Comments
21 - 40 of 639 Comments Last updated Oct 14, 2013
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

#21 May 15, 2013
William wrote:
Or this one?
2 Timothy 2:8
8 Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel.
According to Paul's gospel? I thought you said that there were only four gospels found in the Bible?
Gospel means good news. The good news of Jesus Christ. The Gospels in the Bible are the historical 9history even in the Bible) accounts of Jesus's life .

Paul is saying Jesus rose from the dead. That is the good news of Paul (Gospel of Paul)

The Bible strictly forbids SS you know.
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

#22 May 15, 2013
William wrote:
It shows up again. What on earth is going on here? Did Peter know that Paul was given a gospel, directly from the resurrected Christ? Does the RCC know about this?
Romans 16:25
25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began.
I have not heard the first thing out of any Catholic about "the revelation of the mystery, kept secret since the world began". But to be fair, I haven't heard it spoken of by any other denomination either.
Once again Gospel means good news. that verse talks about Jesus.

You must be a bible and me guy. No Church required.

Read the next verse and the MYSTERY is solved. He was talking about Jesus

26 but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all the Gentiles might come to the obedience that comes from[a] faith— 27 to the only wise God be glory forever through Jesus Christ! Amen.
William

Anniston, AL

#23 May 15, 2013
Mike, does the RCC encourage you to read the Bible apart from RCC teachings? Check out what they are selling, so to speak?
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

#24 May 15, 2013
William wrote:
"Peter did not "lead" the Jerusalem council-he was testifying in front of this council as well as Paul and Barnabas and those of the Pharisees. But the "dogmatic decision" of Acts 15:19 came from JAMES, NOT PETER!"
And that is not the James that wrote the epistle, either.
It is good to see that you agree with Jesus and the CC that the Church is the Pillar and foundation of Truth and not the Bible. Not one scripture was referred to in this very important decision.

That Council was held like every Council. James was the Bishop of Jerusalem and was the host. He opened the Council and closed the Council.

Paul and Barnabas testified and Peter made the decision. Of course James agreed and closed the council. Who made the decision?

After the Church grew the Pope did not attend all the Councils because of distance and other urgent matters in the Church. The local Bishop ran the Council, the arguments were sent to the Pope , the Pope decided and the Bishop announced the decision and closed the Council.
William

Anniston, AL

#25 May 15, 2013
That is certainly A church there at Jerusalem in Acts 15.

But it's not the church, the body of Christ.
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

#26 May 15, 2013
William wrote:
Mike, does the RCC encourage you to read the Bible apart from RCC teachings? Check out what they are selling, so to speak?
Sure they encourage Bible reading. If you are a regular Church goer, you will hear almost all of the Bible over a 3 year period even if you cant read.

What is awesome to me, is that the same verses are read and preached on by every Church in world on the same day. Talk about obeying Jesus on the Unity thing.

The Church was not taught by the Apostles to teach by the Bible alone however since the Church existed for 350 years without a Bible.

If you read the CCC it will give you footnotes to the Bibe versions or to the teaching by Tradition. We obey Paul. Obey him by letter and the Traditions he taught Bishop Timothy.
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

#27 May 15, 2013
William wrote:
That is certainly A church there at Jerusalem in Acts 15.
But it's not the church, the body of Christ.


It is not A church but the body of Christ is THE church. Jesus created 1 Church. The Body of Christ consists of his Church on Earth and in Heaven.

Dave P

Lexington, KY

#28 May 15, 2013
Are we playing dodgeball here?
Dave P

Lexington, KY

#29 May 15, 2013
Have much more to say on this. Work time now though.
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

#30 May 15, 2013
Dave P wrote:
Are we playing dodgeball here?
More like Word Challenge. What 'Body of Christ' does William go to?

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#32 May 15, 2013
Mike, since you firmly believe the Catholic Church to be THE CHURCH, do you know any Catholic willing to debate these issues on TV? The Church of Christ in the Martinsville VA area have live TV shows that air in 2 different States, plus the debate could be posted on YouTube. Matter of fact, the guy Mark on here, is one of the men who have a show on TV in Martinsville, VA
Dave P

Lexington, KY

#33 May 15, 2013
From Mike P:
What is the Aramaic word for cousin or uncle or aunt. There is none. They used brothers and sisters. I think Bobby has a bunch of Brothers and Sisters in his Church. I guess they are all related by DNA.

God inspired the NT to be written in Greek, not Aramaic. Some will dispute that :) Aramaic words not existing for cousins has nothing to do with whether Jesus has brothers or sisters. The Bible record clearly shows that He did. Matthew 13:55-56.

