Jesus is King
William

Birmingham, AL

#375 Nov 14, 2013
Mike_Peterson wrote:
There is no evidence it could be any other Church.

Peter was the first Pope. Francis is the 266th.
Does it bother you that at this church in Acts 2 that Peter never told those believing Jews that God was in Christ and not imputing any of those Jews trespasses against them, and that their sins were all forgiven?

It sure does look like Peter was laying down some serious guilt on them for killing their long-prophesied messiah, not telling them that Christ died for their sins, as Paul later preached.

Maybe I need to go through the Latin Vulgate again, to check and see if Peter told those believing Jews in Acts 1-8 that Christ died for their sins and was resurrected for their justification, as Paul later came along and preached.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#376 Nov 14, 2013
“Reverend” and “Father”
By Royce Frederick

It is common to see religious leaders wearing such titles as “Reverend,”“Right Reverend,” and “Father.” Is this practice in harmony with the teachings of the Bible?
The word “reverend” is found only once in the King James Version of the Bible. The psalmist glorifies God by saying,“...holy and reverend is His name”(Psalm 111:9). The word “reverend” in that verse means that the name of God is worthy of respect, fear, and awe.“Reverend” is never used in the Bible as a title for a mere human being.
The scribes and Pharisees loved religious titles. Jesus denounced the scribes and Pharisees for loving the “...greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men,‘Rabbi, Rabbi.’”“Rabbi” meant “Teacher” or “Master.” He continued by warning His disciples,“But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren”(Matt. 23:7-8). All who are truly Christians are on equality with each other as brothers and sisters. No Christian should desire a religious title which exalts him above any other Christian. It should be honor enough to wear the name “Christian.”
Using “Father” as a religious title is forbidden by Jesus Christ.“Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven”(Matt. 23:9). The term “pope” comes from Latin and Greek, and it means “papa,” another way of saying “father.” Therefore, the terms “Pope” and “Holy Father” as religious titles for a human are certainly forbidden by Jesus in Matt. 23:9.
The apostles never used such exalting titles. They were simply referred to as “Peter,”“Paul,” and “John.” They refused to be personally exalted. Instead, they exalted Jesus Christ:“But God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ...”(Gal. 6:14).
The attitude of Job is in perfect harmony with the teachings of the New Testament on this subject:“Let me not, I pray, show partiality to anyone; Nor let me flatter any man. For I do not know how to flatter, Else my Maker would soon take me away”(Job 32:21-22).

Since: Nov 13

Chicago, IL

#377 Nov 14, 2013
HEATH - 72 wrote:
“Reverend” and “Father”
By Royce Frederick
It is common to see religious leaders wearing such titles as “Reverend,”“Right Reverend,” and “Father.” Is this practice in harmony with the teachings of the Bible?
The word “reverend” is found only once in the King James Version of the Bible. The psalmist glorifies God by saying,“...holy and reverend is His name”(Psalm 111:9). The word “reverend” in that verse means that the name of God is worthy of respect, fear, and awe.“Reverend” is never used in the Bible as a title for a mere human being.
The scribes and Pharisees loved religious titles. Jesus denounced the scribes and Pharisees for loving the “...greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men,‘Rabbi, Rabbi.’”“Rabbi” meant “Teacher” or “Master.” He continued by warning His disciples,“But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren”(Matt. 23:7-8). All who are truly Christians are on equality with each other as brothers and sisters. No Christian should desire a religious title which exalts him above any other Christian. It should be honor enough to wear the name “Christian.”
Using “Father” as a religious title is forbidden by Jesus Christ.“Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven”(Matt. 23:9). The term “pope” comes from Latin and Greek, and it means “papa,” another way of saying “father.” Therefore, the terms “Pope” and “Holy Father” as religious titles for a human are certainly forbidden by Jesus in Matt. 23:9.
The apostles never used such exalting titles. They were simply referred to as “Peter,”“Paul,” and “John.” They refused to be personally exalted. Instead, they exalted Jesus Christ:“But God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ...”(Gal. 6:14).
The attitude of Job is in perfect harmony with the teachings of the New Testament on this subject:“Let me not, I pray, show partiality to anyone; Nor let me flatter any man. For I do not know how to flatter, Else my Maker would soon take me away”(Job 32:21-22).
What a wacked up cut/paste job. Id take my time if I were you.

