See other Religion Articles
Title: The Apostle Peter Was NOT The First Pope!
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Nov 1, 2008
Author: Richard -- various
Post Date: 2008-11-01 01:38:54 by richard9151
Keywords: None
Views: 541
Comments: 33
There is a post in the Religion thread that is neccessary reading if you truly wish to understand what is going on in the world today. That post is titled; Simon Peter versus Simon the Sorcerer It is quite long, so I am going to post here a short version of proofs from that post that come directly from the Bible. Also, a disclaimer. I have been told that I am posting to much info from the Jehovah's Witnesses. Frankly, most of my info comes from many, many other sources. I have posted some info from them, but very, very little. Anyone that believes that the Jehovah's Witnesses are the only ones who understand this what is going on really has very little understanding of the world. The Apostle Peter Was NOT The First Pope! Here are TEN solid, Biblical proofs that Peter was not at Rome. Mark each in your Bible and understand them well, so YOU will not be deceived. THE PRIMACY of the Roman Catholic Church depends upon one fundamental doctrine: the claim that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome and the founder of the Roman Church. The teaching of Catholic historians tells us that Simon Peter went to Rome at the same time as Simon Magus in order to thwart his evils. This was during the reign of Claudius. After successfully combating the Magus, they tell us, Peter assumed the Roman bishopric and ruled it until the Neronian persecutions of 68 A.D., during which Peter was supposed to have been crucified upside down on Vatican hill. This is the basic story and Catholic writers never shirk in attempting to defend it. Some of them say that this general account is one of the most provable of historical events. But is it? The fact remains, many ecclesiastical authors of the second century, Justin Martyr among them, give information completely negating Peter’s supposed Roman bishopric. This is admitted by virtually all scholars -- except conservative Catholics (Ency. Biblica, col. 4554). But, more important than this, the records of the True Church of God -- the writings of the New Testament -- absolutely refute the Roman Catholic claim. It is time that the world gets its eyes open to the truth of this matter -- the truth, which is clearly revealed in the Word of God. The Apostle Peter was NEVER the Bishop of Rome! The Bible Teaching There are ten major New Testament proofs which completely disprove the claim that Peter was in Rome from the time of Claudius until Nero. These Biblical points speak for themselves and ANY ONE of them is sufficient to prove the ridiculousness of the Catholic claim. Notice what God tells us! The truth IS conclusive! PROOF ONE: We should consider Christ’s commission to Peter. This is often very embarrassing to Catholics, because Christ commissioned Peter to become chief minister to the CIRCUMCISED, not to uncircumcised Gentiles. "The gospel of the CIRCUMCISION was unto Peter; (For He that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)" (Gal. 2:7-8). Here we have it in the clearest of language. It was Paul, NOT Peter, who was commissioned to be the chief Apostle to the Gentiles. And who was it that wrote the Epistle to the ROMANS? It certainly WASN’T Peter! "And when James, Cephas [Peter], and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace [i.e., the gift or office] that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision" (Gal. 2:9). Paul further mentioned his special office as the Gentile Apostle in II Timothy 1:11: "Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles." PETER is NOWHERE called the Apostle to the Gentiles! This precludes him from going to Rome to become the head of a Gentile community. PROOF TWO: Paul specifically told the Gentile Romans that HE had been chosen to be their Apostle, not Peter. "I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable" (Rom. 15:16). How clear! Paul had the direct charge from Christ in this matter. He even further relates in Romans 15:18 that it was Christ who had chosen him "to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed." PAUL Established Only TRUE Church at Rome PROOF THREE: We are told by Paul himself that it was he -- not Peter -- who was going to officially found the Roman Church. "I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established" (Rom. 1:11). Amazing! The Church at Rome had not been ESTABLISHED officially even by 55 or 56 A.D. However, the Catholics would have us believe that Peter had done this some ten years before -- in the reign of Claudius. What nonsense! Of course you understand that NEITHER Peter nor Paul established the Catholic Church! But these proofs are given to illustrate that it is utterly impossible for PETER to have been in any way associated with ANY Church at Rome. PROOF FOUR: We find Paul not only wanting to establish the Church at Rome, but he emphatically tells us that his policy was NEVER to build upon another man’s foundation. "Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, LEST I SHOULD BUILD UPON ANOTHER MAN’S FOUNDATION" (Rom. 15:20). If Peter had "founded" the Roman Church some ten years before this statement, this represents a real affront to Peter. This statement alone is proof that Peter had never been in Rome before this time to "found" any church. Peter Not in Rome PROOF FIVE: At the end of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans he greets no fewer than 28 different individuals, but never mentions Peter once! See Romans 16 -- read the whole chapter! Remember, Paul greeted these people in 55 or 56 A.D. Why didn’t he mention Peter? -- Peter simply wasn’t there! PROOF SIX: Some four years after Paul wrote Romans, he was conveyed as a prisoner to Rome in order to stand trial before Caesar. When the Christian community in Rome heard of Paul’s arrival, they all went to meet him. "When THE brethren [of Rome] heard of us, they came to meet us" (Acts 28:15). Again, there is not a single mention of Peter among them. This would have been extraordinary had Peter been in Rome, for Luke always mentions by name important Apostles in his narration of Acts. But he says nothing of Peter’s meeting with Paul. Why? Because Peter was not in Rome! PROOF SEVEN: When Paul finally arrived at Rome, the first thing he did was to summon "the chief of the Jews together" (Acts 28:17) to whom he "expounded and testified the kingdom of God" (Verse 23). But what is amazing is that these chief Jewish elders claimed they knew very little even about the basic teachings of Christ. All they knew was that ‘‘as concerning this sect, we know that everywhere it is spoken against" (Verse 22). Then Paul began to explain to them the basic teachings of Christ on the Kingdom of God. Some believed -- the majority didn’t. Now, what does all this mean? It means that if Peter, who was himself a strongly partisan Jew, had been preaching constantly in Rome for 14 long years before this time, AND WAS STILL THERE -- how could these Jewish leaders have known so little about even the basic truths of Christianity? This again is clear proof Peter had not been in Rome prior to 59 A.D. No Mention of Peter in Paul’s Letters PROOF EIGHT: After the rejection of the Jewish elders, Paul remained in his own hired house for two years. During that time he wrote Epistles to the Ephesians, the Philippians, the Colossians, Philemon, and to the Hebrews. And while Paul mentions others as being in Rome during that period, he nowhere mentions Peter. The obvious reason is -- the Apostle to the circumcision wasn’t there! PROOF NINE: With the expiration of Paul’s two year’s imprisonment, he was released. But about four years later (near 65 A.D.), he was again sent back a prisoner to Rome. This time he had to appear before the throne of Caesar and was sentenced to die. Paul describes these circumstances at length in II Timothy. In regard to his trial, notice what Paul said in II Timothy 4:16. "At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men [in Rome] forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge." This means, if we believe the Catholics, that Peter forsook Paul, for they tell us Peter was very much present at Rome during this time! Peter once denied Christ, but that was before he was converted. To believe that Peter was in Rome during Paul’s trial, is untenable! PROOF TEN: The Apostle Paul distinctly informs us that Peter was not in Rome in 65 A.D. -- even though Catholics say he was. Paul said: "Only Luke is with me" (II Tim. 4:11). The truth becomes very plain. Paul wrote TO Rome; he had been IN Rome; and at the end wrote at least six epistles FROM Rome; and not only does he NEVER mention Peter, but at the last moment says: "Only Luke is with me." Peter, therefore, was never Bishop of Rome! Where Was Peter? Near 45 A.D., we find Peter being cast into prison at Jerusalem (Acts 12:3, 4). In 49 A.D., he was still in Jerusalem, this time attending the Jerusalem Council. About 51 A.D., he was in Antioch of Syria where he got into differences with Paul because he wouldn’t sit or eat with Gentiles. Strange that the "Roman bishop" would have nothing to do with Gentiles in 51 A.D.! Later in about 66 A.D., we find him in the city of Babylon among the Jews (I Pet. 5:13). Remember that Peter was the Apostle to the CIRCUMCISED. Why was he in Babylon? Because history shows that there were as many Jews in the Mesopotamian areas in Christ’s time as there were in Palestine. It is no wonder we find him in the East. Perhaps this is the reason why scholars say Peter’s writings are strongly Aramaic in flavor -- the type of Aramaic spoken in Babylon. Why of course! Peter was used to their eastern dialect. At the times the Catholics believe Peter was in Rome, the Bible clearly shows he was elsewhere. The evidence is abundant and conclusive. By paying attention to God’s own words, no one need be deceived. Peter was NEVER the Bishop of Rome!
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: richard9151 (#0)
I find that to be somewhat ironic. So what if Peter wasnt in Rome? Is that the extent of all the deception out there? How is this even important, true as it is? People that claim to be Christians do not take scripture seriously, and those that claim to know the most are among those that value their own traditions over and above scripture. Everything they read is read thru the filters of their particular churches doctrines.
