We might not marry but we can still have sex if we want right? I mean why not? We drink wine and take walks, why not have awesome sex too? It’s the best sex. But the question is with who??
You’ve got a major flaw in your logic. Doesn’t have to be in bible to be true. Early church fathers say Peter was in Rome. You start off with a major fallacy… and that is everything is written in scripture. I trust the early church fathers.
Bishop Irenaeus of Lyon (disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John) wrote in 180 AD a 5 book series 'Against Heresies. Book III, 3.2'... "Since it would be tedious to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who assemble in unauthorized meetings by indicating that tradition from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those faithful men who exist everywhere."
Jesus told the Pharisees, “Hypocrites! For you cross land and sea to make one convert, and then you turn that person into twice the child of hell yourselves!” So… did the Pharisees make them sin? Did God create them sinful?
your perspective of soul came from greek belief... in jewish soul simply means the throat (nephesh) or basically your physical human body... the concept of greek notion of soul is unbiblical and not totally in the Hebrew bible... it is a foreign belief (pagan belief) by which neither the jews of their time nor in our time believed.... so yeah i believe just as how jews believes... why trust the romans about the bible where as they are the ones corrupted it...if you wish to understand the bible... get it in a jewish perspective, culture and traditions as well it historical context then we will have a clear picture of what the word of God really meant... remember the bible was written by jewish authors, meant for jewish audience and was intented for jewish people of their time... so without getting it in jewish context... and simply interpret it in our present time and perception is totally wrong interpretation of the bible. also watch Nephesh by: bible project to see the clearer picture of what i mean here.
When you think about it, there is very little said about the ministries of most of the apostles and yet, we know a fair amount about their travels. Through history and anthropological studies we know the Peter indeed, was in Rome where he was crucified in 67AD. the following is an account of the travels of Peter: According to Warren H Carroll’s “The Founding of Christendom” (p. 422), the pontificate of St. Peter is as follows (30-67): 30-37 AD - head of the Church in Jerusalem 38-39 - missionary journeys in Samaria and on the coast of Palestine 40-41 - in Antioch 42 - imprisoned in Jerusalem, escape and departure thence 42-49 - first sojourn to Rome 49 - expulsion from Rome 49-50 - in Jerusalem for the Apostolic Council 50-54 - in Antioch, Bithynia, Pontus, and Cappadocia 54-57 - second sojourn to Rome; Gospel of Mark written under Peter’s direction 57-62 - in Bithynia, Pontus, and Cappadocia; Mark in Alexandria 62-67 - third sojourn to Rome; canonical Epistles of Peter; Mark with Peter in Rome 67 - martyrdom in Rome and burial at the Vatican References used by Carroll (among others): Jedin & Dolan “History of the Church”, I, 112-118 Ricciotti “History of Israel” II, 411-416 Edmindson “Church in Rome”, pp. 147-151 Fouard “St. Peter, pp. 407-408 Walsh “The Bones of St. Peter Kirschbaum “The tombs of St Peter and St Paul Guarducci “The Tomb of St. Peter” pp. 182-183
THE RAVEN SYMBOLIZES HAM NEVER RETURNING TO COMFORT HIS FATHERS NAKEDNESS .. THE DOVE IS NOAHS 2 SONS RETURNING WITH A COMFORTER THE OLIVE IS THE DOVE WHICH IS NOAHS COVERING/COMFORTER.. THE RAVEN SYMBOLIZES THE FLESH/ NOAH’S NAKEDNESS
When Paul was in Rome he talked about a lot of people he met there yet never mentioned Peter. If Peter was the 1st Pope Paul would 100% talk about him.
The Bible doesn't say how the apostles died but one james, so to look into the Bible as evidence as to peter not being in rome is not a good idea first, he Bible hadn't been developed as a complete Bible 😉 until almost the fourth century, so written tradition like was recorded in the Bible have been evidence to declare that yes peter was martyr in Rome, remember the catholic church had existed before any protestant church that's a fact, protestant just like to cancel many things including books of the Bible among many practices the real church had.
