Christ's Very Own by Ian Paisley - Part 1

[bowlhead09]

since 2003 838 people came out saying the have been sexually abused by protestant churches... but NOOOO, no one knows about it as this old fucker above supressed it all!

[bigpaddy1]

is ian paisley an ordained minister? i think not .i.could get a diploma like he has for  a few dollars from america he.is still good value if you want a laugh

[hermankatnip]

@bigpaddy1

he was ordained at Ravenhill Evangelical Church, Belfast. Four ministers from four different denominations performed the ceremony,

[bigpaddy1]

@bigpaddy1 i stand corrected.it,s his doctorate that doesn,t hold up

[eohare1000]

@bigpaddy1 i am said to say that he is

[ramies37]

big words long sentences nothing new . we r the people god bless the queen

[gwhite79]

Arai64 - you have had an answer.

You change the question to "which denomination to you pray in" when you are not satisfied with my response.

You are pathetic.

I have told you time after time that I am not Roman Catholic so you're looking a bit thick to keep attacking Rome in your response to me.

You aren't capable of acceping this. It narks you. You want to change the subject from the straight forward question that I have asked.

[Arai64]

Yesterday's debacle of rome's man in Ireland, cardinal sean brady's expression of regret at his sentencing of thousands of innocent children, who's roman parents felt duty bound to 'give' their offspring unto rome, to a life sentence following years of unchecked sexual abuse by so called priests.

As for his boss, pope nazi joe ratzinger's mutterings of condemnation, I'm afraid he's just playing at pass the buck, as he is as much to blame.

This 'God-On-Earth' 'infallible' mortal is a fraud.

[Arai64]

I don't believe in:

*eating human flesh

*drinking human blood

*that paying money clears my sin's and if I don't come up with the cash (for rome) I go to purgatory

*that any human being is infallible

*that God's alive and well and living in rome

*that it's OK to lie

*that it's OK to assassinate

*that it's OK to use incantation

I could go on but the list's a long one, the point being, I need not explain why, not to a reasonable person anyway.

[gwhite79]

Arai64 - I am the perfectly reasonable person who has stated himself to not be Roman Catholic who has NOT asked you why the books approved by the Council of Trent (known as "deuterocanonical" books to Rome) are not classed by you and others as holy scripture.

I am the perfectly reasonable person who has asked you *how one determines what the canon of holy scripture should be.

It is very easy to set this out in bullet point form briefly. Instead you choose to state what you don't believe!

[gwhite79]

"It is not for you to overstate" - this is hilarious stuff.

I have been patient but now is an ultimatum.

You claim sola scriptura.

How is it you know that what you have is "scriptura"?

In case you're a bit thick and can't comprehend - this is not a question about what you don't think it scripture.

This isn't a question about what Roman doctrines or perceived Roman doctrines you disagree with or oppose.

This is a question about how what both you and I know to be scripture came into being.

[gwhite79]

I am not using spin. This is a simple question.

Let's look at your list of things you don't believe in.

*that paying money clears my sin's and if I don't come up with the cash (for rome) I go to purgatory*

Who talked about that? Where have I propounded a doctrine of salvation through paying money?

It's clear from this, Arai64 that YOU ARE THE ONE WHO SPINS!!!!

You are the one ignoring the question.

Come on!

[Arai64]

I'm sorry, I didn't catch your religion again...

[gwhite79]

hahahahahha,

ARAI64 - THE QUESTION WAS ASKED OF YOU FIRST:

ANSWER IT AS BRIEFLY AS YOU CAN

[gwhite79]

HOW DID THE CANON OF HOLY SCRIPTURE AS YOU KNOW IT COME INTO BEING?

We are talking the books of the old and new testatment found in your bible.

When you give a satisfactory answer you can ask me a question.

That's how this works.

You are the merchant of spin and avoidance. as my religious denomination does not enter into the question I have asked of you. I could easily get someone of a different religious background to post on here and ask you the same question!!!

[Arai64]

I've answered in full on more than one occassion.

I've exposed you for the prat that you are on more than one occassion.