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#378 Nov 14, 2013
William wrote:
<quoted text>
Does it bother you that at this church in Acts 2 that Peter never told those believing Jews that God was in Christ and not imputing any of those Jews trespasses against them, and that their sins were all forgiven?
It sure does look like Peter was laying down some serious guilt on them for killing their long-prophesied messiah, not telling them that Christ died for their sins, as Paul later preached.
Maybe I need to go through the Latin Vulgate again, to check and see if Peter told those believing Jews in Acts 1-8 that Christ died for their sins and was resurrected for their justification, as Paul later came along and preached.
Why would it bother me that Peter preached from part of the book of Joel, a scripture near and dear to the heart of the Jews from Jerusalem, and converted 3000 Jews? He preached what the Holy Spirit told him to preach on.

Here was a "Jew" preaching to Jews.

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#379 Nov 14, 2013
HEATH - 72 wrote:
“Reverend” and “Father”
By Royce Frederick
It is common to see religious leaders wearing such titles as “Reverend,”“Right Reverend,” and “Father.” Is this practice in harmony with the teachings of the Bible?
The word “reverend” is found only once in the King James Version of the Bible. The psalmist glorifies God by saying,“...holy and reverend is His name”(Psalm 111:9). The word “reverend” in that verse means that the name of God is worthy of respect, fear, and awe.“Reverend” is never used in the Bible as a title for a mere human being.
The scribes and Pharisees loved religious titles. Jesus denounced the scribes and Pharisees for loving the “...greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men,‘Rabbi, Rabbi.’”“Rabbi” meant “Teacher” or “Master.” He continued by warning His disciples,“But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren”(Matt. 23:7-8). All who are truly Christians are on equality with each other as brothers and sisters. No Christian should desire a religious title which exalts him above any other Christian. It should be honor enough to wear the name “Christian.”
Using “Father” as a religious title is forbidden by Jesus Christ.“Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven”(Matt. 23:9). The term “pope” comes from Latin and Greek, and it means “papa,” another way of saying “father.” Therefore, the terms “Pope” and “Holy Father” as religious titles for a human are certainly forbidden by Jesus in Matt. 23:9.
The apostles never used such exalting titles. They were simply referred to as “Peter,”“Paul,” and “John.” They refused to be personally exalted. Instead, they exalted Jesus Christ:“But God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ...”(Gal. 6:14).
The attitude of Job is in perfect harmony with the teachings of the New Testament on this subject:“Let me not, I pray, show partiality to anyone; Nor let me flatter any man. For I do not know how to flatter, Else my Maker would soon take me away”(Job 32:21-22).
All the Apostles were Bishops. What are you talking about?
William

Birmingham, AL

#380 Nov 14, 2013
Mike_Peterson wrote:
Here was a "Jew" preaching to Jews.
And he remained a Jew until he died.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#381 Nov 14, 2013
Joe-the-Plumber wrote:
<quoted text>What a wacked up cut/paste job. Id take my time if I were you.
Thanks for the advice.

:)

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#382 Nov 14, 2013
William wrote:
<quoted text>
And he remained a Jew until he died.
Your history remains terrible. He became a Catholic at Pentecost.

The crowd recognized him as a Jew on that day.

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#383 Nov 14, 2013
Mike_Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
All the Apostles were Bishops. What are you talking about?
He doesn't know. But it looks like he was typing in tongues!
William

Eastaboga, AL

#384 Nov 14, 2013
Mike_Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
Your history remains terrible. He became a Catholic at Pentecost.

The crowd recognized him as a Jew on that day.
Then he forgot to tell Cornelius that he was a Catholic in Acts 10. He also didn't seem to know anything about any so-called "great commission" either when he finally made it to Cornelius' house.