Ummmm. Burning questions! And one for you; Simon Peter versus Simon the Sorcerer Did you read the above noted post? The information in this post is from that post, and it breaks what is called the apostolic right of the Roman Catholic church to rule over and establish the dogma and traditions of Christianity. The claim of the Roman church is that they are descended directly from the Apostles, and for this reason, they have a direct line back to the Christ Jesus, and receive divine revelations because of that. This is the source behind the belief of the trinity, that it came as a divine revelation, because it can not be taught from Scripture; nothing in the Bible supports such a belief. This is also the root behind the protestant churches, what is called Christendom by those who reject the teachings of the Roman church. Because they came out of the Roman church, they also claim the same right to hold to their traditions because of where they started: the Roman church. I hope this was of some help.
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
I read it. I dont comment on articles I dont read. You didnt source some kind of secret knowledge. You have the same sources as everyone else. If you can see it, then so can they. It's just a matter of reading what everyone has access to. If they cant (or won't) see something so plain, how will they see other deceptions? They seem to find more comfort being in a big herd. You think catholic and churchianity doctrine is bad, but JW have it all right? Be careful who you think are the deceived ones. If you dont think you can be deceived, then you are a prime candidate to be deceived. Theologians and preachers study the bible for years too, and they don't know squat. They are the only ones that I know that can take a plainly written scripture, and twist it to mean something else totally different. Now I can do to you, as a JW, what you do to Catholics. You live in a glass house, don't throw rocks or else I will test the truthfulness of your sigline.
Please do. I have always asked for correction. It took a year and a half for my friend Gary to make progress with me, before I finally began to accept what he (and the JWs) said about the Bible. As I have said before, I was far along in my studies before I met Gary, and held off from them for so long because I did not understand how they were organized, which is Biblical -- direct from the Bible. And, completely neutral in world affairs, as they need to be to be Bibilical. You think catholic and churchianity Better. but JW have it all right? No, and, please pay attention here; neither do they. They self correct, every time they find an error in what they believe. As is proper. Please show me another organization on this earth that does likewise. The Catholics, of course, being without error and perfect, by their own edict. Theologians and preachers study the bible for years too, and they don't know squat. That, my friend, is completely in error. I have had frank talks with such, and they understand exactly what is what, and, also understand that their free ride is dependent on their toeing the line-dogma of their faith. They are prostitutes, but hardly stupid.
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
Sorry, but I dont know any smart whores. Perhaps "blind guides" would be more appropriate. In having Jesus give his life, God was dealing with a situation that arose when Adam sinned. What a tragedy that sin was! The very first man and his wife, Eve, were perfect. From http://www.watchtower.org/e/ 20011115/article_02.htmBy paying attention to God’s own words, no one need be deceived. Peter was NEVER the Bishop of Rome!
#2. To: PSUSA (#1)
I find that to be somewhat ironic. So what if Peter wasnt in Rome? Is that the extent of all the deception out there? How is this even important, true as it is?
#3. To: richard9151, All (#2)
#4. To: PSUSA (#3)
or else I will test the truthfulness of your sigline.
doctrine dogma and tradition is bad,
#5. To: richard9151 (#4)
They are prostitutes, but hardly stupid.
Sentence #1. Book, chapter and verse supporting this bit of nonsense. Nowhere does it say that God was caught by surprise and had to somehow rework his plan, and has been falling behind ever since due to His general incompetence and being foiled at every turn by by the "mighty" Satan.
1 Peter 1 20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
Eph 1 4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
THis was planned from before world, not after Adam sinned.
sentence #2 Tragedy? Was God somehow caught off guard? Want to know why this world sucks, and people suffer? Here it is:
Romans 8
19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. 20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, 21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
Sentence #3 Prove that Adam and Eve were created perfect. A perfect creation is not capable of errors, because it is perfect. So, prove that they were perfect by citing scripture.
#6. To: All (#5)
Notice that those in error frequently contradict themselves. Sometimes, these contradictions happen in the very next sentence, just like the example I quoted. If they were "perfect", they wouldn't have sinned. They were just as flawed and carnal as everyone else that has ever lived, with 1 exception.
What a tragedy that sin was! The very first man and his wife, Eve, were perfect.
#7. To: richard9151 (#0)
PROOF THREE: We are told by Paul himself that it was he -- not Peter -- who was going to officially found the Roman Church. "I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established" (Rom. 1:11). Amazing! The Church at Rome had not been ESTABLISHED officially even by 55 or 56 A.D. The 16th chapter of Romans disproves this mistatement and alleged 'proof'. There was already a church in Rome when Paul wrote.
PAUL Established Only TRUE Church at Rome
#8. To: PSUSA (#1)
People that claim to be Christians do not take scripture seriously, and those that claim to know the most are among those that value their own traditions over and above scripture. Everything they read is read thru the filters of their particular churches doctrines. It has a direct baring on the legitimacy of the Roman Catholic Church. If its founding myth is a fantasy, so, too, is any claim that the church may have in regard to divine authority. I am one Christian who takes the Scriptures seriously enough to study them on an almost daily basis. Since I belong to a religious congregation of one, I haven't any traditions or doctrines through which to filter the Scriptures. For me, if tradition and doctrine don't fit Scripture, ow, well, too bad for tradition and doctrine. RO
Is that the extent of all the deception out there? How is this even important, true as it is?
#9. To: PSUSA (#5)
Sorry. Been changing out the main water tank on our restruant, and have not had time for anything but that (I admit, did just post a couple of things, including George Carlin on elections. Who could resist doing that?)! Have to be ready for Monday opening. Will try to get back to you as soon as the work is done.
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
#10. To: all (#0)
The Roman Catholic Church did not exist as a formal entity until the schism of 1054 when they broke away from the undivided church. To be fair, splinters, or fractures were appearing not to long after the Second Council in part due to the geographical split between Rome (West) and Constantinople (East). A good number of the Roman practices or teachings in question tend to arise after the schism.
"What began in Russia will end in America."- 1930, Elder Ignatius of Harbin, Manchuria.
#11. To: richard9151 (#9)
Not a problem. We all might be a little preoccupied during/after the (s) election.
#12. To: PSUSA (#5)
What bit of nonsense? Are you claiming that Eve and Adam did not sin? Are you claiming that they were not created perfect? The sentence simply said that God had a plan if such an event as that sin occurred. God already had some experience with perfect beings not being so perfect, i.e., Satan. There is a purpose behind permitting Adam to make such a decision. Have you read the short post in the Religion thread; There is a verse in the Bible that tells us about ourselves If you have not, perhaps that might clear up some of the confusion. Tragedy? Was God somehow caught off guard? How does anything catch Almighty God off guard? The tradedy is for us -- you and I -- and what we and all of mankind have had to go through to get to the point where we can be acceptable to God once again. THAT IS THE TRADEGY! A perfect creation is not capable of errors, Adam and Eve were promised life eternal. Nothing, by the nature of forever, is capable of living forever without perfection. This is also how we know for a fact that Almighty God is perfect, because He has existed from time indefinate to time indefinate. Satan was perfect, yet he sinned. Why? Because God wanted more than simply to have animals around Him, and for that reason, He gave to those perfect creations a freewill. Almighty God wants willing, intelligent beings surrounding Him. You need to read that post I mentioned above, cause it covers most of this.
Book, chapter and verse supporting this bit of nonsense.
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
#13. To: rowdee (#7)
You are correct, but since Paul was the Apostle tasked with estalishing the congregations for Jesus Christ in the gentile lands, then we know that the church in Rome was not of the Christ. Here is the warning that Paul penned in the 16th Chapter of Romans; Now I exhort YOU, brothers, to keep your eye on those who cause divisions and occasions for stumbling contrary to the teaching that YOU have learned, and avoid them. 18 For men of that sort are slaves, not of our Lord Christ, but of their own bellies; and by smooth talk and complimentary speech they seduce the hearts of guileless ones.
The 16th chapter of Romans disproves this mistatement and alleged 'proof'. There was already a church in Rome when Paul wrote.
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
#14. To: scooter (#10)
The Roman Catholic chruch traces itself back to the apostle Peter. Without that foundation, they have no authority. That is the basis of the Roman church.
The Roman Catholic Church did not exist as a formal entity until the schism of 1054
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
#15. To: richard9151 (#12)
You are doing nothing but giving me your doctrines. You are not backing it up with scripture. Now here is the quote again, from your .org. In having Jesus give his life, God was dealing with a situation that arose when Adam sinned. What a tragedy that sin was! The very first man and his wife, Eve, were perfect. Prove it. I showed you, in no uncertain terms, that this was planned BEFORE Adam and Eve sinned, and was not a contingency plan just in case Gods' plan went haywire. It amazes me to see that people that call themselves christians say that God is sovereign, but then place peoples "free will" above Gods' will. I used scripture to show you WHY we suffer. You did not. And now you say Satan was created "perfect" too? He was a liar and murderer FROM THE BEGINNING. In a way, you are right. GOd created Satan, it's a part of His creation, and it was all good. People forget that God knows, and CREATED evil. Isaiah 45 7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. People freak out when they read that. Its one of those scriptures that will never be mentioned from a pulpit. Now if you are going to make your case for the JW, use scripture to do it. I dont care what their manmade doctrines are.
