FULL film - The Historical Case for Paul: A Critique of Muslim Arguments

[texastig]

This is awesome. This blows all of Paul's critics away.

[dekeama15]

@KeithTruth hey Keith i was wondering what did paul do when he went to arabia any ideas

[alpidistra]

I find it interesting that you, as an American Evangelical Protestant,quote Eastern Orthodox saints as authoritative and yet you consider the Eastern Orthodox form of Christianity as a deviation from what you consider authentic Christianity.All these early fathers of the Church practiced the Byzantine liturgy,ritual and religious expression which has remained unchanged to this day, in the form of the Orthodox Church.How do you explain this paradox? Evangelicals consider Orthodox as un-Christian.

[KeithTruth]

@alpidistra It's up for debate if they were Eastern Orthodox as modernly defined. I don't believe they were. I believe they were Christians.

[alpidistra]

@KeithTruth Are you then asking us to believe that somehow, "authentic Christianity" was absent from the earth for approximately 1,600 years until it showed up again in America in the form of Born Again Evangelical Christianity?So if it wasn't for the American Born Again Evangelical movement, the world wouldn't know the meaning of Jesus Christ's teachings?Wow, you people have assumed a self-importance that staggers the imagination! Thank God for Calvary Chapel!!

[KeithTruth]

@alpidistra I don't subscribe to born again American evangelical Christianity. I hold to Reformed Theology which Gill, Needham, Fesko, Oden and others have found many strands of in the early church. But of course a close minded person like yourself won't look into those matters.

[alpidistra]

@KeithTruth Point is that you believe your modern form of American so-called reformed Christianity, no matter what name you want to give it, is the only authentic Christianity taught by Jesus Christ and the disciples. Every other denomination is "idol worshipers", heretics and deviants and somehow Christ's teachings remained hidden for 1600 years until it finally showed up in America in modern times. Quite an arrogant claim indeed.

[KeithTruth]

@alpidistra I believe in a modern form of so-called reformed Christianity? No my beliefs conform perfectly with the London Baptist 1689 confession of faith. This is neither American nor modern. Like I said, scholars have pointed out that there were major strands in the early church of the 5 points of grace and the solas of the reformation. These are what mainly distinguish my beliefs from yours. Again see the works of Gill, Needham, Oden, Fesko for proof of this in the early church.

[alpidistra]

@KeithTruth You pick and choose the history that suites your agenda, since the Orthoodox Saints you quoted in your film just so happen to be the authors of the Divine Liturgy still used today by the Eastern Orthodox Church for its Sunday services.Irenaeus, Polycarp, Clement etc. all clearly followed a specific organizational structure, liturgy and teaching still in use today in the Orthodox Church.They were bishops, deacons, patriarchs, NOT BIBLE FELLOWSHIP PASTORS!!!

[KeithTruth]

@alpidistra Can you show me where Polycarp, Clement and Ignatius venerated idols? That would help prove they were EO. Where did they affirm the EO marrian beliefs such as mediator of grace, perpetual virgin, sinless. Showing they had a similar liturgy (asserting it) doesn't prove they were EO. Romanists and EO have many similarities, but that doesn't make them the same. In Reformed churches there are elders (bishops) and deacons. I think you're ignorant friend.

[alpidistra]

@KeithTruth You're showing your ignorance because there is no idol worship in Orthodoxy; that is a feature of Roman Catholicism. Statues are forbidden by the Orthodox Church. Icons on the other hand are considered "documents", not "idols" since they were used to illustrate the Bible stories and the life of Jesus to a mostly illiterate populace in medieval times. Veneration of icons is a continuation of the biblical practice of venerating the scrolls of the Torah in ancient times.

[KeithTruth]

@alpidistra I meant venerating images and icons, not idols. You won't find Polycarp, Ignatius and Clement doing this. Neither will you find the New Testament saying Icons are documents and thus veneration is fine. This is the foolishness of man. The OT Jews may have venerated scrolls, but they didn't claim icons or images were documents or illustrations and venerate them. Again, your system is removed from the Bible and early church.

[Lateralus1019]

This is a bunch of one sides bias garbage and lies....Wow, people believe any nonsense that is feed to them....

[cycler7755]

Truly excellent documentary!

[MegaAngrycat]

@cycler7755

Islam spreads by deceit .

[cycler7755]

@MegaAngrycat Indeed brother

[ASexyChef]

Since when was it a fringe view that Paul was at odds with the actual apostles, he leaves and spends most of his time in Turkey has confrontations with the actual apostles before he leaves and he has a huge debate in turkey with one of them he disagree with, and when he goes back to settle the issue is when most of the living apostles at that time are caught and killed and Paul is jailed which is like a decade after he left the hollyland and he arrested when he goes back to it.

[GrayWatchman]

Very fine work.

[klepto0oe]

Keith keep it comin!

[Erap1muzik]

this was very well put together...you refuted all the arguments head on. God bless bro.

[AegeanKing]

Anybody who reads the letters of Saint Clement or Saint Ignatius of Antioch, men who knew the Apostles, can see that they echo exactly what Paul says in his epistles. Muslims always use erroneous propaganda to try and discredit Christianity.

[SonofThunder120]

Islam has NO CHOICE but to make false claims about the integrity of the Bible & Paul.

God's use of Paul humiliates islam, hence, for islam to stand it has to attack at any opportunity ALL opposition by throwing the same allegations to the Bible & Paul the very charges that satan/koran/hadith/sira & mohammed are guilty of!!! FACT.

[shoussam]

There's a difference between the truth and winning a debate, u might be good to use certain facts in ur side to win a debate but the truth still remain for people who're actually looking for the truth and not only looking for ways to give reason for their choices. i wish for everyone on this planet to eventually see Islam not as a rival religion (speaking to christians) but rather study it with an open mind and spirit (dismissing whatever u've been told or heard before), good luck :=)

[Adriangrosvenor]

@shoussam Why would person's with education dismiss the fact's before them. Those open minded people you speak of will be commoners. But no one unless they see a way of profiting from Islam will actually accept it with an open mind. Especially when educated in doctrine and historical facts.

[shoussam]

@Adriangrosvenor No one is dismissing anything, the facts are there, it existed since the beginning of the universe and none can change'em we're just discovering them, i assume u're an atheist, my comment was for the people of faith wether they're jews or christians so we're over that level theism\atheism debate, and thank you :=)

[Adriangrosvenor]

@shoussam Actually am Christian, am simply saying that their are no fact's for which a Christian can begin to look at Islam with an Open mind, because it is religion based on rehashing Christian doctrine and deluding it to fit Muhammad. 

[shoussam]

@Adriangrosvenor Islam recognizes Christianity and Judaism, but Islam came down to clarify and correct what has been counterfeited and aspects of conflicts in the previous divine religions, Islam also added a lot more to Christianity and Judaism, btw just the fact that Quran never changed nor was counterfeited is in fact it's a miracle, on the contrary what happened to the bible, i mean alot of chapitre were written by the popes lol sorry but it's the truth, thank you for your answer :)

[Adriangrosvenor]

@shoussam nothing in the received text was countered by the pope within the bible. No one would historically support such a case, for the fact that the received text is contrary to catholic doctrine. So such folly is nonsense with those with education. So if that is the bases of your argument I suggest taking it to someone who is not educated in doctrine and history. Quran and the received text are two complete different books, Quran never adds anything to the received text but Muhammad

[Adriangrosvenor]

@shoussam brought his own religion based on false stories of Christ passed down through to people in the area. As witness by the errors made. Errors of Christ being born and speaking as a baby. Its no miracle that a book with so much errors still exist. Contrary their is not one mistake in the received text. But of course base on your lack ok knowledge and ignorant comment, you don't even know what the received text is. So google it and find out which bible it is, thank you for your ignorance :)

[SuperDonster]

@shoussam "the fact that Quran never changed nor was counterfeited is in fact it's a miracle"

Quran proven to have changed, has missing verses, and diff manuscript versions.