He was born a Jew, and he died a Jew.

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#385 Nov 14, 2013
William wrote:
<quoted text>
Then he forgot to tell Cornelius that he was a Catholic in Acts 10. He also didn't seem to know anything about any so-called "great commission" either when he finally made it to Cornelius' house.
He was born a Jew, and he died a Jew.
Has to be oxygen deprivation.

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#386 Nov 14, 2013
47 Tunc respondit Petrus: Numquid aquam quis prohibere potest ut non baptizentur hi qui Spiritum Sanctum acceperunt sicut et nos?

Wondering for how much water did he ask?

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#387 Nov 14, 2013
A person can be a Catholic without the Bible. It just gets in their way.

The magisterium is all they need.

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#388 Nov 18, 2013
HEATH - 72 wrote:
A person can be a Catholic without the Bible. It just gets in their way.
The magisterium is all they need.
Do you realize how ignorant a statement this is?

Of course you can be a Catholic without a Bible. For 350 years there was a CC without a Bible.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#389 Nov 18, 2013
Mike_Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>Do you realize how ignorant a statement this is?

Of course you can be a Catholic without a Bible. For 350 years there was a CC without a Bible.
Talk about an ignorant statement.

All 27 books of the New Testament existed by the end of 100 AD.

Putting them in a bound volume does not mean they were not in existence prior to that point.

FoCuS

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#390 Nov 18, 2013
HEATH - 72 wrote:
<quoted text>
Talk about an ignorant statement.
All 27 books of the New Testament existed by the end of 100 AD.
Putting them in a bound volume does not mean they were not in existence prior to that point.
FoCuS
All 27 and many dozens more!!! Do you really believe an individual could have had all of these in his possession in AD 100? Do you really believe local groups could have had all of these in their possession in AD 100?

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#391 Nov 18, 2013
MarkEden wrote:
<quoted text>All 27 and many dozens more!!! Do you really believe an individual could have had all of these in his possession in AD 100? Do you really believe local groups could have had all of these in their possession in AD 100?
Local groups?

Yes.

Not real hard to have 27 books is ones possession.

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#392 Nov 18, 2013
HEATH - 72 wrote:
<quoted text>
Local groups?
Yes.
Not real hard to have 27 books is ones possession.
Prove it. Show us the evidence. We all know you can't.

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#393 Nov 18, 2013
HEATH - 72 wrote:
<quoted text>
Talk about an ignorant statement.
All 27 books of the New Testament existed by the end of 100 AD.
Putting them in a bound volume does not mean they were not in existence prior to that point.
FoCuS
The last one was written 60 years after Jesus died. There were no printing presses and copy machines. There wasn't a filing cabinet in Jerusalem and the writers made copies of what they wrote and filed them there.

You have no clue do you. For example, Paul's letter were personal letters to the Bishop of one Church. How was a copy of the letter to the Corinthians going to get everywhere in the known world.

Some of the Churches may have had only the Didache and the Epistle of Thomas and maybe one of the Gospels

You have to have a understanding of history and geography to understand the early Church

NO churches yet in Tenn and Texas.
William

Birmingham, AL

#394 Nov 18, 2013
MarkEden wrote:
Prove it. Show us the evidence. We all know you can't.
Probably not the best challenge for a Catholic to make, when talking about what's actually in scripture.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Axton Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
thomas jefferson edwards (Apr '16) Oct '16 NUKS67 3
THE CHILDREN of THE GOD MOST HIGH (May '14) Oct '16 randy 5
Martinsville Seven - The Martinsville Curse (Mar '10) Oct '16 Santiago Ramey 10
Nickname of Stick Oct '16 A friend 1
Easter Auto Sales (Feb '12) Oct '16 donnawyattreed 9
Dawn Mills Oct '16 Alan Nolan 1
Worship vs Service (Sep '10) Oct '16 Openbook7 7

Axton Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Axton Mortgages