Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

#102 May 2, 2013
Dave P wrote:
Yes Mike thank you. I was not asking you for the purpose of destroying your reasons.
There are some coc who follow a pattern of using scriptures provided in a coc magazine printed here, Weekly Standard materials. So in some circles the same Bible verses are used in many congregations every Sunday. It actually appears you are more dedicated to "finding the original pattern" than many who claim to want to do so.
Your last point is exactly what I believe-"The only possible way you cannot be a Catholic if you read these writings is to say the Church became apostate. To say that, you to believe that Jesus lied when he said his Church would not fail."
I do believe the Catholic church is an apostate church. I don't believe Jesus lied, and His church didn't fail. I just don't believe the RCC is His church.
Apostasy means to fall away from the truth. Therefore, an apostate is someone who has once believed and then rejected the truth of God. Apostasy is a rebellion against God because it is a rebellion against truth.

For your last 2 sentences to be correct, at least 2 things must be true.

The Catholic Church, including the Orthodox, was not the only Christian Church from 32AD to 1500 AD. There had to be another.(My study of History proved to me that it was the only one.

Also if it was, then it became apostate in the 1500s. For the only Church for 1500 years to reject the Truth of God, then you are saying Jesus did not protect his church from all evil.

The only way you can justify the CC not being the Church Jesus started is by Sola Scriptura, a doctrine never believed by any Christian for 1500 years.

Man, I know where you are coming from. I was there. I tried to disprove where the truth was leading. The early church was Catholic.

St Ignatius, the Bishop of Antioch, was taught personally by the Apostle St John. In 110, just 20 years after John died, he wrote letters to other Bishops and their churches on the way to Rome to be killed. He wrote "Wherever the Bishop is , there is the Catholic Church which of course means universal.

You should look at The Journey Home series on youtube. There is a flock of protestant preachers and theologians flocking to the CC. One protestant radio host, I think Alan Hunt, said we are getting the bad Catholics and they are getting our good Protestants.

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#103 May 2, 2013
I grew up in the COC...in church 3 times each week, had all those perfect attendance pins, spent many summer nights at revivals etc. In my late 20's, almost 40 years ago, I became a Roman Catholic having realized what the COC claims to be the Roman Catholic Church is.
mopman

United States

#104 May 2, 2013
Dag nabit another catholic. I sense an uprising. The
COC going to get the brakes beat off of them with the History 101 of the CC.
Mike Peterson

Jackson, MS

#105 May 2, 2013
Bobby wrote:
Ok Mike, I can understand that. Thanks for the testimony. My journey is similar just with different outcomes. I believe every person must come to grips with his own walk with God.
However I do not see how you can think of the catholic church as pure and without fault. You see, the core of every man is rooted in sin and if you will honestly look around you it permeates the catholic church just as much as it did when you were a baptist.
I give the catholics credit for canonizing our bible as well as other good things.
You may now be thinking that the catholic church is the only true church and that makes you as bad as Heath and Johnny.
Most of the catholics I know will only offer minimal fellowship with me. They are taught that they are better than anyone else and closer to God. Catholicism is very much a ritualistic church. I will probably differ with some here in that I believe there are true christians in the catholic church but it is not a place where I want to hang my hat.
My guess is that you believe that you are the only true christian on these threads-right? That is always a bad place to begin a teaching ministry because you have already shut the door on everyone.
There are as many or more sinners sitting in and leading the Catholic Church as any. That doesn't take away the fact that Jesus started that CC. Look at the letters of Paul to the different Churches urging the Bishops to keep their flock in order and teaching them how.

You mentioned the core of every man is rooted in sin. The CC completely agrees with that because of original sin. That is one of the reasons we baptized babies. Jesus said bring the children too me.

I love the Catholic Church and its because I think it has the fullness of truth and that it was the Church Jesus started, I want everybody to be blessed with that.

I post on forums to tell readers what the Church really believes not what their parents and friends and pastors tell them.

I believe Jesus wants everyone to be part of the Church he started. He said so.

It does not matter what I think, the Church teaches the all Christians have part of the Truth. After all, all non Catholic came out of the CC. They each took part of the Truth that they liked and made up the rest through sola scriptura.

However if don't believe that the bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ, and then eat it, then no you do not have the fullness of the Truth or as close to God as those who do, like our Orthodox brothers.
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

#106 May 2, 2013
Mike Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
There are as many or more sinners sitting in and leading the Catholic Church as any. That doesn't take away the fact that Jesus started that CC. Look at the letters of Paul to the different Churches urging the Bishops to keep their flock in order and teaching them how.
You mentioned the core of every man is rooted in sin. The CC completely agrees with that because of original sin. That is one of the reasons we baptized babies. Jesus said bring the children too me.
I love the Catholic Church and its because I think it has the fullness of truth and that it was the Church Jesus started, I want everybody to be blessed with that.
I post on forums to tell readers what the Church really believes not what their parents and friends and pastors tell them.
I believe Jesus wants everyone to be part of the Church he started. He said so.
It does not matter what I think, the Church teaches the all Christians have part of the Truth. After all, all non Catholic came out of the CC. They each took part of the Truth that they liked and made up the rest through sola scriptura.
However if don't believe that the bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ, and then eat it, then no you do not have the fullness of the Truth or as close to God as those who do, like our Orthodox brothers.
The term catholic means universal, it is an inclusive concept. I very much agree with that but I disagree with the idea that every person who believes in the gospel must be a roman catholic or go to hell. You need to re-think that.

No I refuse to believe in transubstantiation which is very similar to baptismal regeneration-believing that there is actual blood of Jesus in the baptismal water or even that his blood is contacted by water baptism. So, baptizing babies will not save them and neither can we save dead people by being baptized for them.

We owe a lot to the catholics but not our soul. I found out long ago that men cannot save other men except in the sense that we can lead them to the cross where the Master does the saving. We are saved by the blood of Christ not because it is poured out literally on us or in us but because his blood is poured out on the mercy seat in heaven satisfying the demands of God as payment for our sin. Then God sees us as though we have never sinned, even though we most certainly have. The bible is very symbolic and we cannot take everything literal. Yes, Jesus did literally shed his blood for us, but we do not literally drink/eat blood, it is prohibited in the bible.
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

#107 May 3, 2013
Bobby wrote:
<quoted text>
The term catholic means universal, it is an inclusive concept. I very much agree with that but I disagree with the idea that every person who believes in the gospel must be a roman catholic or go to hell. You need to re-think that.
No I refuse to believe in transubstantiation which is very similar to baptismal regeneration-believing that there is actual blood of Jesus in the baptismal water or even that his blood is contacted by water baptism. So, baptizing babies will not save them and neither can we save dead people by being baptized for them.
We owe a lot to the catholics but not our soul. I found out long ago that men cannot save other men except in the sense that we can lead them to the cross where the Master does the saving. We are saved by the blood of Christ not because it is poured out literally on us or in us but because his blood is poured out on the mercy seat in heaven satisfying the demands of God as payment for our sin. Then God sees us as though we have never sinned, even though we most certainly have. The bible is very symbolic and we cannot take everything literal. Yes, Jesus did literally shed his blood for us, but we do not literally drink/eat blood, it is prohibited in the bible.
The Church teaches us only Jesus can save us. Anybody who believes different is not a Christian.

You sound like you were part of Jesus' followers in John 6:66. They didn't believe that was Jesus flesh and blood either he was taking about.

Jesus asked the Apostles , are you going to leave me too about this? But then God spoke to Peter, the only time recorded that any of the 12 was spoken directly to by the Father, and told Peter Jesus has the words of everlasting life. This was right after the followers left when Jesus talked about eating his flesh and drinking his blood. What else was God talking to Peter about than that.

BTW, that is one many of many, many things that show the primacy of Peter
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

#108 May 3, 2013
Mike Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
The Church teaches us only Jesus can save us. Anybody who believes different is not a Christian.
You sound like you were part of Jesus' followers in John 6:66. They didn't believe that was Jesus flesh and blood either he was taking about.
Jesus asked the Apostles , are you going to leave me too about this? But then God spoke to Peter, the only time recorded that any of the 12 was spoken directly to by the Father, and told Peter Jesus has the words of everlasting life. This was right after the followers left when Jesus talked about eating his flesh and drinking his blood. What else was God talking to Peter about than that.
BTW, that is one many of many, many things that show the primacy of Peter
Baloney
Dave P

Morehead, KY

#109 May 3, 2013
Bobby wrote:
<quoted text>
Baloney
No time now for specifics, but yes, I call baloney on Mike's post too.
Mike Peterson

Birmingham, AL

#110 May 3, 2013
Dave P wrote:
<quoted text>
No time now for specifics, but yes, I call baloney on Mike's post too.
Dave and Bobby. That is exactly what they told Jesus right before John 6:66.

