Then James says, ‘I rule, then...' Acts 15:7-21

[Nan_S]

1 Peter 2:6-7: Jesus is the cornerstone.

Don’t you put a “cornerstone” on a rock? You wouldn’t lay it in soft ground.

Peter is the Rock upon which Jesus will build the church. Jesus is the cornerstone laid upon the rock.

 

[Church_Militant]

1 Peter 2:6-7: Jesus is the cornerstone.

Don’t you put a “cornerstone” on a rock? You wouldn’t lay it in soft ground.

Peter is the Rock upon which Jesus will build the church. Jesus is the cornerstone laid upon the rock.

Beautiful Brilliance in its Simplicity! I meant to put that in my post, but God must’ve had me forget because I wouldn’t’ve said nearly as well as you just did.
Pax tecum,

 

[DustinsDad]

truthinlove2:

…How did the Catholics here come to believe that Peter is pope?

Pope just means “papa” or “father”…that Peter and his successors have come to be known as “papa” to Christ’s church is simply another OT prophesy come to fulfillment.

If you read Matt 16:18-19 like you should - in connection with Isaiah 22:20-22 - you would see it quite clearly.
In that day I will call my servant Eli’akim the son of Hilki’ah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and** he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.** And** I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open**. (Isaish 22:20-22) See that up there in Isaish: “He shall be a FATHER to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and Judah.” I could say much more, but I’d just be echoing all the excellent posts from the folks here already.

If you love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your mind, then you must follow him anywhere he leads you - even if it’s where you least expect it. And that place you least expect it might just be you know where…you are here for a reason my friend, it may not be the reason you think.

-Peace in Christ-
DustinsDad

 

[porthos11]

truthinlove2:

So now the church is built on two foundations? Peter and his confession. I do think God is incredibly amazing, but the verbal acrobatics over this simple verse are well, not supported by Scripture. I’ll give you some good verses…

You think THAT’s bad? There are actually FIVE foundation metaphors in the entire NT:

1 Cor 3:10-11
Eph 2:20
1 Pet 2:6
Rev 21:14
Matthew 16:18

1 Corinthians 3:9-11

9 For we are labourers together with God: ye are God’s husbandry**(“http://forums.catholic-questions.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=632690#_ftnIDA0JJBD”), ye are God’s building. 10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. 11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Ephesians 2:18-22 (KJV)

Again, Catholics do not and cannot dispute this.

20 **And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner **stone;

What is the foundation of the apostles and prophets…the Word of God. The Word of God, the entire book is about Jesus from start to finish. The Bible never depicts the church built on Peter himself, but surely it supports building on his profession, a truly awesome profession…Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

The Word of God? Where in the passage does this come from? In fact, looking at the surrounding verses Paul clearly indicates the members of the Church as being built into a temple of God. It makes no sense to abstract the “foundation” and all of a sudden “personalize” the cornerstone and the rest of the structure.

Besides, while your argument is not unreasonable, the genitive case in Greek is also used in much the same way “of” is used in English. When in English we see the phrase “gang of the goons”, it can immediately mean “a gang composed of the goons” or a “gang owned by the goons”. In the Greek, both constructs use the genitive case, and context determines the appropriate meaning. See Revelation 21:21 for such a use, refer to the single pearl.

In this case, the surrounding context weakens your interpretation (which requires you to impose a meaning on “foundation”) while the Catholic takes the surrounding context, translates the genitive construct, and clearly identifies the foundation as the apostles and prophets themselves.

 

[truthinlove2]

DustinsDad,
I am aware of the origins of the word pope, thank you kindly though. When I have more time I’ll post about Isaiah 22. I thought about not quoting these verses because many have their minds made up that this does not apply to the pope(papa), so I will let the passage speak for itself. Also note the pharisees(keepers of the law and prophets…ie the Word of God) have the keys to the kingdom of heaven.

cont…

 

[truthinlove2]

Matthew 23:1-13
1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat:3All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe,that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.4For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and laythem on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

5But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, 6And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,7And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.