The genealogies in Matthew and Luke do not conflict or contradict. They are of Mary & Joseph. The genealogical list in Matthew, from David to Jacob-Heli (spanning about 1000 years), contains 27 generations at 40 years each, so as to comply with the 40 year royal generational standard. Luke, on the other hand, gives 40 generations at a more comprehensible 25 years each. Hence, Luke places Jesus in the 20th generation from Zerubbabel, whereas Matthew places him In the 11th generation from Zerubbabel. SUMMARY: Matthew--27 generations of 40 years from Solomom. Patriarchal--Zerubbabel's father's line. Luke--40 generations of 25 years from Nathan. Matriarchal--Zerubbabel's mother's line. Both Solomon and Nathan are sons of David. Both lines converge at Zerubbabel, then diverge. Matthew goes from Abiud, Mary's line. Luke goes from Rhesa, Joseph's line. Mary and Joseph are also related. Joseph was Mary's great-aunt Gadat's son. Mary's mother was Hannah and her father was Joachim (Yonakhir), the Elias Patriarch. Joseph's mother was Gadat, His father was Heli, the Jacob Patriarch. 'Jacob' was a title, so he would be called Jacob-Heli. Joachim's mother was Sabartia (Sabhrath). His father was Matthat the Zadok. Heli's father was Matthan (descended from Mattathias (Tobias), the Temple governor.
In the King James version, 1 John 5:7, 8 includes the words “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth.” These words do not appear in the oldest Greek manuscripts. Scholars agree that they were not originally in the Bible but were added much later by a scribe to support the Trinity doctrine. Professor Bruce M. Metzger wrote: “That these words are spurious and have no right to stand in the New Testament is certain.”-A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament.
"The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son." - 1 Peter 5:13 Babylon in the bible is Rome (also called Babylon in Revelations so consistency is important here). The reason they referred to it as Rome was because the Church was under persecution. If their correspondence was intercepted by either the Romans or the Jews (who were slaughter Christians), they would be able to locate them. Neither John (who wrote Revelations) nor Peter were ever in Iraq (where Babylon is). So, here, we have the scriptures telling us that Peter was indeed in Rome and why? Because the Church had been run out of Jerusalem by the Jews' persecution and they found protection in Rome by anonymity. The Romans didn't persecute Christians in Italy initially, only in Jerusalem where the Jews complained about them. But once Christianity took off and the Army began to convert (due in no small part to the Roman soldiers in Jerusalem and who witnessed Jesus' miracles first and and who proclaimed the Son of God and who converted), that's when the Roman empire saw them as a threat. So, we know that the Church was in Rome. We also know that according to scripture, Rome disseminated the most teachings as it is literally the largest & longest Epistle in the New Testament. And why was Paul sent to Rome by Peter? Paul was a Roman citizen with Roman rights and could travel freely throughout the world. As Rome was the capital of the world, all roads lead "to" Rome which not only made it a perfect place to evangelize from and convert souls from all backgrounds of race & ethnicity, but it also protected Paul's right to do so. Paul was a Turk (born in Turkey). He was above suspicion by the Romans. Now, if we want to leave Christian "tradition" out of one's learnedness, then they we'd have to leave the bible out because the bible mandates tradition: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." --2 Thessalonians 2:15 And there are plenty more scriptures that mandate tradition for the Christian Church, but one will do. And we also know that the Church was based on tradition because there was no bible in their time. The Old Testament was the Jews' bible, but there was no Christian bible and with all the charlatans coming up with alternative scriptures to what the Apostles were teaching, the Church HAD TO clamp down on what was and what wasn't scripture which lead to the creation of the Holy Bible (thank you Pope Clement for that). Of course, historical Christian documents prove that the Catholic Church (which is the only Church named in scripture) is the Church founded by Christ and a direct lineage can be drawn back to Peter from Francis (the only Church on the planet that can do that). But Protestants aren't allowed to read the writings of the students of The Apostles (aka "The Apostolic Church Fathers") who were taught directly by the Apostles and who actually wrote the New Testament. I agree with Jeff on one point... Don't listen to Jeff (I'm not saying that in a mean way, just as a matter of factly way! 