₦airaland Forum

randomperson:
Lol... This is funny.
If Judas said, use the money to buy anything. How does that mean he bought the land for them? If you gimme money to use to do anything, is the money still yours? Of course not

Next?

randomperson:
Judas didn't BUY the land. The chief priest did. It was the priests decision to buy the land, the actual purchase was carried out by the priests

Judas Iscariot merely threw the money on the ground... They didn't even have to take it.
Or are you saying, if I throw morning on the ground and a person takes and uses it to buy a gun, that means I bought the gun

Let me just play along with you.

The chief priests could have screamed to Judas as was leaving "what do you want us to do with this money?" He could have replied "anything." In other words, "use the money I gave you to buy anything, including land."

Therefore, Judas bought the land for the chief priests.

randomperson:
If you GAVE $100 to a friend to use as he wishes and he buys a phone. Can you collect the phone from him? No because it's not your own!!

We are looking at the fact that if Judas did not provide the funds, the land would not have been bought.

Judas bought the land(for the chief priests maybe) because he funded the purchase!

randomperson:
They didn't buy the land for him! Don't you have access to a bible

He needs not claim ownership of the land before he is recognized as the buyer. It can be said he bought the land for the chief priests, just like I can give the phone which my friend bought with my $100 to another friend. Okay?

randomperson:
Judas didn't fund the purchase... Judas already relinquished ownership of the money by throwing it back to the priests. The priests used their money to buy a land... The second account clearly states that " Judas BOUGHT "...
For him to have bought there must have been an intention to buy. If I throw money at someone and the person goes to buy hard drugs. Can it be said that I bought the drugs?

BTW, the statement: I was at ibadan is not only contradicted by " I wasn't at Ibadan''. If I say , "I was at Lagos", it's also a contradiction because I can't be at two places at the same time

Assuming he did not bring the money, would the land have been bought?

If I give a friend $100 and he uses it to buy a phone for me from Aliexpress: who bought the phone?

The last paragraph of your post reveals your puerile sense of logic. You need to read.

randomperson:
U guys are obviously not familiar with the story..
In the first account, Judas had no intention to buy any land, he merely returned the money they gave him. In the second he acquired the land himself and died on the land. So "Judas did not buy the field."
Even the creation story has two accounts. The bible is nothing more than badly written fiction

Oga, if Judas did not get the money across to the chief priests, would the land have been bought?

I expected you to ask yourself this question.

If your answer to the question is "no", then I don't know what else you're saying, because it is obvious to every thinking being that the mere act of funding the purchase qualifies Judas to be labelled as the buyer.

randomperson:
Remember I asked you a question on that thread that you evaded...

Matt 27: 1-7 says Judas bought the land he was buried in while acts 1: 16-18 says the priests bought it... Tell me that's not a contradiction

A statement that is contradictory to "Judas bought the field" is "Judas did not buy the field"

The chief priests bought the field, but it was Judas who funded the buying. Thus, Judas can be said to have bought the field.

dalaman:
Hope.you know that we can test this statement of yours. Is the bible always true?

Yes, the Bible is entirely consistent and always true.

Open another thread to protest that and your ignorance will be treated. Let me not derail this thread.

Or better still, check out the thread on "Bible contradiction" by felixomor. He did a nice job there.

felixomor:
Old Gist.

Please educate yourself on what you call bible "contradictions"
Here:

https://www.nairaland.com/3538710/bible-contradiction-dummies-correction-internet

Good one brother!

randomperson:
And the basis for your belief is??

That the Bible is always true.

dalaman:
You believe in a God idea that was created by the ancient Jews and Roman yet you have the audacity to laugh at others. Recieve sense my brother.

No. We believe in the GOD that created the ancient Jews and Romans, and who, indeed, created the whole universe, and everything that exists.

Ubenedictus:
OYA READ!
The problem is you do not read becos a few verses later Jesus tells us who has the duty of strengthening the brethren and it is peter

32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen
thy brethren.