8But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master,even Christ; and all ye are brethren.9And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.10Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master,even Christ.

11But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.12And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

13But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go inyourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

​

 

[porthos11]

truthinlove2:

DustinsDad,
I am aware of the origins of the word pope, thank you kindly though. When I have more time I’ll post about Isaiah 22. I thought about not quoting these verses because many have their minds made up that this does not apply to the pope(papa), so I will let the passage speak for itself. Also note the pharisees(keepers of the law and prophets…ie the Word of God) have the keys to the kingdom of heaven.

cont…

Where’d this come from? Isaiah 22 refers to the Davidic monarchial structure, which is a foreshadowing of the heavenly kingdom. It means a universal, supreme, and singular power to bind and loose, even in political matters. Nowhere do the pharisees even claim to possess the power of the keys, temporal or otherwise. They did have teaching authority, and Jesus recognized their role in teaching the Jews, but nowhere is it stated that they have the power to bind and loose in heaven, much less possess the power of the keys. That’s why he blasted the heavy burdens they imposed. In any case, the authority of the Pharisees is irrelevant because with Jesus, they lost all authority whatsoever, which is why Christians CANNOT accept the Jamnia pronouncements.

You must read Isaiah 22 because that passage contains the proper understanding of the keys, and you’ll see that it’s not one the pharisees possessed. In fact, the keys are held by only ONE man.

 

[RyanL]

truthinlove2:

Matthew 23:1-13

1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat:3All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe,that observe and do;
​

why would Jesus say this? why would He say “do whatever they tell you”, when He is clearly not approving of them? could it be because God had promised to guide their pronouncements from the “chair of moses”, no matter how messed up they were as individuals? does that seem like anything the catholics have echoed about the pope, and his declarations from the “chair of peter”?

you might try reading deu 17:8-13, and remember that the things in the old testament are a shadow of the things to come (heb 10:1).

would you be willing to go where God guides you, no matter the course?

RyanL

 

[DustinsDad]

When I have more time I’ll post about Isaiah 22. I thought about not quoting these verses because many have their minds made up that this does not apply to the pope(papa), so I will let the passage speak for itself.

I’d really like to know how you separate Isaiah 22 from Matt 16 - I’ve never heard a reasonable explanation for the common Protestant rejection.

Also note the pharisees(keepers of the law and prophets…ie the Word of God) have the keys to the kingdom of heaven.

The Lord says they “sit on Moses’ seat”, that is, they do have a certain position of authority over the Jewish people - though not the same exactly as given to Peter and the Apostles - porthos11 explained it pretty well in the previous post.

In any case, we do see more even of the Isaiah 22 foreshadowing being fulfilled as this *teaching *authority (and then some) is transferred from the OT covenant leaders to the NT covenant “leaders”. Our King is giving authority in a very unique way to Peter and then again in a more general way to all the apostles in union with Peter (Matt 18).

But ya know Our Lord goes one step further (always giving us more than we deserve!) - he gives them the power to bind and loose with His very own heavenly guarantee - I think I’ll stick with these folks thank you very much

It’s also helpful to the faithful when false teachings pop up (as he warned us they would)…we can always identify Christ’s Church and that wonderful heavenly guarantee…just look for the guy with the keys and make sure you are in union with him!

This goes along quite well with the original question about the Acts 15 council - demonstrating beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Church Christ established was one church with a clear authoritive hierarchical structure and with Diviine protection. Awesome!

Now let me ask you a question. Would you say to the Catholic Church the following:

"You have gone too far! For all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them; why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the LORD?"

Honestly now, would you lay that claim toward the pope and the faithful bishops with him? And yes…I’m setting you up

-Peace in Christ-

DustinsDad

 

[porthos11]

You said that “Nowhere does Scripture support the giving of the keys to all the apostles; only Peter got this. He is therefore, in a manner of speaking, the “prime minister” of the Church”. If you look to Matt 18:18, he gives them all the authority to bind and to loose in heaven.

