1. The author says 50 NEW TESTAMENT PROOFS . . . But one need not be a bible scholar to notice that the author primarily cited texts entirely or largely on the GOSPELS only which of course covers the ministry of Jesus with the 12 apostles with Peter as most prominent in JERUSALEM .
2. In some items he cited texts found in the book of Acts, but he was choosy to use only chapters 1-12 which covers the account of the movement of Christianity among the Jews in Palestine with again, the 12 apostles with the leadership of Peter and James.
3. He intentionally did not cite texts found in chapters 12-28 OF ACTS which practically is silent about Peter and 12 apostles. This is a 16-chapter blow-by-blow account of Paul and new names [Silas, Barbanas, Timothy, Tituts, etc] which were never mentioned in the Gospel. This portion of the Bible is EQUALLY important as it records the movement of Christianity among the Gentiles with Paul as the main actor and I MUST MENTION THAT ROME IS A GENTILE COUNTRY.
4. In Ephesians chapter 2 and elsewhere, Paul talks about the CHRISTIAN CHURCH as composed of both JEWS and GENTILES and so why is this author focused only his reference to the portion of the Bible that records the church movement among the Jews [GOSPELS and ACTS 1-12].
5. The author miserably omitted Acts 9:15-16 – The Lord’s charging of Paul as apostles to the Gentiles.
6. The author miserably omitted Galatians 2:7-10 where Peter, James and John recognized Paul’s apostleship to the gentiles.
7. He also omitted Matthew 10:5 where the Lord RESTRICTED the 12 including Peter to go to the Gentile places. And again ROME unfortunately for the PAPIST is a gentile country and so Peter cannot be there. Quite IMPOSSIBLE.
8. The author nowhere in his writing proved that Peter later became Pope. I cannot find any.
9. On the contrary [and again he omitted], Peter is the ONLY APOSTLE called by Jesus as SATAN in Matthew 16:23, just few verses after he “WAS MADE POPE” as claimed by ROME .
10. Peter is the only apostle REBUKED sharply by Paul in Galatians 2:11-14. This is unlikely to happen to a Pope whom Rome claimed to be infallible.
11. In item 50 of the article, the author desperately tried to prove that Peter was in Rome when he wrote 1 Peter. I asked you before why don’t they mention why Silas was with him [5:12] If you trace Silas journey, he was with Paul from the very beginning of Pauls missionary trips – see Acts 15:36-40 and the only incident that Peter and Silas were together was during the Jerusalem council meeting Acts 15. Until now I did not receive any answer from you and other faith defenders that I asked about this.
Also if you examine 1 Peter 5:13, nowhere did it indicates that it refer to Peter to be in rome .
ü He uses “she” in reference to the CHURCH as a third person not himself.
ü The church THAT IS IN Babylon is referred to somewhere not within the immediate proximity of the writer Peter/Silas.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment