No it more proof of the leadership of Paul. The 72 were all give the same instructions and authority.more proof of the leader Peter
excellent Bonnie
Why would you think they are all popes? ?
Who knows, maybe Linus [2 Tim4:21] and Clement [Phil 4:2-3] were there.?
Rock star?
- Thread starter Arch Stanton
- Start date
- Status
leonard03782
Well-known member
Yep, they are wolves in sheeps clothing.
Bonnie
Super Member
I dunno--you tell me.
In the Luke verse where Jesus sent out the 72? All of whom had equal authority?and yet, all we were discussing was the possibility that 'popes' were involved
Sorry, wrong thread. My bad. We are leaving on a cruise to Bermuda tomorrow and I have a lot on my mind.
As expected, you could not resist the temptation to smear Paul in order to defend your non-leader.
RayneBeau
Well-known member
The preaching in a Roman Catholic Church pulpit is more authoritative and less the Word of God, because the limits of variation in belief are so much more precisely drawn.
Arch Stanton
Well-known member
my non-leader?
Arch Stanton
Well-known member
and what did you get out of Galatians 1 with regard to Peter?
Paul met with Peter in Jerusalem. Or do you mean...
As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse! (Gal. 1:9)
?
Arch Stanton
Well-known member
When you read Galatians 1 and 2 and look back at Acts 15 [our controversy regarding James], does something stand out?
A new day
Super Member
Galatians 2:16
know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.
know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.
No, nothing in particular "stands out" for me. If you have something to say, spell it out.
Bonnie
Super Member
Please show us links to where any of us said he was a "simple bystander." I would be VERY interested in reading that. Because I used the search engine, putting in "bystander" for this forum and the only posts that came up were yours here and mine.
You may want to be more careful when it comes to making unfounded accusations. Because we all know that Peter was very important in Acts 15, with his witness and defense--but WHO was it that actually made the final decision about circumcision of the Gentiles? Care to enlighten us, Arch?
Throughout these threads unfounded accusations has been the RC way.
We know Peter was important, James was important, Paul was important, Timothy was important, Titus was important, Thomas also may not have had all his travels written down but he went to India showing he was important, Phillip was important. Throughout the NT the apostles and other disciples were important to spreading the real gospel. None of them were bystanders.
Yes, and this "proves" that Peter was the first pope, or what?
Arch Stanton
Well-known member
yes, you agree?
Think about your comments regarding Acts 15 [James' position]
- Status