We are all well aware of this passage as well. Matt 18:18 does not mean Jesus gives the keys to all the apostles; he is giving them the power to bind and loose, and collectively (hence the plural personal pronoun), and indeed such a power is still exercised by the bishops of the Church. This does not mean they hold the keys, which by definition can be held by only one man at a time, cf. Is. 22.

Only Peter gets the keys (hence the singular personal pronoun in Matt 16), which means he has a singular, universal power to bind and loose in a supreme manner, just like Eliakim of King Hezekiah’s time. Again, the context and connection tells us that Matt 16’s promise to Peter carries with it a more supreme power that that given to the other 11.

 

[Ignatius]

Cal_in_Omaha:

In yesterday’s first Mass Reading, Acts 15:7-21, the apostles meet in Jerusalem to decide what if any Jewish requirements should be placed on the Gentiles. Peter, Barnabas, Paul all get their say. Then James says, ‘I rule, then, that instead of making things more difficult for pagans…’ [Jerusalem Bible]

It clearly sounds like one person was in charge here and it wasn’t Peter. You could say, well James was the bishop in Jerusalem at that time, but if Peter had papal status, why didn’t he have the final word after James gave his (name removed by moderator)ut? What is the Catholic explanation for this? The protestants like to use this verse as one proof that Peter was not in charge.

That text you have does sound like it. The problem is that the text you have is not what is written in James. No where in Acts does James say ‘I rule, then, . . . .’ Here is the actual Scriptural text:
Acts 15:13And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: Simeon hath declared . . . .

Misrepresenting the Scriptures is tantamount to Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. I’d be careful about it.

 

[Ignatius]

Cal_in_Omaha:

I just reread Acts 15 hoping to get the sense you did. Admitedly, Peter’s statement sound authoritative. But James sounds more final and binding to me.

It’s interesting that in verses 22-30, it sounds like a committee decision is made to choose a delegation to Antioch. You’d think that either Peter would write the letter or at least his name would be used in to intro to give it final authority. Neither is the case.

It is my judgement therefore that scripture does not make this crystal clear and we have need of a megesterium. :banghead:

James was Bishop of Jerusalem, where the Council was held. The local Bishop presides at Councils in his jurisdiction, even when the Pope is present. Looks like that hasn’t changed in 2000 years.

 

[truthinlove2]

CM:

:yawn: :yawn: :yawn: SSDD…
Why is Peter named first in every list of the apostles? This was the way it was done back then (and still is today. Most important guy first.)

I submit to you James the first(er second and followed closely by John) pope…Also note the footnote in the Bible, if you’re right Peter was only one of the ones in charge, not THE one in charge. Sounds like Peter was a fellow bishop to me.

Galatians 2:9 (NABWRNT)

9 and when they recognized the grace bestowed upon me, James and Kephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas their right hands in partnership, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

James and Kephas and John: see the notes on Gal 1:18,19; on Peter and John as leaders in the Jerusalem church, cf Acts 3:1 and Acts 8:14. The order here, with James first, may reflect his prominence in Jerusalem after Peter (Kephas) departed (Acts 12:17).

Why is peter mentioned more than any of the other apostles…even your alleged St. Paul?

Isn’t modern technology wonderful…From the NAB
Saul listed 24 times in Acts
Paul listed 161 times in Acts-2 Peter
Peter listed 156 times in Matt-2 Peter
Kephas listed 9 times in John-Galatians

We have a pope…its Paul 185-165!!!

Why does Jesus tell Peter that he will give him the keys of the kingdom (a clear meaning from the OT that he would speak with Christ’s own authority!). Look it up in your Strong’s….what did it mean for a man to be given the keys to the kingdom?