And I've asked your religion on more than one occassion.

Now come on gwhite79, you play true to form and play elusive, but aren't you a Branch Davidian, taking off from where David Koresh left off?

Does your first initial stand for God, as you refer to 'we' and 'us,' and to mere conversation as 'ministering?'

My, my Messiah gwhite79, all those little girls and guns...

[gwhite79]

My, my Arai64 what a tiresome web you weave.

No you have not answered (in part or in full) on any occasion.

Not once have you simply said: the canon of holy scripture came into being in this way....

We need not discuss the books you know as the "Old Testament". Let's stick to the New Testament canon. How did that canon come to exist as a canon.

As you've been so reluctant to answer, why not anwer "Who placed the books in the order in which they appear?"

[gwhite79]

"mere conversation" where you point out the fallacy as you see it of a doctrine of the church of Rome must be said to be ministering

unless you will admit to tormenting or seeking to cause distress in which case you are hardly following the second commandment, are you?

I belong to the one holy apostolic and catholic church founded by Jesus Christ. That's my religious affiliation.

[Arai64]

The muddled Messiah gwhite79 states: "I belong to the one holy apostolic and catholic church founded by Jesus Christ. That's my religious affiliation."

Don't we all? But in what denomination Church do you pray?

As for ministering, one must be ministerial to minister, I am not, as you are not, so within conversation I have pointed out certain fallacies of rome.

I notice you've lost the upper case, and refering to yourself as 'we' and 'us' - at least you acknowledge your mistake.

[Arai64]

The ridiculousness of your original 'circularity' argument aside, (now abandoned upon realization of its silliness) and your dismissal of the power of the test of reason, your repeated demands (circularity) of my stating of the origins of The New King James Bible, only serve to stifle conversation. As stated, the passage from Scripture to its pages is well documented, and I will state it not.

It's up to you to condemn its origin, to damn its validity, to move this conversation on - so try.

[gwhite79]

I acknowledge no mistake in trying to get through your thick skull.

I am not muddled, I am showing you how you give non-answers to simple questions. You're the one who is muddled because you attack Rome but aren't capable of using simple phraseology to show how you know the canon of scripture that you promote came into being.

As for it being "Well stated" - it has not been by you which is why you are muddled and full of accusation of me using spin tactics which is cowardly on your part!

[gwhite79]

I haven't been muddled or mistaken. I have asked a simple question and you have never answered it. You could have, but you don't want to.

I acknowledge that I have had to adopt different tactics to try to elucidate a response from you, and still we find you lacking,

Arai64 you refuse to give a brief statement as to how the canon of holy scripture was determined.

All I did was ask you this. What has stifled conversation is your failure to engage with this issue.

[gwhite79]

It is not silly for me to raise with you the circularity that is found by those seeking what is scripture to be directed to passages which state that all scripture is god-breathed, leaving them none the wiser.

I haven't dropped any of the points I have made. They are all VALID,. You have shown that you will never answer the question of how the canons that you say are "scriptura" came to be regarded as "scriptura".

The conclusion: You won't do so because you're cowardly.

[gwhite79]

How can someone read the Authorised Version (KJV) of the Bible and not conclude that all followers of Jesus Christ have a ministry?

That is the great commission. Paul exhalts us all to ministry.

You'd have to be a "minister" ?

I think you're a bit foolish to attack Rome when you're using that kind of argument.

We are all called to ministry.

If you don't believe you should minister to Roman Catholics then we have to believe you have sinister motives in what you have been posting!

[gwhite79]

I have not dropped references to "we" and "us".

"us" is clearly everyone on this forum who reads comments on videos posted and may be influenced by what they read.

"we" are those of us posting - you, me, those you are attacking with your anti-rome sentiments.

[gwhite79]

It is a shame that we could not expect an answer from you that dealt in the briefest of terms with how the canon of scripture came about.

It is highly relevant to the attack you made on Rome for the Councilk of Trent's addition of books to the canon. In order for people to understand that attack we need to know where you're coming from on the books you do consider scripture. You won't give an assurance, you point to others having done this. That is not good enough, but it is pointless with you.

[Arai64]

gwhite, try and actually move it on, as it appears you wish to stifle as I've clearly stated that I will not patronize by stating the path from scripture to pages of The New King James Bible.

Even if I didn't know the origin etc, I could have quite easily researched it, and simply reproduced it herein, so do let's stop being repetitively boring gwhite79, and move forward with our chat.

Also, 'these different tacts,' you claim to having had to adopt, to try to 'elucidate a response.'

[Arai64]

This claim contradicts your incessant demands of 'proof of origin,' as your 'switching tact' simply fails to happen.

You actually stopped using 'us' and 'we' to describe yourself, and ceased to use upper-case and claims of being ministerial, as a direct result of my criticism - you simply realized you appeared foolish.

Your claim of my having to show the path from scripture to rome's comic-book bible to condemn it, is simply untrue.

A sensible, reasonable approach is all that's necessary.

[Arai64]

This God-On-Earth pope for example claims to be the leader of all Christians, yet he doesn't lead me or the many other Christians that I know, does he lead you?

Forensic analysis of the bread & wine he claims to be truly changed into the body & blood of Christ, reveals him as a fraud. Having sex with children, refusing blood transfusions etc - dire nonsense. I need not harp on of origins, as a sensible, reasonable person, I can condemn without.

What denomination church do you pray in?

[ulsterconfederate]

Unfortunately Paisley has fallen from the standards expected of Protestant men by indulging catholic terrorists. Shame on you paisley.

[MrGreenpixie]

Unfortunately, Paisley has fallen from the standards expected of Christian men by indulging loyalist terrorists, inciting hatred, and refusing to speak out against the injustices of this land when Irish men and women were unable to vote, discriminated against on all levels of society. Shame on you Paisley.

[gwhite79]

blessed are the peacemakers?

[Michael07968]

Hqw did people let him talk like that he was not even a man of the cloth

[lordgibber]

People do that all the time in the States

[junglemike72]

The Church of God 7th day is the true church. They hold the true doctrines, but even this church has been subject to infiltrators trying to bring outside influences into it.

[Arai64]

"The catholic religon was made by Jesus and St. Peter."

And how did you arrive at this notion? Where in the Hebrew Scriptures is this caveat of yours found, and many other abstract roman claim's?

Do yourself a favour, go out right now and acquire THE word of God - the Holy Bible, New King James Version - THE Christian Bible. And turn your back on the roman church of perdition before its too late.

[AreYouSaved]

Peter was only a chip (Petros) of the old block (Petras).

[junglemike72]

And Paul was against Idolatry because God is against Idolatry and the Catholic Church is filled with Idolatry and Occultic symbolism that date back to Babylon. So who do the represent? God or Satan? Very elementary.

[gwhite79]

So you believe the King James Bible came down from Heaven like a dove?

[Stevenbfg]

Prodestand is a man made religon and that means its wrong. The catholic religon was made by Jesus and St. Peter. More people are catholic than protesdant look it up. U are all expressing how evil the protestand religon is by sayin a lot of hate about the catholic religon.

[Arai64]

What utter nonsense? Peddled by a roman merchant of bunkum if ever there was one.

A cursory historical glance reveals that Protestantism was born from roman catholic reformers, dismayed and disheartened by roman catholicism's failure to follow The Scriptures.

The early reformer's chant of, "Sola Scriptura," holds as true today, as it did in the 16th Century.

The roman catholic "bible," is so far removed from The Scriptures, being laced with apocrypha, rendering it only fit for the bin!

[gwhite79]

simple question: how do you know what *is* scripture and is not?

[Arai64]

Look at what the Hebrews said was 'inspired' and that that was not.

Also, apply the test of reason to what the church of rome added to its 'bible' in the 16th Century.

I certainly don't believe that God wishes us to lie, assassinate, use incantations etc yet the 16th Century roman additions make clear allowance for this.

Rome adopted apochrypha to further its taxation policies, purgatory (for example) and the roman notion that one can pay there way out of sin, is pure fraud.