#16. To: richard9151 (#13)
There is no BUT, richard9151. The following from Mark 16:15, in the KJV, records it differently--and his words were printed in red signifying they were the words of Jesus Christ himself. Mar 16:14 Afterward5305 he appeared5319 unto the3588 eleven1733 as they846 sat at meat,345 and2532 upbraided3679 them with their846 unbelief570 and2532 hardness of heart,4641 because3754 they believed4100 not3756 them which had seen2300 him846 after he was risen.1453 Mar 16:15 And2532 he said2036 unto them,846 Go4198 ye into1519 all537 the3588 world,2889 and preach2784 the3588 gospel2098 to every3956 creature.2937 Note that the 11 were told to go out into the whole world preaching to EVERY creature....it does not say to Jew or Gentile, or Lost Tribes, just EVERY CREATURE. AND, this occurred before Paul's conversion and period of learning. FOOTNOTE: I'm adding this footnote just in case there are folks who don't understand the numbers behind virtually every word in the Scriptures. These numbers are numbers in Strong's Concordance which is used to help the reader with understanding which word was used and what its meaning was. Greek is a language which has specific words for specific meanings, an example being our word 'love' in English. We only have one word regardless of context for love, whereas in Greek there are 3 or 4 words and are dependent on which one is meant, such as phileo (brotherly love).
You are correct, but since Paul was the Apostle tasked with estalishing the congregations for Jesus Christ in the gentile lands, then we know that the church in Rome was not of the Christ.
#17. To: PSUSA (#15)
I don't want to jump in between the two of you, but what do you think free will is about? Certainly God is sovereign over all and his will eventually is done and he 'could' simply by virtue of his being sovereign mark all of us down as loving him. But it seems to me that if God would FORCE us to love it, it wouldn't be of much value, would it? If you forced someone to love you would it be the same as someone simply spying you and going ape shit over you--wanting you and your being with them 24/7? It seems to me that obeying God is some of the 'free will' we've been given-- to screw up or whatever you want to call the testing/proving of our faith to get us closer to the goal of perfection.
#18. To: rowdee (#17)
Jump in anytime. You say this: But it seems to me that if God would FORCE us to love it, it wouldn't be of much value, would it? If you forced someone to love you would it be the same as someone simply spying you and going ape shit over you--wanting you and your being with them 24/7? Were those that wrote out the scriptures FORCED to do it, or were they inspired? What does scripture say? Inspired =/= forced. It seems to me that you are confusing "free will" with making choices. Obviously we all make choices. But our will is not free. We can only choose from the options presented to us, we cannot make our own options out of nothing. Someone that knows how many hairs we have on our heads can certainly work out what circumstances to present to us. Philippians 2 13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. Sorry, but I dont see "free will" anywhere in that. We may not see that happening, but that does not mean it isn't happening. If you have "free will", then you are god. What it comes down to is: Is God soverign, or not? Again, what does scripture say about that?
#19. To: PSUSA (#18)
Were those who wrote scriptures against God, but wrote anyways? Yes, free will is about making choices, but it all boils down to only 2 choices--you are either for/with God or you are against him. And to be against him, you are for evil.
Were those that wrote out the scriptures FORCED to do it, or were they inspired? What does scripture say? Inspired =/= forced.
#20. To: PSUSA (#15)
What doctrine? I have plainly stated that I am with the Jehovah's Witnesses, but that does not mean that I am OF them; I am new with them, and still must finish my studies before I can be baptised. This is not your normal let-anyone- in-to-tithe religion. What I was stating comes from more than 20 years of reading the Bible. Adam and Eve were created without knowing sickness or death, and were designed to live forever. By definition, that is perfect. Only perfection can last forever. Almighty God being the best example of that. This is what God said to Adam; For dust you are and to dust you will return Prior to that, they did not know death, or, will you argue about this as well? It amazes me to see that people that call themselves christians say that God is sovereign, but then place peoples "free will" above Gods' will. What a silly thing to say. Most of the Bible is explaining what happens to people who chose to disobey Jehovah God; He clenses the earth of them. Just as He did at the flood, and will again when Jesus Christ returns. Having free will does not in any manner, shape or form render anyone with the power to be over Almighty God! WHY we suffer. Why we suffer? Because we fail to obey Him. I asked you to read that one post, but here is a bit of info that fills some blanks, perhaps. Free will means; A Free Moral Agent. Being made in God’s image, according to His likeness, man was a free moral agent. He had the freedom of choice to do good or bad. By his willing, loving obedience to his Creator, he was in a position to bring honor and glory to God far beyond that which the animal creation could bring. He could intelligently praise God for His wonderful qualities and could support His sovereignty. But Adam’s freedom was a relative freedom; it was not absolute. He could continue to live in happiness only if he acknowledged Jehovah’s sovereignty. This was indicated by the tree of knowledge of good and bad, from which Adam was forbidden to eat. Eating of it would be an act of disobedience, a rebellion against God’s sovereignty. This is the post; There is a verse in the Bible that tells us about ourselves This is the verse; James 4:8; Draw close to God, and he will draw close to you. Do you get it? God is perfection. He can not violate His own rules. He dignifiied us with free will; He made us free moral agents, with ONE CHOICE IN LIFE; to obey, or not to obey. That is what the Bible is all about, and nothing else. Everything revolves around that premise; yes, or, no. You draw close to God, and He will draw close to you, BUT YOU HAVE TO MAKE THE FIRST MOVE! Or He can not... He can, and does, call you, but He can not interfere with your free will choice to obey, or not. THIS IS THE BASIS OF ALL SUFFERING ON THE EARTH. Are you aware that there are 3 Epochs of man on this earth? The first Epoch ended with the flood, when Almighty God wiped all disobedient people off of the earth. 8 survivied. Epoch 2 ended in 607 B.C.E. when God disenherited the disobedient Israelites and declared that He would take a people for Himself out of all of the peoples and nations of the earth. This is the beginning of the gentile period, which is nearing its end now. Epoch 3 will end when Jesus Christ arrives to judge everyone, including the resurrected, according to their deeds. Revelation 20:12, 13; 12 And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and scrolls were opened. But another scroll was opened; it is the scroll of life. And the dead were judged out of those things written in the scrolls according to their deeds. 13 And the sea gave up those dead in it, and death and Ha82;des gave up those dead in them, and they were judged individually according to their deeds. Please read that post, and we maybe should continue this in that thread. People forget that God knows, and CREATED evil. I kind of figured that this is where you were going. That God is evil as well as good, because if He is perfectly good, then He is not capable of doing evil. So, He is not perfect. And if He created evil, He is certainly not perfect. But Satan was an angel, created with a free will, i.e., was a free moral agent. The same reasoning applies here as applies to us. The angels were created to be companions to God; not to be unthinking beasts of burden. Isaiah 45 7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. See, this is the problem when you use a Bible, and do not confirm what is written in one verse elsewhere. This verse MUST BE witnessest to in other books of the Bible, or, you know that someone messed with the translation, probably to sustain the idea from the Roman church that Almighty God created evil as well as good, which I remember from my days in a catholic school. Here is a correct verse from Isaiah 45:7; Forming light and creating darkness, making peace and creating calamity, I, Jehovah, am doing all these things. Little different, isn't it. Now you may begin to understand why I use 12 different Bibles rather than depend on just one. The verse you quoted came from the King James version; see http://etext.virginia.edu/frames/bibleframe.html This quote comes from the New International Version; http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=29&chapter=45&version=31 I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things. This verse comes from the New American Standard Bible; http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=29&chapter=45&version=49 7The One (R)forming light and (S)creating darkness, Causing well-being and (T)creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these. Again, there is no interpetation of the Bible by man. The Bible is solely responsible for interpetation. If you can not find a verification in the Bible for something that is printed in it, then there is an error in the copy you are using. Buy a few more different translations, and do not trust one. That is my advice. God is GOOD, not evil, and He has never created evil. He is incapable of that.
You are doing nothing but giving me your doctrines.