You need to check the original languages here since the use is singular (talking to Cephas alone) as opposed to your contention that it was directed to all the apostles).

Matthew 18:18-20 (NABWRNT)

18 † Amen, I say to you, whatever you(plural) bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you(plural) loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.19 † Again, (amen,) I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything for which they are to pray, it shall be granted to them by my heavenly Father.20 † For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”

[1]
† Except for the plural of the verbs bind and loose, this verse is practically identical with Matthew 16:19b and many scholars understand it as granting to all the disciples what was previously given to Peter alone. For a different view, based on the different contexts of the two verses, see the note on Matthew 16:19.

2807****κλείς kleis /klice/] n f. From 2808; TDNT 3:744; TDNTA 439; GK 3090; Six occurrences; AV translates as “key” six times. 1 a key. 1a since the keeper of the keys has the power to open and to shut. 1b metaph. in the NT to denote power and authority of various kinds.

What authority from Matt 16 did Peter have that the apostles were not given in Matt 18???

Why did Paul spend his 15 days with Peter as opposed to anyone else? James was the bishop of Jerusalem.

So if a brother in Christ comes and visits and stays in my house, I’m the leader of the universal church. Anyone else going HUH? Read further Paul saw James.

Peter’s closing remarks in Acts 15 show that he settled the issue then and there.

Actually James made the sentence, or ruling not Peter. Can you imagine a cardinal with power to make a sentence or ruling in the presence of the “supreme pontiff”, I sure can’t.

 

[truthinlove2]

As for your allegation that Paul had to correct Peter’s “doctrine”…I would say you infer FAR too much, since the issue was not doctrinal at all but one of appearances and offense.

Now the truth of the Gospel is only appearances and offense, I’m glad I’m a “Protestant”. I’d hate to stand on that slippery slope.

Galatians 2:11-3:7 (NABWRNT)

11 † † And when Kephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong.12 For, until some people came from James, † he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to draw back and separated himself, because he was afraid of the circumcised.13 And the rest of the Jews † (also) acted hypocritically along with him, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.14 But when I saw that they were not on the right road in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Kephas in front of all, “If you, though a Jew, are living like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?” † 15 † We, who are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles,16 (yet) who know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. †

17 But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves are found to be sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? † Of course not!18 But if I am building up again those things that I tore down, then I show myself to be a transgressor. † 19 For through the law I died to the law, † that I might live for God. I have been crucified with Christ;20 yet I live, no longer I, but Christ lives in me; insofar as I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God who has loved me and given himself up for me.21 I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing.

Chapter 3

1 † † O stupid Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?2 I want to learn only this from you: did you receive the Spirit from works of the law, or from faith in what you heard? † 3 Are you so stupid? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh? † 4 Did you experience so many things † in vain?—if indeed it was in vain.5 Does, then, the one who supplies the Spirit to you and works mighty deeds among you do so from works of the law or from faith in what you heard?6 Thus Abraham “believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” † 7 † Realize then that it is those who have faith who are children of Abraham.

The rest you quoted I’ll get to later, it has been most interesting hearing your arguments for the Peterine pontifficate.

 

[RyanL]

truthinlove2:

I submit to you James the first(er second and followed closely by John) pope…Also note the footnote in the Bible, if you’re right Peter was only one of the ones in charge, not THE one in charge. Sounds like Peter was a fellow bishop to me.

you’re silly. OF COURSE peter was a fellow bishop! i don’t know who you’re trying to disprove with this… by the way, are your footnotes inspired, too? are they infallible? are they even to be relied on heavily? i thought you were a “scripture alone” kinda guy…how about you stick to your theology?

truthinlove2:

…on Peter and John as leaders in the Jerusalem church…The order here, with James first, may reflect his prominence in Jerusalem after Peter (Kephas) departed (Acts 12:17).

this sounds ok to me…

truthinlove2:

Isn’t modern technology wonderful…From the NAB
Saul listed 24 times in Acts
Paul listed 161 times in Acts-2 Peter
Peter listed 156 times in Matt-2 Peter
Kephas listed 9 times in John-Galatians

We have a pope…its Paul 185-165!!!

first off, biblical math is a **very **poor way to do exegesis. that said, it does have some weight, or rather it is not to be **completely **discounted. peter was great. paul was great. the bible records these things. by the way, did you include “simon” in your search? i believe you’ll get different results…why don’t you post them?