I'm confused: how does strengthening the brethren mean being their head or prime minister or overseer?

You are yet to show me where even Peter himself acted like he was over the church, or where he hinted at someone succeeding him as the head.

"And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." Matt. 19:28

Here, after Matt. 16:18, we see Jesus promising His apostles that they would sit on 12 thrones and judge Israel. He does not say anything whatsoever that implied that Peter's was a special position, or that he would be the prime minister. He does not say that Peter's throne would be more exalted than the others.

Or has Jesus forgotten what He said to Peter in Matt. 16:18?

Ubenedictus:
Paul doesnt need to remind them, it is something they should all know.

LOL

So let's ask the disciples who is the "greatest" among them and if Jesus had given any one of them the position as leader:

Luke 22:24 ...'And there was strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.'

Now this is AFTER Matthew 16, so surely they should know who is the leader of them, because Jesus had already told them. The problem is, they clearly understood Jesus' words in Matthew 16 to be pointing to Himself, NOT Peter. Which is why they are now arguing as to which one of them should be the leader. And what about Jesus' reply to their arguing? He will surely clear this up and tell them that Peter is now the leader right? Wrong. Jesus confirms no such thing. In fact, He states that WHOEVER wants to be the greatest, needs to be the least.

So there you have it! After Matt. 16:18, Jesus makes the position of the greatest among the apostles open to anyone who would humble himself. Jesus did not lock it down to Peter.

Ubenedictus:
Where does the bible give those date? oh, dont tell me you are relying on tradition.

I don't want to believe that you have comprehension problems.

Ubenedictus:
peter is not the only sherpherd no, he isnt, but he was the servant who was specifically given charge of the sheep. That is the meaning of having d keys, the keys is given to d prime minister...there are other ministers but only 1 has d keys i.e D prime minister

Ephesians 2:20
New International Version
built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.

We dont need to build another foundation, Jesus already founded the church on the apostles and principally peter matt 16.

Eph. 2:20 says the church is built on the foundation of the apostles, not apostle. Why didn't Paul make a distinction between Peter and the others? Why didn't Paul say "principally Peter"? Surely Paul knew of the encounter between Jesus and Peter in Matt. 16:18? If Peter was their main foundation, why didn't Paul teach the Ephesian church this all important truth?

Ubenedictus:
So paul has to acknowledge what Jesus has said before it will become true? what silly arguement is that? Jesus already told peter that he will receive d authority, key of d kingdom, so paul now has to acknowledge what Jesus expressly say for it to be true?
are u kidding me?

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." Gal. 1:8

Did Paul teach the Galatians that Peter was the foundation of the church?

Why did Paul make no distinction whatsoever between James, Peter and John in his epistle to the Galatians, but called all of them pillars of the church?

More importantly, where did Peter acknowledge, or even act like he was over the whole church?

Either the statements presented in the Bible are true, OR the contrary traditions are true. The traditions however have obvious errors thouroughly embeded in them and are clearly unreliable. One or the other has to be false. The Bible is the revelation from God and it proves itself to be what it claims to be. It is true. Peter never was in the city of Rome. We encourage you to check your Bible to see what the truth is. Do not listen to some man or the tradition of fallible men. If it’s false, it’s going to lead you to Hell and eternal damnation. Neither Peter NOR Mary is a way to Heaven? Do you want to have your sins forgiven or do you want to be bound with the chains of a false religion? The Apostle Peter said: Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under Heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved [ACT 4:12]

The same time that Peter supposedly ends his ministry in Rome. Yes, Paul was imprisoned the second time in 67 AD. Now again he wrote a couple of letters. He wrote the book of Hebrews. InHebrews 13:24, it says from Italy and then he also wrote 2 Timothy shortly before his death. This is the very year that Peter supposedly was martyred and you know what? There’s still no mention of Peter. Peter was not there. Peter was not in the city of Rome or ever in the city of Rome. In 2 Timothy 4:10, 11. Paul says only Luke was with him. Peter never was in the city of Rome. The whole organizational structure of the Church of Rome is built on false tradition and tragic misinterpretation of our Lord's words. It is built on tradition that is just not true.