I find it amusing sometimes when people talk about Catholics and the mark of the beast. That verse number always comes to mind.
Dave P

Dahlonega, GA

#111 May 4, 2013
Mike Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
The Church teaches us only Jesus can save us. Anybody who believes different is not a Christian.
You sound like you were part of Jesus' followers in John 6:66. They didn't believe that was Jesus flesh and blood either he was taking about.
Jesus asked the Apostles , are you going to leave me too about this? But then God spoke to Peter, the only time recorded that any of the 12 was spoken directly to by the Father, and told Peter Jesus has the words of everlasting life. This was right after the followers left when Jesus talked about eating his flesh and drinking his blood. What else was God talking to Peter about than that.
BTW, that is one many of many, many things that show the primacy of Peter
For one thing, if you read scripture for yourself you find that nowhere did God the Father speak to Peter. He revealed that truth to Peter by the words of Christ and His deeds. Fanciful CC interpretation has God "speaking" to Peter.

While John 6 does have a typological meaning regarding the Lord's Supper, Jesus' greater point here is to "Abide in Me, take Me in". He is not, and never does, tell anyone that they LITERALLY will eat His flesh and drink His blood. As Bobby correctly pointed out, that violates other passages in the word of God and misses the point Jesus was trying to make entirely.
Mike Peterson

Jackson, MS

#112 May 4, 2013
Dave P wrote:
<quoted text>
For one thing, if you read scripture for yourself you find that nowhere did God the Father speak to Peter. He revealed that truth to Peter by the words of Christ and His deeds. Fanciful CC interpretation has God "speaking" to Peter.
While John 6 does have a typological meaning regarding the Lord's Supper, Jesus' greater point here is to "Abide in Me, take Me in". He is not, and never does, tell anyone that they LITERALLY will eat His flesh and drink His blood. As Bobby correctly pointed out, that violates other passages in the word of God and misses the point Jesus was trying to make entirely.
n

I apologize for using John for God speaking to Peter. It was Matthew.

16* j Simon Peter said in reply,“You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” 17Jesus said to him in reply,“Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood* has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.

Doesn't that verse say that God told Peter who Jesus was?

As for as real the real presence, did Jesus call them back and tell wait, that is not what I meant, I really mean for you to take me in and abide in me? While he was teaching this central doctrine of the Christian Faith, they were murmuring about who does this guy think he is. What did he say. Shut up and listen.

He then asks the 12 if they are going to leave him too? Their answer, You have the words of eternal life. What words of eternal life were just spoken?

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.

I believe every verse of the Bible.

But how fast I forget. Prots believe in Sola Scripture. But they disregard the verse where the Bible says The Church is pillar of
Dave P

Dahlonega, GA

#113 May 4, 2013
Mike Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>n
I apologize for using John for God speaking to Peter. It was Matthew.
16* j Simon Peter said in reply,“You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” 17Jesus said to him in reply,“Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood* has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
Doesn't that verse say that God told Peter who Jesus was?
As for as real the real presence, did Jesus call them back and tell wait, that is not what I meant, I really mean for you to take me in and abide in me? While he was teaching this central doctrine of the Christian Faith, they were murmuring about who does this guy think he is. What did he say. Shut up and listen.
He then asks the 12 if they are going to leave him too? Their answer, You have the words of eternal life. What words of eternal life were just spoken?
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
I believe every verse of the Bible.
But how fast I forget. Prots believe in Sola Scripture. But they disregard the verse where the Bible says The Church is pillar of
That verse does not say God TOLD Peter who Christ was, but rather the Father REVEALED it to Peter. That "apocalypse" or unveiling could have happened in many different ways, as in the words and deeds of Jesus.

You believe every verse of the Bible? How about Hebrews? Hebrews is clear that Christ offered up a sufficient, once for all time sacrifice. How then, and why, should He be literally be offered up every day at a mass for sin when He has already provided a sufficient sacrifice for sin?

