4994 Shares

Since the Revelation of Peter says what's going to happen to those who do abortion, why is it still done?

Since the Revelation of Peter says what's going to happen to those who do abortion, why is it still done? Topic: Objective writing and subjective
May 26, 2019 / By Alyssa
Question: First off: "The Revelations of Peter give us no real insights into the life of Peter but were widely read until at least the 4th century when they vanished around the time the Church was compiling the first Christian bible. Some scholars suspect that the Church destroyed many of the rejected writings to insure the establishment of a single viewpoint on the life of Jesus Christ. " Now on to the Verse: 25. And near that place I saw another strait place into which the gore and the filth of those who were being punished ran down and became there as it were a lake: and there sat women having the gore up to their necks, and over against them sat many children who were born to them out of due time, crying; and there came forth from them sparks of fire and smote the women in the eyes: and these were the accursed who conceived and caused abortion. So if it's a sin to cause abortion, why do people do it? I'm unchewable on this one. ^_^ No, I didn't make this up. Just go search for Revelation of Peter, and look up verse 25. :) Revelation of Peter is not in the bible. :) because of the First part, where I said "First off:" ^_^
Best Answer

Best Answers: Since the Revelation of Peter says what's going to happen to those who do abortion, why is it still done?

Vince Vince | 1 day ago
There's is a canon of scripture in the Bible - either it was divinely inspired, or it was not. You can choose to think what you like about it (after all, you have free-will) but if you think that, does that mean everybody gets to declare something just because they like the way it fits into their already held beliefs, like this genetlemen? http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AhLRnTpxCizkuF3j.InpJR_ty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20081111200025AAt7os4&show=7#profile-info-26N4vVbnaa I'm a little worried about what you think you're finding in this non-canonical literature. First off, I doubt the word "abortion" could really be translated into English because there was no such Latin word then, so I suspect you have a source that is making a claim he couldn't back up. But be that as it may, if you begin to embrace all this non-canonical literature from the first 4 centuries, where will you stop?...one of the main criteria that the Canonical Congress used was that the document had to be no later than the 1st century, of which the Revelation of Peter was clearly not. What criteria will you use? Or even this person whose books you are reading, what criteria does he use? If it is his point to make the claim that there should have been other books included in the Canon, he must state therefore what his criteria is for including the books, and then he must include ALL books that meet that criteria, do you understand? After all, his criteria cannot be that it's "just the books I like" because that is too subjective. He will have to have objective criteria, such as the time it was written and in use in churches up until the Canonization process. That means that the Protoevangelium of James should be included, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Thomas, The Apocalypse of Peter, The Shepard of Hermas, The Secret Gospel of Mark (where Jesus is portrayed as a homosexual), The Gospel of Mary, The Gospel of Philip - the list just goes on and on....there were many churches in the early days that were disconnected from each other (travel was difficult), and many of them had books that they liked to include in their worship service. But after the canonical congress had decided what books were canonical and what books weren't, many of the books fell into dis-use, and as such they simply fell out of the copying process altogether. As an added note, the books of the Nag Hammadi Library (of which, the Gospel of Thomas is one) were a collection of texts that a monk who liked them probably hid in the desert when he heard that some heretic hunters were coming to his monastery. He may have hoped to retrieve them after they left, but somehow he never did. That's why they were still around for Mohammed Ali to find them in the 1940s. That's the only reason we still have them today.
👍 270 | 👎 1
Did you like the answer? Since the Revelation of Peter says what's going to happen to those who do abortion, why is it still done? Share with your friends