😊). He is a man and he doesn't have the authority to teach. He has his own traditions that started in the 16th century where churches were created and named after men (Lutheran, Calvin, etc...) and I'm sure he trusts a new bible version that was edited and "authorized" by a king (King James also known as "Queen James" because he was the most prominent homosexual in the history of the English monarchy...not my opinion, look it up for yourselves). BTW, "catholic" literally means "universal" because the Christian Church was meant for all those who wanted to come to Christ. That's why in the Greek text, the Church is called "EKKLESIA KATOHOLOS" or "universal church" or Catholic Church as the Early Church Fathers (meaning the primitive Christian Church for the first few centuries since after Jesus' death). Again, none of you have to take my word for it. If your pastor allows you to, read "The Early Church Fathers" and you'll find hundreds if not thousands of historical Christian documents that will direct you to the Church established by Jesus Christ in Matthew 16:18. As a matter of fact, here's just one line from one of the Apostolic Church Fathers who were taught firsthand by John himself... "Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be, even as wheresoever Christ Jesus is, there is the catholic church." --Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8, ca (67AD) Some'll argue that "no! he meant the universal church, not the roman catholic church!", but Ignatius was in Rome when he lost his life. Also, the Church Fathers CLEARLY say that the "name" of The Church is "The Catholic Church". I'm sure none of you here ever heard that before I revealed that to you. For the record, Ignatius of Antioch (along with Clement & Polycarp) were the students of the Apostle John who was the only one of the 12 to not have been martyred (except for Judas who took his own life). They were all prominent Elders in the Primitive Christian Church and all were Roman Catholics who believed in what Catholics believe in today (the Papacy, the Eucharist, the real presence of Christ in the sacrament, the Triune God, Confession, the Priesthood, etc...). Because he had to take Mary when Jesus was crucified, He put her in John's care and to make sure she would be safe, (something Peter prophesized that he wouldn't be martyred when Jesus told Peter to guide his disciples at the end of the gospel of John), John was protected from Martyrdom while she was alive. Also, John was the youngest Apostle so he would easily outlive Mary making sure she'd be well cared for. Oh, and if anyone tells you to go by Sola Scriptura, Sola Scriptura isn't found anywhere in the bible so it kind of contradicts itself and the person who invented Sola Scriptura in the 16th century was an excommunicated Catholic monk that you might've heard of; Martin Luther. And Luther himself edited the bible and proudly boasted about adding and removing text to justify his new religion; Protestantism.
You start with Satan, you're going to finish with 😈Satan!!! Babylon was Iraq 🇮🇶 where ✡️ JEWS live all the way up the 1948. When they were EXPELLED out of Arabia.
Correct! Peter and the other apostles primarily just stayed in Jerusalem, ministering only to Jews with their gospel of the Kingdom- Christ as the Jewish Messiah. With the Jews stoning Stephen, their rejection of that gospel was the impetus for God setting them temporarily aside until taking up with them again in their " last week " (7 year Tribulation - Daniel's 70th week of the Jews when the 144,000 Jews will indeed take up with that Kingdom gospel again). The book of Acts makes it crystal clear that it was then the Gospel of Grace that was given to Paul by Jesus Himself - CHRIST AND HIM CRUCIFIED AND THAT ALONE FOR SALVATION - that would go to the Gentile world, although a minority of Jews would be saved by it as well. The idea of Jesus bestowing some kind of heirarchic succession stemming from Peter is simply wrong - Jesus said that His Church would be built upon that REVELATION that God the Father makes possible in the heart of those that choose to believe in what He provides for salvation - God the Son, which is only what Peter confessed, Jesus as Messiah - as Peter knew nothing of the coming crucifixion and resurrection. But with Paul's Gospel of Grace given to him by Jesus himself, it is now Christ and Him crucified and that alone as the proper object of faith WITH NOTHING ADDED.