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
#21. To: rowdee (#16)
Preaching the gospel to every creature has nothing to do with how they were individually sent out. In God's world, everything is organized. If you doubt that, take a close look at the stars, sun and moon. That is how God organizes everything, and you should expect that His organization on earth is the same way. Here, make of this what you will; Was Peter Ever In Rome? IF YOU belong to the Roman Catholic Church or are acquainted with its teachings, you know that its foundation depends upon Peter’s having been in Rome. Says The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1911: “This constitutes the historical foundation of the claim of the Bishops of Rome to the Apostolic Primacy of Peter.” The fact that such great importance is attached to Peter’s being in Rome gives real reason to expect the backing of reliable historical proof. The Catholic Encyclopedia maintains that this is the case, saying: “St. Peter’s residence and death in Rome are established beyond contention as historical facts by a series of distinct testimonies extending from the end of the first to the end of the second centuries.” Similarly, the New Catholic Encyclopedia observes: “It is quite certain that Peter spent his last years in Rome.” WAS BABYLON ROME? The most ancient testimony pointed to is that of 1 Peter 5:13: “She who is in Babylon, a chosen one like you, sends you her greetings.” A footnote in the New American Bible, a modern Roman Catholic translation, identifies this “Babylon” as follows: “Rome which, like ancient Babylon, conquered Jerusalem and destroyed its temple.” Yet, this same Catholic translation acknowledges that, if Peter wrote the letter, “it must be dated before 64-67 A.D., the period within which his execution under Nero took place.” But Jerusalem was not destroyed by the Romans until 70 C.E. So at the time Peter wrote his letter no correspondency existed between Babylon and Rome. Thus the idea that Babylon means Rome is simply an interpretation, but is not supported by fact. It was questioned even by Roman Catholic scholars of past centuries, including Peter de Marca, John Baptist Mantuan, Michael de Ceza, Marsile de Padua, John Aventin, John Leland, Charles du Moulin, Louis Ellies Dupin and the renowned Desiderius (Gerhard) Erasmus. Church historian Dupin wrote: “The First Epistle of Peter is dated at Babylon. Many of the ancients have understood that name to signify Rome; but no reason appears that could prevail with St. Peter to change the name of Rome into that of Babylon. How could those to whom he wrote understand that Babylon was Rome?” Aside from references to “Babylon the Great” in the book of Revelation, only one city is called Babylon in the Holy Scriptures. That city is the Babylon situated on the Euphrates. Could this have been the place from which Peter wrote? Yes. Though Babylon declined after its fall to the Medes and Persians, it continued to exist. There was a sizable Jewish population in the area of Babylon in the early centuries of the Common Era. Says The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: “Babylonia remained a focus of eastern Judaism for centuries, and from the discussions in rabbinical schools there were elaborated the Talm[ud] of Jerus[alem] in the 5th cent[ury] of our era, and the Talm[ud] of Babylon a cent[ury] later.” Peter must have meant just what he wrote. This becomes clear from a decision he made some years before writing his first inspired letter. In a meeting with Paul and Barnabas, he agreed to continue devoting his efforts to spreading the gospel among the Jews. We read: “Recognizing that I [Paul] had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised, just as Peter was for the circumcised (for he who worked through Peter as his apostle among the Jews had been at work in me for the Gentiles) and recognizing, too, the favor bestowed on me, those who were the acknowledged pillars, James, Cephas, and John, gave Barnabas and me the handclasp of fellowship, signifying that we should go to the Gentiles as they to the Jews.” (Gal. 2:7-9, New American Bible) Accordingly, Peter would reasonably have worked in a center of Judaism, such as was Babylon, rather than in Rome, with its predominant Gentile population. The claim that Peter was in Rome thus has no basis in the Bible’s own testimony. But what about other ancient writings? CLEMENT’S TESTIMONY Clement of Rome, of the first century C.E., is often presented as one who confirms Peter’s stay in Rome. He wrote: “Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours; and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects.” Concerning these comments, Roman Catholic scholar Lardner remarked: “From these passages I think it may be justly concluded that Peter and Paul were martyrs at Rome, in the time of Nero’s persecution. For they suffered among the Romans, where Clement was bishop, and in whose name he was writing to the Corinthians.” But is this really what Clement said? True, Clement mentions both Peter and Paul. But nowhere does he say that they both suffered a martyr’s death at Rome. He refers only to Paul as preaching “both in the east and west,” implying that Peter was never in the west (serving, rather, in the east, as at Babylon). Thus Clement’s testimony actually argues against Peter’s having been in Rome. THE TESTIMONY OF IGNATIUS Another early source cited in support of Peter’s residence at Rome is Ignatius, of the late first century and early second century C.E. Ignatius told Christians at Rome: “I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles; I am but a condemned man.” In explanation of these words, The Catholic Encyclopedia says: “The meaning of this remark must be that the two Apostles laboured personally in Rome, and with Apostolic authority preached the Gospel there.” Is the conclusion of The Catholic Encyclopedia sound? Did Ignatius say that both Peter and Paul were in Rome? No, he simply stated that, as apostles, Paul and Peter issued commandments. Be it remembered that commandments can be issued by means of letters, through messengers or even verbally when one is visited by people from other places. There is no need for the one commanding to be personally present in a particular city. THE TESTIMONY OF IRENAEUS But some may say, Ah, but did not Irenaeus definitely say that Peter was in Rome? According to the extant writings of Irenaeus (second century C.E.), he did. We read: “Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.” There is also a reference to the “universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul.” Nevertheless, Irenaeus may not have made these statements. Why not? Because the original Greek writings of Irenaeus are lost. These words attributed to him are translated from a poor Latin version found some hundreds of years later. A Latin scribe could have easily added the points about Peter. That there were similar forgeries is admitted by Louis Ellies Dupin, Roman Catholic church historian. He says: “The Catholics invented false histories, false miracles, and false lives of the saints to nourish and keep up the piety of the faithful.” The strongest evidence against the statements claimed to be made by Irenaeus is their disagreement with the Bible. As evident from the letter to the Romans, there were Christians in Rome before the apostle Paul ever came to that city. This is acknowledged in the introduction to the book of Romans in the Catholic New American Bible: “Since neither early Christian tradition nor Paul’s letter to the Romans mentions a founder of the Christian community in Rome, it may be concluded that the Christian faith came to that city through members of the Jewish community of Jerusalem who were Christian converts.” Neither Peter nor Paul, by laboring in Rome, founded the Christian church there. However, on the day of Pentecost 33 C.E., Peter spoke to “sojourners from Rome, both Jews and proselytes,” at Jerusalem. (Acts 2:10) This may be the basis for the traditions that credit Peter with the founding of the church at Rome. But, as the facts show, it is not a sound basis on which to build one’s faith. ARCHAEOLOGICAL TESTIMONY Thus, seeming historical evidence for Peter’s stay at Rome, under close examination, proves to have no real foundation. This is also true of claimed archaeological evidence. Excavations brought to light remains of what is thought to have been a small funeral monument. Those who link this monument with the tomb of Peter base their conclusion on the assumption that he was in Rome. Concerning the bones that were found, the New Catholic Encyclopedia tells us: “Anatomical and geological examination indicate that these bones are of the 1st century; among them are the bones of a man of large frame. But there is no way of proving that they are the bones of St. Peter.” Hence there is no solid evidence, either archaeological or historical, to establish Peter’s stay in Rome. Biblical evidence is to the contrary. The claim of the Roman Catholic Church concerning the “Apostolic Primacy of Peter” is therefore false! And by the way, you were correct about when the congregation was established in Rome. Thank you for making me study more! (Seriously!) “Since neither early Christian tradition nor Paul’s letter to the Romans mentions a founder of the Christian community in Rome, it may be concluded that the Christian faith came to that city through members of the Jewish community of Jerusalem who were Christian converts.” Here is another translation of Gal. 2:7, 9; 7 But, on the contrary, when they saw that I had entrusted to me the good news for those who are uncircumcised, just as Peter [had it] for those who are circumcised— 8 for He who gave Peter powers necessary for an apostleship to those who are circumcised gave powers also to me for those who are of the nations; 9 yes, when they came to know the undeserved kindness that was given me, James and Ce82;phas and John, the ones who seemed to be pillars, gave me and Bar82;na·bas the right hand of sharing together, that we should go to the nations, but they to those who are circumcised.
preach2784 the3588 gospel2098 to every3956 creature.
