Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

i've heard that historical evidence points to Jesus being a follower of John the Baptist
is this true ?

Originally posted by 123KID
i've heard that historical evidence points to Jesus being a follower of John the Baptist
is this true ?

The bible would seem to support that.

so if Jesus was himself a follower why do people worship him ?
wouldn't it be more appropriate to worship John and make a religion around him ?

actually it doesn't. nowhere does the Bible it say or even imply it. The day he sought John out he asked to be baptised and John proclaimed him as the one greater than he who he had been waiting for. You dont get much plainer than that.

Originally posted by 123KID
i've heard that historical evidence points to Jesus being a follower of John the Baptist
is this true ? Not really. John was the precursor to Jesus. John baptized Jesus at Jesus's request.

ahh the baptism of jesus, such a contradictory fact.

In what way?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
ahh the baptism of jesus, such a contradictory fact.

Here we go...

no no, were not going anywhere. this was discussed and done with a while ago.

to nellinater{jesus wudnt need to be baptised because he was supposed tp be the only sinless one and baptism washes away the original sin}

Its purely symbolic.

no, it is purely unnecesary. the fact that it was done can not be conveniently explained away. anyhow, back on topic, it doesnt matter cause most of it is paulanity anyway. looks like jesus and john took a back seat.

John was waiting for the Messiah. Now, who said that Jesus was the Messiah? Did Jesus call himself that ever??

The baptism of Jesus seemed completely backwards in John's perspective. He wouldn't have baptized Jesus if Jesus hadn't told him to...because he knew Jesus was the master.

But I do think Jesus learned from mortal examples. He wasn't born with all his qualities at once. He read Jewish history...he probably learned from ancient prophets who he'd only met through his reading of Jewish history, and so it isn't ridiculous to think he learned from his distant cousin whose work preceded his own by a few years.

It just depends what you mean by "follow".

Originally posted by 123KID
i've heard that historical evidence points to Jesus being a follower of John the Baptist
is this true ?

* Jesus is not a follower of John the Baptist... in fact, John said that he is not the Christ, and he is the one who will introduce the Christ...

Originally posted by leonheartmm
{jesus wudnt need to be baptised because he was supposed tp be the only sinless one

* the baptism of Christ is not needed by Christ Himself, however it was not unnecessary:

"Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him."
Matthew 3:13-15

"For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you."
John 13:15

* it is to fulfill all righteousness and to set an example...

Originally posted by leonheartmm
and baptism washes away the original sin}

* there is no original sin... based on Christ's baptism, He was not baptized as an infant but as an adult... baptism washes away YOUR sins prior to your baptism and NOT the sin of Adam and Eve...

^wrong, the reason newborn infants are baptised is to wash away the ORIGINAL sin and be born again. seeing as the infant hasnt even lived long enough to commit sins. and you are also suggesting that jesus had sinned prior to his baptism.

and the fact still remains, baptism is not necessary if you have nnot sinned, and jesus was supposedly sinless.

John was a "bapist" Jesus the "messiah" bit of a different in roles there .

Speaking of baptism, if I heard a voice and saw a dove stating that I was special, could I start a following too?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
^wrong,

* we all have different opinions... if it's only opinions, it's okay... but if we base it in the Bible, YOU are wrong, my friend...

Originally posted by leonheartmm
the reason newborn infants are baptised is to wash away the ORIGINAL sin and be born again.

* you can never find anyone in the Bible baptized an infant...

Originally posted by leonheartmm
seeing as the infant hasnt even lived long enough to commit sins.

* if infants are not liable for any sin, why are you trying to impute the sin of Adam and Eve to all infants?

* not just infants, but little children also, in fact, are sinless:

"But when Jesus saw it, he was moved with indignation, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me; forbid them not: for to such belongeth the kingdom of God."
Mark 10:14

Originally posted by leonheartmm
and you are also suggesting that jesus had sinned prior to his baptism.

* have you read my post? i said: the baptism not needed by Christ Himself... and also: baptism washes away YOUR sins prior to your baptism and NOT the sin of Adam and Eve...

Originally posted by leonheartmm
and the fact still remains, baptism is not necessary if you have nnot sinned, and jesus was supposedly sinless.

* i do believe Jesus is sinless... Jesus do not need baptism, even John knows that:

"Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?"
Matthew 3:13-14

* John hindered Jesus and even said that it was he (John) who needs to be baptized by Jesus...

* but Jesus was baptized, whether you like it or not... why did Jesus wanted to be baptized?

"And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him."
Matthew 3:15

"For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you."
John 13:15

* it is to fulfill all righteousness and to set an example...

Originally posted by Deja~vu
Speaking of baptism, if I heard a voice and saw a dove stating that I was special, could I start a following too?

* nope,

but you have not answered my question. why are most babies born in christian families TODAY baptised? and why is it commonly held to wash away the original sin and be born again?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
but you have not answered my question. why are most babies born in christian families TODAY baptised? and why is it commonly held to wash away the original sin and be born again? It's Catholic and Orthodox doctrine. It is generally based off baptisms of whole households in the Bible. This would generally include children.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
ahh the baptism of jesus, such a contradictory fact.

HAve you read the Bible? There is nothing contradictory about Jesus requesting to be baptized

....Are we talking about RaptorJesus?

....Just kidding....

Poor Yeshua....

yes i have{partially, planning to read the whole soon. still contemplating which version to go for. any suggestions?} , and yes there is.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
yes i have{partially, planning to read the whole soon. still contemplating which version to go for. any suggestions?}

King James version. It's the only one I'll even try to defend occasionally.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
yes i have{partially, planning to read the whole soon. still contemplating which version to go for. any suggestions?} , and yes there is.

King James is a classic.

The Message is very good. It's the Bible with much more modern prose.