Except that "Babylon" means Rome and scripture teaches us that Peter sent greetings and lessons to other churches from "Babylon" aka Rome (Peter was never in Iraq which is where the real Babylon was located, but they had to call Rome Babylon (like they did in the book of Revelations) because they were being persecuted by the Jews & Romans and didn't want to give their location away.
Also, Paul wasn't crucified. Paul was beheaded. Peter was the one who was crucified. In fact, he requested that he be crucified upside down because he didn't feel worthy enough to be crucified as Christ was. “It is, therefore, recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and that Peter likewise was crucified under Nero. This account of Peter and Paul is substantiated by the fact that their names are preserved in the cemeteries of that place even to the present day. It is confirmed likewise by Caius, a member of the Church, who arose under Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome. He, in a published disputation with Proclus, the leader of the Phrygian heresy, speaks as follows concerning the places where the sacred corpses of the aforesaid apostles are laid: ‘But I can show the trophies of the apostles. For if you will go to the Vatican or to the Ostian way, you will find the trophies of those who laid the foundations of this church.'” Gaius, fragment in Eusebius’ Church History, 2:25 (A.D. 198).
@@YankeeWoodcraftThis is a false reading into that text, as in that day there were many literal places called Babylon, the one Peter being in most likely the Syrian one. The reason it is so incredulous that Peter might have even been to Rome is that Paul, who was definitely there for years, in his letters listed in the first paragraph salutations to the many people who actually were there - Peter was never even mentioned in any of them! You would think, if Peter was "head of the church there", Paul would have included him in the list of the many people, throughout his letters, that he greeted in Rome, but no mention of Peter being there at all. On the contrary, toward the end of his life, in his second epistle, Peter does reference PAUL. In Second Peter 3:15-16, Peter admonishes those, to whom he is writing his letter, to adhere to PAUL'S Gospel of Grace message given unto him by Jesus Himself for the Body of Christ believers (the church) - even though as a Temple-going, Law-abiding Jew who simply believed that Jesus is the Jews' King and Messiah, Peter admits that within Paul's faith alone, believing in Christ and Him crucified and that alone for salvation Gospel of Grace message, there are "hard things to understand" (of course, because all he knew was Judaism and like the other apostles, found it difficult to understand how Gentiles could be saved without adhering to Mosaic Law that even Jesus in His Earthly ministry while He was with them did!). But in that scripture, Peter warns to follow Paul's Gospel message and not to twist or "wrest" it, as many were won't to do at that time. So you see, with this evidence, the whole premise of the Roman Catholic church is nullified. It most definitely is a false religion built on centuries later lies that they call "tradition", something Jesus warned us to eschew, because the Pharisees in His time did the same thing.
At the end of the Gospel of John, why did Jesus only choose Peter to lead the Apostles and the Disciples? (yes, it's literally "in" the Bible) Why did Jesus only give the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven to Peter who was the ONLY one who answered correctly to Jesus when He asked all of them Who He was and Jesus told Peter that God gave him that answer? Why was Peter the first & last to speak at every council meeting in Jerusalem? Why do the other Apostles defer to him for decisions within the Church? Why did Jesus change his name to "Rock" (which is what Peter literally means in Koine Greek [petros], Cephas in Aramaic) literally calling him a Rock?
Early Christian literature tell us that Simon the Sorcerer was the father of gnosticism. We can see gnosticism already began to be a problem in the first century church in John's writings. So maybe you need to look into Simon before you answer the question
Ur a lie about along with those power and control harvesting taking whats not yours ur saying Gods a lie what gifts u have from God what God's testimony is he using through u.
