere did you ever read me as supporting Catholicism, so don't start another misinformation you
      can't sustain. Second, nowhere did I call Catholics pagan worshippers; and in fact, my memory serves
      me right that you were the one addressing them as pagans; whereupon I made my input that quite to
      the contrary, I believed that everyone who has trusted Christ as Saviour is my brother and sister in the
      common faith of our Lord - you can remind yourself and verify this info from this link.

  ¤  Did you ask yourself if my belief in Peter's authority was as Pope or Apostle? You really have your
      points mixed up, and it would really be exciting if you could do me the favour of linking me to any
      page or line where I supported the idea of Peter being a Pope, for a Pope and an Apostle are two
      different things - even Catholics who are knowledgeable will tell you that.

jagunlabi:

Sorry that i do not have time to write looog epistles like yours because that is just excersise in futitility.I get dizzy very quickly when i am going round and round in senseless circles of debate.

  ¤  No problem, I don't get dizzy as you - I take my time and do a very thorough assessment of issues in
      debates, and I've no apologies and excuses for my "looog epistles". Secondly, you probably were not
      quite adjusted if all you read were "senseless circles of debates" - I've heard that countless times from
      people who cannot face up to their claims, so yours is not new.

jagunlabi:

I will leave you with this,though;
Over a couple centuries,biblical scholars have found out and established that Jesus never left his church for Peter to continue,and i tend to believe them because their arguements obtained from their various researches of texts from the canonical gospels and the gnostic manuscripts support that.

  ¤  Now, I'll respect three things in that statement: (a) nowhere does the NT say that Christ left the Church
      for Peter to continue; it only says that He gave Peter the keys of the Kingdom (see Matt. 16:19) - so, as
      far as I never contradicted that, I don't see what your point is. (b) you're free to believe what you want,
      but  that  does not  necessarily  mean that your beliefs  disprove the firsthand experiences of those
      who have trusted in Christ and have seen results - which is why I challenged you and your researchers
      to provide only one verse in the gnostic documents that can match the promises of the NT - just one verse
      would suffice; and you have not done so. (c) there are lots of things the researchers will tell you that you
      can't prove from the gnostic documents as long as you refuse to read them for yourself.

jagunlabi:

The passage that says,"Upon this rock i build my church" has been agreed to be a later add on,and i believe them.I can give you links to support this arguement,but you probably won't look at them because it goes against your belief,and that i respect and understand,so i won't bother.

  ¤  Small wonder - I could provide you a whole list of passages that so-called researchers deny are in the
      'original' texts of the Bible, but which they claim were later additions. I can't stop laughing. Have you ever
      wondered that these same researchers will NOT tell you the same things about the gnostic documents?
      For example, of the 39 English translations of the Gospel of Thomas alone, several editions and versions
      have additions between verses; and yet I bet you that you will not find any statement from your researchers
      admitting that they have added those verses. Please don't take this as a bogus claim - I have all 39 English
      translations/versions of the Gospel of Thomas in my personal library; and I urge you to read from the source
      rather than from your researchers' novels before making your assertions.

jagunlabi:

So you will be the one throwing tantrums on this forum and not me,when threads are opened on these traditions.So dress warm.I won't have problems with them because i am far more openminded than you are in this matters.

  ¤  I have never sought to deny or defend the existence of the so-called "alternative christian traditions" you
      have been preaching on Nairaland; nor have you brought out any verse from the ones you have
      personally read. The "gaining grounds"claim that you're talking about is a mute point in as much as no one
      has ever attempted to use the Gospel of Judas to start an "alternative Church" - it's simple: Judas was a thief, a
      betrayer, and he committed suicide; so who's going to join a church like that? What promises and what miracles
      do the gnostic gospels offer you or your researchers? "Gaining ground" - I can't laugh enough! 

jagunlabi:

Oh,by the way,the Magdalene is still the consort and favoured apostle of Jesus christ.Afterall she was the one with the epithet of "Apostle of all apostles".You can throw tantrums on that all you want,it won't change anything.
Chiao!

  ¤  jagunlabi, don't sweat it out, pal. Assertions that have no evidence of proof such as are testable in the NT
      don't worry me at all - and I don't see how they should be a bother to you and your researchers. It costs me
      absolutely nothing to face them each and every line when they surface; but it simply amazes me that all you
      do is refuse to face the challenges earlier posted under the excuse that it makes you "dizzy very quickly". I
      understand. . and sympathise with that. But neither on Nairaland nor anywhere else have I ever shrunk from
      or have had to shiver about unauthenticated gnostics.

I wish you a very pleasant Sunday. 

