Catholics

[Stranger]

A successful breakaway was not the point. The reformation did not prevail against Rome. That was my point.
I made no such admission.

We never hear of St. Peter being in the East, and the thing in itself is improbable, whereas nothing but Protestant prejudice can stand against the historical evidence that St. Peter sojourned and died at Rome. Whatever theological consequences may flow from it, it is as certain that St. Peter was at Rome as that St. John was at Ephesus. Everything in the Letter also points to such a state of things as was to be found at Rome about the date when we believe the Letter to have been written. It is objected that St. Peter would not gravely speak of Rome under a fanciful name when dating a letter; but the symbolism in the name is quite in keeping with the context. St. Peter has just personified the church of the place from which he writes, which seems quite as unprosaic a use of language as to call Rome "Babylon." And it seems pretty clear that the name was quite intelligible to Jewish readers, for whom it was intended.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers (Protestant)

I speculate that for a Christian to be caught by the Romans delivering a letter saying "She who is in Rome, chosen together with you, sends you greetings, and so does my son, Mark" would be a death sentence. 1 Pet.5 doesn't say that. It says "...she who is in Babylon. See, for example, Revelation 14:8, Revelation 16:19, Revelation 17:5, Revelation 18:2,10,21, which show that "Babylon" meant Rome. You are forced to deny this, along with dozens of Protestant scholars, lingualists and historians. Your denial of Babylon meaning Rome is based on invincible ignorance.​

So what? Peter was a hypocrite in that instance, and so Paul rebuked him. They had no differences theologically. Popes have been rebuked throughout history (e.g., by St. Catherine of Siena, St. Dominic, St. Francis). It doesn’t follow that they have no authority. Jesus rebuked and excoriated the Pharisees, but He told His followers to follow their teaching, even though they acted like hypocrites ((Matt 23:2 ff.).

I said Paul was under the authority of the Jerusalem Council, which includes Apostles and elders (AKA Magisterium) and he did what he was told. (because he wanted to, not because he had to).

The Jerusalem Council was a greater authority than Paul since it sent him off (Acts 15:22-25), and he proclaimed “for observance” the “decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem” (Acts 16:4). Thus the Council, representing the infallible and binding authority of the Church (binding and loosing), had greater authority than he did.
​

In Acts 16:4 he appeals to an infallible Church council: telling his followers to obey it as he does himself. Again, you insist on pitting one thing against another (Paul’s authority vs. the Church’s): a thing that the Bible doesn’t do. You do it anyway because it is a false man made tradition.

The Jerusalem Council was a greater authority than Paul since it sent him off (Acts 15:22-25), and he proclaimed “for observance” the “decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem” (Acts 16:4). Thus the Council, representing the infallible and binding authority of the Church (binding and loosing), had greater authority than he did.
Yet in post#1750 you said "There is nothing to indicate any so called 'authority' from the Jerusalem church." This is sheer blindness.

Show me one verse in the Bible where Paul pits his divine call from God against the Church. There isn't one. You do it anyway. Peter and Paul were not competitors. The Church is not modeled after a 21st century pyramid corporation, she is modeled after the Davidic Kingdom, which your system is even further removed from Judaism as the ECF.

It certainly pertained to the nonsense you said about Peter not understanding Paul's letters.

They fell silent when Peter spoke. Acts 15:12
​

​

Well, exactly right. The Roman Church will not be reformed. It will go into apostasy but it won't be reformed. The Reformers learned that.

As to (1 Peter 5:13), Peter says 'Babylon' because he means Babylon. Not Rome. And Rome was not known as Babylon in his day. The use of the term 'Babylon' in Revelation speaks to an apostate Christianity, both Roman and Protestant. There were plenty of scattered Jews in Bablyon and Peter who is the apostle to the Jews would naturally be there.

Paul rebuked Peter. (Gal.2:11-14) The Revelation of the Church was not given to Peter, but to Paul. (Gal. 1:11-12) Paul says of Peter and the other apostles, (Gal. 2:6), "they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me". Paul recognizes no authority of Peter over him.