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
#22. To: richard9151 (#21)
Nope. Lets look at that word you say means calamity, and I say means what it says, evil. Lets check Isaiah and see how that word is used. Isa 3:9 The show1971 of their countenance6440 doth witness6030 against them; and they declare5046 their sin2403 as Sodom,5467 they hide3582 it not.3808 Woe188 unto their soul!5315 for3588 they have rewarded1580 evil7451 unto themselves. Isa 3:11 Woe188 unto the wicked!7563 it shall be ill7451 with him: for3588 the reward1576 of his hands3027 shall be given6213 him. Isa 5:20 Woe1945 unto them that call559 evil7451 good,2896 and good2896 evil;7451 that put7760 darkness2822 for light,216 and light216 for darkness;2822 that put7760 bitter4751 for sweet,4966 and sweet4966 for bitter!4751 Isa 7:5 Because3282, 3588 Syria,758 Ephraim,669 and the son1121 of Remaliah,7425 have taken evil7451 counsel3289 against5921 thee, saying,559 Isa 7:15 Butter2529 and honey1706 shall he eat,398 that he may know3045 to refuse3988 the evil,7451 and choose977 the good.2896 Isa 7:16 For3588 before2962 the child5288 shall know3045 to refuse3988 the evil,7451 and choose977 the good,2896 the land127 that834 thou859 abhorrest6973 shall be forsaken5800 of both8147 her kings.4428 Isa 13:11 And I will punish6485 the world8398 for5921 their evil,7451 and the wicked7563 for5921 their iniquity;5771 and I will cause the arrogance1347 of the proud2086 to cease,7673 and will lay low8213 the haughtiness1346 of the terrible.6184 Isa 31:2 Yet he1931 also1571 is wise,2450 and will bring935 evil,7451 and will not3808 call back5493 his words:1697 but will arise6965 against5921 the house1004 of the evildoers,7489 and against5921 the help5833 of them that work6466 iniquity.205 Isa 32:7 The instruments3627 also of the churl3596 are evil:7451 he1931 deviseth3289 wicked devices2154 to destroy2254 the poor6041 with lying8267 words,561 even when the needy34 speaketh1696 right.4941 Notice I am going in order and I skipped nothing. I am about 1/2 way done. Do you want the rest of them? How about the Big One, Gen 3:5 Gen 3:5 For3588 God430 doth know3045 that3588 in the day3117 ye eat398 thereof,4480 then your eyes5869 shall be opened,6491 and ye shall be1961 as gods,430 knowing3045 good2896 and evil.7451 There it is, 7451. Please don't play games here.
#23. To: richard9151 (#0)
NEWS FLASH. JEHOVAS WITNESSES AREN'T REAL CHRISTIANS. THEY PERVERT THE SCRIPTURES AND ARE ALL GOING TO THE LAKE OF FIRE WHERE THEY WILL BE TORMENTED DAY AND NIGHT THROUGHOUT ETERNITY.
#24. To: richard9151 (#21)
Gen 3 1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? 2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. 4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. 6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. So, God tempted them? That is what you are saying. Here he placed the forbidden "tree" right in the middle of the garden where it was sure to be walked by many many times, make the fruit good for food, make it look nice, made it desirable, and somehow He expected them not to eat it, when tempted by a being much more intelligent than they were? Is that what you are saying? If Adam and Eve were "perfect", like you claim without scriptural backing, then it would not have been possible for them to sin. And BTW, God never said not to touch the "tree". If Eve was perfect, she would not have said that.
Free will means; A Free Moral Agent. Being made in God’s image, according to His likeness, man was a free moral agent. He had the freedom of choice to do good or bad. By his willing, loving obedience to his Creator, he was in a position to bring honor and glory to God far beyond that which the animal creation could bring. He could intelligently praise God for His wonderful qualities and could support His sovereignty. But Adam’s freedom was a relative freedom; it was not absolute. He could continue to live in happiness only if he acknowledged Jehovah’s sovereignty. This was indicated by the tree of knowledge of good and bad, from which Adam was forbidden to eat. Eating of it would be an act of disobedience, a rebellion against God’s sovereignty.
#25. To: Old Friend (#23)
And..... why would that be, that they do not partake of the apostacy of Christendom? Like, just as a for instance, believing in mysteries that can not be explained? Like that, you mean? Or is it because they believe in and practice a general priesthood, where everyone in the congregration is responsible for preaching the Word of Almighty God? Is that it? Or perhaps it is because they accept what Jesus Christ says about his relationship with his Father, rather than accepting what men teach about a mystery that can not be explained. Is that it? Now I realize that you probably have spent a lot more time in the Bible than I have, but you will need to be a bit more specific about what you are saying, cause I have a dozen Bibles, I have checked verses from the translation of the Witnesses, and they match quite well. In addition, I am joining with them because what they teach is what I learned from the Bible, long before I met my first Witness. Just as their organization is exactly how it is arranged in the Bible, including the general priesthood. So as I said, fill in some blanks for me, or get over it.
JEHOVAS WITNESSES AREN'T REAL CHRISTIANS.
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
#26. To: PSUSA (#22)
I am not playing games, but if you truly believe that Jehovah God created evil in the beginning, then you have no understanding of His Nature, which is perfection. Jehovah Makes Peace, Creates Evil “I FORM the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I am Jehovah, that doeth all these things.” (Isa. 45:7, AS) This reference to Jehovah’s creating darkness and evil has been gleefully seized upon by skeptics, atheists and other critics of the Bible to support their position that it is not the inspired Word of God but merely a collection of ancient writings of a primitive people. However, their prejudice, doubtless begotten by a lurking suspicion that their position is not as strong as they would like it to be, has blinded them to a reasonable consideration of this text as well as of the rest of the Bible. Instead of following such a course, let us heed the counsel of the Bible’s Author, “Come now, and let us reason together,” and see just what light reason and the Bible itself throw on the meaning of this scripture.—Isa. 1:18. How does Jehovah form light and create darkness? He forms light by causing his Word to be understood through the fulfillment of its prophecies. “Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and light unto my path.” “The path of the righteous is as the dawning light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day.” Such light, however, is not for the wicked. “Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart.” To the wicked Jehovah sends darkness. “God did not hold back from punishing the angels that sinned, but, by throwing them into Tartarus, delivered them to pits of dense darkness to be reserved for judgment.” And concerning men who slip into the Christian congregation for base purposes we are told that for them “the blackness of darkness stands reserved forever”. (Ps. 97:11; 119:105; Prov. 4:18, AS; 2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 4, 13, NW) Such was the case in the ninth plague upon ancient Egypt. The Egyptians were enveloped with a darkness that could be felt, whereas the Israelites had light in their dwellings.—Ex. 10:21-23. “I MAKE PEACE, AND CREATE EVIL” The Scriptures speak of Jehovah as the God of peace: “The God who gives peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly.” (Rom. 16:20, NW) That text, however, also implies that Jehovah is the God of war, in that he will crush his enemies. How can he be both the God of peace and the God of war? In that there is a proper time and occasion for peace and for war. “For everything there is an appointed time; and there is a time for every purpose under the heavens: a time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace.”—Eccl. 3:1, 8, AT. Jehovah makes peace now for those who seek him in his appointed way. “Jehovah will bless his people with peace.” The new world over which his Son will rule will be a peaceful world: “In his days shall the righteous flourish, and abundance of peace, till the moon be no more.” “Of the increase of his government and of peace there shall be no end.” That is why the angels said at the time of Jesus’ birth, “Peace among men of good-will.”—Ps. 29:11; 72:7; Isa. 9:7, AS; Luke 2:14, NW. When creatures go contrary to his will then it becomes necessary for Jehovah to make war upon them in his own time and way. Then he becomes the God of war: “Jehovah strong and mighty, Jehovah mighty in battle. Who is this King of glory? Jehovah of hosts, he is the King of glory.” (Ps. 24:8, 10, AS; Jas. 5:4, NW) As such he fought for his people Israel in times past, and he will again show himself as the God of war at the battle of Armageddon, where he will completely destroy his enemies for the vindication of his supremacy and the deliverance of his people.—2 Chron. 20:15; Rev. 16:14, 16. In what sense can it be said that Jehovah creates evil? Certainly not in the sense of his creating wickedness or moral badness, for it is utterly impossible for him to do anything wrong. “It is impossible for God to lie.” We are assured, “Good and upright is Jehovah: therefore will he instruct sinners in the way.” Addressing him the psalmist stated: “Righteousness and justice are the foundation of thy throne: lovingkindness and truth go before thy face.” And Moses sang of this theme: “For I will proclaim the name of Jehovah: ascribe ye greatness unto our God. The Rock, his work is perfect; for all his ways are justice: a God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and right is he.”