I happen to like the NRSV because that's what I grew up using.

yea but i dun wan a sugar coated type, i like autheticity. what about the new international version?

It's not a very good translation, but it is very easy to read. It works, it just helps to back check some parts with better sources. It is a pious translation at best.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
yea but i dun wan a sugar coated type, i like autheticity. what about the new international version?

Well, like Nellinator said, it is a fairly good translation, but attempts to do your thinking for you, which is especially noticable in the parables of Christ. It is certainly an easy read, but personally, I like to interpret things by myself.

And I really must say, Leon, you also seem like a person who likes to come up with his own conclusions...not just go along with whatever is commonly accepted. You would probably prefer the King James version.

Go New King James Version if you want an easier to read version of the KJV.

Remember the following at all times in this discussion...

1 At around the time of Jesus there were somewhere near 100 or more "Messiahs" in the middle east.. Jesus, John, Simon Zelotes, Simon Magus, etc.... and their followers were quite fickle...

2 Only the Bible states that John acknowledged Jesus as his superior.... and it would hardly say any different.. evidence suggests that John was the main rival to Jesus, and after his death, this is the sort of propaganda that would be put out to both "convert a" and confound the John faction...

3 The reason infants are baptised today is because it is the thing to do.. like getting married in church even if you've never been in one before...

4 The reason infant baptism began was this... the church wanted a hold on people and their property, so they started telling people"Pay us to baptise your child, or if it dies it will go straight to hell.. and so will you for damning your child..." most people back then couldn't read, or even understand the Latin of the Vulgate, which most services were performed in, so had no way of contradicting the church over this.. and eventually the protection racket became a tradition...

5 It was a long time ago, and unless you can't function without your conspiracy head on, it doesn't really matter...

1) Not messiahs, someone is twisting history to forward an agenda.

2) What evidence? Oh wait, there isn't any suggesting this at all.

3) No, that's not true at all.

4) Wrong, that sort of reasoning only existed after about the 8th century. Infant baptism predates that period by far, plus you don't have to pay for it.

5) Yah, it does matter, and it's actually a very good question.

Speaking of Baptism, the thief on the cross next to Jesus was never baptized and yet Jesus said I say unto you, today you will be with me in paradise, or did he say I say unto you today, you will be with me in paradise.

Just thought I'd bring it up.

I'm just wondering why you think that is odd?

The commas change the whole meaning and since there wasn't any punctuation at that time, which statement is true?

I don't think it changes much considering the result is the same. That aside I am of the understanding that Greek words tend to refer to different parts of the sentence, so I believe the phrasing would make one way correct, but I'm not sure.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
but you have not answered my question. why are most babies born in christian families TODAY baptised? and why is it commonly held to wash away the original sin and be born again?

* not Christian... they are Catholic...

Originally posted by leonheartmm
yes i have{partially, planning to read the whole soon. still contemplating which version to go for. any suggestions?} ,

* King James is a nice version... New/Modern King James, Revised Standard, English Standard and Douay-Rheims are also good... American Standard's New Testament is a-ok... you can also try this Online Bible Source: http://www.addbible.com/

Originally posted by leonheartmm
and yes there is.

* i have already explained to you the purpose why Jesus let Himself baptized by John...

Originally posted by Deja~vu
Speaking of Baptism, the thief on the cross next to Jesus was never baptized and yet Jesus said I say unto you, today you will be with me in paradise,

* the thief was in no position to be baptized in that kind of circumstance...

Originally posted by Deja~vu
or did he say I say unto you today, you will be with me in paradise.

Just thought I'd bring it up.

* that is correct... it should have been:

"And he said unto him, Verily I say unto thee today, shalt thou be with me in Paradise."
Luke 23:43

* according to the Bible, the word "paradise" is the third heaven... Jesus never went to heaven immediately after His body/flesh died on the cross...

Catholics are Christians. You'll get over it one day.

Originally posted by peejayd
* not Christian... they are Catholic...

I was baptized as a child in a Protestant church.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Catholics are Christians. You'll get over it one day.

* nope... they are entirely different...

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I was baptized as a child in a Protestant church.

* Protestants are not just supposed to be churches separated from Catholic, their doctrines should too... that's why they deviated themselves from them...

* anyways, infant/child baptism is not in according with the Bible because in baptism, the person involved must have complete awareness of the faith he/she is going to accept...

Originally posted by peejayd
* Protestants are not just supposed to be churches separated from Catholic, their doctrines should too... that's why they deviated themselves from them...

Really just one thing . . . hardly a big deal.

Originally posted by peejayd
* anyways, infant/child baptism is not in according with the Bible because in baptism, the person involved must have complete awareness of the faith he/she is going to accept...

I was a precocious little tyke

*

Originally posted by peejayd
* nope... they are entirely different...



* Protestants are not just supposed to be churches separated from Catholic, their doctrines should too... that's why they deviated themselves from them...

* anyways, infant/child baptism is not in according with the Bible because in baptism, the person involved must have complete awareness of the faith he/she is going to accept... No, not at all. Christian = saved. Catholics fit the Biblical formula for salvation. Therefore, Catholics = Christians. You'll get over it.

You will find that is not the case at all.

soooo, is yasuke a christian then ?

Peejayd, do you mind if I ask you what religion you are?

Originally posted by Quark_666
Peejayd, do you mind if I ask you what religion you are?

* no problem... i'll PM you...

Originally posted by Nellinator


3) No, that's not true at all.



unfortunately for the cause of faith and religion it is very true.. for example... i know several hindu families who have had their children "christened" because they see it as an "English" (rather than a "christian "thing to do, and I have several times been castigated for not having my child christened... I am not christian, and neither are those doing the castigating.... yet i am still held as being "strange" for not doing the "done thing"... for most people in this country a christening is what you do when your kids are six months old, regardless of whether you are christian, Christian or whatever... just like getting married in Church is considered better than a civil ceremony...