"Prots" don't disregard that verse. We disregard the view that the RCC is the "church" that is the pillar and ground of that truth. Notice also Mike, the church is to hold up the truth. We aren't to hold up the church in place of the truth.
Mike Peterson

Jackson, MS

#114 May 5, 2013
Dave P wrote:
<quoted text>
That verse does not say God TOLD Peter who Christ was, but rather the Father REVEALED it to Peter. That "apocalypse" or unveiling could have happened in many different ways, as in the words and deeds of Jesus.
You believe every verse of the Bible? How about Hebrews? Hebrews is clear that Christ offered up a sufficient, once for all time sacrifice. How then, and why, should He be literally be offered up every day at a mass for sin when He has already provided a sufficient sacrifice for sin?
"Prots" don't disregard that verse. We disregard the view that the RCC is the "church" that is the pillar and ground of that truth. Notice also Mike, the church is to hold up the truth. We aren't to hold up the church in place of the truth.
I can go with the word revealed. The Father revealed to Peter that he was the Messiah. It was revealed only to Peter. Jesus said that.

Another analogy, is when is Pastor was called by God to go preach at another Church. Did the Pastor hear his voice are did he discern this new Church has more members and a larger salary. Nothing wrong with that but saying he was called by God?

I believe in Acts too. The Mass is not a re sacrifice it is a re-representation of the sacrament.

The Slaying of the Lamb of God occurred once for all time at the Crucifixition. Covering ourselves in His Blood occurs most directly at Baptism, which is itself a one-time event. Yet the eating of the Lamb is something which we can do time and time again. Think about it: a Jew celebrating Passover could go for a second helping of the Lamb (and was in some cases required to, since it had to be eaten that day). But this second eating didn't mean a second sacrifice: they didn't have to re-kill or re-sacrifice (or even re-mark the doorposts) to consume the lamb. That's what it means when the Catechism says "the sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice." That's also why the Eucharist is termed the "unbloody Sacrifice," because the bloodshed was in the slaying of the Lamb, not the eating.

The Eucharist is therefore a vital part of the finished work of the Cross: specifically, it's the application of that work. This sounds, at first, foreign to most Protestants, but I don't think it is. Many Protestants can point to the day -even the hour- and the exact circumstances in which they got saved. But it was a point in their lifetime. Nobody says, "I got saved in c. 32 A.D., when Jesus died on the Cross." Certainly, it's because of that past one-time event that they're able to get saved, but they got saved when they were justified by faith through Grace, and that Blood was applied to them. His Blood was shed in c. 32, but it was applied to their doorposts (figuratively speaking) when they turned their life over to Christ.

So Protestants, like Catholics recognize a distinction between the shedding of Blood and the application of that shed Blood. This is also how non-Calvinists (and even some Calvinists) can reject the notion of limited atonement: the idea that Christ only died for certain folks. We say in response that His Blood is sufficient to cover everyone, and that "God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish
but have eternal life" (John 3:16). His Blood is shed out of Love for "the world," but only saves those it's applied to, that is, "whoever believes in Him."
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

#115 May 5, 2013
Mike Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
I can go with the word revealed. The Father revealed to Peter that he was the Messiah. It was revealed only to Peter. Jesus said that.
Another analogy, is when is Pastor was called by God to go preach at another Church. Did the Pastor hear his voice are did he discern this new Church has more members and a larger salary. Nothing wrong with that but saying he was called by God?
I believe in Acts too. The Mass is not a re sacrifice it is a re-representation of the sacrament.
The Slaying of the Lamb of God occurred once for all time at the Crucifixition. Covering ourselves in His Blood occurs most directly at Baptism, which is itself a one-time event. Yet the eating of the Lamb is something which we can do time and time again. Think about it: a Jew celebrating Passover could go for a second helping of the Lamb (and was in some cases required to, since it had to be eaten that day). But this second eating didn't mean a second sacrifice: they didn't have to re-kill or re-sacrifice (or even re-mark the doorposts) to consume the lamb. That's what it means when the Catechism says "the sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice." That's also why the Eucharist is termed the "unbloody Sacrifice," because the bloodshed was in the slaying of the Lamb, not the eating.
The Eucharist is therefore a vital part of the finished work of the Cross: specifically, it's the application of that work. This sounds, at first, foreign to most Protestants, but I don't think it is. Many Protestants can point to the day -even the hour- and the exact circumstances in which they got saved. But it was a point in their lifetime. Nobody says, "I got saved in c. 32 A.D., when Jesus died on the Cross." Certainly, it's because of that past one-time event that they're able to get saved, but they got saved when they were justified by faith through Grace, and that Blood was applied to them. His Blood was shed in c. 32, but it was applied to their doorposts (figuratively speaking) when they turned their life over to Christ.
So Protestants, like Catholics recognize a distinction between the shedding of Blood and the application of that shed Blood. This is also how non-Calvinists (and even some Calvinists) can reject the notion of limited atonement: the idea that Christ only died for certain folks. We say in response that His Blood is sufficient to cover everyone, and that "God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish
but have eternal life" (John 3:16). His Blood is shed out of Love for "the world," but only saves those it's applied to, that is, "whoever believes in Him."
Is it not true that the Lord also revealed to Paul that Jesus is Messiah and does he not reveal to every follower that Jesus is Lord/Savior. I think you are trying to make Peter out to be the only one who God speaks through so that it will fit within the teaching that the cc and the Pope are the only true people of God-hear ye the Pope!