[gwhite79]

hahahaha

I could so have predicted that response which addresses the "Church of Rome" taking on deuterocanonical books but fails to deal with how the original canon (let's ignore the council of Trent) came into being.

The Book of Hebrews does not set out the canon of holy scripture. You're answer is highly inadequate.

In any event, how does one know that the Book of Hebrews should be listened to?

You're following a circular argument.

Keep being blinkered if you want.

[Arai64]

Spin and conjecture from an out-and-out charlatan. Funny your jerome didn't include the apocraphal texts in his 'bible' that your church of perdition chose to adopt into its in the 16th Century.

As I said, it does not take a great deal of working out that an OK to lie, cheat, and assassinate is not an OK from God.

Your whole notion of paying your way out of sin too, is complete guff.

And talking of sin, there is actually an ex-Nazi showboating as God-On-Earth in rome, all part of the act...

[gwhite79]

if this is addressed to me, I should make clear that I am not a Roman Catholic so your insults (which are frankly pathetic) are not tainting me

I see the absolute failure on your part to address how the canon that you support came into being - you have relied on a circular argumentargument

utter trash

[HermitintheRain]

You ask what has the appearance of a simple question. With the resources out there for you to find the answer to that question-if you are sincerely wanting to know-it would futile to try to answer in a 500 character limit on a youtube video comment for such a serious question. When you search it out honestly, you will see there is plenty of evidence and sound reason by which the current Bible was so canonized-and why the deuterocanonical books are as they were in antiquity: apocrypha-not canon

[gwhite79]

No it would not be futile. I did not say that I don't have evidence and sound reason for the composition of the canon of holy scripture. The 500 character limit is ample space to give an explanation that goes beyond the circular babble that Arai64 is spouting. I want someone to explain HOW the canon came into being and therefore to demonstrate how that is different to what happened at the Council of Trent. The reason I am insistent on this point is that Arai64 has tried to feed me circularity.

[Arai64]

Conjecture, spin, and subterfuge from a halfwit - "from where's the original canon?" Where do you think? "I won't accept circularity." What like pi being 3.14 or the Earth taking 365 1/4 days to revolve around the Sun?"

Perhaps you should be asking from when it came, as rome's 16th Century attempt at laying claim to 'Sola Scriptura,' was hardly original was it?

And as previously stated, it doesn't take a genius to work out that to lie, cheat, assassinate, use incantation etc, is not inspired.

[gwhite79]

To be expected. Your stancce is below halfwit if you try to be witty in a pathetic attempt to evade the valid question asked of you - making you (at best) a coward.

Are you a bit too thick to realise that your line of "It doesn't take a genius" is a complete non-answer. Your "easy answer" (if you can remember what you spouted earlier) was to direct me to Hebrews, but you're incapable of setting out (briefly) how it has come to be accepted that the Letter to the Hebrews is scripture!

[Arai64]

Have you ever thought of changing your name to Gerry Mander, as it's befitting?

Within this context, I wouldn't insult the intelligence of a 10 year old by actively directing them to Hebrews, or for that matter the test of reason. So dismiss your claim of it being a 'valid question' just as I dismiss you as a total waster.

The timing of mid-sixteenth century's pertinent...

Sola Scriptura!

[gwhite79]

As it happens, the waste has been from your lack of engagement with the serious question which belittles your attack on Rome.

You can't seriously minister effectively to people who accept deuterocanonical books whilst cowardly failing to address how

the books that you *and Roman Catholics* consider canonical were determined as canonical.

Actively directing people to Hebrews or appealing to "reason" does not get us there. We need to end up with the canon of holy scripture as you recognise it.

[Arai64]

You are without doubt a merchant of bunkum, utilising spin and subterfuge in your attempt at blague.

Your last three paragraphs for example, are nonsensical, as is your 'circularity' argument.

You speak also of 'us' (Actively directing people to Hebrews or appealing to "reason" does not get us there.), when you are one, so my argument doesn't get 'you' there, but so what?

