Barnsweb

Canton, OH

#42 May 17, 2013
Didn't Jesus make the point that His apostles would be enabled to recall all He had taught them, and blessed those who would believe on Him through their testimony of the gospel of God? It was these chosen men of God who gave us His words that lead to eternal life. They were His emissaries, not the 'Church', and they gave us the words of life.

It's been central to the word of God since Moses wrote Genesis, as the message of the names in Genesis 5 is:'Man is appointed mortal sorrow. The blessed God shall come down teaching, bringing the despairing comfort, rest.'

What He taught is now ours to learn from and live.
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

#43 May 17, 2013
Barnsweb wrote:
Didn't Jesus make the point that His apostles would be enabled to recall all He had taught them, and blessed those who would believe on Him through their testimony of the gospel of God? It was these chosen men of God who gave us His words that lead to eternal life. They were His emissaries, not the 'Church', and they gave us the words of life.
It's been central to the word of God since Moses wrote Genesis, as the message of the names in Genesis 5 is:'Man is appointed mortal sorrow. The blessed God shall come down teaching, bringing the despairing comfort, rest.'
What He taught is now ours to learn from and live.
How can you keep ignoring upon you I will build my Church. The Apostles started the Church.

Show were Jesus or any other person in the Bible says the Bible alone is the Truth.

I can show you where it says the Church is.

You mention Moses. Perfect correlation to Peter and his successors. Moses wrote, Aaron, David and Solomon didnt. All taught the truth at that time.

With the Bible alone you only have part of the Truth, the Bible explicitly says that and when the CC created the Bible they specifically said this is the Written word of God.
Barnsweb

Canton, OH

#44 May 17, 2013
God testified through Moses of the Prophet to come after him - Peter identified the Prophet as Jesus Christ (Acts 3:22,23). Then we have early guidance from Moses on how to tell if a prophet is of God or not, or even one sent by God to test us. Peter and John also agreed on who we are to listen to - and II John 9-11 is about the best summation I've found to date. Peter gave the recorded first gospel sermon that gave the key that unlocked the door, so to speak, through the promise of God he gave in Acts 2:38,39.

Since we have the record of His teachings and the centrality of discipleship and the need to hear Him in all things - whatsoever He said - of what need have we ever had for anything taught by any pope of the RCC? Care to give us a few examples that are needful that are not totally covered by the teachings of Jesus and the apostles He appointed emissaries? I'm not aware of anything, so if you would give some good examples, that would be helpful. Perhaps we could discuss them?
Barnsweb

Canton, OH

#45 May 17, 2013
Look at the link on my site about 'What did Jesus say about His teachings'

onediscipletoanother.org

He was pretty straightforward in my opinion, to say what we need to know and believe and do and hope for.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#46 May 17, 2013
Glad to see you on here. Always enjoy your focus on Jesus' teaching.
Mike Peterson

Jackson, MS

#47 May 17, 2013
Barnsweb wrote:
God testified through Moses of the Prophet to come after him - Peter identified the Prophet as Jesus Christ (Acts 3:22,23). Then we have early guidance from Moses on how to tell if a prophet is of God or not, or even one sent by God to test us. Peter and John also agreed on who we are to listen to - and II John 9-11 is about the best summation I've found to date. Peter gave the recorded first gospel sermon that gave the key that unlocked the door, so to speak, through the promise of God he gave in Acts 2:38,39.
Since we have the record of His teachings and the centrality of discipleship and the need to hear Him in all things - whatsoever He said - of what need have we ever had for anything taught by any pope of the RCC? Care to give us a few examples that are needful that are not totally covered by the teachings of Jesus and the apostles He appointed emissaries? I'm not aware of anything, so if you would give some good examples, that would be helpful. Perhaps we could discuss them?
I agree 100% that everything was totally covered by the the teaching of Jesus and his Apostles. They completely deposited the "Fullness of the Truth" into the Church they started for Jesus. Jesus had given the keys to his Kingdom to Peter and his successors to safeguard this truth and to have the final Authority when "disagreements" which started even when the Apostles were alive.