And to support Nellinator.... go into a Catholic church and one of the first things you'll see is a big statue of Jesus.... indeed, for a long while, Catholics considered themselves the only Christians there were... hence the title....

Originally posted by big gay kirk
unfortunately for the cause of faith and religion it is very true.. for example... i know several hindu families who have had their children "christened" because they see it as an "English" (rather than a "christian "thing to do, and I have several times been castigated for not having my child christened... I am not christian, and neither are those doing the castigating.... yet i am still held as being "strange" for not doing the "done thing"... for most people in this country a christening is what you do when your kids are six months old, regardless of whether you are christian, Christian or whatever... just like getting married in Church is considered better than a civil ceremony... I think this is an odd situation. I have rarely seen anything like this in my experience. However, my argument was based more on your over generalizing. Some people may have their infants baptized for these reasons, but there are many who still do it with its intended meaning.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Yah. Catholics = Christians. Why? Because they follow the teachings related to salvation to this day.

* very shallow conclusion there, my friend... teachings according to what? to whom? according to them? or according to the Bible?

"If any man willeth to do his will, he shall know of the teaching, whether it is of God, or whether I speak from myself.
He that speaketh from himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh the glory of him that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him."
John 7:17-18

Originally posted by big gay kirk
And to support Nellinator.... go into a Catholic church and one of the first things you'll see is a big statue of Jesus.... indeed, for a long while, Catholics considered themselves the only Christians there were... hence the title....

* statue?

"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:
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;"
Exodus 20:4-5

* yeah right...

After hearing all of this chatter I would like to point out: the only church that Jesus Christ ever founded was the Catholic Church. They were called "Christians" only because there was no need to differentiate themselves from heresy. The Catholic Church is the only church with direct apostolic succession from Jesus Christ meaning that they alone have the true sacraments and that the Protestant heresies are merely imitations.

And on the subject of idolatry: there is no idolatry in the Catholic Church, we do not worship the statue of Jesus crucified, rather have it to provoke thought and reflection towards the eternal god.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
After hearing all of this chatter I would like to point out: the only church that Jesus Christ ever founded was the Catholic Church. They were called "Christians" only because there was no need to differentiate themselves from heresy. The Catholic Church is the only church with direct apostolic succession from Jesus Christ meaning that they alone have the true sacraments and that the Protestant heresies are merely imitations.

Arguments like this always come down to the same question: was it inspired by God or wasn't it? Every Christian religion is equally dependent on the same question.

Under the often challenged assumption that God exists:

The changes made by the Catholic Church 3rd century AD can't be true unless they were inspired of God. The churches that split off from the Catholic church can't be the truth unless God specifically inspired them on details of doctrine that the Catholic church had lost. The Christian churches that didn't originate from any other religions (like mine) can't be true unless inspired by God...for obvious reasons.

Because the question of divine inspiration is the only one that can justify any of the beliefs, it is kind of pointless to argue points such as the date of origination.

Originally posted by peejayd
* it is true that God would never contradict Himself... because He never did commanded the Israelites to make and worship graven images... hence, what the underlined phrases in Exodus 20:4-5 still stands...



* in what way? my point there is, the Catholic doctrine is not in accordance with the teachings of Christ in the Bible...



* i know that the Mosaic Law is not for the Christian era, however, the said commandment was not changed nor amended by Christ so it still applies... it is still prohibited to make and worship graven images:

"Being then the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and device of man."
Acts 17:29

"Because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
And changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things."
Romans 1:21-23 God commanded the creation of several images. The cherubim on the Ark come to mind. However, it is correct that God never commands worship of them. Which is a non-point in this context because Catholics do not worship their images and have explicit and official doctrine to the contrary of your allegations.

You are quite simply wrong.

And neither of these is a condemnation. Naturally, no one should believe the Godhead to be properly represented by anything we can craft. However, this is simply a warning against corruption of thinking, not of representation and reminder.

Romans 1:21-23 in the original language doesn't suggest what you are implying. The context of mankind in general is being used and is talking about the worshiping false gods that were of the likeness of man. It is not referencing anything to do with graven images.

* okay, quite simply put, prove to me that Catholics do not worship the graven images they make... have you ever seen a devout Catholic person?

i do
my father's side of the family ar eall devout Catholics who attend mass for every little event i've never heard of and all went to Catholic school and etc..
far as i can tell they worship the Lord
a piece of wood in the shape of the Cross means nothing but Jesus means everything

Originally posted by peejayd
* okay, quite simply put, prove to me that Catholics do not worship the graven images they make... have you ever seen a devout Catholic person? Yah, some of them are idiots that in their "zeal for the Lord" go against official doctrine of which they are usually ignorant. That would be the mistake of the person not the Catholic Church.

* they are confusing people... if they do not worship graven images, they why create one? it is unnecessary... the Bible teaches us how to worship God:

"The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.
Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.
Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, shall ye worship the Father.
Ye worship that which ye know not: we worship that which we know; for salvation is from the Jews.
But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth: for such doth the Father seek to be his worshippers.
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship in spirit and truth."
John 4:19-24

* is there a need to create graven images to worship God? nope...

* also, is there a commandment of God that tells the Catholic authorities to create graven images of Biblical saints? nope...

* why worship Mary, wife of Joseph (foster parent of Jesus)? why hold feasts for Mary and the Biblical saints? Jesus never instructed such events...

* the seven sacraments, why pay for them?

"Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons: freely ye received, freely give."
Matthew 10:8

* is there a need for infants to be baptized?

