Posted on 02/06/2006 1:02:10 PM PST by NYer
In for a penny, in for a pound. dude.
I see Peter preaching the Gospel to gentiles and marvelling at the Spirit they received--just as the Apostles themselves had.
Then later see Peter try to apply rules to gentiles that God never required.
Peter gave a defense of the gentiles in numerous places in Acts. He was rebuked by Paul not for a matter of faith but for matter of custom. Peter lived among and ate with the gentiles until joined by men from James. Then he held himself aloof from the gentiles according to Jewish sensibilities. Paul slams him for not living the Gospel he was preaching. NOWHERE does Peter retract that "saved by grace" stuff nor backstab Paul (after Paul has been accepted).
First, go down to the corner store.
Second, walk three miles.
Third, write down what you saw along the way.
Fourth, get back to me with what you discovered.
Translation: I'm not going on a goosehunt for your point. You make it.
If you would like to believe Peter was in Rome that is fine....but I know from scripture that Peter was appointed Apostle to the circumcised. Rome was Gentile. The scriptures do not have Peter in or anywhere near Rome. Do you think this odd if he later would be your "Rock"?
You base your assumptions entirely on Tradition....I base mine on the Word of God.
No we believe that the word was made flesh and dwelt among us and that the God of Scripture is also the God of history.
You must be proud.
of your antisemitism that is
I woulnd't buy anything from him!
If he can't even get it straight WHO gave us the Bible, I wouldn't trust him with anything. He's a blasphemer!
2Tim.3:16
[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Oh great. There goes the party...
Romans 15:20....Paul says he would never preach upon another man's foundation."
You also said:
but I know from scripture that Peter was appointed Apostle to the circumcised.
And:
Rome was Gentile
If this be the case, as you are presenting it, what do you make of Paul's letter to the Thessalonians?
Thessalonica was in Macedonia. Also a Gentile city. So Gentile, in fact, Paul and Timothy were prohibited from preaching to the Gentiles there.
Well to whom then did they preach? The "circumcised". In the synagogue there.
So, let's look at what you're saying:
1) Rome is Gentile. Therefore, there were no "circumcised" men for Peter to be the "Apostle to the Circumcised". This is faulty premise. There were many Christianized Jews living in Rome who were driven out of Jerusalem by the persecuting zealots.
2) Peter was Apostle to the circumcised. Paul was Apostle to the Gentiles (according to Galations 2:9). How does that square with Paul preaching solely to the Jews in Thessalonica? Sounds a lot like Paul was preaching "on another man's foundation" (if that was Peter's assigned flock, as you contend.)
Additionally, 1 Peter 5:13 states...
"The church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you: and so doth my son Mark"
Babylon, as I've said, was code for "Rome". Babylon proper was laying in ruins when Peter wrote this letter. It was not an inhabited city.
You base your assumptions entirely on Tradition....I base mine on the Word of God.
LOL! I've done nothing but cite Scripture as a foundation, with support from accepted historical facts. You've done nothing but repeat the same "do-it-yourself" theology over and over again, while ignoring the entirety of Sacred Scripture and accepted history.
The scriptures do not have Peter in or anywhere near Rome. Do you think this odd if he later would be your "Rock"?
You haven't answered any of my questions. You've done nothing but evade and then set up straw men because your position is rife with error. I've already addressed the issue of what IS and what ISN'T explicitly in Scripture and its relationship with accepted fact.
They were just warming up. Time to send in the clowns.
If this is your idea of basic reading comprehension, I highly doubt your ability to comprehend the Bible.
If we need no man to 'mediate' for us, why did Jesus direct his disciples to go and preach and teach the Scriptures?
So you celebrate the Sabbath on Saturday or Sunday?
On the 7th day which happens to have been falling on gregorian saturdays. And since I'm Jewish its only natural.
However when God speaks through them they are not liars as is the case with the writing of the Bible.
In the past 2000 years, How would the Church, in your eyes, recognize His Voice since we can only look to Words written 2000 years ago? Or has He been silent and leaving us to our own reading comprehension?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.