From Mike P-It is good to see that you agree with Jesus and the CC that the Church is the Pillar and foundation of Truth and not the Bible. Not one scripture was referred to in this very important decision.

How WRONG can you be? No scripture? Laughable. Not only was scripture being recorded, but James quotes from Amos 9:11-12 in verses 16-17.
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

#34 May 16, 2013
Dave P wrote:
From Mike P:
What is the Aramaic word for cousin or uncle or aunt. There is none. They used brothers and sisters. I think Bobby has a bunch of Brothers and Sisters in his Church. I guess they are all related by DNA.
God inspired the NT to be written in Greek, not Aramaic. Some will dispute that :) Aramaic words not existing for cousins has nothing to do with whether Jesus has brothers or sisters. The Bible record clearly shows that He did. Matthew 13:55-56.
From Mike P-It is good to see that you agree with Jesus and the CC that the Church is the Pillar and foundation of Truth and not the Bible. Not one scripture was referred to in this very important decision.
How WRONG can you be? No scripture? Laughable. Not only was scripture being recorded, but James quotes from Amos 9:11-12 in verses 16-17.
Do you know why the catholics take that position. The have to protect their position of elevating the status of the "mother of God". That may how they are able to pray to her.
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

#35 May 16, 2013
Bobby wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you know why the catholics take that position. The have to protect their position of elevating the status of the "mother of God". That may how they are able to pray to her.
So Bobby. Your brothers and sisters in your Church, are they your brothers or sisters or not. I can remembered being called Brother Mike. Why do you call them Brother. Is there hanky panky going on in Church or your mom and dad must have really obeyed Jesus about being fruitful and multiplying

When Paul called Timothy his son, did that mean Paul had a kid out of wedlock?(This is also an answer to call no man your Father)

William and you should have no problem showing me the word from the Hebrew language for cousin.

James and Joses were the sons of Mary of Clophas (Mk 15:40). Judas was the son of James (not either of the Apostles)(Lk 6:16). James the Lesser was the son of Alphaeus (Lk 6:15). James the Greater and John were the sons of Zebedee with a mother other than our Blessed Mother Mary (Mt 20:20).

If Jesus had brothers or sisters, does common sense not state that the descendants from Jesus’s mother would be proud of it? And accordingly, would these descendants not be claiming their rightful place as descendants of Mary? Yet, this has never happened!

The Catholic Church has always proclaimed that Mary was ever-virgin. If such was not true, why has her alleged other children and possibly descendants ever publicly renounce the virginity of Mary as a lie? It is because there are no other children or descendants of Mary.

If Mary would have had other children, Jesus would not have been as popular as He was. Jesus was popular because He was recognized as the promised Messiah, the fulfillment of prophecies found in the Old Testament. Jesus fulfilled the words found in the Gospel of Matthew where it states, "All this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophoet:'Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son and they shall name him Emmanuel,' which means,'God is with us.'" [Mt. 1:22-23] If Mary would have had other children, the prophecy regarding the virginity of Mary in the Gospel of Matthew would not have been fulfilled. And Jesus would not have been recognized as being the Messiah.

In the Gospel of John, we read, "When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing beside her, he said to his mother,'Woman, here is your son.' Then he said to the disciple,'Here is your mother.' And from that hour the disciple took her into his own home." [Jn. 19:26-27]

If Jesus would have had any brothers, according to the Jewish custom, they would have been obligated to take care of Mary after Jesus died. But this was not the case. Jesus placed the care of His mother, Mary, into the hands of the Apostle John.

In the Gospel of Luke, we read how Jesus was conceived. "The angel said to her,'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God.'" [Lk. 1: 35] The conception of Jesus resulted from a union between the Holy Spirit and Mary. This union, a marriage blessed by God, placed Mary in a position where she was obligated to maintain a vow of perpetual virginity after the birth of Jesus. If Mary would have had sex with Joseph after the birth of Jesus, this would have been viewed as an adulterous affair.

In Mark 6:3, we read, "'Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?' And they were offense at him." Notice here that there is only one reference to "the son of Mary," that being Jesus. The others are not called the sons of Mary but rather the brothers of Jesus. If they would have been the brothers of Jesus, logically, they too would have been referred to as the sons of Mary.
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

#36 May 16, 2013
Your biblical bias is showing and is indeed to protect the catholic position on the immaculate conception-saying Mary never had any sin. That idea places Mary in a different category than all other humans- worthy of being prayed to.

http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-siblings.ht...
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

#37 May 16, 2013
Bobby wrote:
Your biblical bias is showing and is indeed to protect the catholic position on the immaculate conception-saying Mary never had any sin. That idea places Mary in a different category than all other humans- worthy of being prayed to.
http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-siblings.ht...
Bias? The Catholic Church 'owns' the Bible. We have been protecting it since 382 AD.