Actually, concerning the council at Jerusalem, they agreed with Paul. It is not Paul doing as he is told by the council. Peter was a strong witness due to the vision and experience he had with Cornelius. Had James disagreed, Paul would not have obeyed. Paul always returned to the authority he recognized, and that was from the Church at Antioch where God called him to be a missionary. And that was a local Church. Not some over extended power hungry spiritual demagogues.

Paul is never against the Church. Paul is the one with the revelation from God to the Church. The Peter of Scripture is no competitor of Paul. The Peter or Romanism is. The Church is not modeled after anything, much less the Davidic kingdom. The Church is a completley new thing which is why a new revelation was given Paul concerning it.

Peters the one who said Paul says things hard to be understood. Not me. (2 Peter 3:15-16)

You need to proofread whoever is giving you your information. When Peter spoke there was much disputing going on. (Acts 15:7) Every one got quiet when Paul and Barnabas spoke. (Acts 15:12)

Stranger

 

[bbyrd009]

When Peter spoke there was much disputing going on. (Acts 15:7) Every one got quiet when Paul and Barnabas spoke. (Acts 15:12)

zing

 

[epostle1]

Well, exactly right. The Roman Church will not be reformed. It will go into apostasy but it won't be reformed. The Reformers learned that.

The Bible teaches that the Church is infallible and indefectable. They violated the very Bible they claimed was the sole rule.

As to (1 Peter 5:13), Peter says 'Babylon' because he means Babylon. Not Rome. And Rome was not known as Babylon in his day. The use of the term 'Babylon' in Revelation speaks to an apostate Christianity, both Roman and Protestant. There were plenty of scattered Jews in Bablyon and Peter who is the apostle to the Jews would naturally be there.

Your common tactic is when you get refuted, you wait a few days and then repeat the same nonsense. Revelation 14:8, Revelation 16:19, Revelation 17:5, Revelation 18:2,10,21, which show that "Babylon" meant Rome. Your "babble on" psychos looks like SDA or JW propaganda. They claim the same as you.

Paul rebuked Peter. (Gal.2:11-14)

Yes, Paul rebuked Peter. So what. Peter was a hypocrite in that instance, and so Paul rebuked him. They had no differences theologically. Popes have been rebuked throughout history (e.g., by St. Catherine of Siena, St. Dominic, St. Francis). It doesn’t follow that they have no authority. Jesus rebuked and excoriated the Pharisees, but He told His followers to follow their teaching, even though they acted like hypocrites ((Matt 23:2 ff.).
More repetition of a previous lost argument. See post 1791.

The Revelation of the Church was not given to Peter, but to Paul. (Gal. 1:11-12) Paul says of Peter and the other apostles, (Gal. 2:6), "they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me". Paul recognizes no authority of Peter over him.

More repetitions of twisted interpretations. See post 1791. Paul having revelation has nothing to do with Peter's primacy. It's a non sequitur fallacy.

Actually, concerning the council at Jerusalem, they agreed with Paul. It is not Paul doing as he is told by the council.

Denial.
It is incorrect to regard St. Paul as some kind of spiritual “lone ranger,” on his own with no particular ecclesiastical allegiance, since he was commissioned by Jesus Himself as an Apostle.

• In his very conversion experience, Jesus informed Paul that he would be told what to do (Acts 9:6; cf.9:17).
  
  
• He went to see St. Peter in Jerusalem for fifteen days in order to be confirmed in his calling (Galatians 1:18),
  
  
• and fourteen years later was commissioned by Peter, James, and John (Galatians 2:1-2,9).
  
  
• He was also sent out by the Church at Antioch (Acts 13:1-4), which was in contact with the Church at Jerusalem (Acts 11:19-27).
  
  
• Later on, Paul reported back to Antioch (Acts 14:26-28).
  
  
• Acts 15:2 states: “. . . Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.”
  
  
• The next verse refers to Paul and Barnabas “being sent on their way by the church.”
  
  
• Paul did what he was told to do by the Jerusalem Council (where he played no huge role),
  
  
• and Paul and Barnabas were sent off, or commissioned by the council (15:22-27), and shared its binding teachings in their missionary journeys: “. . . delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem” (Acts 16:4).
  Dialogue with a Calvinist: Was Paul a "Lone Ranger"?