"And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."
Acts 2:38

* infants and little children does not need baptism because sins are not imputed by God to those who have no experience of the word of righteousness...

"And as they went on the way, they came unto a certain water; and the eunuch saith, Behold, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him."
Acts 8:36-38

* it is necessary for the "baptizee" to have faith, for him to be baptized by the "baptizer"...

* is there a need to pray for the dead?

* should the Eucharist be done literally? to break and eat bread? is the literal bread really represents the body of Christ? Christ said:

"Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the stomach and is expelled?"
Matthew 15:17

* where did the "body of Christ" went?

* is Saint Peter really the first pope? the word "pope" means father in Greek... i doubt Saint Peter would use it to be his title...

"Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven."
Matthew 23:9

* is Saint Peter really the lead minister of Christians after Christ? he is considered one of the pillars (with Saint James & Saint John), but the abundance of revelations and knowledge of God was given to Saint Paul...

"And consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation--as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you,
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures."
II Peter 3:15-16

* even the right hand of fellowship was given to Saint Paul:

"But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter
(for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles),
And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised."
Galatians 2:7-9

"Of which I became a minister according to the stewardship from God which was given to me for you, to fulfill the word of God,"
Colossians 1:25

protestants shud tolerate catholics as non christians tolerate protestants.

Images are generally used as reminders to encourage people to continue in faith and good works.

They don't worship Mary. There is nothing wrong with feasts, they are not detrimental in any way and promote fellowship. But using your same logic why not do cocaine and heroine on a daily basis if Jesus never commanded us not to?

You are not supposed to have to pay for the sacraments and most Catholics do not. I know many that have received all sacraments without ever giving a penny to the Catholic Church.

Read Genesis 17:12 and Leviticus 12:3 and tell me why 8-day old children are inducted into God's covenant?

Acts 2:38 says, "If you repent, then each one who is a part of you and yours must each be baptized". This directly refers to adults having their children baptized.

Acts 2:39 uses the Greek word "teknon" which refers to infants.

Acts 10:47-48 has all of Cornelius's household being baptized. That includes children. Ditto in Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33, 1 Corinthians 1:16.

Exodus 12:24-28 should ring a bell with a parent's faith saving their children. 1 Corinthians 7:14 should also remind you of it.

Remember how in Joshua 5:2-7 God punishes Israel for not circumcising its children? Baptism involves the same inclusion of children in a covenant with God, only a better one.

Yes, there definitely is.

It wouldn't matter what happens to it, you miss the significance.

The word "no" in Matthew 23:9 does not equate to a direct commandment. The Greek word used is "me" (with an accent over the e I am unsure of how to reproduce). The use of that word contrasts the meaning you wish to imply. If the Greek word "ou" was used you might have a case, but it is not. As it stands the verse only means not to assign a higher status than is warranted to anyone on earth and to reserve that esteem and worship for God alone.

Furthermore, your assertion shows ignorance of the etymology of the word "pope". At the time of its inception the Greek "papas" would mean "patriarch or bishop" and be applied to many bishops. However, this is irrelevant. By the time the title of pope was in use in Rome (440AD) the church was exclusively using Latin. Pope actually comes from the Latin "papa" which was used of bishops and meant "tutor" in classical Latin.

Yes, Peter was the lead minister. It is made very clear. Jesus gives him that commission twice. In Matthew 18 Jesus declares Peter the rock on which the church will be built and gives him the keys of life with the power to bind and loose things in both heaven and earth. Look at the Council of Jerusalem. Peter's judgment is final and uncontested because everyone recognizes his authority. Then look at John 21. In verse 15 Jesus tells Peter to "feed" (provide pasture for) for His lambs. Then In verse 16 Jesus tells Peter to "feed sheep". The word "feed" is properly translated "shepherd" and is figuratively used to mean "rule". And then in 17 Jesus tells Peter to provide pasture for his sheep again. There is a distinction made between lambs and sheep. Jesus commands Peter to provide pasture for both the lambs and the sheep, but to rule the sheep. The lambs are the body of Christ (ie. all believers) while the sheep are the pastors and ministers of the word. Peter is in charge of the entire Church by Jesus's commission and is thus unchallenged by anyone else. Look at Acts 15 where no one challenges Peter whatsoever. To assume the "abundance of knowledge and revelations" were given to Paul is a stretch of logic and not very Biblical. After his conversion, Paul immediately seeks out Peter. Why do you think that is?

The last two verses don't bring up any relevant points.

Originally posted by Nellinator
I think this is an odd situation. I have rarely seen anything like this in my experience. However, my argument was based more on your over generalizing. Some people may have their infants baptized for these reasons, but there are many who still do it with its intended meaning.

And here too.. but it must be remembered that the Church of England (the majority church of this country) is more a social club than a religion.. as stated in (satirically but truthfully) in "yes Prime Minister"

Sir Humphrey: "The Queen is a fixture... God is what you might call an optional extra..."

Originally posted by peejayd
*

* statue?

"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:
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;"
Exodus 20:4-5

* yeah right...


But remember.... the Niceaen Council (if I remember correctly) made it a doctrine of faith to offer venerative worship, but not true worship, to saints etc, and allowed images as a sort of aid to concentration... and as the pope was the successor to St Peter, he had as much right to change doctrine as, for example, St Paul did.... and few Christians ask for the Pauline scriptures and alterations to be removed...