This is exactly what all "one true" churches do. Btw, the catholics I know believe anything the pope says must be God speaking, and by extension we the people cannot hear from God any other way except through the Pope/cc church.
William

Opelika, AL

#116 May 5, 2013
The revelation of the mystery, hidden in God from before the foundation of the world, was given to Paul and not Peter.

But you hear not a word about this from the RCC. Or anyone else, for that matter.

Ephesians 1-4
Dave P

Dahlonega, GA

#117 May 5, 2013
William wrote:
The revelation of the mystery, hidden in God from before the foundation of the world, was given to Paul and not Peter.
But you hear not a word about this from the RCC. Or anyone else, for that matter.
Ephesians 1-4
You don't hear a word about that from anyone else because not even Paul himself said what you are saying here William. Paul stated absolutely that it was not only revealed to him but to others as well. Ephesians 3:5.
Dave P

Dahlonega, GA

#118 May 5, 2013
Mike Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
I can go with the word revealed. The Father revealed to Peter that he was the Messiah. It was revealed only to Peter. Jesus said that.
No, Jesus didn't say that either sir.
Mike Peterson

Jackson, MS

#119 May 5, 2013
William wrote:
The revelation of the mystery, hidden in God from before the foundation of the world, was given to Paul and not Peter.
But you hear not a word about this from the RCC. Or anyone else, for that matter.
Ephesians 1-4
You don't hear about Paul from the RCC? Look how many letters of his the Church put in the Bible that you read and get your doctrines from. What are you talking about.

But Jesus gave the keys to Peter when Saul was still killing Christians.
Mike Peterson

Jackson, MS

#120 May 5, 2013
Bobby wrote:
<quoted text>
Is it not true that the Lord also revealed to Paul that Jesus is Messiah and does he not reveal to every follower that Jesus is Lord/Savior. I think you are trying to make Peter out to be the only one who God speaks through so that it will fit within the teaching that the cc and the Pope are the only true people of God-hear ye the Pope!
This is exactly what all "one true" churches do. Btw, the catholics I know believe anything the pope says must be God speaking, and by extension we the people cannot hear from God any other way except through the Pope/cc church.
I said of the 12, the Father only "spoke" to Peter. Jesus said that he did.

You may have misunderstood the Catholics you know and they don't know what they are talking about.

The Pope does have authority of matters relating to faith and morals among men.

If you and your fellow Christian disagree, eventually you have to take it to the Church. Who would you take it to?

You can find the truth free online. The CCC.
Mike Peterson

Jackson, MS

#121 May 5, 2013
Dave P wrote:
<quoted text>
No, Jesus didn't say that either sir.
Jesus said to him in reply,“Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood* has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.

For 1500 years every Christian in the world believed that Jesus told Peter that the Father revealed to Peter that he was the Messiah.

"Sola Scriptura".

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
“Thus Saith Johnny” (Jul '12) 4 hr Ernie 122
Hell is a lie Dec 26 Jesus Saves Everyone 10
Catholics (Feb '14) Dec 26 Mike_Peterson 2,000
Identifing the Early Church Dec 24 Jesus Saves Everyone 425
How does the Spirit teach? Dec 24 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 8:42 pm PST