The Pope has not once, changed the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles in the area of Faith and Morals since John died around 90 AD. No new revelation.

Jesus created an awesome system with 1 man on Earth with his Authority, just like God did in the OT.

Jesus did not leave us a book, tell the Apostles to write anything, and no book was ever prophesied by any NT scripture.

It was the CC, for some reasons explained in the topic of Catholicism, who created the Bible 350 years after Christ's Passion.

It is the written Word of God, profitable for teaching and that is what the Church uses it for, to teach us the way to Salvation.
Barnsweb

Canton, OH

#48 May 17, 2013
And it was also the CC that tried to get others in the East to change their received Scriptures from the Apostles. Have you heard about that? Perhaps not?

Glad to know we agree on many things.

How about some examples to show some good from the popes, rather than the typical negative things I've heard from CC history...?

I was surprised to learn papal infallibility was such a late doctrine, as is much of the Mary stuff... 1800's?
Mike Peterson

Jackson, MS

#49 May 18, 2013
Barnsweb wrote:
And it was also the CC that tried to get others in the East to change their received Scriptures from the Apostles. Have you heard about that? Perhaps not?
Glad to know we agree on many things.
How about some examples to show some good from the popes, rather than the typical negative things I've heard from CC history...?
I was surprised to learn papal infallibility was such a late doctrine, as is much of the Mary stuff... 1800's?
The CC was one until the schism in the 5th Century. The East got confused when Constantine moved the seat of Political power from Rome to Constantinople. They wanted their own Pope and shortly started to split apart. Have you heard about this? Most of them agreed to the RC canon in the 8th Century. Some are still changing.

Revelation almost did not make the Bible. It was the most hotly debated book. Many Eastern Church don't read this book in their Churches. It is considered to be allegorical in nature.

Some good things the Popes have done. They have led the Church to feed, cloth, educate and give medical care to more people than any other organization in the world.

They have led the Church to preach the Gospel to Billions of people across the world and and saved the of souls of many of them.

I am surprise for you to say that Papal infallibly was such a late doctrine. That was from the written word of God and one Jesus started. Remember the keys stuff and the held bound and whatever sins you forgive?

The importance of Mary was taught by the Apostles and Jesus. Remember one of Jesus' last words on the Cross "Behold your Mother Behold your Son." Mary is our Mother too. We are her offspring mention in Revelation too.

Councils are held not for new revelation but to reaffirm the official teaching of Jesus through his Church after confusion arises and people like the protesters think they know better than God.
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

#50 May 20, 2013
Everybody wants to the be the NT Church. There was one and we have writings from it.

Which are more truthful, those of the early Church or those written on this forum.

St Clement of Alexandria

The blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first of the disciples for whom alone and himself the Savior paid tribute, quickly seized and comprehended the saying. And what does he say?'Low , we have left all and followed you"

Tertullian of Cartharge:

"The Lord said to Peter,'on this rock I will build my Church. What kind of man are you subverting and changing what was the clear intent of the Lord when he himself conferred this upon Peter."

Letter of Clement to James;

'Be it know to you, my lord, that Simon Peter, who, for the sake of the the true faith, and the sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church , and for this end was, by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, name Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom the Father first revealed the Son; whom the Christ blessed with good reason; the called and elect?

Many, many more. Please give me some writing before 1500 from your Church Fathers saying the opposite.
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