Originally posted by big gay kirk
And here too.. but it must be remembered that the Church of England (the majority church of this country) is more a social club than a religion.. as stated in (satirically but truthfully) in "yes Prime Minister"

Sir Humphrey: "The Queen is a fixture... God is what you might call an optional extra..." I tend to disagree with the Anglican Church on absolutely everything. However, I definitely agreed with them excommunicating the American Anglican Church. That was a sweet move.
Originally posted by big gay kirk
But remember.... the Niceaen Council (if I remember correctly) made it a doctrine of faith to offer venerative worship, but not true worship, to saints etc, and allowed images as a sort of aid to concentration... and as the pope was the successor to St Peter, he had as much right to change doctrine as, for example, St Paul did.... and few Christians ask for the Pauline scriptures and alterations to be removed... I don't think it was Nicea. It was the 7th Ecumenical Council if I remember correctly.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Images are generally used as reminders to encourage people to continue in faith and good works.

* images do nothing but confuse the faith of everyone... it was not commanded to make and worship them so they are, by all means, irrelevant to the Christian faith... true worship is in spirit and in truth (John 4:24), no images needed...

Originally posted by Nellinator
They don't worship Mary.

* then, what the heck is hyperdulia? ever heard of the rosary? please tell me what the prayers in the rosary consists of...

Originally posted by Nellinator
There is nothing wrong with feasts, they are not detrimental in any way and promote fellowship.

* never heard of any feast for God or for Christ... only saints and angels... saints and angels of God reject veneration, worship and glory thrown to them...

Originally posted by Nellinator
But using your same logic why not do cocaine and heroine on a daily basis if Jesus never commanded us not to?

"Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these: fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
Idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousies, wraths, factions, divisions, parties,
Envyings, drunkenness, revellings, and such like; of which I forewarn you, even as I did forewarn you, that they who practise such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God."
Galatians 5:19-21

* using your logic promotes cocaine and heroine...

Originally posted by Nellinator
You are not supposed to have to pay for the sacraments and most Catholics do not.

* means, some still pays for it and the Catholic authorities still accepts payments...

Originally posted by Nellinator
I know many that have received all sacraments without ever giving a penny to the Catholic Church.

* all? the person is a priest and is married? wow...

Originally posted by Nellinator
Read Genesis 17:12 and Leviticus 12:3 and tell me why 8-day old children are inducted into God's covenant?

* is induction and baptism, the same?

Originally posted by Nellinator
Acts 2:38 says, "If you repent, then each one who is a part of you and yours must each be baptized". This directly refers to adults having their children baptized.

* Acts 2:36, Saint Peter is talking to the people to crucified Jesus... Acts 2:37, the people replied to Saint Peter, what shall they do? and Saint Peter answered they need to repent and be baptized... please don't twist the Scriptures...

Originally posted by Nellinator
Acts 2:39 uses the Greek word "teknon" which refers to infants.

* maybe... but it does not refer to baptism anymore... it refers to the promise of God...

Originally posted by Nellinator
Acts 10:47-48 has all of Cornelius's household being baptized. That includes children. Ditto in Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33, 1 Corinthians 1:16.

* it's only your pre-conceived idea... infants and little children does not need baptism because sins are not imputed by God to those who have no experience of the word of righteousness...

"And as they went on the way, they came unto a certain water; and the eunuch saith, Behold, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him."
Acts 8:36-38

* it is necessary for the "baptizee" to have faith, for him to be baptized by the "baptizer"...

Originally posted by Nellinator
Exodus 12:24-28 should ring a bell with a parent's faith saving their children. 1 Corinthians 7:14 should also remind you of it.

* what's this supposed to do with prayer for the dead?

Originally posted by Nellinator
Remember how in Joshua 5:2-7 God punishes Israel for not circumcising its children? Baptism involves the same inclusion of children in a covenant with God, only a better one.

* is circumcision and baptism, the same?

Originally posted by Nellinator
Yes, there definitely is.

* i don't know where this came from...

Originally posted by Nellinator
It wouldn't matter what happens to it, you miss the significance.

* nope... you miss the significance in believing the literal bread is the body of Christ...

Originally posted by Nellinator
The word "no" in Matthew 23:9 does not equate to a direct commandment. The Greek word used is "me" (with an accent over the e I am unsure of how to reproduce). The use of that word contrasts the meaning you wish to imply. If the Greek word "ou" was used you might have a case, but it is not. As it stands the verse only means not to assign a higher status than is warranted to anyone on earth and to reserve that esteem and worship for God alone.

Furthermore, your assertion shows ignorance of the etymology of the word "pope". At the time of its inception the Greek "papas" would mean "patriarch or bishop" and be applied to many bishops. However, this is irrelevant. By the time the title of pope was in use in Rome (440AD) the church was exclusively using Latin. Pope actually comes from the Latin "papa" which was used of bishops and meant "tutor" in classical Latin.

* tell me about etymology... pope/pappas means father... patriarch/pater also means father... and my bad, the pope also uses the title address, "most holy father"...

Originally posted by Nellinator
Yes, Peter was the lead minister. It is made very clear. Jesus gives him that commission twice. In Matthew 18 Jesus declares Peter the rock on which the church will be built and gives him the keys of life with the power to bind and loose things in both heaven and earth.

* when Jesus said that, you got the parable, not the mystery... eventhough the name "Peter" means rock, that does not automatically mean that Peter is the Rock on which the church will be built... Jesus was speaking in the third person... the Rock is Jesus Himself...

"As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed."
Romans 9:33

"Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed."
I Peter 2:5-8

"Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,
Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:
And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.
Ephesians 1:20-23

Originally posted by Nellinator
Look at the Council of Jerusalem. Peter's judgment is final and uncontested because everyone recognizes his authority.

* he is one of the pillars... with Saint James and Saint John... Saint Peter's authority should be recognized...