— Deut. 32:3, 4; Ps. 25:8; 89:14, AS; Heb. 6:18, NW. Yes, Jehovah is very jealous for his name as a God of justice. That is why when Abraham, in connection with the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, asked, “Shall not the judge of the whole earth himself act justly?” Jehovah was willing to grant Abraham’s plea if but ten righteous persons were to be found in those cities. (Gen. 18:20-33, AT) Throughout the Scriptures, from Genesis to Revelation, Jehovah appeals to our reason and explains his reasons for executing his judgments so that we may have unshaken confidence in his justice. Particularly is this apparent in the prophecies of Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel.—Isa. 1:2-20; 24:1-5; Jer. 16:10-13; 22:1-9; Ezek. 6:1-10; 22:1-16. Jehovah, however, can be said to create evil, because the term “evil” can be used to designate not only “moral badness or offense; wrongdoing; wickedness”, but also “anything impairing happiness or welfare or depriving of good; injury; disaster”. (Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary) In view of the foregoing scriptures showing that Jehovah is just and righteous we must conclude that the evil that he creates must be that of calamity and disaster. The two uses of this term are to be seen in the following prophecy, wherein Jehovah told that he would bring evil or calamity upon Israel because of their evil or wicked course. Moses said: “For I know that after my death you will be sure to act perniciously, and swerve from the way that I appointed you; and in after days evil will befall you, because you will be doing what is evil in the sight of the LORD.” Note also the same in the following, which records a fulfillment of this prophecy. “Then the Israelites did what was evil in the sight of the LORD, by serving the Baals and forsaking the LORD. Then . . . the hand of the LORD was against them for evil, as the LORD had declared.”—Deut. 31:29; Judg. 2:11, 14, 15, AT. EVIL VERSUS WRONGDOING Thus we see that there is a great difference between evil and wrongdoing. All wrong or wrongdoing is evil, but not all evil is wrong. An act of injustice is always wrong and it usually results in working evil or injury to another. On the other hand, the administration of justice is always right. Even though it may bring evil upon the one against whom it is enforced, that does not mean that the administration of justice is wrong. Rather, it shows how God does create evil. Whether his creatures receive good and peace or evil and suffering at the hands of Jehovah depends upon what choice they make. As Moses put it to the Israelites: “See, I put before you today life and prosperity, along with death and misfortune. If you heed the commands of the LORD your God which I am giving you today, by loving the LORD your God, by walking in his ways, and by keeping his commands, statutes, and ordinances, then you shall live, . . . If, however, your heart turns away, and you give no heed, but are enticed to pay homage to alien gods and serve them, I tell you today that you shall most certainly perish, . . . I call heaven and earth to witness against you today that I have put life and death before you, the blessing and the curse; therefore choose life, that you as well as your descendants may live.”—Deut. 30:15-19, AT. Adam and Eve made the wrong choice and so God sentenced them: “Cursed shall be the ground through you, in suffering shall you gain your living from it as long as you live. By the sweat of your brow shall you earn your living, until you return to the ground, since it is from it that you were taken; for dust you are, and to dust you must return.” Such suffering and death were great evils for Adam and his offspring, but they were not wrongs; there were no extenuating circumstances; the infliction of such evils was just.—Gen. 3:17, 19, AT; Rom. 5:12; 6:23. The deluge of Noah’s day was a great evil, but it was not a wrong; those antediluvians got what was coming to them for choosing wickedness and violence instead of peace and righteousness. (Gen. 6:5; 7:21) The Pharaoh of the time of Moses chose to stubbornly oppose Jehovah, and so God sent ten plagues, and finally had to wipe out Pharaoh and his hosts in the Red sea. All such were great evils, calamities, which entailed great suffering upon the Egyptians. But they were not wrongs. Pharaoh was the wrongdoer, and Jehovah was perfectly within his rights in thus punishing him and thereby settling the issue as to who is supreme.—Exodus, chapters 7 through 14. At the present time Jehovah is having a warning sounded concerning his judgments soon to be executed upon modern Babylon, but few people are heeding this warning. When ‘the slain of Jehovah at Armageddon extend from one end of the earth to the other, being neither mourned, gathered up nor buried, but lying as dung upon the face of the ground’, that will surely be the greatest evil, disaster, calamity that will ever have befallen mankind; but it will not be a wrong. It will be a righteous execution of judgment.—Jer. 25:33; Rev. 18:4- 8, 20. While Jehovah brings the evil of destruction upon the wicked because they are deserving of it, he does so primarily because his name and sovereignty are at stake, “for he cannot deny himself.” And if he seems to delay the execution of such evildoers, let it be remembered that that likewise is for the vindication of his name, even as he told Pharaoh: “For by now I could have stretched out my hand and struck you and your people with pestilence, so that you would have been effaced from the earth; but this is why I have spared you: to show you my power, and to have my fame recounted throughout all the earth.”—Ex. 9:15, 16, AT; 2 Tim. 2:13, NW. CHRISTIANS MAY NOT USE EVIL Ever since A.D. 325 an apostate Christianity has presumed to inflict evil upon those who claimed to be Christians and who disagreed with its teachings. In this it has been guilty of great wrong and presumptuous sin, because the inflicting of evil as a punishment is primarily the prerogative of Jehovah God and the One to whom he delegated such power and authority, Christ Jesus. (Matt. 28:18; John 5:27; 1 Cor. 15:25, NW) The Christian’s sword is not one of steel but is “the sword of the spirit, that is, God’s word”. Therefore Paul plainly states: “For though we walk in the flesh, we do not wage warfare according to what we are in the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly, but powerful by God for overturning strongly entrenched things. For we are overturning reasonings and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are bringing every thought into captivity to make it obedient to the Christ.”—2 Cor. 10:3-5; Eph. 6:17, NW. Not only may Christians not resort to evil, pressure, persecution, or force to spread their message, but they may not even reward evil done to them with evil. “Return evil for evil to no one.” “Do not avenge yourselves, beloved, but yield place to the wrath; for it is written: ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says Jehovah.’ But, ‘if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by doing this you will heap fiery coals upon his head.’ Do not let yourself be conquered by the evil, but keep conquering the evil with the good.”—Rom. 12:17, 19-21, NW. It is in keeping with this principle that Christians are counseled not to go to worldly courts of law to settle their differences with each other. Rather than do that they should be willing to be defrauded and wronged. Incidentally, the frequency with which this admonition is violated today of itself proves that Christendom is not Christian.—Matt. 7:20; 1 Cor. 6:5-8, NW. Not in his punishing of evildoers but in his displaying patience and mercy are we to imitate our heavenly Father: “You heard that it was said: ‘You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ However, I say to you: Continue to love your enemies and to pray for those persecuting you; that you may prove yourselves sons of your Father who is in the heavens, since he makes his sun rise upon wicked people and good and makes it rain upon righteous people and unrighteous. You must accordingly be complete, as your heavenly Father is complete.”—Matt. 5:43-45, 48, NW. Today Christians can best follow that admonition by bringing the good news of God’s kingdom to the people; by continuing to go from door to door with the message regardless of how few hearing ears they may find and regardless of how many doors may be slammed in their faces; by letting their light shine on the street corners in spite of the reproaches heaped upon them by mockers, scorners and opposers; and by visiting the homes of the people and patiently instructing them even though they seem slow of comprehension. Doing so they vindicate Jehovah’s long-suffering and patience with evildoers in that, as a result of their preaching, others gain salvation.—2 Pet. 3:15, NW. In summing up we can see that Jehovah God creates light and peace for his people and for men of good will, but darkness and evil for his enemies, the wicked; that the evil he brings upon his foes is not wrong or wickedness but is deserved suffering, calamity and destruction. He has permitted wickedness because it serves in the vindication of his supremacy. Christians, however, are not authorized to inflict evil upon others, neither as a means of spreading their message nor as retaliation for evil done to them. The way they imitate God is by doing good to all as they have opportunity, leaving to him and to his chief Executioner, Christ Jesus, the settling of all accounts. There is no God else besides me, a just God and a Saviour; . . . Only in Jehovah, it is said of me, is righteousness and strength; even to him shall men come; and all they that were incensed against him shall be put to shame.—Isa. 45:21, 24, AS.
Please don't play games here.