Yet he was a prisoner, he was under (as it were in our societies terms) underhouse arrest. During this time he wrote epistles to the Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians and to Philemon between 61-63 AD. Now then, if Peter was in Rome from 42 to 67 (a period of 25 years) and Paul was there under house arrest surely he is going to have some information about Peter. Surely as he writes to the Ephesian Christians, the Philippians, the Colossians or to Philemon, surely he is going to have something, some greeting to give from Peter the apostle. No, he does not even mention him! He mentions many of his fellow helpers—several names are given, but no Peter. Thus we come down to 62 or maybe 63 AD. Peter has not been in Rome. Then we come to Paul’s second imprisonment. He was set free for a while but again in 67 AD we see him back in Rome, a prisoner of the Roman Government and this is apparently when he was put to death. What does the tradition say? It says that Peter was in Rome from 42 through 67 AD.

He said it has been years that I have longed to come that I might establish you in the faith. None of the apostles had been there. Later in Paul’s ministry, he went to Rome, however, he did not go as a free man as he had planned to do. He didn’t take a missionary journey to Spain as he had planned. I’m not saying he never went to Spain. It is possible that between the two prison terms that he got to go to Spain, but he did not go on his trip as he had hoped to Spain, and on the way stop by and meet with the Roman church—the saints in Rome. He went to Rome as a prisoner of the Roman Government. He was in his first imprisonment by the Romans for approximately four years, but it was only the last two that he was in Rome, itself. He spent the other time in Palestine. The last two years 61-63 AD, he was in Rome under Roman guard. Now as the epistles make plain, he wasn’t in a dungeon. He was not even in a prison. He was able to live in a house by himself and he had visitors come and go.

Then Paul says in Romans 15:20-24:Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation: But as it is written, To whom he was not spoken of, they shall see: and they that have not heard shall understand. For which cause also I have been much hindered from coming to you. Here, again, he points out the fact that he wanted to come, he tried to come, but so far he had been hindered from coming. Then he says in verses 23, 24:But now having no more place in these parts, and having a great desire these many years to come unto you whenever I take my journey into Spain, I will come to you: for I trust to see you in my journey, and to be brought on my way there by you, if first I be somewhat filled with your company. Paul was looking forward to that first time that he could be in the city of Rome. It had to be sometime after the AD 58 because this is when he wrote the epistle to the Romans. So he is still looking forward.

So Paul says,I long to see you that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift. To the end, [or for the purpose] that you may be established. No, Peter wasn’t there. None of the other apostles had been there. How had the church become established in Rome? There were people on the day of Pentecost in Jerusalem from the city of Rome, and those saints, as they went back to Rome, started the church there. They met in homes or wherever they could. They gathered around the word of God (Old Testament), and they studied the word of God, and they witnessed for their Lord, and won other converts, but they had no apostle. No apostle had ever been there to establish them, to give them authoritative teaching. And Paul said, I long to go, I long to teach youthat you might be established.

Well, really the reason Paul didn’t mention Peter is because Peter wasn’t there. Peter wasn’t the pastor. Peter wasn’t the preacher there of the saints in the church at Rome. Paul doesn’t mention Peter because he was not there. This point alone, I think, should be sufficient to open the eyes of the most blind, the most stubborn, to the fact that Peter was not the founder of the church in Rome. He was not there when Paul wrote around 58 AD—supposedly 16 years after Peter was there and founded the church! Next let us look at Romans 1:11 which reads:For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end you may be established. Peter spent 16 years there and the church is still not established!! The apostle had not taught the church the things it needed to know! Boy, Peter must have been some incompetent! Couldn’t establish a church, couldn’t teach them proper doctrine in 16 years.

This is who he was writing to and as he wrote to them, when you come down to the last chapter of the book ofRomans, he sends greetings to27 members of the church, members of the body of Christ, the saints in Rome, BUT he doesn’t mention any Peter! He said nothing whatever about the Apostle Peter, and according to the tradition of the Church of Rome, Peter was there from 42 to 67 AD. When did Paul write the book of Romans? He wrote the book of Romans around 58 AD. Now if Peter was in Rome from 42 to 67 AD that means by 58 AD, that Peter should have been there for about 16 years. Not only that but their tradition tells us that he was the head of the church. He was the chief pastor in the city of Rome. What would we think or what would any church think, or what would the ethics and morals of a man be who wrote to a church and didn’t even mention the pastor— mentioned 27 other people, 27 other saints of God there, but didn’t say a word of greeting to the pastor! Sound’s kind of ridiculous, doesn’t it.

Now let’s look a little more closely at what he says. In the book ofRomans, chapter one verses 1 and 7 he says:Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, [and then verse 7]To all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. Then as he completes his salutation he says,Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, … an apostleto all who are in Rome, Beloved of God, called to be saints. This would be better translated as the New American Standard Version puts it,"To all who are believers loved of God in Rome." He wasn’t just writing to the general population of the city of Rome. He was writing to the Saints. The New American Standard says,to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called saints.

Then, we come to something else which is far more important, [i.e.] the silence of the Apostle Paul with respect to the Apostle Peter and the city of Rome. As you recall, Paul wrote much of the New Testament. They cover a tremendous number of years and that’s not all, one of the books (one of the major ones) was written to the Christians who lived in Rome. Also there were four written from Rome, during his first imprisonment and then a couple of more written from Rome during his last imprisonment shortly before he was killed because of his faith and preaching the Gospel. In all of these letters of Paul to the churches (to the Christians) either at Rome or from the city of Rome to others he mentions Christians in each of them. In fact he mentions by name a great number of them. And do you know what, he NEVER mentions Peter!

Ubenedictus:
THE BIBLE IS CLEAR ENOUGH AND THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION IS JUST FINE.
1. Jesus changed his name, which means he change his destiny and marked him out 4 an important role.
2. He say he will buid his church on him.
3. He gives him d keys i.e authority over d church.
4.power 2 bind nd lose

Where did Paul acknowledge that the Church was built on Peter? Where did Paul acknowledge that the church was handed over to Peter?

Ubenedictus:
Protestants have the worst view of theology.
The fact that Jesus is rock doesn't prevent him from making another rock. Infact Jesus also say in revelation that he has the keys yet in matthew he clearly says he gives it to Peter, Jesus calls himself Good sherperd and tell peter to do the work of a sherpherd ie tend the sheep, he is the rock that is why he could make peter the rock and call him cephas.

Why didn't you specify the keys Jesus said He had in Revelations?

Did Peter see himself as the only shepherd of the church? Why are you lying against Peter?

"For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." 1 Cor. 3:11

easymancfc:
Going around in circles again...
that was the beginning of the whole discussion with you...
Where in the Bible does it say Bible that Peter has to acknowledge himself as Pope for him to be Pope,

The name might not have been established but Peter clearly had a primacy in the early Church...

Where does Peter acknowledge this primacy?

In Galatians 2 we find Paul confirming that he was the apostle to take the gospel to the Gentile world, while Peter was the apostle charged with taking the gospel to the Jews. And Paul states in verse 9 that it was James, Cephas (Peter) and John who ALL "SEEMED" to be pillars of the church. Making no distinction between them whatsoever.

What about the great church meeting in Acts 15? Did Peter stand out as the leader in this great meeting? No, Peter did speak, but if you read the whole of that meeting, you will see that in fact James seemed to be the presiding elder, as he was the one who gave the final decision on the question of circumcision (see Acts 15:19).