#51 May 20, 2013
Mike Peterson wrote:
Everybody wants to the be the NT Church. There was one and we have writings from it.
Which are more truthful, those of the early Church or those written on this forum.
St Clement of Alexandria
The blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first of the disciples for whom alone and himself the Savior paid tribute, quickly seized and comprehended the saying. And what does he say?'Low , we have left all and followed you"
Tertullian of Cartharge:
"The Lord said to Peter,'on this rock I will build my Church. What kind of man are you subverting and changing what was the clear intent of the Lord when he himself conferred this upon Peter."
Letter of Clement to James;
'Be it know to you, my lord, that Simon Peter, who, for the sake of the the true faith, and the sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church , and for this end was, by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, name Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom the Father first revealed the Son; whom the Christ blessed with good reason; the called and elect?
Many, many more. Please give me some writing before 1500 from your Church Fathers saying the opposite.
Peter is not the rock that Jesus is building his church on. Peter's confession that Jesus is the Christ is the same confession that ever believer must make-this is what the church is being built on. Jesus is the rock of our salvation...
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

#52 May 20, 2013
Bobby wrote:
<quoted text>
Peter is not the rock that Jesus is building his church on. Peter's confession that Jesus is the Christ is the same confession that ever believer must make-this is what the church is being built on. Jesus is the rock of our salvation...
First, the first thing Jesus told Peter when he met him was your name of Cephas, Aramaic for Rock. Then you must agree that he renamed him again to Peter which means Rock. Can't you see a little trend here.

(Bible Trivia - Simon was first person in recorded history to have the name Peter. Could that be significant? Thats like naming your kid or Asparagus.

You are Peter and upon ME, I will build my Church and the Gates of hell will not prevail. Then he gives the keys to him.

Does that make any sense to you? Why even bother about changing his name again or even mentioning Peter in the verse if he was not building his Church on him?

Bobby: I am still waiting on what was taught to you on how the Bible was created. Every Christian should know this. You read it everyday and quote it and interpret it.
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

#53 May 20, 2013
Mike Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
First, the first thing Jesus told Peter when he met him was your name of Cephas, Aramaic for Rock. Then you must agree that he renamed him again to Peter which means Rock. Can't you see a little trend here.
(Bible Trivia - Simon was first person in recorded history to have the name Peter. Could that be significant? Thats like naming your kid or Asparagus.
You are Peter and upon ME, I will build my Church and the Gates of hell will not prevail. Then he gives the keys to him.
Does that make any sense to you? Why even bother about changing his name again or even mentioning Peter in the verse if he was not building his Church on him?
Bobby: I am still waiting on what was taught to you on how the Bible was created. Every Christian should know this. You read it everyday and quote it and interpret it.
Sorry, I don't find that in scripture, it must come from your extra biblical tradition combined with translation to fit what you want it to say.

Jesus is the rock of my salvation not Peter-he did not die for my sin.

Peter denied Jesus three times indicating he was a mere man like the rest of us. But in spite of Peters early weakness he became a great apostle. Some translators believe that Peters name or nick name was rock.

Either way Peter is the "rock" because in this context he is the one who confesses Jesus as the Christ (Mt 16:15-16; Cullmann 1953:162; Ladd 1974b:110; C. Brown 1978:386). Others who share his proclamation also share his authority in building the church (18:18 with 16:19).

Will you accept the the work of these men-of course not they are not catholic-they must be uninformed heathens.

I have proclaimed that Jesus is the Christ, have you-if so and our faith is genuine, Jesus is the rock of our salvation and we both share in the calling and authority to speak to others about our faith in Jesus.
Dave P

Versailles, KY

#54 May 20, 2013
Mike Peterson wrote:
Many, many more. Please give me some writing before 1500 from your Church Fathers saying the opposite.
Better yet, I have provided several writings from YOUR church fathers who contradict even the ones you have quoted. I have noticed that you have not addressed any of the contradictions Mike. The RCC is nowhere near as "perfect" nor consistent as you portray it-it is simply another human organization. Their teachings HAVE changed over the years. Some doctrines are new. The church and its leaders have committed crimes against humanity. It claims to have wrote the Bible, but the books were already written before the RCC came along, and the catholic doctrine contradicts the very Bible it claims to have written.

In short, it has taken the simple gospel of Christ and turned it into a revived form of Judaism-the very thing Christ ended with His death.