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
#27. To: PSUSA (#22)
Here is another study on evil. Perhaps it will help. “Return Evil for Evil to No One” “Return evil for evil to no one. Provide fine things in the sight of all men.”— ROMANS 12:17. WHEN a child is shoved by a sibling, usually the child’s first reaction is to shove back. Sadly, such tit-for-tat behavior is not limited to children. Many adults act similarly. When offended by someone, they want to get even. Granted, most adults will not give a literal shove, but many will push back in subtle ways. Perhaps they spread harmful gossip about the offender or find ways to prevent him from succeeding. Whatever method is used, the intent is the same—to repay in kind, to retaliate. 2 Although the urge to get even is deep-seated, true Christians resist giving in to it. Instead, they strive to follow the apostle Paul’s admonition: “Return evil for evil to no one.” (Romans 12:17) What will motivate us to live according to that high standard? Whom in particular should we not repay with evil? What benefits will be reaped if we refrain from getting even? To answer those questions, let us study the context of Paul’s words and see how Romans chapter 12 shows that refraining from retaliation is the right, the loving, and the modest course to follow. We will consider these three aspects, one at a time. “Consequently I Entreat You” 3 Beginning in chapter 12, Paul considers four related subjects that affect a Christian’s life. He describes our relationship with Jehovah, with fellow believers, with nonbelievers, and with governmental authorities. Paul indicates that there is a fundamental reason to resist wrong inclinations, including the urge to retaliate, when he states: “Consequently I entreat you by the compassions of God, brothers.” (Romans 12:1) Note the word “consequently,” which means “in view of the foregoing.” Paul in effect says, ‘In view of what I just explained to you, I entreat you to do what I will tell you next.’ What had Paul explained to those Christians in Rome? 4 In the first 11 chapters of his letter, Paul discussed the wonderful opportunity open to both Jews and Gentiles to become rulers with Christ in God’s Kingdom, a hope that natural Israel failed to accept. (Romans 11:13-36) That precious privilege became possible only “by the compassions of God.” How should Christians respond to this great undeserved kindness on God’s part? Their hearts should be filled with such deeply felt gratitude that they would be moved to do what Paul states next: “Present your bodies a sacrifice living, holy, acceptable to God, a sacred service with your power of reason.” (Romans 12:1) How, though, could those Christians actually present themselves “a sacrifice” to God? 5 Paul goes on to explain: “Quit being fashioned after this system of things, but be transformed by making your mind over, that you may prove to yourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.” (Romans 12:2) Instead of allowing the spirit of the world to shape their thinking, they needed to make their minds over to Christ’s way of thinking. (1 Corinthians 2:16; Philippians 2:5) That principle should influence the day-to-day behavior of all genuine Christians, including us today. 6 How does Paul’s reasoning at Romans 12:1, 2 help us? Like those spirit- anointed Christians in Rome, we are deeply grateful for the continuing and manifold expressions of compassion that God has given us and continues to give us every day of our life. Consequently, a heart filled with gratitude moves us to serve God with all our strength, means, and abilities. That heartfelt desire also moves us to do our utmost to think, not like the world, but like Christ. And having the mind of Christ affects how we treat others—both fellow believers and nonbelievers. (Galatians 5:25) A case in point: If we think like Christ, we are compelled to resist the urge to retaliate.—1 Peter 2:21-23. “Let Your Love Be Without Hypocrisy” 7 We refrain from returning evil for evil not only because it is the right course but also because it is the loving course. Note how the apostle Paul next considers the motive of love. In the book of Romans, Paul uses the word “love” (a·ga82;pe in Greek) several times when referring to God’s love and that of Christ. (Romans 5:5, 8; 8:35, 39) However, in chapter 12, Paul uses a·ga82;pe in a different way—in speaking about love shown to fellow humans. After noting that spiritual gifts vary and are present among some believers, Paul mentions a quality that should be cultivated by all Christians. He states: “Let your love be without hypocrisy.” (Romans 12:4-9) Showing love to others is a basic mark of true Christians. (Mark 12:28-31) Paul exhorts us to make sure that the love we show as Christians is sincere. 8 Further, Paul notes how love without hypocrisy is shown, stating: “Abhor what is wicked, cling to what is good.” (Romans 12:9) “Abhor” and “cling” are strong words. “Abhor” can be translated “hate exceedingly.” We must hate not merely the consequences of evil but also the evil itself. (Psalm 97:10) The word “cling” is a translation of a Greek verb that literally means “to glue.” A Christian who has genuine love is so firmly glued, or attached, to the quality of goodness that it becomes an inseparable part of his personality. 9 One particular manifestation of love is mentioned by Paul again and again. He states: “Keep on blessing those who persecute; be blessing and do not be cursing.” “Return evil for evil to no one.” “Do not avenge yourselves, beloved.” “Do not let yourself be conquered by the evil, but keep conquering the evil with the good.” (Romans 12:14, 17-19, 21) Paul’s words leave no doubt about how we should treat nonbelievers, even those who oppose us. “Keep On Blessing Those Who Persecute” 10 How do we carry out Paul’s exhortation: “Keep on blessing those who persecute”? (Romans 12:14) Jesus told his followers: “Continue to love your enemies and to pray for those persecuting you.” (Matthew 5:44; Luke 6:27, 28) Hence, one way in which we bless persecutors is by praying for them, petitioning God that if any are opposing us because of ignorance, Jehovah may open their eyes to the truth. (2 Corinthians 4:4) Granted, it may seem strange to ask God to bless a persecutor. However, the more our mind-set resembles Christ’s way of thinking, the more we will be able to extend love to our enemies. (Luke 23:34) What can be the result of showing such love? 11 Stephen was one who prayed for his persecutors, and his prayer was not in vain. Not long after Pentecost 33 C.E., Stephen was arrested by opposers of the Christian congregation, dragged outside Jerusalem, and stoned. Before he died, he cried out: “Jehovah, do not charge this sin against them.” (Acts 7:58–8:1) One of the men for whom Stephen prayed that day was Saul, who witnessed and approved of Stephen’s murder. Later, the resurrected Jesus appeared to Saul. That former persecutor became a follower of Christ and went on to become the apostle Paul, the writer of the letter to the Romans. (Acts 26:12-18) In line with Stephen’s prayer, Jehovah evidently forgave Paul for the sin of being a persecutor. (1 Timothy 1:12-16) No wonder that Paul exhorted Christians: “Keep on blessing those who persecute”! He knew from experience that some persecutors may eventually become servants of God. In our day, some persecutors have likewise become believers because of the peaceable conduct of Jehovah’s servants. “Be Peaceable With All Men” 12 Paul’s next admonition on how to treat believers and unbelievers is: “Return evil for evil to no one.” That statement is a logical consequence of what he said earlier, namely: “Abhor what is wicked.” After all, how could a person say that he truly abhors what is wicked, or evil, if he were to use evil as a means to repay others? Doing so would be the opposite of having love “without hypocrisy.” Then Paul says: “Provide fine things in the sight of all men.” (Romans 12:9, 17) How do we apply those words? 13 Earlier, in his letter to the Corinthians, Paul wrote about the persecution that the apostles faced. He said: “We have become a theatrical spectacle to the world, and to angels, and to men. . . . When being reviled, we bless; when being persecuted, we bear up; when being defamed, we entreat.” (1 Corinthians 4:9-13) Similarly, true Christians today are being watched by the people of this world. When those around us observe the fine things we do even while we are being treated unjustly, they may be inclined to look more favorably upon our Christian message.—1 Peter 2:12. 14 How far, though, should we go in order to promote peace? We should go as far as possible. Paul tells his Christian brothers: “If possible, as far as it depends upon you, be peaceable with all men.” (Romans 12:18) “If possible” and “as far as it depends upon you” are qualifying expressions indicating that making peace with others may not always be possible. For instance, we will not disobey a command of God just to keep peace with man. (Matthew 10:34-36; Hebrews 12:14) Still, we do everything we reasonably can—without compromising righteous principles—to make peace “with all men.” “Do Not Avenge Yourselves” 15 Paul gives another compelling reason why we should not retaliate; it is the modest course to follow. He states: “Do not avenge yourselves, beloved, but yield place to the wrath; for it is written: ‘Vengeance is mine; I will repay, says Jehovah.’” (Romans 12:19) A Christian who tries to take revenge is presumptuous. He claims for himself a role that belongs to God. (Matthew 7:1) Moreover, by taking matters into his own hands, he shows a lack of faith in Jehovah’s assurance: “I will repay.” In contrast, true Christians trust that Jehovah will “cause justice to be done for his chosen ones.” (Luke 18:7, 8; 2 Thessalonians 1:6-8) They modestly leave the avenging of wrong in God’s hands.—Jeremiah 30:23, 24; Romans 1:18. 16 Taking vengeance on an enemy would likely harden his spirit, but treating him with kindness may soften his heart. Why? Note Paul’s words to the Christians in Rome. He says: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by doing this you will heap fiery coals upon his head.” (Romans 12:20; Proverbs 25:21, 22) What does this mean? 17 To “heap fiery coals upon his head” is a figure of speech drawn from the method of smelting metals in Bible times. Ore was put into a furnace, and a layer of coals was put not only underneath the ore but also on top of it. Fiery coals heaped on top increased the heat so that the hard metal melted and separated from the impurities in the ore. Similarly, by doing kind deeds to an opposer, we may “melt” his hardness and bring out his better qualities. (2 Kings 6:14-23) In fact, numerous members of the Christian congregation were first attracted to true worship by the kind deeds that Jehovah’s servants performed in their behalf. Why We Do Not Retaliate 18 In this brief consideration of Romans chapter 12, we have seen several important reasons why we “return evil for evil to no one.” First, holding back from retaliating is the right course to follow. In view of God’s compassion shown toward us, it is right and reasonable that we offer ourselves to Jehovah and willingly obey his commandments—including the command to love our enemies. Second, refusing to return evil for evil is the loving course to follow. By forgoing retaliation and promoting peace, we lovingly hope to help even some fierce opposers to become worshippers of Jehovah. Third, refraining from repaying with evil is the modest course to follow. Avenging ourselves would be presumptuous, for Jehovah states: “Vengeance is mine.” God’s Word also warns: “Has presumptuousness come? Then dishonor will come; but wisdom is with the modest ones.” (Proverbs 11:2) Wisely leaving the avenging of wrong in God’s hands shows modesty on our part. 19 Paul sums up his discussion of how we should treat others. He exhorts Christians: “Do not let yourself be conquered by the evil, but keep conquering the evil with the good.” (Romans 12:21) What evil forces are we facing today? How can we conquer them? The answers to these and related questions will be considered in the following article.
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
#28. To: richard9151 (#25)
No. Like you calling Jesus a liar when he talks about Hell. The Jehovas have rejected Christs true teachings and tickled their ears instead.
