Galatians 1:18-19

18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to confer with Cephas and remained with him for fifteen days.

19 But I did not see any other of the apostles, only James the brother of the Lord.

imhotep:

1. Peter was among 'the apostles'.
2. These young men were not self-appointed. As we observe in many of todays 'churches'.

So based on that verse we should conclude that ALL the apostles were leaders? Ok so why is Phillip not a pope too? Why single out Peter from a verse that is essentially refering to ALL the apostles?

Your point 2 is correct, but who appoints teachers of the gospel? The pope or Christ Himself working through the hands of those He has ordained?

justcool:

The ignorance in this thread is appalling. Even a child can see that Cgift and 4Him are only driven by hatrad. With every post, 4Him exposes ignorance. I can't believe that somebody in this day and age can be that ignorant.

Earlier in this thread, I made mention of the fact that the Bible was collected and complied by the Catholics. Can you believe that 4Him's reply was: "King James was not a Catholic.
Please what has King James who addicted an already existing Bible, got to do whit the collection and compilation of the Bible. The guy is terribly ignorant thats why I chose not to address him any more.

the problem with people like this is they usually never have anything of substance to contribute beyond mudslinging only to slink away with their tail between their legs.
Driven by hatred of what? The catholic church? Why shld i hate them? Of what purpose am i served by hating them?

Ignorance? Where? You mention that the bible was already written before King James came along . . . bros, the bible had long been written before the catholics came to do their famous "compilation" . . . the Jews had the Torah thousands of yrs before any pope was born so who is more ignorant here?

4 Him:

Do you have anything else to say besides these tired old cliche?

I will stop when I get a satisfactory answer.

4 Him:

Repeated again? Well you also should reject the books they compiled because a mooslim found them in the cave of qumran.

The qumran books are largely duplications of some books of the OT.

4 Him:

This is essentially a silly argument whose bottom drops out as soon as u probe a little deeper.

but you have not responded to this 'silly argument'.

4 Him:

If the catholic church WROTE those very books then you have grounds to tell us to reject them . . . the books of the bible were written primarily by jewish men . . . if anyone shld be in a position to tell us to claim copyright it is their descendants and not usurpers who just came along and put together documents written hundreds of years before they were born.

Beautiful. Then how come YOUR faith is based on the authority of USURPERS?
WHERE IS YOUR OWN BIBLE - the one that the HOLY SPIRIT inspired you to compile?

imhotep:

But the bishops that compiled the bible are supposed to be evil men. Why accept the works of evil men

Why not you (the good man) go and compile/approve your own bible.

1. I do not think Bishops or catholics are categorically evil. I never said so. you are either referring to the wrong person or putting words in my mouth or both. I do however do not believe in some of their doctrines because they are not scriptural and I will not get off into that.

2. I have discovered that most catholics either do not understand the functions of the Holy Spirit or refuse to accept the fact that the bible was compiled by God through Him because he is the resident Lord on the earth. Yes, it was probably the Bishops that compiled the bible, simply because God is too large to grab a pen and paper and write a bible for us. Besides, thats why he gave us ten fingers and one brain to write. So I do not see why I must credit the bible to the Bishops and why rejecting some of their doctrines and practices that I do not find in the bible should be equated with seeing them as evil and as outrightly rejecting the word of God.

When Segun Adeniyi comes on air and announces one of Yar'Adua's policies that you like, who do you credit, Adeniyi or Yar' Adua? Who gets the praise? Who set out the policy? These are simple questions with honest answers that should make certain things clear to you.

imhotep:

Galatians 1:18-19

18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to confer with Cephas and remained with him for fifteen days.

19 But I did not see any other of the apostles, only James the brother of the Lord.

And this is the basis for your claim that Peter was chosen as leader of the apostles? Paul went preaching for yrs with Barnabas, should we claim that Barnabas was the leader of the apostles too? What of Ananias who helped Paul regain his sight after his conversion?
Is he a pope too?

4 Him:

So based on that verse we should conclude that ALL the apostles were leaders? Ok so why is Phillip not a pope too? Why single out Peter from a verse that is essentially refering to ALL the apostles?
Your point 2 is correct, but who appoints teachers of the gospel? The pope or Christ Himself working through the hands of those He has ordained?

This is why you should stop dodging John 21. Please go and interpret it sincerely.

4 Him:

And this is the basis for your claim that Peter was chosen as leader of the apostles? Paul went preaching for years with Barnabas, should we claim that Barnabas was the leader of the apostles too? What of Ananias who helped Paul regain his sight after his conversion?
Is he a pope too?

I repeat, go and interpret John 21 sincerely and holistically

2. These young men were not self-appointed. As we observe in many of todays 'churches'.

Paul was not one of the apostles. We all know the story of how he was stopped on the road to Damascus. What then restricts God today from apointing someone who is not in the Catholic Church to do His work?