[1]
† Except for the plural of the verbs bind and loose, this verse is practically identical with Matthew 16:19b and many scholars understand it as granting to all the disciples what was previously given to Peter alone. For a different view, based on the different contexts of the two verses, see the note on Matthew 16:19.

2807****κλείς kleis /klice/] n f. From 2808; TDNT 3:744; TDNTA 439; GK 3090; Six occurrences; AV translates as “key” six times. 1 a key. 1a since the keeper of the keys has the power to open and to shut. 1b metaph. in the NT to denote power and authority of various kinds.

many scholars? there are “bible scholars” who deny the divinity of Christ and the historic reliability of the gospels - should i believe them simply because they have initials after their names? boy am i glad i’m catholic! i’ll stick to the scholars who Jesus promised He would guide in the truth (a.k.a., the magisterium)…
also, how many people can “hold the keys” at once? does everyone now get a set of keys to the kingdom of heaven? is that the way it worked in isaiah 22 (which is the shadow of things to come heb 10:1)? do **you **hold the keys to the kingdom of heaven? (a yes or no should suffice.)
finally, i ask this so that you may teach me - where else in the NT are keys used to denote authority of various kinds? is it ever used to denote the authority to open the gates of heaven? who has this authority?

 

[RyanL]

cont’d…

truthinlove2:

What authority from Matt 16 did Peter have that the apostles were not given in Matt 18???

keys, i believe…again, do you have the keys to the kingdom of heaven, so that you might bind something which God would recognize as bound, or that you may retain the sins of someone and God would recognize them as retained?

truthinlove2:

Actually James made the sentence, or ruling not Peter. Can you imagine a cardinal with power to make a sentence or ruling in the presence of the “supreme pontiff”, I sure can’t.

did you read my posts above? james did NOT make an official pronouncement on a matter of faith or morals - peter did. we know this to be true because paul cancels james’ pronouncement in a later epistle, but peter’s remains TO THIS VERY DAY! and yes, i can imagine such a thing - it happens ALL THE TIME in the catholic church. bishops have GREAT authority over their diocese. is this so terribly foreign to you? don’t you know about governors, mayors, senators, presidents, etc.? how is this so terribly odd?

last, please stop posting gigantic sections of scripture. we all have bibles - the sectional citation should suffice. you may certainly post a verse or two (or three) if it emphasizes your point, but posting multiple chapters is overdoing it…i could post the whole bible so that you may read and believe, but i trust you have your own.

RyanL

 

[truthinlove2]

Church Militant:

The statement in red is useless since you cannot show me a doctrine of the church that was not taught in the NT. That’s just plain not true.

This was posted earlier and I must have missed it. Because of my insignificant knowledge of Catholic teaching I can only list the following off the top of my head:

1. Selling indulgancies to get out of purgatory
2. Purgatory
3. prayers for/to the dead
4. Assumption of Mary
5. Immaculate Conception(Mary sinless)
6. Apostolic authority passed on after the death of the apostles(Paul became an apostle by seeing the risen Christ)
7. Marriage as a sacrament
8. special priesthood in new covenant(Catholic view) vs priesthood of all believers(Peter’s view)
9. Christ sacrifice not once for all and priests in NT keeping the “host” from falling on the floor.
10. Statues used in worship services
11. Bowing down, kissing the feet/ring, and veneration of popes
12. confession of sins to a man instead of God
13. intecession through anyone other than Christ

There I got a baker’s dozen…have fun.

