The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Petra and Petros

Well, in my case, your assumption was wrong... your argument doesn't follow logic. Perhaps someone with a little more time can detail how this is true.

Secondly, I really don't care for your bifurcation of the book of Acts from the Gospel of Luke, since the author himself says it was a continuation of his Gospel. Thus the attestation of Paul's apostolic appointment, authority and inspiration is fully established far more than any other Apostle, since again, let me remind you that it is Luke who penned the majority of the New Testament.

Luke 1:1-4 (ASV) "Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to draw up a narrative concerning those matters which have been fulfilled among us, even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having traced the course of all things accurately from the first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus; that thou mightest know the certainty concerning the things wherein thou wast instructed."

Acts 1:1-5 (ASV) "The former treatise I made, O Theophilus, concerning all that Jesus began both to do and to teach, until the day in which he was received up, after that he had given commandment through the Holy Spirit unto the apostles whom he had chosen: To whom he also showed himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing unto them by the space of forty days, and speaking the things concerning the kingdom of God: and, being assembled together with them, he charged them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, [said he], ye heard from me: For John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit not many days hence.

Thirdly, the authenticity and eventual Canonization of the Bible is incontrovertibly not based upon the testimony of Peter, to which you think otherwise it seems. I would encourage you to study further on just what criteria was used by the Church to finalize the Canon. And let me once again point out that the council which deliberated on Canon did not "create" the Canon but simply put an imprimatur upon those writings, with few exceptions, which had been already accepted as inspired for many years beforehand.

You certainly can believe what you want, but that doesn't mean that it is cogent nor believable by anyone else. Unless you can show from Scripture that your "discovery" is defensible from the Scripture, you really shouldn't expect anyone to accept it. And finally, as to your emotional objection to my referring to your "theory" as being "waaaaaaaaay out there", I did so at your own personal invitation:

Does this make sense to anyone, or am I way out of bounds here?

Hey! you asked.

In His Grace,