I took your challenge upon myself to read history for myself-history that isn't biased for or against catholicism. I am reading from a protestant who has been praised by catholics for his fair and devoted writing of the history of the papacy. Here's what I have learned so far:

*The church began drifting away from the simplicity of Christ very quickly, and a new power structure and titles and such were being put in place before the end of the first century.

*Not every early father placed the importance and primacy on Peter and the bishop of Rome as is done today. That Pope Leo I wrote about earlier really set that in motion, 440 AD.

*Church and state became very intertwined, and church had most of the power-and used the state to punish its enemies.

*There were some brave souls in those times-some of them we would all be proud to call our brethren today. Some were who you would call catholic, others who were called heretics.

Here's a good question for you Mike-do you agree with the church's condemnation and execution of "heretics"? The church did condemn them-then used the civil authorities to execute them.
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

#55 May 21, 2013
Dave P wrote:
<quoted text>
Better yet, I have provided several writings from YOUR church fathers who contradict even the ones you have quoted. I have noticed that you have not addressed any of the contradictions Mike. The RCC is nowhere near as "perfect" nor consistent as you portray it-it is simply another human organization. Their teachings HAVE changed over the years. Some doctrines are new. The church and its leaders have committed crimes against humanity. It claims to have wrote the Bible, but the books were already written before the RCC came along, and the catholic doctrine contradicts the very Bible it claims to have written.
In short, it has taken the simple gospel of Christ and turned it into a revived form of Judaism-the very thing Christ ended with His death.
I took your challenge upon myself to read history for myself-history that isn't biased for or against catholicism. I am reading from a protestant who has been praised by catholics for his fair and devoted writing of the history of the papacy. Here's what I have learned so far:
*The church began drifting away from the simplicity of Christ very quickly, and a new power structure and titles and such were being put in place before the end of the first century.
*Not every early father placed the importance and primacy on Peter and the bishop of Rome as is done today. That Pope Leo I wrote about earlier really set that in motion, 440 AD.
*Church and state became very intertwined, and church had most of the power-and used the state to punish its enemies.
*There were some brave souls in those times-some of them we would all be proud to call our brethren today. Some were who you would call catholic, others who were called heretics.
Here's a good question for you Mike-do you agree with the church's condemnation and execution of "heretics"? The church did condemn them-then used the civil authorities to execute them.
First there is not one doctrine in the areas of Faith and Morals that contradict anything in the Bible. It may contradict your personal interpretation of the Bible.

As far as early Christians not believing the same thing. You bet there were. There has been since 32 AD since the Apostles were alive and continue today. Why do you think Jesus left us a man with Authority who decides what beliefs were the true teaching of Jesus and the Apostles. That was the point of all Church councils

Please give me some quotes by the fathers who didn't believe Peter was the head of the Chruch. Not doubt they were from the Orthodox Church who split from Rome.

Not all men in the Church were perfect.

Of course I condemn them but those were different times too. Do you condemn slavery? Jesus didnt. Do you condemn the massacre of Indians? Do you codemn the burning of Churches by the protesters and the putting the death of people by Luther?

Do you condemn Peter for killing that husband and wife who merely lied to him?

The Crusades had a lot of bad in them. They started for a good reason because the Orthodox Church was being run over by Muslims. Without the Crusades, Europe would now be Muslim.

Does that make everything the Crusades did right. No. But maybe Jesus had a hand in preventing Europe from becoming Muslim.

Keep reading the history. I don't know what year you are on yet, but have you found anything that suggests the way any Christians worshiped then compatible to the way you and others do today?

You won't. I know some protestants with take quotes out of early father's writing to support their view but you look at the totality of their writing you will see they are Catholic.

No Protestants until the 1500.

To believe what you believe now, you have to accept that Jesus failed. Jesus failed that the Church he created was the pillar of truth and that Jesus would protect it from all evil, some of the evil you mentioned.
Dave P

Versailles, KY

#56 May 21, 2013
First there is not one doctrine in the areas of Faith and Morals that contradict anything in the Bible. It may contradict your personal interpretation of the Bible.