Peter was a strong witness due to the vision and experience he had with Cornelius. Had James disagreed, Paul would not have obeyed. Paul always returned to the authority he recognized, and that was from the Church at Antioch where God called him to be a missionary. And that was a local Church. Not some over extended power hungry spiritual demagogues.

If I believed half the lies you do about the early church, I would be twice the anti-institutionist you are.

Paul is never against the Church. Paul is the one with the revelation from God to the Church. The Peter of Scripture is no competitor of Paul. The Peter or Romanism is. The Church is not modeled after anything, much less the Davidic kingdom. The Church is a completley new thing which is why a new revelation was given Paul concerning it.

Then why did Jesus refer to Isaiah 22 at Peter's investiture, and why did the angel speak to Mary in terms of OT royalty in Luke 1:322-33?
1 Cor. 11:23 – Paul does not explain what he has actually received directly from Christ, except in the case when he teaches about the Eucharist. Here, Paul emphasizes the importance of the Eucharist by telling us he received directly from Jesus instructions on the Eucharist which is the source and summit of the Christian faith.

Peters the one who said Paul says things hard to be understood. Not me. (2 Peter 3:15-16)

You said Peter didn't understand Paul's letters, and your post has mysteriously disappeared or edited.

You need to proofread whoever is giving you your information. When Peter spoke there was much disputing going on. (Acts 15:7) Every one got quiet when Paul and Barnabas spoke. (Acts 15:12)

Paul, Barnabas, and James all reinforced and agreed with Peter’s declaration, albeit in different ways. Was James the Real Leader of the Early Church? | Catholic Answers

1. Peter’s name occurs first in all lists of apostles (Mt 10:2, Mk 3:16, Lk 6:14, Acts 1:13), except Galatians 2. Matthew even calls him the “first” (10:2).

2. Peter alone receives a new name, Rock, solemnly conferred (Jn 1:42, Mt 16:18).

3. Peter is regarded by Jesus as the Chief Shepherd after himself (Jn 21:15-17), singularly by name, and over the universal Church, even though others have a similar but subordinate role (Acts 20:28, 1 Pt 5:2).

4. Peter alone among the apostles is mentioned by name as having been prayed for by Jesus Christ in order that his “faith may not fail” (Lk 22:32).

5. Peter alone among the apostles is exhorted by Jesus to “strengthen your brethren” (Lk 22:32).

6. Peter first confesses Christ’s divinity (Mt 16:16).

7. Peter alone is told that he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation (Mt 16:17).

8. Peter is regarded by the Jews (Acts 4:1-13) as the leader and spokesman of Christianity.

9. Peter is regarded by the common people in the same way (Acts 2:37-41; 5:15).

In Acts, Peter gave the sermon at Pentecost (Acts 1:14-36), led the replacing of Judas (1:22), worked the first miracle of the Church age (3:6-12), and condemned Ananias and Sapphira (5:2-11). His mere shadow worked miracles (5:15); he was the first person after Christ to raise the dead (9:40), and he took the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 10). Peter’s name appears at least 54 times in Acts; James appears a total of four times.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Well, exactly right. The Roman Church will not be reformed. It will go into apostasy but it won't be reformed. The Reformers learned that.

As to (1 Peter 5:13), Peter says 'Babylon' because he means Babylon. Not Rome. And Rome was not known as Babylon in his day. The use of the term 'Babylon' in Revelation speaks to an apostate Christianity, both Roman and Protestant. There were plenty of scattered Jews in Bablyon and Peter who is the apostle to the Jews would naturally be there.

Paul rebuked Peter. (Gal.2:11-14) The Revelation of the Church was not given to Peter, but to Paul. (Gal. 1:11-12) Paul says of Peter and the other apostles, (Gal. 2:6), "they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me". Paul recognizes no authority of Peter over him.

Actually, concerning the council at Jerusalem, they agreed with Paul. It is not Paul doing as he is told by the council. Peter was a strong witness due to the vision and experience he had with Cornelius. Had James disagreed, Paul would not have obeyed. Paul always returned to the authority he recognized, and that was from the Church at Antioch where God called him to be a missionary. And that was a local Church. Not some over extended power hungry spiritual demagogues.