I like the fact that you used the word 'many' not all. Because not all 'protestant' churches are fake, self-appointed churches.

imhotep:

This is why you should stop dodging John 21. Please go and interpret it sincerely.

It was in the quest for a sincere interpretation that i showed you that God had used that same description as far back as Ezekiel 34 . . . what makes John 21 any different?
Those Israelite leaders where also told to feed the flock, why does the very same statement made to Peter assume radically different dimensions?

imhotep:

I repeat, go and interpret John 21 sincerely and holistically

Something must be seriously wrong here . . . are you claiming that not a single one of the other apostles understood John 21 too? I cant read anywhere in the bible they accorded Peter any more importance.

4 Him:

It was in the quest for a sincere interpretation that i showed you that God had used that same description as far back as Ezekiel 34 . . . what makes John 21 any different?
Those Israelite leaders where also told to feed the flock, why does the very same statement made to Peter assume radically different dimensions?

You are mixing up things once more. Jesus is the 'mediator of a new covenant'.

That ezekiel quote is more comparable to this ==>

Matthew 23:2-3
1 Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples,

2 "The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses.

3 Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example

4Him:
Something must be seriously wrong here . . . are you claiming that not a single one of the other apostles understood John 21 too? I can't read anywhere in the bible they accorded Peter any more importance.

Then how come Jesus was addressing ONLY Peter. Why did He not assemble the 12 and tell them the same thing?

Or are Jesus' words suddenly meaningless?

imhotep:

You are mixing up things once more. Jesus is the 'mediator of a new covenant'.

That ezekiel quote is more comparable to this ==>

Matthew 23:2-3
1 Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples,

2 "The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses.

3 Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example

The new covenant does not abolish the position of shepherds feeding the flock. You're simply looking for an excuse to continue following unbiblical doctrines that are leading right to the wide path of destruction.

I ask again, pls show me anywhere in the bible that the apostles understood the catholic idea of John 21.

imhotep:

Then how come Jesus was addressing ONLY Peter. Why did He not assemble the 12 and tell them the same thing?

Or are Jesus' words suddenly meaningless?

In no way do i imply that Jesus' words are meaningless.

However, Jesus Christ had an apostle whom He loved . . . did it mean He didnt love the other 11?

A_K_O:
Paul was not one of the apostles. We all know the story of how he was stopped on the road to Damascus. What then restricts God today from apointing someone who is not in the Catholic Church to do His work?

Beautiful question. So God can choose M'uslims, buddhists, hindus, pagans, ogboni etc etc.!

A_K_O:
I like the fact that you used the word 'many' not all. Because not all 'protestant' churches are fake, self-appointed churches.

I alone know what I meant by MANY.

4 Him:

In no way do i imply that Jesus' words are meaningless.

However, Jesus Christ had an apostle whom He loved . . . did it mean He didnt love the other 11?

You just dodged the issue.

imhotep:

You just dodged the issue.

nope. I simply raised a very similar scenario for you to chew upon. You dont look at an issue in isolation.

4Him:
The new covenant does not abolish the position of shepherds feeding the flock.

The people appointed in Ezekiel were recognized by Christ in Matthew 23:2-3

4Him:
You're simply looking for an excuse to continue following unbiblical doctrines that are leading right to the wide path of destruction.

I have not seen YOUR bible yet!! Still waiting.

4Him:
I ask again, please show me anywhere in the bible that the apostles understood the catholic idea of John 21.

Show me where they had 33,000 bickering sects in the bible.

4 Him:

nope. I simply raised a very similar scenario for you to chew upon. You don't look at an issue in isolation.

Good. In the same way that 'born again' is not used in the Acts of the apostles. Yet you guys keep shouting 'born again' all over the place??

You are yet to tell me what Jesus meant, though.

4 Him:

Ignorance? Where? You mention that the bible was already written before King James came along . . . bros, the bible had long been written before the catholics came to do their famous "compilation" . . . the Jews had the Torah thousands of years before any pope was born so who is more ignorant here?

@4Him

Bros you are making a mistake. Nobody eversaid that the catholics wrote the bible. The catholics compiled it, and King James has nothing to do with the compilation.

The bible did not exist before the catholics compilation. What existed was the Torah and some letters written to various churches by Paul, Peter, etc, and many different accounts of the life of Jesus. The catholics collected all these books and out of the many accounts of Jesus's life, they chose four(the gospels) and compiled a book called the Bible. Prior to the compilation the bible as a book never existed. The word Bible comes from the word Bibilea which is a house where Scriptures are collected and kept.
Historicaly, the bible is actualy a book of the Catholics.

imhotep:

Good. In the same way that 'born again' is not used in the Acts of the apostles. Yet you guys keep shouting 'born again' all over the place??