*Oh, just faith and morals. But you do admit that some teachings just may contradict scripture?
Or how about this: "Priests do not break vows of chastity by adultery; all celibates are not chaste...one who takes the vow of celibacy does not break it by sinning against the sixth commandment; he is true to it till he weds." Explanation of Catholic morals, p.149.

Or-Mental reservation permits Catholics to lie, if, by doing so, they can further their religion. Manual of Christian Doctrine, p. 444.

"A catholic who on being asked denies that he is one does not necessarily deny the faith. Such answer might be a fitting reply to an impertinent question." Manual of Moral Theology 1, p. 171-72.

*Please give me some quotes by the fathers who didn't believe Peter was the head of the Chruch. Not doubt they were from the Orthodox Church who split from Rome.

Gave several already-go back and read the posts. That Pope Leo guy was the one who really centralized power into that idea.

*Of course I condemn them but those were different times too. Do you condemn slavery? Jesus didnt. Do you condemn the massacre of Indians? Do you codemn the burning of Churches by the protesters and the putting the death of people by Luther?

We, the church, nor anyone else has any authority to condemn anyone. There is also a huge difference in condemning a practice and condemning a person. BTW, Jesus didn't have to condemn slavery-because when people have a new heart and Spirit, change would come naturally. Abortion will never end in this country until people-especially those in the medical field-have new hearts and say they will not perform such evil acts.

*Do you condemn Peter for killing that husband and wife who merely lied to him?

Ananias and Sapphira lied to God and the Spirit according to the words of Peter. God struck them dead. Peter did not.

*Does that make everything the Crusades did right. No. But maybe Jesus had a hand in preventing Europe from becoming Muslim.

Jesus also has a hand in Europe being post-Christian, and quickly becoming Muslim. Many parts of Europe are Muslim now.

*Keep reading the history. I don't know what year you are on yet, but have you found anything that suggests the way any Christians worshiped then compatible to the way you and others do today?

I don't think we today worship exactly as the first century Christians did-and I also don't think that catholicism represents how the first century Christians did either. Big departure early.

*To believe what you believe now, you have to accept that Jesus failed. Jesus failed that the Church he created was the pillar of truth and that Jesus would protect it from all evil, some of the evil you mentioned.

No, we don't have to accept Jesus failed. He didn't. Again what we believe is simply that the RCC, nor any other man made institution, IS "THE" church Jesus started. All who believe are part of His church. But no institution here has exclusivity as being IT.
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

#57 May 21, 2013
Dave:

Name one Christian Church other than Catholic before 1500. Did it take 1500 years for Jesus to get it right. If so , where is that in the Bible? To accept Protestantism you are saying the the Catholic Church is a failure and everybody on here but one so far agrees that the Catholic Church is a failure at best, satanic at worst.

Jesus failed with the only Church for 1500 years, the one he gave Peter for the keys too.

Have you come across any Sola Sciptura yet in your reading?
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

#58 May 21, 2013
Bobby wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, I don't find that in scripture, it must come from your extra biblical tradition combined with translation to fit what you want it to say.
Jesus is the rock of my salvation not Peter-he did not die for my sin.
Peter denied Jesus three times indicating he was a mere man like the rest of us. But in spite of Peters early weakness he became a great apostle. Some translators believe that Peters name or nick name was rock.
Either way Peter is the "rock" because in this context he is the one who confesses Jesus as the Christ (Mt 16:15-16; Cullmann 1953:162; Ladd 1974b:110; C. Brown 1978:386). Others who share his proclamation also share his authority in building the church (18:18 with 16:19).
Will you accept the the work of these men-of course not they are not catholic-they must be uninformed heathens.
I have proclaimed that Jesus is the Christ, have you-if so and our faith is genuine, Jesus is the rock of our salvation and we both share in the calling and authority to speak to others about our faith in Jesus.
No Traditon on Cephas,

Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, was one of the two who heard John and followed Jesus.
41
He first found his own brother Simon and told him,“We have found the Messiah”*(which is translated Anointed).z
42
Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said,“You are Simon the son of John;* you will be called Cephas”
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

#59 May 21, 2013
Bobby wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, I don't find that in scripture, it must come from your extra biblical tradition combined with translation to fit what you want it to say.
Jesus is the rock of my salvation not Peter-he did not die for my sin.
Peter denied Jesus three times indicating he was a mere man like the rest of us. But in spite of Peters early weakness he became a great apostle. Some translators believe that Peters name or nick name was rock.
Either way Peter is the "rock" because in this context he is the one who confesses Jesus as the Christ (Mt 16:15-16; Cullmann 1953:162; Ladd 1974b:110; C. Brown 1978:386). Others who share his proclamation also share his authority in building the church (18:18 with 16:19).
Will you accept the the work of these men-of course not they are not catholic-they must be uninformed heathens.
I have proclaimed that Jesus is the Christ, have you-if so and our faith is genuine, Jesus is the rock of our salvation and we both share in the calling and authority to speak to others about our faith in Jesus.
Not informed. They just believe like all Prots. Anybody can know the Truth.

That is what I have been doing. Jesus died for our sins and taught his Apostles the way to salvation. I am trying to get you to heaven based on what the Apostles taught the Church Jesus started.

You are trying me to get me to heaven by your personal interpretation of a book that Jesus never mentions. I will stay with his Church. That is the pillar and foundation of truth. The Bible is only part of that sufficient for teaching.
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

#60 May 21, 2013
Mike, I think in some ways the catholic doctrine has morphed into something other than the intended concept God first designed. I also believe it is why many protestants have left the cc. If it is like you say that the cc is the early church and yet they have created horrible acts on humanity and have leaders who sin against God with alter boys-where do they get the doctrine to support that?

You need to know that those things do not get swept under the rug with christians in other denominations. If the pope and his hierarchy would start by openly condemning those sort of things I might give them a passing grade. We are not blind!
Dave P

Versailles, KY

#61 May 21, 2013
Mike Peterson wrote:
Dave:
Name one Christian Church other than Catholic before 1500. Did it take 1500 years for Jesus to get it right. If so , where is that in the Bible? To accept Protestantism you are saying the the Catholic Church is a failure and everybody on here but one so far agrees that the Catholic Church is a failure at best, satanic at worst.
Jesus failed with the only Church for 1500 years, the one he gave Peter for the keys too.
Have you come across any Sola Sciptura yet in your reading?
Mike, God added to THE church daily those who were being saved. Ever since the church was born there have been imperfect people in it. The church IS the people btw, the church is a living organism, the Body of Christ. Being a Christian and being a Catholic are not necessarily the same thing. Jesus's church and the catholic church are not the same thing. Did Jesus fail? No. Were there people being saved through all the years the RCC dominated the scene? Yes. I imagine some of them were catholic, and I imagine some were what you would call heretics.

Our faith is to be in Jesus Christ, not a church organization or anything else. We aren't to worship the church-we are the church. All of the saved, NO MATTER WHAT ORGANIZATION THEY BELONG TO, are part of His church. Mike, ALL of our organizations fall short of perfection. His does not-and we must strive to be part of His. We do not believe, as you do, that RCC is His church.

Sola scriptura? So far, only that John Huss was burned at the stake for believing scripture alone is sufficient, and others declared heretics.

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.

Martinsville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Catholics (Feb '14) 2 hr Mike_Peterson 2,000
Hell is a lie 12 hr Barnsweb 5
“Thus Saith Johnny” (Jul '12) 12 hr Barnsweb 121
Identifing the Early Church Wed Jesus Saves Everyone 425
How does the Spirit teach? Wed Jesus saves everyone 5
5 Acts of Worship: The error of The Church of C... (Sep '11) Dec 23 Jerry Taylor 274
Sexy Massage Service 00971567675758 Dec 22 IceBlue1985 3
Martinsville Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

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 ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 6:04 am PST