I never expected you'd come back with anything but such weak idiosyncracies. It's characteristic of people who have nothing worthwhile to say but just want to make some noise - which is not a right I deny you in an open forum.

Look,i don't feel that i have to convince you of anything,because i have had previous experience of engaing people like you in neverending cycle of debate that ended nowhere.And i have no intention of sinking into it again.I made my point of view known,and that's it.I never expect an NT apologetic like you to accept it in the first place.This is a forum to air one's view,and that was what i did,and you will have to deal with that
Besides,no matter what arguements i bring forth will convince you anyway,so what's the use.All your long epistles have not convinced me now,has it?So what is the point of all your effort?

Oh brother! You read me as an angry person?

Oh i feel you as a very emotional and angry person because of the way you resort to personal attacks when somebody else's views do not tally with yours.I have noticed that.
You seem like a person who believes that his views have to be accepted as the gospel truth by all,and if that is not the case,you simply flip out.

Your claim that the the concepts of a dying messiah and of "Son of God" were not of the Jewish religion and tradition is convincingly debunked by the fact that what you denied were actually in the Jewish books, religion,
and tradition.

Yes,iand i still stand by that statement that the jewish tradition does not support such a concept.None of what you produced in your earlier post proved otherwise.
[b]Why did the jews refused to accept Jesus as their messiah?[/b]You have not given a convincing answer to that one.
Could it be that they do not believe that their messiah could not have siffered such a humiliating cricifixion in public?
Son of God concept is pagan all the way and Jesus is believed to have been consciously reenacting the Osiris/Isis mystery rites,with the Magdalene as his Isis.But you don't have to accept that.It changes nothing,though.I can talk out of the canons,but you can't.

Nowhere did you ever read me as supporting Catholicism, so don't start another misinformation you
can't sustain.

I never said that you do.I said you do the exact opposite,and yet you accept the doctrine set up primarily by catholicism.

I've heard that countless times from people who cannot face up to their claims, so yours is not new.

Oh i can face up to my claims,alright.I can push all kinds of links in your face to support my claim.Maybe i need to start doing that now.I just don't have so much time to spend on the net as you obviously do,because i am always in and out,which means my contributions always have to be very short and to the point.
But i have no problems facing up to my claims,which i will be doing when i do have more times on my hands.

Did you ask yourself if my belief in Peter's authority was as Pope or Apostle?

Why should i have asked you of that?Of what purpose would that have served?The theme of the thread is whether Peter was given the authority to continue the church of Jesus,and i replied no.

disprove the firsthand experiences of those who have trusted in Christ and have seen results

Who are those,please?Care to mention?

which is why I challenged you and your researchers to provide only one verse in the gnostic documents that can match the promises of the NT

What promises are those,please?Care to clarify?Have you ever asked yourself why the church was so afraid of the gnostic documents that they went to the extreme of burning books and killing innocent souls?Could it have been that those documents were right and the ones that made it to

the NT were not?
Have you ever
wondered that these same researchers will NOT tell you the same things about the gnostic documents?
For example, of the 39 English translations of the Gospel of Thomas alone, several editions and versions
have additions between verses; and yet I bet you that you will not find any statement from your researchers

Sorry,but no matter how many times gnostic docuents have been interpreted they are still purer than the canonical ones that have been subjected to uncountable editings,of additions and subtractions of texts and passages.No comparison there.Gnostic manuscript are highly valued because of their purity as free from any form of manipulations.That cannot be said of canonical gospels.

The "gaining grounds"claim that you're talking about is a mute point in as much as no one
has ever attempted to use the Gospel of Judas to start an "alternative Church"

You can continue to live in a perpetual state of denial.That is you own prerogative,but it won't change the facts on the ground which is that the NT is in a very serious crisis of diminishing credibility.

It costs me
absolutely nothing to face them each and every line when they surface; but it simply amazes me that all you
do is refuse to face the challenges earlier posted under the excuse that it makes you

Don't worry,i am going to give you plenty to debate on in days to come.And i did not see any challenges whatsoever in your last posts that is worth taking on,so that was why i ignored.

Let me reiterate one more time that Peter was not as important in the Jesus movement as the Magdalene.He was not even in the inner circle.That is what this thread is about in the first place,innit?
Chiao!

@jagunlabi,

You make me laugh, accusing me of anger where there was none, but getting so impassioned yourself. You left no convincing proof of your assertions, just arguments of what you want to believe. Just because the Jews refused Jesus as their Messiah does not support your denial that the concepts of a dying messiah and of Son of God were foreign to the Jewish tradition and religion. I keep saying that what you deny are in very fact in their books - go read them yourself.

Right, I'm not trying to convert you by arguments - yours or mine: but I don't see why you should be complaining about my views in as much as you're campaigning for your right to express yours here. This is a public forum, isn't it? And, what were you aiming at when you make assertions and hope that only yours were supposed to hold over everyone else's?

You may read me wrongly - that's alright, because again, that's what you really want to do. I only asked you to prove your claims that I supported the Catholic tradition, even leaving you links to earlier posts to buttress my refutal; and all you could do was complain? Pal, take it easy - it was quite a simple request: if you could not prove your point, the best you could was concede that you were highly mistaken.

You feel you have noticed that anyone who does not agree with my views necessarily comes under my attack. I'm sorry - you really haven't been reading my posts. You could say that you felt I attacked you; point them out and then you'll come away with my apologies where you could justify them.

What I really expected you to do was point out from the Jewish sources themselves to show me where in the TANACH the ideas you deny are as you asserted. If on the contrary, they are there, why has that been a big problem for you to recognise them so?

I spare you the basis of your complaints in this one - at least you can rest from my "loooog epistles". On the whole, you have a right to believe what you want to, make recourse to any research or sources you want - and I hope that when others make their own inputs in debates to refute your claims, you won't suddenly start the noise about people getting angry again.

I'm not upset - really I'm not. That doesn't mean that I've to sit and gullibly acquiesce to your views were they are wrong, in order to be a peaceful person according to your ideas. jagunlabi, I'm a peaceful person - all I wanted was that you get to the real source of the books and Jewish religion that you're misrepresenting. You'll find a tremendous difference from what your sources have been saying. I know because I've read the books and spoken to Rabbis as well. Read the TANACH - the answers are all there!!

Peace to you.

i'd be very surprised if wellborn have not called catholics idol worshippers in this forum. considering the crusade he mounted so far.

Well, I'm not so sure he actually called Catholics 'pagans' - and he has indicated this with a link to the point. I've followed his link and seen that he refuted the idea of Catholics or other Christians being called pagans.

The point is that you may disagree with people's traditions in Christianity; but that is not the same thing as calling people pagans. Welborn indeed vehemently refuted the Catholic tradition (in my opinion); maybe I'm mistaken, but then I haven't read that he actually called Catholics 'pagans'.

Yes and no!

In the sense that The Lord used the apostles (all of them) to found and propagate His church. Well, yes!

1Corinthians 3:11 - For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ

Ephesians 2:20 - having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone,

But in the sense that Peter was solely charged with the office of high leadership, whose lineage was to be maintained by dynastic succession! Please!

There are only two offices in the church today elders (always in plurality) and deacons.

Everything else is needless religion.

God bless

Could you be a bit clearer on this:

TV01:


There are only two offices in the church today elders (always in plurality) and deacons.

Everything else is needless religion.

So, what is your own understanding of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers (Eph. 4:11)? Just curious, since you surmised that everything else is needless religion.

While giving an explanantion to 4get_me, kindly tell me the position of a Bishop too. 1 Timothy 3:1 "This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work."

Morning Gentlemen,

Hope the day finds you well. Great weather here. Now, to the business at hand.

~ Apostle: Sent one. Presumably one is sent to do something? Establish something? The church
   has been established.
~ Evangelist: Evangelism is the outworking of being a Christian
~ Whats a pastor? show me from the Bible a pastors remit/mandate.
~ Brother 4get-me, haven't I taught you a lot? But I don't demand you call me teacher  . I've   
   enjoyed learning from you, but it's still Bro' 4get-me. Learning is by being with. That is what
   Ephesians 4 is really speaking to. Our coming together means transference of gifts,
   knowledge,  experience. We are thus edified. We grow, we mature, we become more Christlike.
   Hebrews 5:12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers

The way these offices/functions/titles tend to play out in denominational Christianity is to foster a dichotomy (the totally unscriptural clergy/laity split), and make some dependent on others. Some never really mature and stay carnal, like at Corinth, legal, like at Galatia, or babes, like the "Hebrews". (small wonder many labour under this nonsensical "MOG" fixation). It becomes rigid and develops an "organisational" feel. Christian interaction is relational and not functional. "I Paul, an apostle" a brother first, acting in a certain capacity, charged with a particular role (at that time). I meet people today and they always introduce themselves as Pastor this or Reverend that (often without even a first name!), immediately establishing functionality and not relationship.

Let me say this, God is sovereign, if He chooses to work in certain ways, at certain times, through certain people and mediums, who am I or anyone else to question that?