Like that, you mean?
#29. To: PSUSA (#24)
So, what you are saying is that the real transgression of Eve was to eat an apple, right? I can not take your comments in any other manner than to mean that, which is what I was taught, like, in the second grade. As we get older, usually we get over such simplistic explanations. Genesis 2:17 presents God’s command to Adam against eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. In a footnote on this, The New Jerusalem Bible (1985) comments on what this knowledge represented: “It is the power of deciding for himself what is good and what is evil and of acting accordingly, a claim to complete moral independence by which man refuses to recognise his status as a created being, see Is[aiah] 5:20. The first sin was an attack on God’s sovereignty.”
So, God tempted them? That is what you are saying.
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
#30. To: richard9151 (#27)
Sorry, but I will not read copy/pasted articles of someone elses "work". I can use copy/paste too, to use others works to refute your .orgs works. I will just comment on this quote. This reference to Jehovah’s creating darkness and evil has been gleefully seized upon by skeptics, atheists and other critics of the Bible to support their position that it is not the inspired Word of God but merely a collection of ancient writings of a primitive people. Wrong. I am not an atheist, skeptic, Bible critic, or believe it is just writings of primitive people. That is a false argument, but a necessary one. They must "gleefully" lump people together in this way in order to frame their argument. I, on the other hand, actually used scripture to prove my point. That is something you seem to be unwilling to do. If you have studied scripture as much as you claim, then you should have no trouble in using it. You are really good at ignoring these scriptural contradiction to your doctrines and traditions. Face it. God created everything, including evil.
“I FORM the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I am Jehovah, that doeth all these things.” (Isa. 45:7, AS) This reference to Jehovah’s creating darkness and evil has been gleefully seized upon by skeptics, atheists and other critics of the Bible to support their position that it is not the inspired Word of God but merely a collection of ancient writings of a primitive people. However, their prejudice, doubtless begotten by a lurking suspicion that their position is not as strong as they would like it to be, has blinded them to a reasonable consideration of this text as well as of the rest of the Bible. Instead of following such a course, let us heed the counsel of the Bible’s Author, “Come now, and let us reason together,” and see just what light reason and the Bible itself throw on the meaning of this scripture.—Isa. 1:18.
#31. To: richard9151 (#29)
Dude, you are something else! LOL! I said nothing about an "apple". You will also notice that I placed the word "tree" in quotes.
So, what you are saying is that the real transgression of Eve was to eat an apple, right? I can not take your comments in any other manner than to mean that, which is what I was taught, like, in the second grade. As we get older, usually we get over such simplistic explanations.
#32. To: Old Friend (#28)
Amazing. I associate with people who spend more time in the Bible even than I did, and have done so for many, many years. One man here has been a Witness and studied the Bible for more than 60 years, and you talk about tickling the ears? You, as usual, have no idea what you are talking about. If you wish to believe in hellfire and damnation, go for it. HELL A word used in the King James Version (as well as in the Catholic Douay Version and most older translations) to translate the Hebrew she’ohl82; and the Greek hai82; des. In the King James Version the word “hell” is rendered from she’ohl82; 31 times and from hai82;des 10 times. This version is not consistent, however, since she’ohl82; is also translated 31 times “grave” and 3 times “pit.” In the Douay Version she’ohl82; is rendered “hell” 64 times, “pit” once, and “death” once. In 1885, with the publication of the complete English Revised Version, the original word she’ohl82; was in many places transliterated into the English text of the Hebrew Scriptures, though, in most occurrences, “grave” and “pit” were used, and “hell” is found some 14 times. This was a point on which the American committee disagreed with the British revisers, and so, when producing the American Standard Version (1901) they transliterated she’ohl82; in all 65 of its appearances. Both versions transliterated hai82;des in the Christian Greek Scriptures in all ten of its occurrences, though the Greek word Ge82;en·na (English, “Gehenna”) is rendered “hell” throughout, as is true of many other modern translations. Concerning this use of “hell” to translate these original words from the Hebrew and Greek, Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (1981, Vol. 2, p. 187) says: “HADES . . . It corresponds to ‘Sheol’ in the O.T. [Old Testament]. In the A.V. of the O.T. [Old Testament] and N.T. [New Testament], it has been unhappily rendered ‘Hell.’” Collier’s Encyclopedia (1986, Vol. 12, p. 28) says concerning “Hell”: “First it stands for the Hebrew Sheol of the Old Testament and the Greek Hades of the Septuagint and New Testament. Since Sheol in Old Testament times referred simply to the abode of the dead and suggested no moral distinctions, the word ‘hell,’ as understood today, is not a happy translation.” It is, in fact, because of the way that the word “hell” is understood today that it is such an unsatisfactory translation of these original Bible words. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, unabridged, under “Hell” says: “fr [om] . . . helan to conceal.” The word “hell” thus originally conveyed no thought of heat or torment but simply of a ‘covered over or concealed place.’ In the old English dialect the expression “helling potatoes” meant, not to roast them, but simply to place the potatoes in the ground or in a cellar. The meaning given today to the word “hell” is that portrayed in Dante’s Divine Comedy and Milton’s Paradise Lost, which meaning is completely foreign to the original definition of the word. The idea of a “hell” of fiery torment, however, dates back long before Dante or Milton. The Grolier Universal Encyclopedia (1971, Vol. 9, p. 205) under “Hell” says: “Hindus and Buddhists regard hell as a place of spiritual cleansing and final restoration. Islamic tradition considers it as a place of everlasting punishment.” The idea of suffering after death is found among the pagan religious teachings of ancient peoples in Babylon and Egypt. Babylonian and Assyrian beliefs depicted the “nether world . . . as a place full of horrors, . . . presided over by gods and demons of great strength and fierceness.” Although ancient Egyptian religious texts do not teach that the burning of any individual victim would go on forever, they do portray the “Other World” as featuring “pits of fire” for “the damned.”—The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, by Morris Jastrow, Jr., 1898, p. 581; The Book of the Dead, with introduction by E. Wallis Budge, 1960, pp. 135, 144, 149, 151, 153, 161, 200. “Hellfire” has been a basic teaching in Christendom for many centuries. It is understandable why The Encyclopedia Americana (1956, Vol. XIV, p. 81) said: “Much confusion and misunderstanding has been caused through the early translators of the Bible persistently rendering the Hebrew Sheol and the Greek Hades and Gehenna by the word hell. The simple transliteration of these words by the translators of the revised editions of the Bible has not sufficed to appreciably clear up this confusion and misconception.” Nevertheless, such transliteration and consistent rendering does enable the Bible student to make an accurate comparison of the texts in which these original words appear and, with open mind, thereby to arrive at a correct understanding of their true significance.—See GEHENNA; GRAVE; HADES; SHEOL; TARTARUS. Here is what the Bible says; Eccl. 9:5, 10: “The living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all . . . All that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in Sheol,* the place to which you are going.” (If they are conscious of nothing, they obviously feel no pain.) Ps. 146:4: “His spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground; in that day his thoughts* do perish.” Ezek. 18:4: “The soul* that is sinning—it itself will die.” What are we told about the 'soul'? “The concept of ‘soul,’ meaning a purely spiritual, immaterial reality, separate from the ‘body,’ . . . does not exist in the Bible.”—La Parole de Dieu (Paris, 1960), Georges Auzou, professor of Sacred Scripture, Rouen Seminary, France, p. 128. “Although the Hebrew word nefesh [in the Hebrew Scriptures] is frequently translated as ‘soul,’ it would be inaccurate to read into it a Greek meaning. Nefesh . . . is never conceived of as operating separately from the body. In the New Testament the Greek word psyche is often translated as ‘soul’ but again should not be readily understood to have the meaning the word had for the Greek philosophers. It usually means ‘life,’ or ‘vitality,’ or, at times, ‘the self.’”—The Encyclopedia Americana (1977), Vol. 25, p. 236. Enjoy. And yes, I could have added a lot more to this.
The Jehovas have rejected Christs true teachings and tickled their ears instead.
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
#33. To: richard9151 (#21)
Preaching the gospel to every creature has nothing to do with how they were individually sent out. Surely you jest, richard9151, or trying to mislead readers! I presented the entire 2 verses, not the last 6 words, wherein Jesus Christ told the 11 Apostles to go out and preach the gospel to EVERY creature--he did not say, preach to the Jews, or preach to the Gentiles, or whatever you desire to call them, i.e., pagans, heathens, barbarians, etc. His meeting up with the 11, as well as others, was BEFORE Paul was converted! I'll leave it up to the readers to determine whether Jesus Christ really meant what he said, or whether his words should be set aside because richard9151 has determined that only Paul was set out to preach to the gentiles, and that Paul created the church at Rome. I could care less what you cite about the Roman Catholic Church as I am not one.
preach2784 the3588 gospel2098 to every3956 creature.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest