WHO IS peter and paul??????
98795
2 little dickie birds.. PAUL SHEGGIER, PETER MOYLAN.
701584
Is the pope catholic? Both Tony Blair and George 'dubya' Bush are the biggest pair of gobshites in the whole of christendom!
1096503
close , but not exactly. They are brothers. Both created by/in the image of god, both equals and opposites. yeah... brothers
672908
who are they?never heard about them.....
655481
Try going to his web-site.  It has contact info:\n\nhttp://peterpaige.net/guestbook.htm
18134
Hey, its like having more employees. God had chose them to be prophets. They worked amazing feats of christianity. Paul, Daniel, Elisha, Elijah and Moses were all prophets.
1124336
Simon Peter\nAndrew\nJames (son of Zebedee)\nJohn\nPhilip\nThomas\nMatthew\nJames (son of Alphaeus)\nThaddeus\nSimon\nJudas\nBartholomew
294567
Hope this helps out.\n\nQuestion 1:\n\n1 Peter 2:9\nBut ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light\n\nQuestion 2:\n\nMatthew 5:14\nYe are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid\n\nJohn 8:12\nThen spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.
973053
Lacking any biblical reference to Paul's death, we are forced to turn to tradition for the details of his final years. One tradition holds (attested as early as in 1 Clement 5:7, and in the Muratorian fragment) that Paul visited Spain and Great Britain. While this was his intention (Rom 15:22–7), the evidence is inconclusive. Another tradition places his death in Rome. Eusebius of Caesarea states that Paul was beheaded in the reign of the Roman Emperor Nero. This event has been dated either to the year 64, when Rome was devastated by a fire, or a few years later, to 67. An ancient liturgical solemnity of Peter and Paul, celebrated on 29 June, could reflect the day of martyrdom, and many ancient sources articulated the tradition that Peter and Paul died on the same day (and possibly the same year). Chronologically, the tradition that Paul was martyred in Rome is not inconsistent with the suggested mission to Spain. However, there is little additional evidence to support these traditions, though no evidence exists contradicting them either.\n\nIt is commonly accepted that Paul died as a martyr in Rome and his body was interred with Saint Peter's in ad Catacumbas by the via Appia where it remained until moved by Lucina and Pope Cornelius into the crypts of Lucina.[6] One Gaius, who wrote during the time of Pope Zephyrinus, mentions Paul's tomb as standing on the Via Ostensis, and the Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls consistently claimed to be built upon Paul's tomb. This claim was given much support by the recent archaeological discovery of a tomb under the basilica bearing Paul's name, the titles "apostle" and "martyr", and dating to antiquity.\n\n\n\nYour sister,\nGinger
949492
One theme they both share.  It is the "big lie."  They both say that what they are doing is for the good of the country, but the results of their actions demonstrate something very different.  They both claimed to be Christians, but Jesus would puke observing their behavior.  They both like to pick  on brown people and do it with overwhelming force.  And they  both have ulterior motives, hidden behind their lie.
432000
Lily Savage, \n\nBut paul is good as well, but then they are just one man!!! Maybe we're just funnie in the head for for looking at it as two people, I dont know.
704518
Jesus Himself asked Peter, "Do you love me?   ...then feed my sheep!"\n\nLove is not turning our backs to our brothers and sisters who do not know Christ (though it often times involves less conflict and persecution). That is the opposite of love (and it is sad that such apathy toward the calling to share the Gospel often comes under the deceptive banner of "tolerance").
1070284
Paul was an apostle--spreading the word of Jesus to the gentiles (non-Jews).\nHis message was about Jesus coming in the flesh as a man and going to the cross for all of humanitys sin.\n\nThe greatest act of love --Jesus dieing for us and then rising again on the 3rd day.\nPaul spread this good news--that was his mission.
506823
I always wonder about that.\n\nJesus handpicked 12 apostles, spent at least a year with them and taught them much. Now, obviously one of those 12 didn't work out so well, but I am curious why Paul is even necessary?\n\nDid Jesus screw up on the other 11 he choose as well?  Why was Paul necessary to spread the word.  He never even met Jesus, nor does he tell anything about his life, his teachings, or any real details about what Jesus wanted.\n\nIt is also fairly obvious from Acts and Galatians that Paul and the Apostles' relationship was, at best, pretty icy.  It is also fairly obvious that Paul's message is radically different from the Old Testament, and quite different in many aspects from the Gospels.\n\nBut my central point, is Paul seems utterly unnecessary, give the resume's of the othe 11 original apostles.  Given that they didn't get along, my conclusion is that Paul simply tried to elbow his way in on the nascent Christian message, and the Apostles begrudgingly let him preach to the Gentiles.  After the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, the jewish Christians (which the apostles seemingly were) were scattered or destroyed, and the only thing left was Paul's version of Christianity.\n\nThere are many other ways Paul and Jesus disagree (works versus faith, did Jesus come to take away the law, etc).  Christians (particularly evangelicals), for some reason, always take Paul's version over Jesus, which seems odd since they believe Jesus IS God.\n\nBut the question that has never been satisfactorally answered remains:  If Jesus handpicked his Apostles, why was Paul (who self-appointed himself an apostle based solely on a dream he had) necessary?
911572
From  Matthew Henry's Consice Commentary on the Whole Bible concerning Matthew 16:12-20\n\n"Verses 13-20 Peter, for himself and his brethren, said that they were assured of our Lord's being the promised Messiah, the Son of the living God. This showed that they believed Jesus to be more than man. Our Lord declared Peter to be blessed, as the teaching of God made him differ from his unbelieving countrymen. Christ added that he had named him Peter, in allusion to his stability or firmness in professing the truth. The word translated "rock," is not the same word as Peter, but is of a similar meaning. Nothing can be more wrong than to suppose that Christ meant the person of Peter was the rock. Without doubt Christ himself is the Rock, the tried foundation of the church; and woe to him that attempts to lay any other! Peter's confession is this rock as to doctrine. If Jesus be not the Christ, those that own him are not of the church, but deceivers and deceived. Our Lord next declared the authority with which Peter would be invested. He spoke in the name of his brethren, and this related to them as well as to him. They had no certain knowledge of the characters of men, and were liable to mistakes and sins in their own conduct; but they were kept from error in stating the way of acceptance and salvation, the rule of obedience, the believer's character and experience, and the final doom of unbelievers and hypocrites. In such matters their decision was right, and it was confirmed in heaven. But all pretensions of any man, either to absolve or retain men's sins, are blasphemous and absurd. None can forgive sins but God only. And this binding and loosing, in the common language of the Jews, signified to forbid and to allow, or to teach what is lawful or unlawful. "
200503
Here's ONE!  st. paul, born------died.  ;o)
136665
Aren't there four?\n\nRoger Maris.  Miller Huggins.  Pope Paul VI.  Pope John Paul II.\n\n\nI'm pretty stupid.  Took me too long to realize the last two.