The living Christianity I see is way beyond the functional paradigm that so many try and squeeze it into. Offices, functions, positions, titles? It's a family not an organisation.

A 10 year old, the second of five kids. His chore is to take out the trash. Does he assume the title/office/role of "waste disposal expert"? No, it's just a function. He'll grow, the task may be reassigned, he'll do other things, as and when necessary and according to his maturity. Remember the apostle Paul grew and worked through different roles, as was needed, as was beneficial and as God willed.

Why did Peter call himself a "fellow elder"? Because he was based in Jerusalem. The church there had been established. He took his place amongst the comity of elders. No senior, no better. That's living, practical Christianity. Paul was being used to establish the church outside Jewry, an "apostolic" role (plus he was itinerant). After pioneering is done, you either (1) go and pioneer in another virgin territory (2) stay and become part of the locally established church or (3) return whence you came, job done, no need to be called an apostle.

What's a Prophet? I'm sure most are beyond thinking of it as a"predictive" ministry. Prophets where always first and foremost about warning and repentance. Prophets are used to speak to people.

Hebrews 1:1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son,

I could go on, but hopefully you get my drift. Ephesians 2:20 from my post of yesterday, you can see that some roles are foundational. The foundation has been laid, just take care how you build on it.

TayoD
A bishop is the same as an elder/shepherd/pastor. They are just different facets of the same role.

God bless

Brother TV01 

Apologies for rambling a bit today. It's summer, and a young mans thoughts turn to love. She's got me going!  , please remember me in your prayers.

Hi there,

Very quickly, could I ask you, how many apostles do you read of in the NT? TY.






PS. Enjoy your summer, lucky you! It's dull out here today, and I'm sunk with work load TDB.

Hi again 4get_me,

To be honest the number of NT Apostles would be a mute point to me.
I consider grasping the "how & why" of the apostolic to be sufficient.

Paul walked/worked with a whole group of people.
Both Timothy and Titus, where to "appoint elders". I see that as "establishing" the church/churches, so in a sense it's definitely apostolic. Are they to be considered apostles?
Are they to be considered Apostles like Peter? or maybe like Paul? All good questions, but I'm not sure how important it is.

I must say the True Apostles were personally selected by the Lord himself, even Paul as "one out of time".

So perhaps we can make a distinction between an "Apostle" a title/position/selected, and "the Apostolic" as a function?

Why do you ask?

God bless.


Aren't I rambling today? See how passion is dealing with a brother .

The question is a valid one because it helps distinguish between what or who an apostle is from other leaders. My concern is borne our of your statement that "After pioneering is done, you either. . . return whence you came, job done, no need to be called an apostle." The Bible is specific about those called apostles in the NT, but it seems to me that you haven't observed this. Thought you'd have helped clarify that point, then I'll take the time later today to post a reply.

Enjoy!

Why am I  starting to detest that word leader/s?
It's such a buzzword in some cirlcles. Whole conferences  .
Used only 3 times in the NT (NKJV) and never to describe Christians

Sorry, just rambling.

4get_me,

As far as I can make out I have answered all the questions posed.
If you think not, could you please specify very clearly what I have omitted.

I asked at the end of my last post "why".
A response can be more precisely worded if the question is more specific.

Yes the Bible is very specific about those called "Apostles".
I spoke to that, as those selected by the Lord.

If there is a hierarchy, why would Peter an Apostle refer to himself as an elder? And what "Apostolic" work was he performing in Jerusalem? When the question of Laws to be obeyed came up (the conference in Acts 15). Then they came together and discussed matters that were foundational to the church and hence acted in their capacity as Apostles. What is the need for an Apostle in the day to day running of a church?

And I won't get tired of stressing this, note how the gentiles who were turning to God where to abstain from only three things. The law of Moses was in now way, shape or form to be enforced on the Gentiles - NO TITHING! (Acts 15:19-25)

Later.

God bless

I fear you're dodging the issue. It doesn't matter what you detest; my interest is in the substance of the discussion. Apostles, elders and deacons are leaders in the church; and it is of little substance that you detest the term 'leader', buzz word or no. Question is that your earlier assertion that (there are only two offices in the church and everything else is religion) is not a balanced and objective way of reasoning from the Scripture. It would help significantly if you could provide an answer to my question about apostles:

Very quickly, could I ask you, how many apostles do you read of in the NT?

Or, putting it in another way: were there several apostles besides the twelve appointed by the Lord?

Hi 4get_me,

Me, dodge? If only you knew.

There were 13 Apostles in the NT. The 12 and Paul.
Or I could say 12, as one, Judas, fell by transgression.

That's foundational.

Now sir, whats your position and what are you saying?

God bless