Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
So you're arguing fornication (pre-marital) should be against the law too then, no?
As always.
Answering old threads thread Part II
- Thread starter Idolater
- Start date
Right Divider
Body part
False history is all the rage with false religions.
The only "foreigners" that were present in Jerusalem on the lawfully required Jewish feast day were proselytes (Acts 2:10). In other words, they were gentiles that had converted to Judaism. There was not a single "typical gentile".
Peter was speaking ONLY to Jews that day.
Acts 2:22 (AKJV/PCE)
(2:22) Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
Oh the lies that you RCC's love to tell.
Paul did NOT build on Peter's foundation. Paul specifically AVOIDED doing just that.
Rom 15:20 (AKJV/PCE)
(15:20) Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation:
Paul is the ONE that laid the foundation for what Paul preached:
1Cor 3:10 (AKJV/PCE)
(3:10) According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
Are you talking about the dispute in Acts 15? The dispute that was settled by them agreeing with Paul?
Paul never, never for one second, submitted to the authorities in Jerusalem. Paul was given His mission directly from the risen and ascended Lord Jesus Christ.
Have you ever noticed that Peter disappears about half way through the book of Acts? Pretty much right after this counsel where Peter was not even handling lead duties for the twelve (James was doing that, and James was not even one of the twelve).
Correct, because that's what the Bible teaches:
“If a man entices a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the bride-price of virgins.
Bible Gateway passage: Exodus 22:16-17 - New King James Version
Moral and Ceremonial Principles - “If a man entices a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the bride-price of virgins.
“If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.
Bible Gateway passage: Deuteronomy 22:28-29 - New King James Version
“If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be...
Just as you cannot prove there there were, is that what you mean?
No, of course, that isn't what you meant but perhaps you're a step closer to understanding why people ought never be asked to prove a negative.
This point is neither relevant nor in dispute.
It doesn't matter if they were. I wouldn't have any problem with it if fully half the crowd was from Corinth. It wouldn't do my doctrine any harm at all.
I don't understand the reference. I said nothing about A.D. 46. What are we talking about here?
Again, not in dispute. There was, however, a time when Peter, James and John agreed to remain in Israel, ministering to "the circumcision" while Paul went to the Gentiles. (Gal. 2)
No, it isn't. He explicitly states what foundation he was talking about. It was Christ and Him crucified.
It isn't like they were cowards. They stayed in Israel on purpose.
Galatians 2: 2And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles,
That doesn't sound like Paul was building on Peter's foundation! That sounds like God told Paul to explain "his gospel" (Romans 2:16, Romans 16:25, 2 Timothy 2:8) to Peter!
Galatians 2:6 But from those who seemed to be something—whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man—for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. 7 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 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), 9 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.
Last edited:
Yes.
I agree that no such right exists but the argument here is incomplete. It isn't immoral because God said so but rather the reverse. God said it is immoral because it is objectively immoral.
Why then is it immoral?
Simply put, because it leads to death, which is what it means to be immoral. Prostitution leads to death in more ways than one can count!
Derf
Well-known member
Then you're also blind.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
You just said there were Gentiles there. That means non-Palestinian people, ethnically. Peter was not only preaching to ethnic Palestinians that day.
You're proving like every single one of my points. The Apostles planted churches, St. James the Just was consecrated bishop of the church in Jerusalem by the Apostles, the archdiocese in Palestine, the Palestinian Christians. That see, along with the see of Antioch, are still extant. It's not just the see of Rome, which we read about in the Bible, which survives to this day, there are other sees too, which were established or planted by Apostles, and which survive to this day. They're the same exact offices. Like how President Biden's holding the exact same office in 2023 that George Washington held in 1800, that same office survives to this day. It looks way different, but it's the same.
All of the churches the Apostles planted in Palestine had bishops, and all those bishops were at the conference.
The bishops conference didn't manufacture anything new, but discussed the already existing revelations which the bishops had received, obviously the Apostles were drawing on all the direct and voluminous revelation they had all received while with Jesus (including Paul, who received special revelation directly, after Jesus's ministry on Earth).
That's it. They hashed everything out. It didn't need Peter or any other Apostle to commandeer the Council.
Right Divider
Body part
Your cluelessness is just astounding!
"Ye men of Israel" means exactly that!
No, I was not. But it's not surprising that you ignore every point that I make.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
So literally he was telling the Gentiles there (the ethnically non-Palestinians, who you admit were there), c. "You guys don't listen to this; this isn't for you"?
Plain.
Yes you were.
Plain!
Right Divider
Body part
You need to learn what a proselyte is and what "Ye men of Israel" means.
Again, Paul NEVER submitted to your "pope". Paul was ALWAYS independent with his commission directly from the Lord Jesus Christ.
Can you explain why the "pope" disappears midway through the book of Acts?
Can you explain why James (not one of the twelve) was leading the church in Jerusalem at the Acts 15 counsel?
No, you cannot explain any of these things, because a false religion has you hook, line and sinker.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
No I don't, and I already know what they mean anyway.
Let me try this with you:
Is Our Lord Jesus Christ God?
Is Our Lady the mother of Our Lord?
Is Our Lady the mother of God?
You won't answer because of the much bigger plank in your own eye which you're ignoring and dismissing while you attempt to help me remove a splinter from mine.
A point not in dispute.
As with all Apostles (cf. Matthew 28:19). Again, a point not in dispute.
Yes.
Yes.
Just answer the question about the mother of God, and we'll see who's been fleeced by what.
Right Divider
Body part
Clearly incorrect.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Like I was saying.
Right Divider
Body part
Jesus is God.
Mary is His mother only in regards to His humanity.
False religions love a fake story.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
It's a yes-no question. If you think a logical fallacy is occurring, then point it out.
Your false religion is called "anti-Catholicism" or "anti-Catholic bigotry" just so you know fyi.
Right Divider
Body part
I know a loaded question when I see it.
Mary had nothing to do with Christ's deity.
Nonsense.
Right Divider
Body part
The fallacy involved might be called "bait and switch".
Christ has TWO natures. The TWO must be falsely conflated to make your "idea" come true.
Again, Mary has nothing to do with the deity of Christ.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Great. Then show how it's a loaded question.
We'll wait.
A point not in dispute!
lol RD. Plank; eye; remove it.
(You won't.)