Also, the Quran says Allah TRUSTED the Rabbis with his word. Then they corrupted it? Well, tht shows the complete lack of omniscience on Allah's part;he didn't know that was going to happen? Allah gave his words in the Torah and Gospel, it got corrupted, so he gave it again and now it won't be? Great Islamic logic at work

[followerofjesus1984]

*glorious

[followerofjesus1984]

the way to know a false understanding of christianity is not to assume things which are biblically founded .. are not seen though history ... but rather see if that line of teaching denies the central tennants of the faith, the pillars of the faith ... the divinity of Jesus christ, the death and resurrection, the sinful nature of man, and perfection and glorios holiness of God and also salvation is of the lord and not by means of the men, on all these fact calvinism is in line with the bible ...

[blnzg]

stupid muslims should first read their quran and then they should talking.

[blnzg]

why are the muslims talking against paul when paul is described in the koran?

[XerxesTheory]

"Rejection of Calvinism and a holding to free will is the semi-pelagianism heresy" I'm sorry but I can't find any CALVINIST beliefs before the 5th century, this would make Calvinist beliefs quite heretical.

[KeithTruth]

@XerxesTheory Well that's because you haven't looked. The great expositor and theologian John Gill wrote a large work entitled "The Cause of God and Truth" wherein he demonstrates that the fathers held to reformed theology in many cases. Unless you can refute that fine work you have no basis to make your claims! It is a lie in fact.

[TheSmithDorian]

Outside of the Bible are there any accounts from anybody claiming to have seen or met Paul?

He supposedly travelled widely for a number of years so you would expect there to be at least a few.

[TheSmithDorian]

@KeithTruth 1

"You need to get rid of asking that question because it assumes the NT is not reliable historically".

No it doesn't. It asks if there is any evidence or sources outside the Bible that corroborate the historicity of the NT regarding Paul. If you don't have these things then you don't have a basis for asserting that the NT or Acts is a historically reliable record.

As for Acts being a "top notch" historical record - aside from the fact that it doesn't tell us ..

[TheSmithDorian]

@KeithTruth 2

.. who the author was or where / when it was written, consider the following;

1. It doesn't give any dates

2. It doesn't say which events the author witnessed

3. For those he didn't witness he doesn't identify any of his sources

4. It routinely talks about angels appearing & the apostles performing miracles

5. None of the events in Acts can be validated by extra-biblical sources

If I. Howard Marshall thinks Acts is reliable he's not a "serious historian", he's a Christian.

[TheSmithDorian]

@KeithTruth

" No one questions if he lived, can you name 3 serious scholars"

Indeed they don't - and that's my point. There is no evidence for Paul outside the Bible and it's reasonable to expect that there should be. So why does nobody question it or at least express any uncertainty?

Scholars that are Christian can't be objective in this and real serious scholars (i.e. non-Christian) don't claim that Paul never existed because they know that there is not enough evidenvce to establish it.

[TheSmithDorian]

@KeithTruth

" Outside NT? Clement of Rome knew the apostles"

Really? And where exactly does he say this?

[KeithTruth]

@TheSmithDorian His contemporary Irenaeus affirms it in Against Heresies 3.3.3. You didn't list any historians who say Paul didn't exist. 1.) A document doesn't need to give dates in order to know when it was written. Most ancient documents don't. That's the task of the historian. 2.) Yes it does, look what are known as the Acts "we passages." And see my article "Who Wrote the Gospels" at Answering-Islam for more information proving he used eyewitnesses sources. Ignorant. 

[TheSmithDorian]

@KeithTruth ..

[KeithTruth]

@TheSmithDorian You really are the epitome of a depraved fallen creature. You need to convert and stop believing lies.

[TheSmithDorian]

@KeithTruth

" You really are the epitome of a depraved fallen creature." - What was that you said about speaking in a respectful manner?