You are at lib to research from where the Hebrews gained their scriptures, as I'm sure you already actually have.

[gwhite79]

This is not spin. It's plain and simple.

The merchant of subterfuge is you, Arai64, for your abject failure to answer a simple question.

How was the canon of Holy Scripture (as you understand it) determined?

Why do you hide from explaining WHY for YOU the Letter to the Romans or the Letter to the Ephesians are holy scripture?

I am asking YOU why YOU (not me) accept them as scripture so we can test any grounds you cite against the arguments you make that other books are *not* scripture.

[Arai64]

Who's 'we' again? Furthermore, I have already explained why the roman version of the scriptures is nonsense, but you choose to ignore this.

Regarding your repeated question, (subterfuge to hide the misnomer's of rome), the King James Bible's origin is well documented, and as previously stated, I will not be lead into explaining it to you.

I've pointed you toward the 16th Century, and prior to jerome, yet you deliberately choose to divert attention away from rome, and toward me (Protestants).

[Arai64]

You claim not to be roman, so what religion (if any) are you?

[gwhite79]

When you show yourself capable of answering my point which is of direct relevance to the issue then you will have an answer as to my denomination.

I have told you I am not a Roman Catholic and I am not seeking to divert attention away from Roman Catholics.

I repeat: if you are to minister TO Roman Catholics to explain why the "deuterocanonical books" are not considered scriptures by Protestants then you have to explain, at least briefly, how the canon of holiday scripture came into being.

[gwhite79]

Your points "towards the 16th Century" do not get us to HOW THE CANON OF HOLY SCRIPTURE CAME INTO BEING (which was long before).

You NEED to anwer this. It is not dodging any other point. This is the very nature of the argument you are making against Rome.

"We" means those posting on here who can read what you have said and see whether you are applying the same test to the books you consider scripture and the books you do not consider scripture.

Quite simple really. Of what are you afraid?

[Arai64]

gwhite79, your argument is simply the the very same 'circular' argument you protested against recently.

I have stated also from the beginning that you are an evasive user of spin and subterfuge to shift the spotlight away from issues that pain you, born out once more by your refusal to simply state your own religion.

You continue to speak for 'we' and 'us' although I suggest you awaken to reality and speak for you, as you are one.

Your point of highlighting the Holy Scriptures coming into

[Arai64]

being, being long before the 16th Century - did you think anyone herein did not not know that?

You completely miss my point as it's a point about timing which I should not need to be spelt out, certainly not to an adult.

This denial of your's, that no explanation of why Protestants do not believe in 'deuterocanical' (read apocrypha) is once again complete nonsense, as a cursory glance at my recent posting's reveals I've stated (and restated) a number of reasons why any reasonable person would

[Arai64]

not believe in what is clearly not the word of God. The timing of rome's inclusion of such nonsense, the fact that its jerome and the Hebrews dismissed it, all stated by me, and ignored by you.

Your insistence of what is necessary to minister to romans, is simply absurd as my 'test of reason' may suffice albeit not for you as you are clearly without reason and brimming full of notion - as stated the path from scripture to the pages of The King James Bible is clear and not for me to (over)state.

[OiJANCISKA]

Are you stupid or priest fucked up your brain out of your fuckin papistic head?

[Arai64]

Rome's insistence of apocryphal text as being the word of God, has earned it vast sums of money, and allowed its followers to live as heathens, in the mistaken belief that it's OK. Apocrypha (not God) allows romans to: 1) pay cash to eliminate their sins. 2) commit suicide 3) indulge in slavery & cruelty 4) promote re-incarnation 5) scare with claims of purgatory for non-payed up sinners. 6) lying 7) assassination 8) the use of magical incantations Rome peddles rubbish - not God!

[Arai64]

It's a simple matter really, as being Protestant, I do not seek illusion to make financial gain from Christ's death, unlike your roman church of perdition.

The Scriptures are written in Hebrew, whereas the 15 apocryphal texts, (12 of which your "church" included in its comic-book "bible" of 1546), are written in Greek. Wisemen of the time stating them to be of dubious origin, and a cursory glance revealing that what they state to be good Christian living, simply is not.