We found more questions related to the topic: Objective writing and subjective


Vince Originally Answered: What does Peter mean in 1 Peter 3:21 that "baptism" saves us?
He said it because “baptism saves”. (What would he have said if he had meant "baptism saves"?) This verse in the New American Standard Bible says, “Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you -- not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience – through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” The English Standard Version says, “Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” (These are two of the most accurate English translations of the Bible.) Baptism is a command of Christ. He said, “He that believes and is baptized shall be saved.” (Mark 16:16) Many will tell you that someone believes, is saved, and then he shall be baptized. This is not the same thing Jesus said. It is not in the same order. What would Jesus have said if he had meant, “He that believes and is baptized shall be saved”? I believe he said what he meant and meant what he said. I believe Jesus! “He that believes not shall be condemned.” (Mark 16:16) Many agree that baptism is commanded by Christ, but they say it is not necessary for salvation. Hebrews 5:9 says, “He became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him.” It is necessary to obey Christ to be saved! Acts 2:38 says that baptism is “for the remission of sins”, “unto the remission of sins” or “so that your sins will be forgiven”. (Depending on which translation you read.) I Peter 3:21 says "baptism now saves"! In the conversion of Saul (Paul), Acts 22:16 says he was commanded to be baptized and wash away his sins. Can we be saved if our sins remain? The blood of Christ washes away sins (Revelation 1:5) . Romans 6:3-4 says we are “baptized into Christ”. Can we be saved outside of Christ? (See Gal. 3:27 also.) These verses in Romans also say we are “baptized into his death”. At Christ’s death is where his saving blood was shed and offered for our sins. We must contact His death to contact that blood! Can we be saved if we have not contacted His death? Romans 6:3-4 also say that at baptism we “rise to walk in newness of life.” At a birth there is a new life. Can we be saved if we have not been “born again” to this new life? In the New Testament after Jesus gave the command about baptism, every example of a conversion specifically mentions baptism. None of these converts ate, drank, slept, or continued their journey until they were baptized. It was always immediate. Some point to examples, such as the thief on the cross, before Jesus issued his command of baptism. They could not have obeyed a command that had not yet been issued. Also the death, burial, and resurrection that baptism now represents had not occurred at that time. How could they be baptized into Christ's death, when Christ had not yet died? Those before Christ's death lived under the Old Testament. The New Testament came into effect after Christ died and rose again. (Hebrews 9:15-17) And remember, it was after His death that he commanded baptism (Mark 16:16, Matt. 28:18-20) All those who now live after that point in time are subject to the New Testament and to that command. Also, the thief on the cross was at the scene of Christ's crucifixion. He had direct contact with Christ at His death. We are not in that position. Again, it is through baptism that we contact His death! Saul who I mentioned earlier, is a good example of the necessity of baptism. He spoke to Jesus. He called Jesus “Lord” and he asked what he needed to do to be saved. Jesus told him to go into the city and it would be told to him what he “must do”. In the city he fasted for three days and he was praying. (Acts 9:9-11) Many would say he was saved at that point, but he still had not been told what he “must do”. Then he was told to be baptized and wash away his sins. Please note, even though he had not eaten or drank for three days, he was baptized before he took food. (Acts 9:18-19) This shows the urgency of baptism. In fact, none of the new converts in the book of Acts ate, drank, slept or continued a journey until they had been baptized! Baptism is specifically mentioned in all of these examples. Love, grace, mercy, confession, repentance, and the blood of Christ are all necessary for salvation, but they are not specifically mentioned every time, but baptism is! After one believes, repents and confesses Christ; baptism is the point at which we come “into Christ”. The act of being immersed in water and rising up out of the water symbolically recreates Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. It is this way God has appointed for us to contact Christ's death and be forgiven of our sins. Baptism is “for the remission of sins"! "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord!" (Acts 22:16)

Roy Roy
Whereas he was once comfy being open and bare earlier than the ones round him, at the same time Adam and Eve, having sinned, attempted to cover themselves from the Lord. I feel the phrase "unworthiness", coupled with "disgrace" could sum it up...which is simply what the Lord appears for.
👍 120 | 👎 -5

Mordred Mordred
The word "abortion" was not originally in the bible. Which means it was added by anti-choicers like you. So your verse is even less reliable than it was originally.
👍 120 | 👎 -11

Keegan Keegan
Because there is no reason why terminating a pregnancy in the first or second trimester should not be allowed. Your religious dogma is not relevant to anything.
👍 120 | 👎 -17

Heck Heck
Go Google "logical fallacy of assuming the answer". Then see about PROVING that the Bible has any sort of authority, before trying to cite that authority as a reason to do or not do something. And until you do, you may just want to delete this question and spare yourself from further embarrassment.
👍 120 | 👎 -23

Heck Originally Answered: Peter and james are identically twins.Peter is very outgoing and confident. James is very shy and quite. Does?
princess, if you understood the differences in Nature vs Nurture, you'd be able to do your own homework. Honest, just look up the words in the dictionary. That's a start, and maybe enough to answer such a simple question.

If you have your own answer to the question objective writing and subjective, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.