Originally posted by Nellinator
Then look at John 21. In verse 15 Jesus tells Peter to "feed" (provide pasture for) for His lambs. Then In verse 16 Jesus tells Peter to "feed sheep". The word "feed" is properly translated "shepherd" and is figuratively used to mean "rule". And then in 17 Jesus tells Peter to provide pasture for his sheep again. There is a distinction made between lambs and sheep. Jesus commands Peter to provide pasture for both the lambs and the sheep, but to rule the sheep. The lambs are the body of Christ (ie. all believers) while the sheep are the pastors and ministers of the word. Peter is in charge of the entire Church by Jesus's commission and is thus unchallenged by anyone else.

* read the context of John 21, on verse 15 Jesus asks Saint Peter if he loves him more than his work (fishing)... all overseers are commanded to feed the church:

"Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."
Acts 20:28

Originally posted by Nellinator
Look at Acts 15 where no one challenges Peter whatsoever. To assume the "abundance of knowledge and revelations" were given to Paul is a stretch of logic and not very Biblical.

"And consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation--as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you,
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures."
II Peter 3:15-16

* even Saint Peter find some epistles hard to understand... because of the wisdom of God given to Saint Paul...

Originally posted by Nellinator
After his conversion, Paul immediately seeks out Peter. Why do you think that is?

* Saint Peter is one of the pillars, and Saint Paul is a new convert...

Originally posted by Nellinator
The last two verses don't bring up any relevant points.

* the authority of Saint Paul and Saint Barnabas...

Originally posted by big gay kirk
But remember.... the Niceaen Council (if I remember correctly) made it a doctrine of faith to offer venerative worship, but not true worship, to saints etc, and allowed images as a sort of aid to concentration...

* venerative worship is still worship... saints like Saint Peter or Saint Paul should not be worshipped...

Originally posted by big gay kirk
and as the pope was the successor to St Peter, he had as much right to change doctrine as, for example, St Paul did.... and few Christians ask for the Pauline scriptures and alterations to be removed...

* Saint Peter and Saint Paul did not change any doctrine of Christ...

Originally posted by peejayd
* images do nothing but confuse the faith of everyone... it was not commanded to make and worship them so they are, by all means, irrelevant to the Christian faith... true worship is in spirit and in truth (John 4:24), no images needed...



* then, what the heck is hyperdulia? ever heard of the rosary? please tell me what the prayers in the rosary consists of...



* never heard of any feast for God or for Christ... only saints and angels... saints and angels of God reject veneration, worship and glory thrown to them...



"Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these: fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
Idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousies, wraths, factions, divisions, parties,
Envyings, drunkenness, revellings, and such like; of which I forewarn you, even as I did forewarn you, that they who practise such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God."
Galatians 5:19-21

* using your logic promotes cocaine and heroine...



* means, some still pays for it and the Catholic authorities still accepts payments...



* all? the person is a priest and is married? wow...



* is induction and baptism, the same?



* Acts 2:36, Saint Peter is talking to the people to crucified Jesus... Acts 2:37, the people replied to Saint Peter, what shall they do? and Saint Peter answered they need to repent and be baptized... please don't twist the Scriptures...



* maybe... but it does not refer to baptism anymore... it refers to the promise of God...



* it's only your pre-conceived idea... infants and little children does not need baptism because sins are not imputed by God to those who have no experience of the word of righteousness...

"And as they went on the way, they came unto a certain water; and the eunuch saith, Behold, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him."
Acts 8:36-38

* it is necessary for the "baptizee" to have faith, for him to be baptized by the "baptizer"...



* what's this supposed to do with prayer for the dead?



* is circumcision and baptism, the same?



* i don't know where this came from...



* nope... you miss the significance in believing the literal bread is the body of Christ... Images only confuse those who lack faith.

Not worship, not worship. No, I'm sure you know exactly. Once you provide an example of worship I'll believe you.

So you haven't heard of the two main feasts then? The Feast of the Resurrection and the Feast of the Nativity of our Lord? Saints would reject veneration, but not necessarily veneration.

And you are able to determine what "and such like means" how? Your assumption of my logic is based on false pretense. You are only progressing in proving my point.

Yah, and they shouldn't.

Yah, I quite literally have.

It is being brought into covenant with God, so yes it is.

You are in error of what the Bible actually says. Peter answers the question very specifically. "You and yours must each be baptized" (Metanoesate kai bapistheto hekastos hymon) is precisely what Peter says. He specifically includes the children of professing believers.

The "promise" of God is a covenant. Baptism is entrance into that covenant.

Apparently you are unaware of the scriptures.

Psalm 51:5 and Job 14:1-4 clearly contradict you. Romans 5:12-19 is the most glaring, however. 1 Corinthians 15:22 says that in Adam all die. If the wages of sin is death why would children die in Adam?

You go on to confuse the meaning of a profession of faith. There is not a need for profession of faith if one is not able to do so. Those verses do not contradict that in any way.

Nothing, I missed that point. I addressed prayer for the dead two paragraphs later. That part was a continuation of my previous point and one I would prefer you not avoid.

Circumcision and baptism have the same significance unless you care to argue that the New Covenant is a narrower covenant than the Old Covenant in which case you would be in err of scriptures. The New Covenant is better and broader and includes children just as the old did. Why you wish to exclude children from it is beyond me.

I dunno, if there are twenty words in the language Jesus could have used to support a symbolic body of Christ I would suspect He would use one to suggest it instead of referring to it as His literal body.

Originally posted by peejayd
* tell me about etymology... pope/pappas means father... patriarch/pater also means father... and my bad, the pope also uses the title address, "most holy father"...



* when Jesus said that, you got the parable, not the mystery... eventhough the name "Peter" means rock, that does not automatically mean that Peter is the Rock on which the church will be built... Jesus was speaking in the third person... the Rock is Jesus Himself...

"As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed."
Romans 9:33

"Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed."
I Peter 2:5-8

"Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,
Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:
And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.
Ephesians 1:20-23



* he is one of the pillars... with Saint James and Saint John... Saint Peter's authority should be recognized...