[palleagle1]

omg

[Arai64]

Circa 1546, and after St Martin's painful exposure of the church of rome as church of perdition, rome set about an attempt of its own claim's of sola-Scriptura - although it was pitiful one.

Some 1,546 years after Christ's death, rome canonized 12 of the 14 Old Testament books, which, since as early as 450 AD, were recognized as spurious, of unknown authorship, and without claim of inspiration or authority.

I'm afraid, Victor, and as I've stated previously, your faith is flawed.

[Arai64]

To clarify my historical reference, and to completely reject your spurious claim of sacrilage regarding St. Martin Luther and all involved in the glorious reformation, their claim to sola-Scriptura, is actually genuine, where your roman catholic claim simply is not.

You also made the statement, "All words are spoken before writing." Yet you did not speak these actual words before writing them...

It is a fact that the church of rome and its followers believe in the word of others than God.

[VictorLepanto]

I am simply trying to get you to see, words are not made sacred & the word of God by being written down. Christ's words in the Gospel were God's word (by definition) when He spoke them. It was decades b/f they were written down. Also, they weren't all written down, go through the Gospels & look for all the incidents where Christ's words are not written down. Many, many incidents. Are Christ's words garbage merely b/c unwriten?

[Arai64]

God actually used fallible men to receive and record his infallible word, my apologies.

[Arai64]

The scriptures themselves testify: "All Scripture is God breathed." (2 Timothy 3:16). If they contain error, then one must call it God-inspired error, (Jerome's deliberately corrupt version aside). Titus 1:2 says God cannot lie. John 17:17 says: "Thy word is truth." These are not the only examples as the testimony of the Scripture is clear. God used infallible men to receive and record his infallible word, so that it would reach us correct and without error. Your roman church corrupts God's word

[gwhite79]

but this is hilarious stuff - "the testimony of Scripture is clear" but you don't say how you get to decide what God's word is. How did the canon come about?

[Arai64]

It is not impossible for an infallible mere mortal to perform a mistake-free act, as it's not impossible for them to correctly record both sayings and events. So to rule out the possibility of an inerrent Bible, by appealing to the fallibility of man, is ridiculous - although not as ridiculous as your claims of infallibility regarding your pope, Nazi Joe Ratzinger - and that he's God on earth etc - truly dreadful!

There is also sufficient evidence that the Bible is the infallible word of God.

[VictorLepanto]

I am not saying that the Bible is not inerrant or inspired of God. My claim is you can not prove this from the Bible. There is inspired table of contents in the Bible. The tradition re: which books are scriptural is an oral tradition of the Church's magisterium. If I were to lay before you the various books of the Bible all seperated from each other & in amidst the various apocryphal books of the 1st cent., you would have no means of knowing which if any of them were scripture.

[Arai64]

But Victor, The scriptures themselves testify: "All Scripture is God breathed." (2 Timothy 3:16). And as previously stated, there are further examples.

Regarding inspired / apocryphal texts, (their being written in two distictly different languages aside), history dictates their identity and difference from one another.

Your roman churches insistence upon the inclusion of 12 apocryphal texts in "its" bible, is wrong, even Jerome had a problem with it! Your belief's are flawed.

[VictorLepanto]

History is just the sanguinary record of human decisions & actions. It is hardly a conscious being w/ a power of decision of its own.

The sacrilage of the Prot. reformers expunging books from the historic Christian canon is another matter. It does make absurd their silly SOLA SCRIPTURA doctrine.

No one is arguing against the scriptures being God breathed. I am only disputing the logically absurd notion that God breathed words must be exclusively written.

All words are spoken b/f writing.

[gwhite79]

The scriptures themselves testy that "All Scripture is God breathed" but this DOES NOT PROVE WHAT IS SCRIPTURE. Why are you INCAPABLE of understanding this?

For example: take the phrase "All rabbits have ears."

If I tell you Jeremy has ears, can you prove that

Jeremy is a rabbit?