Paul is never against the Church. Paul is the one with the revelation from God to the Church. The Peter of Scripture is no competitor of Paul. The Peter or Romanism is. The Church is not modeled after anything, much less the Davidic kingdom. The Church is a completley new thing which is why a new revelation was given Paul concerning it.

Peters the one who said Paul says things hard to be understood. Not me. (2 Peter 3:15-16)

You need to proofread whoever is giving you your information. When Peter spoke there was much disputing going on. (Acts 15:7) Every one got quiet when Paul and Barnabas spoke. (Acts 15:12)

Stranger

Peter wrote this BECAUSE of people like you, who don't understand the Scriptures - so you twist them to your own destruction.

As for the Council of Jerusalem - a 3rd grader can read this and understand what is going on - but not YOU.
Peter made a decision, James concurred and made his judgement based on that.

WHY did they all fall silent when Paul and Barnabas spoke?? Because THEY were the ones reporting the problem, Einstein. They were reporting on everything that was going in in their mission. Don't forget - THEY came to the Apostles for guidance on this matter - NOT the other way around.

Finally - "Babylon the Great" in Revelation is referring to ROME.
Tertullian, Irenaeus, and Jerome ALL agreed on this. In the early centuries of Christianity - Christian AND Jewish literature referred to Rome as "Babylon".

Now - with the weight of historical evidence against you - can you present YOUR evidence that "Babylon" in 2 Peter and Revelation does NOT refer to Rome??
I can't WAIT to hear this one . . .

 

[Stranger]

kepha31

Concerning your post #1823:

Where does the Bible teach that? And if it does teach that, it is talking about the Church, not the Church at Rome.

I haven't waited a few days. So, there goes the common tactic. Peter says Babylon because he means Babylon. The 'Babylon' of prophecy in the end times speaks not to Rome, but to an apostate Christianity.

That Paul received the revelation of the Church from the risen Jesus Christ says everything. Peter didn't receive it. Gee, I wonder why? The Romanists should have chosen a better example to be a pope.

I didn't say Paul was a lone ranger. He answered to the Church at Antioch. Not Jerusalem, and not Rome. And forget your hop, skip, and jump method of getting authority to Antioch and then Rome. It is laughable.

Paul didn't do what he was told. The Jerusalem council agreed with him. The council agreed and submitted to Paul. Not the other way around.

You believe more lies than half, concerning the early church.

Give the Scripture of 'Peters investiture'. (Luke 1:32-33) speaks to the kingdom. It doesn't speak to the Church.

Again, Peter is the one who said Paul's words were hard to be understood. Not me. (2 Peter 2:15-16) You would think a pope would do a little better than that.

You failed to proofread from where ever you copy your material from. This is why you make so many mistakes. No silence when Peter spoke, only when Paul and Barnabas spoke. You didn't even read the Scriptures.

I never said Peter is not an important apostle. But he is no pope. And he had no authority over the Church and especially none over Paul who received the revelation of the Church from Jesus Christ.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

Peter wrote this BECAUSE of people like you, who don't understand the Scriptures - so you twist them to your own destruction.

As for the Council of Jerusalem - a 3rd grader can read this and understand what is going on - but not YOU.
Peter made a decision, James concurred and made his judgement based on that.

WHY did they all fall silent when Paul and Barnabas spoke?? Because THEY were the ones reporting the problem, Einstein. They were reporting on everything that was going in in their mission. Don't forget - THEY came to the Apostles for guidance on this matter - NOT the other way around.

Finally - "Babylon the Great" in Revelation is referring to ROME.
Tertullian, Irenaeus, and Jerome ALL agreed on this. In the early centuries of Christianity - Christian AND Jewish literature referred to Rome as "Babylon".

Now - with the weight of historical evidence against you - can you present YOUR evidence that "Babylon" in 2 Peter and Revelation does NOT refer to Rome??
I can't WAIT to hear this one . . .

No, Peter wrote that because he had a hard time understanding much of what Paul wrote. Doesn't say much for a supposed pope.