* read the context of John 21, on verse 15 Jesus asks Saint Peter if he loves him more than his work (fishing)... all overseers are commanded to feed the church:

"Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."
Acts 20:28



"And consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation--as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you,
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures."
II Peter 3:15-16

* even Saint Peter find some epistles hard to understand... because of the wisdom of God given to Saint Paul...



* Saint Peter is one of the pillars, and Saint Paul is a new convert...



* the authority of Saint Paul and Saint Barnabas...



* venerative worship is still worship... saints like Saint Peter or Saint Paul should not be worshipped...



* Saint Peter and Saint Paul did not change any doctrine of Christ... No, pope = papa = tutor. Did you miss that part of purposely ignore it. His address in English is stupid and He should not use it.

Jesus is the rock of our salvation. Jesus is not speaking in the third person and there is absolutely nothing but the whims of fools to suggest He was. Jesus specifically told Peter He would build His church on Peter. You see it is Jesus's church and Christ is the foundation of our salvation, but the Peter is the rock on which that church is built. Your verses do not contradict that in the least and fail to realize the truth of Matthew 16. All you have done is affirm the truth that Catholics and all other Christians believe: that Christ is the High Priest of the church.

Yes, but his declaration was infallible unless you wish to argue that Jesus was lying to him in Matthew 16.

In fact it does not refer to his work at all. Jesus pointedly asked Peter whether he loved Him more than the other disciples. Jesus did not ask Peter while they dined, He asked after all the disciples had had fellowship together. Also, knowledge of Greek will tell you that He is referring to the nearest plural noun which is the disciples.

The disciples are all sheep, save Peter who is their head. They all have the responsibility to feed the lambs and even Peter is not immune to the reprimands of those under him. I have not suggested as such so I fail to see your point. Peter's commission is given to him directly by Jesus with very specific instructions. No one else is given this special commission, but all are given the Great Commission.

In fact, Peter does not suggest that he has trouble understanding at all. However, Peter understands that others may not have the knowledge and understanding given to him, Paul and the other apostles.

That doesn't answer the question. Why did he not seek out James or John? Why does no one question Peter's declarations? Why is Peter given two special commissions by Christ when no one else is? Why does Paul seek only Peter and not just any of the disciples and then spend time learning from Peter?

Which I never argued against.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Images only confuse those who lack faith.

* so why make images? why tolerate the creating of it? not to mention, it's against the Scriptures...

Originally posted by Nellinator
Not worship, not worship. No, I'm sure you know exactly. Once you provide an example of worship I'll believe you.

* Catholics praying the rosary is an obvious evidence of worshipping Mary, what example do you still need?

Originally posted by Nellinator
So you haven't heard of the two main feasts then? The Feast of the Resurrection and the Feast of the Nativity of our Lord?

* yeah, literal feasts... still none for the Father...

Originally posted by Nellinator
Saints would reject veneration, but not necessarily veneration.

* saints do reject veneration, period...

Originally posted by Nellinator
And you are able to determine what "and such like means" how?

* if you are of God, you know what that means... and it surely prohibits heroine and cocaine even if you cannot read those words verbatim...

Originally posted by Nellinator
Your assumption of my logic is based on false pretense. You are only progressing in proving my point.

* there's nothing wrong in "sola scriptura" so long as you are guided by the Holy Spirit... your logic still promotes cocaine and heroine...

Originally posted by Nellinator
Yah, and they shouldn't.

* and? even they did those things, they are still Christians? bah! they are Catholics, yes... Christians? nope...

Originally posted by Nellinator
Yah, I quite literally have.

* does not practice celibacy? that's odd...

Originally posted by Nellinator
It is being brought into covenant with God, so yes it is.

* so is marriage, yet marriage =/= baptism...

Originally posted by Nellinator
You are in error of what the Bible actually says. Peter answers the question very specifically. "You and yours must each be baptized" (Metanoesate kai bapistheto hekastos hymon) is precisely what Peter says. He specifically includes the children of professing believers.

"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

"de Petros phemi pros autos metanoeo kai baptizo hekastos humon epi onoma lesous Christos eis aphesis hamartia kai lambano dorea hagios pneuma"
Acts 2:38

* the statement is very clear, kiddo... you mean to say, Saint Peter commanded the children to repent too? don't make me laugh...

Originally posted by Nellinator
The "promise" of God is a covenant. Baptism is entrance into that covenant.

"For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call."

"gar epaggelia esti humin kai humon teknon kai pas eis makran hosos kurios hemon theos an"
Acts 2:39

* that, my friend, is an obvious pre-conceived assumption... the message is clear... Saint Peter never commanded to baptize the children... what he said was "the promise is unto you and to your children"... please do not try to twist the Scriptures...

Originally posted by Nellinator
Apparently you are unaware of the scriptures.

* do tell and prove...

Originally posted by Nellinator
Psalm 51:5 and Job 14:1-4 clearly contradict you. Romans 5:12-19 is the most glaring, however. 1 Corinthians 15:22 says that in Adam all die. If the wages of sin is death why would children die in Adam?

* irrelevant argument... just tell me is it Biblical to pray for the dead...

Originally posted by Nellinator
You go on to confuse the meaning of a profession of faith. There is not a need for profession of faith if one is not able to do so. Those verses do not contradict that in any way.

Nothing, I missed that point. I addressed prayer for the dead two paragraphs later. That part was a continuation of my previous point and one I would prefer you not avoid.

* "a parent's faith saving their children" has nothing to do in praying for the dead...

Originally posted by Nellinator
Circumcision and baptism have the same significance unless you care to argue that the New Covenant is a narrower covenant than the Old Covenant in which case you would be in err of scriptures. The New Covenant is better and broader and includes children just as the old did. Why you wish to exclude children from it is beyond me.

* even in the time of Christ, male infants were still circumcised eight days from birth, still it's not baptism, still outside that weird parallelism of yours... Biblical records show that Christ left us an example, eventhough He was circumcised as infant, He was baptized an adult...

Originally posted by Nellinator
I dunno, if there are twenty words in the language Jesus could have used to support a symbolic body of Christ I would suspect He would use one to suggest it instead of referring to it as His literal body.

* then the host/hostia used in the Holy Mass/Eucharist in Catholic worship services is dumb and unBiblical...

Originally posted by Nellinator
No, pope = papa = tutor. Did you miss that part of purposely ignore it.

O.E. papa, from M.L. papa "bishop, pope" (in classical L., "tutor", from Gk. papas "patriarch, bishop," originally "father."

>> from: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pope/ and http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=pope&searchmode=none/

* now, tell me... is it me ignoring "pope = papa = tutor"? or is it you completely overlooking "pope = papa = father"?

Originally posted by Nellinator
His address in English is stupid and He should not use it.

* so if the pope in Rome is using the title "Most Holy Father", what's the point of defending your argument that "pope = papa = tutor"? my, my, my...

Originally posted by Nellinator
Jesus is the rock of our salvation. Jesus is not speaking in the third person and there is absolutely nothing but the whims of fools to suggest He was. Jesus specifically told Peter He would build His church on Peter.

* Jesus specifically told Peter He would build His Church upon this rock... not on Peter...

Originally posted by Nellinator
You see it is Jesus's church and Christ is the foundation of our salvation, but the Peter is the rock on which that church is built. Your verses do not contradict that in the least and fail to realize the truth of Matthew 16.

* the Church of God is not built on Peter but on Christ... Christ is the foundation, true... because Christ is the Rock on which the Church of God was built...

Originally posted by Nellinator
All you have done is affirm the truth that Catholics and all other Christians believe: that Christ is the High Priest of the church.

* so who is the High Priest of the Catholic church? tell me, is it Christ or the pope? but i can tell you that Christ is the Apostle and High Priest of God's Church (Hebrews 3:1)...

Originally posted by Nellinator
Yes, but his declaration was infallible unless you wish to argue that Jesus was lying to him in Matthew 16.

* Jesus never said that the Church would be built on Peter... the Church would be built on the Rock, who is Christ Himself...

Originally posted by Nellinator
In fact it does not refer to his work at all. Jesus pointedly asked Peter whether he loved Him more than the other disciples. Jesus did not ask Peter while they dined, He asked after all the disciples had had fellowship together. Also, knowledge of Greek will tell you that He is referring to the nearest plural noun which is the disciples.

* the disciples are "these"? knowledge of the Bible will tell you to consider the context of the verse... Jesus was talking about Peter's work and not the other disciples... he who receives the Apostles also receives Christ and the Father (Matthew 10:40), he who hears the Apostles also hears Christ and the Father (Luke 10:16), loving the Apostles is also loving Christ and the Father... Christ will not ask Peter if he loves Him more than the other disciples, but if he loves Him more than his work, which is fishing...

Originally posted by Nellinator
The disciples are all sheep, save Peter who is their head.

* Peter is a disciple, he is also one of the sheep... but Peter is also an Apostle elected by Christ, Peter is an overseer like the other Apostles... those overseers are all commanded to feed God's Church (Acts 20:28)...

Originally posted by Nellinator
They all have the responsibility to feed the lambs and even Peter is not immune to the reprimands of those under him. I have not suggested as such so I fail to see your point. Peter's commission is given to him directly by Jesus with very specific instructions. No one else is given this special commission, but all are given the Great Commission.

* Saint Peter's authority should be recognized, there is no problem with that, he is an Apostle of Christ just like the other Apostles...

Originally posted by Nellinator
In fact, Peter does not suggest that he has trouble understanding at all. However, Peter understands that others may not have the knowledge and understanding given to him, Paul and the other apostles.

"And consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation--as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you,
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures."
II Peter 3:15-16

* Saint Peter find some epistles hard to understand... this is not to belittle Saint Peter... but the fact remains that there is wisdom of God given to Saint Paul which is really hard to be understood...

Originally posted by Nellinator
That doesn't answer the question. Why did he not seek out James or John? Why does no one question Peter's declarations? Why is Peter given two special commissions by Christ when no one else is? Why does Paul seek only Peter and not just any of the disciples and then spend time learning from Peter?

* Acts 15:13, 19 narrates the judgment of Saint James... why does no one question James' judgment? is James the head?

Originally posted by Nellinator
Which I never argued against.

* the twelve Apostles are witnesses, and three of them (Peter, James and John) are considered pillars, the closest to Jesus, they have authority which i also never argued against... my point is the authority of Saint Paul and Saint Barnabas as they were given the right hands of fellowship by the pillars... most specifically Saint Paul, unto whom God gave exceeding greatness of revelations and wisdom...

Originally posted by leonheartmm
no, it is purely unnecesary. the fact that it was done can not be conveniently explained away. anyhow, back on topic, it doesnt matter cause most of it is paulanity anyway. looks like jesus and john took a back seat.

This may have already been answered but it WAS necessary to be baptized. It was a commandment from God that every man should believe and be baptized. He was baptized to show Heavenly Father that even though the baptism does nothing to remit his nonexistent sins...it was to show that He (Jesus Christ) was humble enough to submit to Gods commandments "to fulfill all righteousness". Also, Jesus Christ was supposed to be an example for man to follow so he also did it to show "us" that we are to "believe and be baptized in his name" etc.


Edit...yup, it looks like it was answered already. Sorry.