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

I would take any statement made by Christ anyday over what the apostles say.

imhotep:

I have not seen YOUR bible yet!! Still waiting.

neither have i seen YOURS. Compiling and writing are 2 different things . . . perhaps the boy who found the scrolls in the cave of qumran shld claim parts of the old testament as his too eh?

imhotep:

Show me where they had 33,000 bickering sects in the bible.

They still had bickering sects, remember Paul and Apollos?

seeklove:

@4Him
The bible did not exist before the catholics compilation. What existed was the Torah and some letters written to various churches by Paul, Peter, etc, and many different accounts of the life of Jesus. The catholics collected all these books and out of the many accounts of Jesus's life, they chose four(the gospels) and compiled a book called the Bible. Prior to the compilation the bible as a book never existed. The word Bible comes from the word Bibilea which is a house where Scriptures are collected and kept.
Historicaly, the bible is actualy a book of the Catholics.

The apostles did not tell us they were writing to catholics.

A_K_O:
1. I do not think Bishops or catholics are categorically evil. I never said so. you are either referring to the wrong person or putting words in my mouth or both. I do however do not believe in some of their doctrines because they are not scriptural and I will not get off into that.

Fine by me.

A_K_O:
2. I have discovered that most catholics either do not understand the functions of the Holy Spirit or refuse to accept the fact that the bible was compiled by God through Him because he is the resident Lord on the earth. Yes, it was probably the Bishops that compiled the bible, simply because God is too large to grab a pen and paper and write a bible for us. Besides, thats why he gave us ten fingers and one brain to write. So I do not see why I must credit the bible to the Bishops and why rejecting some of their doctrines and practices that I do not find in the bible should be equated with seeing them as evil and as outrightly rejecting the word of God.

So, the Holy Spirit inspired the bishops to compile and approve the bible.
Then, the devil inpsired these same bishops in their doctrines.

Now, who inspired the 33,000 bickering protestant sects in forming 33,000 mutually contradicting doctrines about ONE Christ

4 Him:

The apostles did not tell us they were writing to catholics.

Did they say they were writing to the protestants? To which of the 33,000 protestant sects?

imhotep:

Did they say they were writing to the protestants? To which of the 33,000 protestant sects?

They were writing to the body of Christ. The apostles did not tell us to go form sects.

Your questions are begining to bother on the hysterical and are losing focus.

4 Him:

I would take any statement made by Christ anyday over what the apostles say.

Then how come you reject this one ==>

John 21: 15-17 ------------->
Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs."

A second time he said to him, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep."

He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" And he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep."

4 Him:

neither have i seen YOURS. Compiling and writing are 2 different things . . . perhaps the boy who found the scrolls in the cave of qumran shld claim parts of the old testament as his too eh?

You read 'mine' everyday and base your entire life on it!!

4 Him:

They still had bickering sects, remember Paul and Apollos?

Yes, I remember. Just that you guys added 33,000 more. How do u think Paul will feel about this

4 Him:

They were writing to the body of Christ. The apostles did not tell us to go form sects.

Then who inspired 33,000 bickering sects?

4 Him:

Your questions are begining to bother on the hysterical and are losing focus.

You are dodging my questions. Answer them.

imhotep:

Then how come you reject this one ==>

Simply because you're confused. No where did the apostles make that verse any more relevant. None of them made Peter their chief.

imhotep:

You read 'mine' everyday and base your entire life on it!!

Spoken like a child. You seriously also claim the Torah too? you claim the writings of Paul as yours? and the writings of MArk, Luke, John Zechariah, Daniel? Where they writing to the entire body of Christ or to a blasphemous organisation that worshipped things the apostles never worshipped?

imhotep:

Yes, I remember. Just that you guys added 33,000 more. How do u think Paul will feel about this

the Lord knows those who are His, i doubt Paul would lose much sleep over that.

imhotep:

You are dodging my questions. Answer them.

I asked just one simple question, seeklove wont answer it, Lady fled and you have been trying to ignore it.

Where did the apostles act on John 21 and make Peter their chief?

4 Him:

Simply because you're confused. No where did the apostles make that verse any more relevant. None of them made Peter their chief.

Born again does not appear in Acts of the Apostles. Why do u keep using it to confuse people??

4 Him:

Spoken like a child. You seriously also claim the Torah too? you claim the writings of Paul as yours? and the writings of MArk, Luke, John Zechariah, Daniel? Where they writing to the entire body of Christ or to a blasphemous organisation that worshipped things the apostles never worshipped?

This blasphemous organisation stands behind the book you have made ur life.

4 Him:

the Lord knows those who are His, i doubt Paul would lose much sleep over that.

Go and find out what this means:

John 17:21-22 ==>
That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one.



Christ is not the author of confusion, bickering, hatred and division.

4 Him:

I asked just one simple question, seeklove wont answer it, Lady fled and you have been trying to ignore it.

Where did the apostles act on John 21 and make Peter their chief?

Christ made Peter the chief - not the apostles. And Christ is God - remember?