"You need to convert and stop believing lies." - What lies do you think I believe?

You have tunnel vision here. You assume that because I question the evidence for Paul it therefore means that I don't believe Paul existed. You then judge me based on this assumption even though Jesus tells us specifically not to (Matt 7:1). Your assumption is incorrect.

[KeithTruth]

@TheSmithDorian How do you know Jesus told us Matthew 7:1 since by your absurd critrea of rejecting Acts, Matthew would have to go to? This just shows how confused you are. Acts is not needed for Christ's message? Except that is when His Spirit is poured on His immediate followers and His promises regarding how ministry will go come to pass. You say Jesus' message is set out in the Gospels? Well The same person who wrote Luke wrote Acts and felt Acts was just as important.

[TheSmithDorian]

@KeithTruth

I believe that Paul existed but I don't believe the pictures of him painted in Acts and his own letters are accurate. I don't believe that there is any evidence for him outside of the Bible and I don't believe that Acts is historically reliable.

None of these positions in any way conflicts with Jesus' teachings or message or purpose as set out in the gospels. Paul, Luke (the author) and Acts are completely incidental to the story of Jesus.

[TheSmithDorian]

@KeithTruth

Your request for me to name scholars is moot as it emantes from an erroneous assumption about my beliefs on your part. However, if I'd wanted to listen to somebody defend a position soley by stating that most scholars support it, I'd have watch a Lane Craig video.

I've stated that there is no evidence for Paul outside of the Bible. If you think there is then state it. If you don't think there is then admit it. But don't just say "well X, Y and Z agree with me".

[KeithTruth]

@TheSmithDorian Paul being mentioned by the NT documents is enough evidence and yes they do paint an accurate uncontested portrait of him. We know this because of principles like the principle of embarrassment. Real historians who know what they are talking about accept this. You accept Matthew's teaching about Jesus but you reject Acts' portrayal of Paul because of miracles in the narrative? Can you explain this inconstancy?

[TheSmithDorian]

@KeithTruth

"His contemporary Irenaeus affirms it"

Iraneus wasn't a contemporary of Clement - he was born decades after Clement died.

"You didn't list any historians who say Paul didn't exist"

Try reading my previous comment.

"1.) A document doesn't need to give dates in order to know when it was written"

I didn't claim that it did.

"2.) Yes it does, look what are known as the Acts "we passages"

Wrong. We would only be used to indicate a shared action to (i.e., we went) not witnessing.

[KeithTruth]

@TheSmithDorian I would say it's impossible for you you to be objective which is why you will never be a respected historian. Why is it that atheist scholars recognize Christian scholars as serious historians but you won't? Could that be your non-objectivity shining out? Consider Craig S. Keener, Raymond Brown, F.F. Bruce or Bruce Meztger - all believers respected and cited by non-believing scholars like Ehrman etc. cont..

[KeithTruth]

@TheSmithDorian Non-believing scholars don't say he didn't exist because there's no evidence? Non-believing scholars affirm he did exist because there is evidence (see Ludemann, Ehrman, Goulder etc) and no one affirms your belief because we have early data, multiple independent attestation, principle of embarrassment, dissimilarity etc etc. You can't even name one scholar who says there's not enough evidence to comment either way. That's YOUR false bias non-objective belief.

[KeithTruth]

@TheSmithDorian Since you want to be an idiot who presupposes naturalism without verifying it, attacks the scholarship of a person just because they're Christian, and speaks about things you don't have a clue about, I will block you too.

[TheSmithDorian]

@KeithTruth

"I will block you too"

This shows everybody what you are. You can't answer the points made to you so you spit out your dummy and run away crying like a little kid. Keith"Truth" - I think not.

[KeithTruth]

@TheSmithDorian I addressed everything you said. You're banned for depraved speech. Maybe you should speak in a respectful way. Irenaeus isn't valid because he was born "decades after" Clement? He was born about 25 years after him which would fall into contemporaneous, just not exact contemporaries. You said the we passages show a shared action and not witnessing? No, texts like Acts 16:10-17 show witnessing - the author's physical trip to Macedonia with Paul, Silas and Timothy.

[TheSmithDorian]

@KeithTruth

" I addressed everything you said"

I asked if there are any accounts outside the Bible of people claiming that they had met Paul. - Your answer was "Clement of Rome knew the apostles" That is not answering my question and you know it.

"You're banned for depraved speech" - OK give me an example of my depraved speech.." Maybe you should speak in a respectful way" - I have been. You were the one that started the personal insults by calling me ignorant. My comments were in response.

[FAX335]

There are many difficulties associated with trying to make sense out of Paul. Not the least of which is this; if Paul received revelation directly from Jesus Christ, why would he find it necessary to learn from or even align himself with the original apostles? Also, there seems to be very little of Jesus' life story or teachings in Paul's letters. No mention of miracles, no mention of the parables, nothing about the KOG or KOH. Is there a satisfactory answer to these questions?

FAX

[KeithTruth]

@FAX335 Paul hadn't met Jesus' followers yet and wanted to see if what he had learned through revelation matched up with their theology. Little of Jesus' story in Paul's letters? Christ was a descendent of Abraham and David (Gal 3:14–16; Rom 1:3), he knew about the last supper (1 Cor 11:23–25), Christ was crucified and raised (Rom 1:4), he made a confession before Pilate (1 Tim 6:13), and much more. But these are churches he founded and talked to, so they already knew about Jesus' life.

[travismification]

@KeithTruth Do you know what we really need from God. Even though we also have the BIBLE and the Holy Spirit to prove that Christ LIVED. I keep praying that GOD will REVEALED more Archaeological Evidence to prove the Bible and also I pray that GOD will let us Find more evidence from Outside Sources that haven't been found yet to give us more Evidence that Jesus Exist to prove the MUSLIM Wrong and also the ATHEIST Wrong.

[lovellespice]

@travismification watch dr. william lane craig's debate with the muslim jamal badawi.. humiliation nation, for the muslim.

[travismification]

@lovellespice actually I have seen all of their Debates. But I will look at it to refresh my memory. You should buy Books and DVDS by Ravi Zacharias.

[KeithTruth]

@travismification We don't "need" anything like that. Sure evidence can be used to answer questions but the only way a person will receive the truth is if God removes a persons heart of stone and gives them a heart of flesh. Then they will repent and believe. So pray for people's regeneration.

[travismification]

@KeithTruth I guess that you are Five Point Calvinist? Is that right?

[travismification]

@travismification You still haven't answer or reply to my Email I send you a few weeks ago.

[KeithTruth]

@travismification Yes just like John MacArthur who you have on your channel. When the Christians divided from the romanists in the reformation one of the main debates was the bondage of the will to sin and if a person could exercise saving faith within their fallen nature. I stand with the reformation on the issue. Who do you stand with on that particular debate? The romanists or the Christians?

[travismification]

@KeithTruth Yes I almost have about 112 books by John MacArthur in my collection of Books. But when I look at the evidence of the Reformers and who they were Influence by, which is St.Augustine of Hippo. If you take a look at Bondage of the will by Martin Luther some of the things he wrote inside were taken out of Context as Dave Hunt pointed out in some of his debates. Even some Calvinist Theologian totally disagree with his some of his statements as one of Professor who is at TBS.

[KeithTruth]

@travismification Dave Hunt has no credibility. His book on Calvinism was refuted by dozens of people. He made so many absurd false claims. Saint Augustine had some things wrong, but how does that prove he was wrong about original sin, predestination etc? That is a genetic fallacy. Augustine wasn't the only one in the early church who spoke of reformed points. See Gill's book "The Cause of God and Truth" for proof reformed theology is all over the early church

[travismification]

@KeithTruth I stand with some things of the Reformation not all of it. I don't stand with Roman Catholic Theology. Roman Catholic teaching is doctrine of the Devil. Coming back to the Part of St.Augustine of Hippo when I look at some of things he taught is totally out of context with the bible for example Purgatory and several other things. St.Augustine Theology is highly teached in the ROman Catholic church Today. Most of the ROman Catholic teaching is sending people to hell.

[travismification]

@travismification My Professor who is at Toronto Baptist Seminary is a Five Point Calvinist just like you, but disagree with Bondage of the Will. Even Freedom of Will by Jonathan Edwards. Many of things inside the book is out of context.

[KeithTruth]

@travismification What do you mean many things in bondage of the will are out of context? Scripture quotes? Which ones? Church father quotes? Which ones? I mean Luther was right about the will of man being in bondage to sin and free will being false since enabling unique grace is needed first.

[AegeanKing]

@travismification The protestant theory of Atonement was started by Saint Augustine and is not found in the earlier fathers. Which is why the Eastern Orthodox Church does not accept the western view of atonement.

[travismification]

@KeithTruth hey man I have to go now. I have to go to work. I will talk to you later. Please send me an email at travisandeshmeusai@yahoo.ca. Please don't forget to tell you friend Chris Gautreau I am still waiting for him to reply to my email on a debate I ask If he will participate in with me?

[tonyb408]

Paul received a "creed" from Peter & James? A creed is not scripture. Paul says he received his revelation from the Lord; not simon and james. The fact that Christ died, was buried and rose again the 3rd day is not in question as having been preached early. Paul's gospel says that all you need is to believe that fact for salvation. That's not what was preached before Paul. hence why Paul says the "the preaching of Jesus Christ according to the revelation of the mystery" Rom 16:25

[badbearness]

Nice video but the music is annoying especially the attempt at mind control by demonizing the Muslims by using sinister sounds while they're speaking and using tranquil music while portraying the disciples. Did you learn this from Hollywood?

I'm a Christian that doesn't believe that Muslims in general are bad people like our culture tries to say and I respect how they attempt to serve God. I say the same for the Jews. But... Jesus Christ doesn't need deception for His defense or promotion.

[probokator]

paul never met jesus while jesus alive. paul is persecutor of early chritianity. without other witness except his self, he said he see the vision of jesus. he said he convert. he has disagreement with peter and james. so they went seperated way. paul begin to preacb his version of christianity to gentiles. to the roman, that later became catholic.

[KeithTruth]

@probokator Muhammad never met Jesus while Jesus was alive. Since Paul's vision of Jesus is discounted, you must discount Muhammad's visions. Paul was a Pharisee persecuting early Christianity yes. But the true God regenerates the hearts of sinners as we all are. In the film I prove Peter and Paul never parted ways but remained close until death, which you never refuted. Paul and James were both at the first Jerusalem Council. James and Peter gave Paul their right hand of fellowship

[ASexyChef]

@KeithTruth Paul does though if you do study the history have major odds with all the actual disciples of Jesus, dude seriously, take a world religion class, its does teach you basic aspect of Islam which is how I first started to learn if you trying to win your debate, you need to study the other person religion, its sad, Mohammed was said to be visited by the angel Gabriel, you state this is your film yes or no? You can not debate unless you study their religion mate

[ASexyChef]

@KeithTruth Do you disagree with the fact that historically Paul was known to be at odds with all the actual apostles or not? I actually tend to support many of the opposing arguments, about putting paul into more question, early on the early church outlawed books that we have lost to us, yet Jesus sited them and yet they choice to include Paul which to me supports far more that traditional catholic style of christianity, if your a catholic cheers, but than I disagree with the trinity too...

[KeithTruth]

@ASexyChef Do I disagree with the fringe opinion he was at odds with the apostles? I made this film to refute that idea. Try watching it. What book did the catholic church outlaw that Jesus cited? This is made up nonsense.

[How2BecomeAChristian]

Hey keith,,, THANKS for the GREAT work!

[truthhurts724]

Great video, the reciter of the Quran Muhammed mentions Paul, Peter and James as the true Christians and messengers and apostles of the Messiah but the Muslim belief denies the deity of Jesus Christ. Firstly How can a messenger have his own apostles only God can have apostles and secondly if Muhammed the Allah of Islam thought Paul was a true messenger how can modern day muslims deny that? I believe most Muslims are aware that the Quran don't fully make sense its very obvious from reading it

[P3tr4W45H3r3]

Not a bad piece. Keep up the work.

Petra

[THERAPTURECOMES]

What proof of Peters death in Rome?

[KeithTruth]

@THERAPTURECOMES It is implied in the Clement epistle connected with Paul's death in Rome under the prefects. It is also stated in these early sources as an ancient tradition: Letter to Soter [A.D. 170], in Eusebius, History of the Church 2:25:8; and Disputation with Proclus [A.D. 198] in Eusebius, Church History 2:25:5; and Letter to Soter [A.D. 170], in Eusebius, History of the Church 2:25:8

[THERAPTURECOMES]

@KeithTruth

I am not saying he did not die in Rome but I am saying that He is not the 1st Pope! The catholics rely heavily on this. Are you a catholic?

[KeithTruth]

@THERAPTURECOMES I think the fair minded people can tell that just because you are honest with history and grant that he taught in Rome for a while and probably died there that it doesn't mean you are saying he was pope. I don't know how you can make that connection from what I have said. Is being honest about history a bad thing if you are a Calvinist or something?

[THERAPTURECOMES]

@KeithTruth

I make no accusations but only asked the questions.

It is a known fact that the catholics call him the 1st pope and defend this position of him dying in Rome. Even if he did not die there they will always claim him as the 1st Pope of Christ in order to validate their cult and the cults genealogy.

I view both Catholicism and Calvinism as teachers of ANOTHER GOSPEL and are considered accursed Gal 1:8-9

In short, they are no different than Islam, mormonism, SDA, JW,

[IslamAnswered]

@THERAPTURECOMES Logical people understand that if you grant that Peter died in Rome as the evidence shows, it in no way proves he was the Pope. It is not hard to grasp. Many Protestant scholars and apologists grant this and deny he was Pope. Calvinists preach another Gospel and are accursed? You show yourself to be accursed since your free will beliefs were condemned as heresy in 523 in the synod of Orange. Rejection of Calvinism and a holding to free will is the semi-pelagianism heresy. Banned

[lovellespice]

@IslamAnswered “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” <-- you can't get any clearer than that

[axe414]

@THERAPTURECOMES I agree totally with you

[lovellespice]

@THERAPTURECOMES “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” <-- what does that say about peter's leadership? did Jesus issue the same responsibility to other disciples? no. he gave the keys to kingdom to Peter.

[KeithTruth]

@lovellespice I agree Peter was here given the keys. Through his Gospel preaching he unlocked the door of the kingdom for the Gentiles for the first time (Acts 15:7) and opened the door for them so to speak by way of his evangelism. As for binding and loosing most scholars hold that this means Peter had the power to bind people to rules and loose other rules (circumcision). However, this was given to all the Apostles (Matt 18:18). This doesn't prove papal primacy.

[lovellespice]

@KeithTruth read on further keith, Jesus addressed peter directly calling him "the rock upon which I will build my church.." :) yah that's a nice name isn't it.. anyway, don't wanna argue, we all come from the same christian church, some people just like to do their own thing and prefer not to be catholics, they're free to do so..

[KeithTruth]

@lovellespice I agree that Jesus used Peter as a rock to build his church. Many Protestant scholars do my friend. And Jesus did use Peter that way since by way of Peter's evangelism Jesus used him to build/expand/grow his church when it was small. Many Gentiles and Jews were build into the church because pf Peter spreading the Gospel (Acts 15:7). All of the Apostles are called the foundation stones or rocks (Eph. 2:20). But what has this to do with Rome or her Bishops? I pray you leave Rome.

[THERAPTURECOMES]

@KeithTruth

Or are you a calvinist?