No you can't.

If I tell you that Jeremy is a rabbit, then can you prove that he has ears?

Yes you can.

[Arai64]

had them and abused them (Matthew 23:13)

There is no Biblical evidence that Peter was ever Bishop of Rome.

Paul greeted nearly 30 Roman Christians in Romans 16 without any mention to Peter.

Only God is our Father, not Peter in any special sense. The "Vicar of Christ" is the Holy Spirit - not a mere man.

The Bible reserves infallibility for the Bible alone.

This shows how fallible the Pope really is when the major doctrines he propagates are at odds with the written word of God!

[VictorLepanto]

Where does the Bible reserve infalibility for the Bible alone? This is patent nonsense again, if the Bible is infallible, then its authors were also infalible in writing it.

There is no Biblical evidence that George Washington was president either. This is a complete nonsequitor, & false. There are Biblical implications to support his being there.

By addressing the whole church in Rome, Paul was implicitely addressing its head.

& even Luther abandoned that "confession" nonsense.

[bansheewhiskey]

suck my big green hairy knackers paisley you piece of fucking shit

[mary047photoblue]

Thank You for posting this,I thoroughly enjoyed that.....M

[iotaunam1]

Ian Paisley is a Heretic! God help him!

Pray that he will not perish in his ignorance.

[VictorLepanto]

"His nation received Him not." & Rev. Paisley received not the Apostles He sent to him.

[Arai64]

Would you care to name them?

[VictorLepanto]

Why, don'cha have a Bible w/ all the names of the apostles in them? One of them is St. Peter, & we have all seen how Paisley treated the Rock on whom Christ built HIS church.

[Arai64]

Explain fully your point

[VictorLepanto]

My point is the irony of Paisley decrying how Christ's own nation received him not when he (Paisley that is) receives Christ not. Those who Christ sent in His name are His own chosen apostles. Those who don't receive them, don't receive Him. Like those who rejected Christ also rejected His father. We are not allowed to make up a Gospel to suit ourselves or to invent Churches to our liking. In brief, the Pope & the bishops in union w/ him are the rightful heirs of the apostles & speak for Christ.

[Arai64]

How did Ian Paisley not receive the apostles? What excuse for not doing so did he give? And so that I may know the truth, please refer to and quote from The Bible in reference to the points that you make:

1) "Those who don't receive them, don't receive him."

2) "the Pope & the bishops in union w/ him are the rightful heirs of the apostles & speak for Christ."

[VictorLepanto]

Mebbe, in a couple of days, I'll get back w/ you. Paisley rejects the apostles by disrespecting the Pope, the prince of the apostles. & really, are you denying that Jesus sent the apostles. As the Bible was written under the guidance of or directly by the apostles, how can you believe the Bible then?

[albertaforalbertans]

I have to respectfully disagree.

[Arai64]

Matthew 16:18-19 says nothing about Peter or any one being Head of the Church.

In Matthew 16:18-19, Peter's name means stone/pebble, and so is moveable.

Rock means unmoveable and refers to Peter's confession regarding Christ.

The Rock in the Bible is always God.

Peter had the keys of the Kingdom in the gospel and he used them very effectually on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2) and in bringing the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 10)

In this sense, every preacher has the "keys" - the Pharise

[VictorLepanto]

Jesus is having a conversation w/ Peter, of course it says something about Peter. It is plain nonsense to say that a conversation about what Peter said has nothing to do w/ him.

It is utterly anachronistic to say that 1st Century Koine Greek uses petros to refer to pebbles. Only about 3 poems in one obscure & by then lost, Greek dialect uses it in your sense. That was about 300yrs. b/f the NT. Petros is simply the male form of the word. Julio/Julia Victor/Victoria etc.

[billyshaw136]

billyshaw136youtube

[billyshaw136]

Or i'll Knock your bollocks in.

[billyshaw136]

Please answer

[billyshaw136]

Why do you talk such a load of absolute bollocks?

[davfritz]

silly old dill, I guess its an entertaining specticle in a way.