As I have said, the council agreed with Paul. Peter was given a vision and experience by God to support Paul. No one there did what Peter said. He just gave his witness. The leader of the Jerusalem church was James, not Peter. No papal authority here.

Well, I didn't bring up the silence of the ones speaking. Your fellow Romanist, kepha31 did. He made it appear that all fell silent for Peter. Like he was some god or something. But when I looked, lo and behold. There was nothing but racket going on while Peter spoke and the silence was due to Paul and Barnabas speaking. So, take that up with kepha31, who failed to check the material he was copying.

Well, your early Church Fathers are wrong. In Revelation, Babylon speaks to an apostate Christianity, both Protestant and Roman. It doens't speak to 'Rome'.

Are you saying that Peter said in (1 Peter 5:13) "The church that is the great whore, elected together with you, saluteth you...."

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

No, Peter wrote that because he had a hard time understanding much of what Paul wrote. Doesn't say much for a supposed pope.

Then YOU don't know how to read because he says exactly who this is about - and it ain't him.
He says that it's about the "ignorant and unstable" people - like YOU.

As I have said, the council agreed with Paul. Peter was given a vision and experience by God to support Paul. No one there did what Peter said. He just gave his witness. The leader of the Jerusalem church was James, not Peter. No papal authority here.

Well, I didn't bring up the silence of the ones speaking. Your fellow Romanist, kepha31 did. He made it appear that all fell silent for Peter. Like he was some god or something. But when I looked, lo and behold. There was nothing but racket going on while Peter spoke and the silence was due to Paul and Barnabas speaking. So, take that up with kepha31, who failed to check the material he was copying.

Well, your early Church Fathers are wrong. In Revelation, Babylon speaks to an apostate Christianity, both Protestant and Roman. It doens't speak to 'Rome'.

Are you saying that Peter said in (1 Peter 5:13) "The church that is the great whore, elected together with you, saluteth you...."

Stranger

Wow - I guess you really DO have a reading deficiency.
Here is the text - I'll walk you through it:

Acts 15:6-13
The apostles and elders met to consider this question. After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe.
No "racket" Only Peter is speaking . . .
God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith.
STILL only Peter speaking here. No sign of "racket" . . .
Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. When they finished, James spoke up.

STILL no "racket".

Where do you see a “racket” going on while Peter is speaking, my dishonest friend??

 

[aspen]

1 Corinthians 1:12
What I mean is this: Individuals among you are saying, "I follow Paul," "I follow Apollos," "I follow Cephas," or "I follow Christ."

1 Corinthians 3:3
for you are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and dissension among you, are you not worldly? Are you not walking in the way of man?

1 Corinthians 4:6
Brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us not to go beyond what is written. Then you will not take pride in one man over another.

 

[Stranger]

Then YOU don't know how to read because he says exactly who this is about - and it ain't him.
He says that it's about the "ignorant and unstable" people - like YOU.

Wow - I guess you really DO have a reading deficiency.
Here is the text - I'll walk you through it:

Acts 15:6-13
The apostles and elders met to consider this question. After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe.
No "racket" Only Peter is speaking . . .
God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith.
STILL only Peter speaking here. No sign of "racket" . . .
Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. When they finished, James spoke up.

STILL no "racket".

Where do you see a “racket” going on while Peter is speaking, my dishonest friend??

(Acts 15:7)" And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren,..." No silence here.

(Acts 15:12) "Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul,...."

Self explanatory. The crowd grew silent for Paul and Barnabas. Not Peter. Shame they would be quiet for the pope Peter.

Who has the 'deficiency' now?

Stranger

 

[pia]

i think it is important to recognize that we are all in different places spiritually on different concepts; you might be further along the path where forgiveness is concerned, whereas another might have a better grasp of personal sacrifice or whatever, and etc.

Of course we are, but that shouldn't be used as an excuse by some who say they are believers, to be rude and condescending to the others......You think?

 

[BreadOfLife]

(Acts 15:7)" And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren,..." No silence here.

(Acts 15:12) "Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul,...."