 

[Ignatius]

truthinlove2:

I…Also note the footnote in the Bible, .

:bigyikes: Really? So, you think the footnotes are part of the Holy Scripture?

 

[truthinlove2]

RyanL:

you’re silly. OF COURSE peter was a fellow bishop! i don’t know who you’re trying to disprove with this… by the way, are your footnotes inspired, too? are they infallible? are they even to be relied on heavily? i thought you were a “scripture alone” kinda guy…how about you stick to your theology?

Nice of you to make my point that Peter was a “fellow” bishop, not a “supreme” one. The footnotes are from the Catholic Bible, written by none other than Catholics, and no are not inspired nor infallible. You have a distorted view of the “Scripture alone” side; it means that the Word of God is the only infallible and my final authority in matters of faith and doctrine. I can still read commentaries (even Catholic ones J ), but I don’t place my faith in or get my beliefs from man’s uninspired writings, but from the very breath of God in Scripture.

TruthInLove:

…on Peter and John as leaders in the Jerusalem church…The order here, with James first, may reflect his prominence in Jerusalem after Peter (Kephas) departed (Acts 12:17).

**
**

RyanL:

this sounds ok to me…

This is a commentary from a Catholic translation of the Bible. Since it sounds ok to you, you would agree with me that Peter was not the “supreme” leader of the church, since James had prominence over Peter in Jerusalem, even though Peter was supposed to be in Rome(the See of power). Does not the pope have prominence over all other bishops as “visible head” of the church?

RyanL:

first off, biblical math is a **very **

poor way to do exegesis. that said, it does have some weight, or rather it is not to be **completely **discounted. peter was great. paul was great. the bible records these things. by the way, did you include “simon” in your search? i believe you’ll get different results…why don’t you post them?
Church Militant:

Why is peter mentioned more than any of the other apostles…even your alleged St. Paul?

I agree, honestly forgot about Peter being named Simon, but you might want to get CM to see things our way, that the number of times a person is recorded doesn’t make them superior. J

 

[truthinlove2]

RyanL:

cont’d…

keys, i believe…again, do you have the keys to the kingdom of heaven, so that you might bind something which God would recognize as bound, or that you may retain the sins of someone and God would recognize them as retained?

I can withhold the Gospel, or I can preach it. Only God can forgive sins, not man.

did you read my posts above? james did NOT make an official pronouncement on a matter of faith or morals - peter did.

James makes the sentence, or final ruling not Peter. The council was a democratic organization with many people getting a say. Peter had a hand in it, so did Paul and others. When the time for making a decision came, it was James who made the decision and had the final word. Certainly no evidence of a Peter-achracy .

we know this to be true because paul cancels james’ pronouncement in a later epistle, but peter’s remains TO THIS VERY DAY!

Book, chapter, and verse please? I can’t find the Scripture you referenced about Paul canceling James ruling.

and yes, i can imagine such a thing - it happens ALL THE TIME in the catholic church. bishops have GREAT authority over their diocese. is this so terribly foreign to you? don’t you know about governors, mayors, senators, presidents, etc.? how is this so terribly odd?

You can imagine a bishop of a local area correcting the infallible pope??? That is exactly what happened when Paul had to correct Peter’s polution of the Gospel. Read Galatians 2, I’ve already posted it once IN CONTEXT.

last, please stop posting gigantic sections of scripture. we all have bibles - the sectional citation should suffice. you may certainly post a verse or two (or three) if it emphasizes your point, but posting multiple chapters is overdoing it…i could post the whole bible so that you may read and believe, but i trust you have your own.

Scripture stands by itself, I have no need to cherry pick verses, so to show the true meaning of a passage, I post the entire context of the verses. Unlike Catholic interpretation of Matt 16 for example, which ignores the fact that the whole section of Scripture is not about Peter, but Christ’s question who do you say that I am?, and at the end of the passage he tells his disciples to tell no one that He is the Christ.