Why would you ask Jeff ?? Dont think Jeff got his Doctorate in anything to do with Christianity. In fact, lets face it, he does not have any degree cos if you want to teach something you should at least have a basic understanding of it in the first place!! Here are the verses from Exodus 20 in the KJV Bible .... there are 16/17 sentences and it was Protestantism 500 years ago that rejigged the accepted 10 commandments which required joining some together to make 10 ... Remember this is from the KJV Bible """20 And God spake all these words, saying, 2 I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. 4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; 6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. 7 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. 8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. 12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. 13 Thou shalt not kill. 14 Thou shalt not commit adultery. 15 Thou shalt not steal. 16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. 17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's. ""
Exodus Has 16 sentences and the ten Commandments that the Catholic and Orthodox Church have were from the bible AND include being against Idolatry but just dont have it as a separate commandment -- When Protestantism came along 500 years ago They swapped the commandments around as a cheep shot against Catholicism AND no we clearly do not Worship or pray to relics !!
Judaism have: You shall not make or worship any idols, as well on the 2nd. I understand there are many explanation but let just leave as it is. 🥲 "Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it" Deu 4:2
yes tell that to Jeff -- who could do a little research to find the commandments were tweaked about 500 years ago from what was accepted by all (Orthodox and Catholic and Jewish ) for thousands of years
That's legitimately sickening to think that one of the disciples mocked him in such a way. It could keep me up at night if I thought about it too much.
Technically God has no gender, but it is hard for us humans to not bring God down to some form of being that we truly understand, and what better than to refer to Him in human terms? That said, there are scriptural basis for referencing God as "he". For example, the obvious one of Jesus being male and being called the "Son of God". Second, God the Father being referenced as a "Father" which implies a male/he. God, specifically in relation to Jesus, is also referred to as the bridegroom of the church. Again, implying, at least in human terms, a "he". Therefore, again, God really has no gender. However, scripture supports using male references to at least two parts of the Trinity, the Father and the Son, being male. I am aware of no scriptural basis for referring to any part of the Trinity as "she".
Amen! Though we do not get our salvation message or eternal security verses from the kingdom gospel under the law (Matt - John), or the Hebrew epistles (Heb. - Rev.) We learn about our salvation and our walk with Christ, only from Paul's epistles he write to the body of Christ. The only one who speaks to and about the body of Christ with his new gospel message which was kept secret since the world began. Rom 16:25 KJV Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, Col 1:25 KJV Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; Col 1:26 KJV Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: Eph 3:8 KJV Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; Eph 3:9 KJV And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
That is not the 2nd commandment.... that is the 3rd commandment. Catholics have actually removed the 2nd commandment which is "You shall make no idols" (or graven images). Why you ask? Because Catholics practice idol worship and it is much easier to do this when you have actually removed that commandment from the list. Can you believe that? Catholics have actually removed one of God's given commandments to mankind. Unbelieveable!!!
Sin offerings were for those who sinned "unknowingly" ... Jesus was the sin offering for his sheep. Those who knew better, the converted church, there is only the burnt offering.
He’s a great example of why simply believing won’t save you. I’d reevaluate your answer. Simon was a gnostic and didn’t have a relationship with God. Why would he ask that others pray for his sin when he could and should have done it himself. He was just a professing “Christian” like many of false converts today.
Hello, I'm a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Galatians 1:8 is a non-problem for us. We believe that God the Father and Jesus Christ first appeared to Joseph Smith, followed by the angel Moroni, and others who restored the Aaronic and Melchezedek priesthoods spoken of in the Bible, especially in Paul's epistle to the Hebrews. Angels did not teach a new or different gospel to Joseph. They helped restore Christ's original gospel which included prophets, apostles and priesthood authority. I don't like to think that a Christian would believe this verse is saying that angels can't appear to mankind, minister to them and teach them. :/ God is very much alive. We have apostles like Paul today. God never said he would no longer reveal his word to man after the first century AD. Concerning the Book of Mormon, it strengthens the validity of the Bible and does not contradict it.