Self explanatory. The crowd grew silent for Paul and Barnabas. Not Peter. Shame they would be quiet for the pope Peter.
Who has the 'deficiency' now?
Stranger

Nowhere does it say that anybody spoke when Peter spoke. Show me the verse and I'll believe you.
It just doesn't exist - all your whining, notwithstanding . . .

 

[Stranger]

Nowhere does it say that anybody spoke when Peter spoke. Show me the verse and I'll believe you.
It just doesn't exist - all your whining, notwithstanding . . .

The multitude didn't get quiet till Paul and Barnabas spoke. Which means they were making a racket while Peter was speaking.

It is your fellow Romanist that declared silence for Peter when he was speaking like he was some sort of a god. He didn't even read the Scriptures he was copying. If he had he would't have said such a stupid thing.

Now, you are equally stupid in trying to defend his statement.

Stranger

 

[mjrhealth]

Of course we are, but that shouldn't be used as an excuse by some who say they are believers, to be rude and condescending to the others......You think?

your talking to teh converted...

 

[pia]

your talking to teh converted...

I'm sorry, did I send that to you by mistake ? I certainly do know that you did not need to hear that, you are already in 'the know', thank The Lord........

 

[bbyrd009]

Of course we are, but that shouldn't be used as an excuse by some who say they are believers, to be rude and condescending to the others......You think?

no, i guess that is an indication of their heart, but imo let them use it as an excuse all they like, why wise up the marks iow. If you teach an evil person to smile in your face, all you have maybe done is make it harder to discern who they really are, right? Just don't engage with them imo.

 

[bbyrd009]

If he had he would't have said such a stupid thing.

i'd love to know what v you guys are talking about now, because logically "stupid" things in Scripture are pointers to me now; even if calling someone stupid just diminishes your argument imo.

 

[FHII]

(Acts 15:7)" And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren,..." No silence here.

(Acts 15:12) "Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul,...."

Self explanatory. The crowd grew silent for Paul and Barnabas. Not Peter. Shame they would be quiet for the pope Peter.

Who has the 'deficiency' now?

Stranger

Sorry Stranger. Gotta call them as I see them. It doesn't say they grew silent, became silent or even were silent. It sayd they kept silence. I don't see this as a situation where they were trying to shout Peter down. They at least heard him enough to decide to pay attention and hear Paul out.

I don't believe Peter was a Pope, that he had any kind od supremacy nor do I believe Paul was subject to the council. I loved the point you made that they decided in his favor so he went right on doing what he already was doing. But still... I don't see them raising a ruckus while Peter was speaking

 

[pia]

no, i guess that is an indication of their heart, but imo let them use it as an excuse all they like, why wise up the marks iow. If you teach an evil person to smile in your face, all you have maybe done is make it harder to discern who they really are, right? Just don't engage with them imo.

I guess you're right, but being with Christ, one has a deep desire to connect with others in a loving way, but at times the way some respond, it's kind of like having a bucket of ice water thrown in ones face, not the most pleasant of things

 

[BreadOfLife]

The multitude didn't get quiet till Paul and Barnabas spoke. Which means they were making a racket while Peter was speaking.

It is your fellow Romanist that declared silence for Peter when he was speaking like he was some sort of a god. He didn't even read the Scriptures he was copying. If he had he would't have said such a stupid thing.

Now, you are equally stupid in trying to defend his statement.

Stranger

Hmmmmm . . . let's walk you through it again, sparky.

Acts 15:6-13
The apostles and elders met to consider this question. After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe.
No "racket" Only Peter is speaking . . .
God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith.
STILL only Peter speaking here. No sign of "racket" . . .
Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. When they finished, James spoke up.

STILL no "racket".
Peter spoke and apparently there was some discussion afterward - until it was Paul's and Barnabas's turn.
Look - you can hate the Church all you want - but there's really no need to add to Scripture what is NOT there . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

I guess you're right, but being with Christ, one has a deep desire to connect with others in a loving way, but at times the way some respond, it's kind of like having a bucket of ice water thrown in ones face, not the most pleasant of things

When people are caught in lies and refuse to admit it - sometimes a bucket of ice-water over the head is precisely what they need.
If they aren't hold acocuntable - they will go on sinning with impunity.