Mary IS in a different category than any human that ever lived. She is the Mother of God. She is the new Eve, the new Ark of the Covenant.

I go to the website often to look at ant-catholic arguments.

Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

#38 May 16, 2013
Mike Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
Bias? The Catholic Church 'owns' the Bible. We have been protecting it since 382 AD.
Mary IS in a different category than any human that ever lived. She is the Mother of God. She is the new Eve, the new Ark of the Covenant.
I go to the website often to look at ant-catholic arguments.
That's what I mean, you think you own the bible. The only I see you doing is protecting the catholic interpretation of the bible. Get off of your high horse and proud theology. Pride goes before a fall.
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

#39 May 16, 2013
Bobby wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what I mean, you think you own the bible. The only I see you doing is protecting the catholic interpretation of the bible. Get off of your high horse and proud theology. Pride goes before a fall.
The CC created the Bible in 382 AD. Fact. No SS needed.

The Church existed before the first NT scripture was written. Fact

The writers told the Church what they meant when they wrote them.

Sola Scirptura is a man made doctrine invented by a man in 1500. It can be found nowhere in the Bible and was never taught by an Apostle or Jesus.

If the CC falls, Jesus was not God and the Bible is lie.
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

#40 May 16, 2013
Mike Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
The CC created the Bible in 382 AD. Fact. No SS needed.
The Church existed before the first NT scripture was written. Fact
The writers told the Church what they meant when they wrote them.
Sola Scirptura is a man made doctrine invented by a man in 1500. It can be found nowhere in the Bible and was never taught by an Apostle or Jesus.
If the CC falls, Jesus was not God and the Bible is lie.
I agree that the church came before the bible, but the scripture was being written as the early church was developing and was finished when John wrote revelation.

Don't forget that the OT is scripture also. And yes, I believe that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness.

These are created by extra biblical authority: prayer to saints and/or Mary, the immaculate conception, transubstantiation, infant baptism, and papal authority.
Mike Peterson

Jackson, MS

#41 May 16, 2013
Bobby wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree that the church came before the bible, but the scripture was being written as the early church was developing and was finished when John wrote revelation.
Don't forget that the OT is scripture also. And yes, I believe that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness.
These are created by extra biblical authority: prayer to saints and/or Mary, the immaculate conception, transubstantiation, infant baptism, and papal authority.
Do you believe Paul?

He mentions tradition several times in his epistles, reminding both Timothy and the Thessalonians to stand fast to the traditions he taught them. In his Second Letter to Timothy, Paul wrote: "Take as a model of sound teaching what you have heard me say, in faith and love in Christ Jesus. Guard the rich deposit of faith with the help of the Holy Spirit who dwells within us" (1:13-14). Later, in the same letter, he further instructs Timothy, "You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2:1-2). It seems clear that the apostolic Tradition, the oral teaching of the apostles, was to be preserved and transmitted from generation to generation. St. Paul doesn't write to Timothy and say, "This is all you need for salvation"; rather, he writes Timothy to entrust to other faithful men, who will be able to instruct others, what he preached, and Timothy heard, before many witnesses.

In the Second Letter to the Thessalonians, St. Paul is just as explicit: "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2:15). Either by word of mouth or letter.

Were the brethren to stand firm and hold the oral Tradition that St. Paul taught only for that one generation? Did the Holy Spirit tire and decide to safeguard the transmission of only the written record of Jesus' and the apostles' teachings? Obviously not!

Scripture is clear that the spoken record of apostolic teaching, what we Catholics today call Holy Tradition, has been handed down and preserved for us. Good and faithful men, the bishops of the Church, have handed on to us the teachings of the apostles, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

Martinsville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Is baptism essential to salvation (Nov '10) 3 hr Eyeseaewe 256
Catholics (Feb '14) 7 hr Barnsweb 865
The Origin of the Roman Catholic Church Fri Jimmy-Crack-Corn 147
Jesus' words only teaching, HRM (Sep '13) Aug 28 Curious 63
Signing off ... for now Aug 26 Barnsweb 512
Where did the CoC cowards go? Aug 23 Jimmy Crack Corn 2
Debate: Ferguson - Martinsville, VA Aug 22 Barnsweb 8
•••
•••
•••

Martinsville Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Martinsville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Martinsville News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Martinsville
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••